rhoark

Unless they make liquid hydrogen a stock fuel, they can have something that looks like SLS or behaves like it, but not both.

Make a little RCS probe to ram it.

If you have a lot of gyros, you can pitch up to give the back wheels more traction.

I'd leave station keeping as an exercise for the user, with kOS and NeverUnload. Enabling the physics is enough without doing the pilot's job for them.

L1, L2, and L3 are points where a small object can have the same orbital period as a moon, even though they have different orbital radii. In KSP, this is impossible as a different radius means a faster absolute velocity and slower angular velocity. L4 and L5 are areas where a small object can share the same orbit as a moon without being accelerated to meet it. In KSP, this is anywhere on the orbit outside the moon's SOI.

Asteroids will most likely be a new kind of debris rather than celestial bodies, from the engine's perspective.

If something works without FAR that doesn't work with FAR, FAR isn't the problem. The fact the craft ever worked was the problem. On a more helpful note, open the static analysis window on FAR in the SPH and sweep mach 0-6 at 20 degrees or so. If the yellow line goes under 0, the plane will probably flip in that speed regime.

.24 is definitely adding money, since you will receive it from contracts. Budgets are another matter. On the topic, KW and Nova were already fairly redundant alongside Stretchy Tanks.

The objections to CC for software are mostly GPL-centric. If you don't care that things distributed under CC can't be relicensed as GPL, it's fine. GPL has many caveats and gotchas that make it far from ideal for someone who doesn't want to think too much about licensing anyway. MIT is a fine license if you don't want the Attribution or ShareAlike stipulations. Some point out that CC doesn't treat source and compiled rights separately - only a problem if you use the No-derivatives option and don't distribute binaries. The bigger issue is whether you want people to build cool things on top of what you've done, or not. "All rights reserved" means no. Don't forget that everything in the Kerbal modding scene is built on the shoulders of giants, and many of the most popular mods would be dead now if under those terms. My position stands that if you don't want to worry too much, but want to ensure you get credit, CC (with any options except NoDerivatives) is a good choice.

I recommend anyone who doesn't want to be bothered thinking about licenses too much go with Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike

Someone did an n-body simulation of the kerbol system awhile back If a Joolian moon or two does strange things, I'd consider that a feature, though perhaps it could be placed in such a way to encourage it to become a Trojan.

If you do this I'll have to learn the math for weak stability boundary transfers.

Being early access, the state of the game is not what the developers intended, only what they have had time to do. Many mods echo things on Squad's roadmap, including Ferram, Deadly Reentry, Kethane, Joint Reinforcement, new planets, Multiplayer, and B9. Modded KSP is what the developers intended.

It always perplexes me how most Minecraft mod support lags behind the official releases by several months.

The disappearing craft has something to do with kOS borking it up when reading a local (non-archive) program from the persistence file. Parsing of the craft's persistence then truncates at that point. (Extrapolating from when such things happened before. I haven't had the time to use kOS since 0.8)

I won't be modeling different sections of the nozzle separately, but the parts will be modular enough to choose what resource(s) and how much of it to route to cooling, and what to do with the hot/expanded products afterward. The intent is you'll be able to implement whatever engine cycle you can conceive, whether traditional (pressure fed, expander, etc.) or wacky (tripropellant, nuclear preheater, variable mix ratio...).

I am working on this. Existing engine parts will be nozzles only and determine only the exit area, gimbal range, and cooling method (regenerative, ablative, radiative). Valves, turbines, pumps, and manifolds will be independent parts. Any part, including tanks, will receive arbitrary resources, and contents will change phase or combust as appropriate. Direction and rate of flow depends on the pressure gradient. Since each tank is a single space, separate tanks will be needed for each resource. Expected use is to surround everything with procedural fairings or 6S bays.

If you land a core on several bodies before coming back to Kerbin, do you get points for recovering a vessel from all of those?

Looks awesome. Always good to have more mission objectives for your kerbals. It would be nice if there were a 1.25m version as well (naturally fitting fewer experiments, and perhaps only low-tech ones.)

Just wondering if anyone's ever put together a guide for the charts and graphs. (Even just a legend of full names for the greek-letter variables would enable Googling for more information)

Where is J_Davis' new stockalike config?

4.2 and the stockalike config from post #2 Most stock engines show configs in the right click menu, but the action group engine config area is blank. Only the 909 comes up with anything.

Considering recent versions of DRE have the staging drop the heatshield rather than what's below it, I think the best solution would be removing the capsule's built-in ablative shielding. It doesn't make much difference to me, as my first flights in career mode are always Grasshopper-style short displacements.

Soyuz has had some survivable reentries pretty far off nominal trajectories/attitudes. I'd say the difficulty with FAR and stock Kerbin feels about right. Lone capsules on circum-Munar trajectories should be pretty forgiving - see what happens with larger constructs or interplanetary velocities.

Nothing shields anything without FAR. In stock, everything, everywhere on the rocket adds drag at all times.