Brotoro

Sure. Parts is parts, as they used to say.

I don't know if we can build refrigeration systems that can pump heat to the 735K temperature of Venus' atmosphere. If not, I suppose the lander could carry a big tank of liquid helium down to the surface and use it to cool everything down until it's used up. I wouldn't imagine it will not give you a great duration stay. Of course, if we can make a flexible balloon material that can withstand 735K, we can be filling the balloon with the hot helium we vent out of the cooling system as we get near enough to the end of the stay, then ride that balloon as far up as possible. The rest of the way up (and the flight down) could be powered by nuclear jet engines (developed in the 50s and 60s but never used on Earth). If you want to do an EVA (and if not, why are you sending people instead of robots?), it will be very tough. Venus' atmospheric pressure is equivalent to what you'd find at an ocean depth of one kilometer on Earth. Our most extreme diving suits have only managed to reach 610 meters, and those are VERY heavy, which is not so much of a problem underwater, but will be on the surface of Venus. These diving suits are like wearable submarines. Plus they'll need to be even heavier to add insulation and refrigeration equipment...and a powered exoskeleton to move the damn thing. It would be like a little human-shaped tank. Not really what I'd call an EVA. But maybe you could have a bell-shaped chamber on the bottom of your lander that makes a tight seal to the ground (maybe because it has an alloy around the rim that softens enough at 735K)... Place this against a flat area of the surface and start pumping the Venus air out of it. Venus' atmospheric pressure would mash it down powerfully to the surface by the time you pump out the Venus air and pump in some cool oxygem-helium mix at a lower pressure. Then you can open up the top airlock and stand on the surface of Venus naked if you wear insulated booties. But a cooling suit would be advised. Pick up some rocks, drill a sample, plant a flag, pee on the dirt, whatever. Then get back in the main part of the ship for liftoff, because the bell will get detached an left behind.

One way is to sit on the launch pad and uses the engines to burn off fuel (then transfer the remaining fuel around the ship as needed before you do your liftoff). There is a mod, but I haven't used it. I have also just edited my persistence file to empty some tanks on a rocket.

No, I try not to have my rockets spinning on launch. I HAVE used spin to stabilize some unbalanced spacecraft without ASAS during burns in orbit.

0.17......

Tidal interactions between Jool and the other Joolian moons would cause a LOT of heating on Laythe. Because of the smaller distances in the Joolian system (compared to the Jovian system) these tidal effects would be more powerful than what we get for the Jovian moons. Radiation belts around Jool (if they exist) would NOT casue heating. Although the particles trapped in a planet's radiation belts are very energetic, there are way too few of them to noticeably warm up a moon.

I haven't really named mine. I suppose it would be Kerbal Aero-Space Agency, much to the chagrin of NovaSilisko.

An open-cycle nuclear rocket engine like the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket would not be good for use as boosters in a planetary atmosphere. The exhaust from that type of engine actually is very radioactive (it WOULD be what a lot of people incorrectly seem to think the exhaust from NERVA-style engines is like) because it expels the fission products along with the reaction mass. It would be more efficient than a NERVA engine, however, and if you only use it out in space and be careful where you point it, its exhaust would not be a problem because the exhaust travels faster than solar escape velocity, so it would leave the solar system.

For launchers, I find something that works, then use it over and over and over again. If it ain't broke, don't blow it up.

I don't think Aluminum is added to solid propellant to add mass. The Aluminum is part of the fuel (it can make up to 21% of the propellant, so I also wouldn't call this "doping") and it burns very energetically, more than Uranium would. You also generally don't want heavier elements in your fuel because a high exhaust speed is more efficient, and lighter molecules give you higher exhaust speeds. Plus, Aluminum is much cheaper than Uranium. And although Uranium is not highly radioactive, spreading it around in big clouds is not going to make you any friends. And nothing about this would be "nuclear" so there's no reason to include it in an "everything nuclear" mod program.

People are going on about the nasty acid, but the sulfuric acid in Venus' atmosphere is confined to the clouds, high above the surface (and the acid that rains out of the clouds does not get very low before it evaporates and returns to the clouds). You won't need to worry about acid on the surface. A simple aeroshell will protect your ship from the acid clouds during entry, then eject it lower down and the problem is gone.

I always thought "N" was for "nuclear".

And what is that engine?

Sean doesn't seem to mind getting stuck on Eeloo. Also, if you burn for the inner solar system when Eeloo is farthest from the sun, you don't have to kill as much velocity to drop into the inner part of the system...and maybe you can arrange for an aerobraking encounter.

Also, the tidal forces in the Joolian system are much greater than they are in the Jovian system because of the small distances.

Depends. What is the mix of gasses in Kerbin's atmosphere (that kerbals are used to), and what is the mix of gasses in Laythe's atmosphere? A high enough percentage of Carbon Dioxide will cause intoxication and death for humans (something over 10%, even if you have enough oxygen). But we don't know what levels of carbon dioxide kerbels are used to. However, since Kerbin has oceans and plant life, I would expect it to have low CO2 levels like Earth. But Laythe also has oceans and quite possibly life (since I wouldn't expect a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere without life), so its CO2 levels may be similarly low.

If you want to simulate realistic space missions, you have to bring the boys home.

I'm not sure what the OP means by "in one piece" so I don't know how to answer the poll.

But you'd have to learn to speak Spanish backwards to control KSP.

Yes, my kerbals use KSP as their simulation software to do engineering tests on their hardware befrore flying it in "real" missions.

You can't wait for one project to drop dead before you start the next one. There is a very long lead time on designing, building, testing, and finally flying spacecraft to faraway places. If you wait for the previous probes to give out before starting anything new, you'll end up with gaps of many years where we don't have anything going on (except data trickling in from equipment that was funded back when our leaders thought space exploration was important).

Ghastly kerbal photos are ghastly.

As Tw1 says, Imgur is good. And although Imgur will only let you see your most recent 225 images in a free account, you can have many more pictures than that in the account, and people will be able to continue to access the older images that you posted links for.

Those tail cone thingies make for pretty rockets, but I've never used them myself because they mass 0.4 tons each. We should have a choice of nice lightweight fairings.

Almost all of my recent launches have used non-asparagus rockets, mainly because I drop all of the side boosters at once before starting the gravity turn so that they can be recovered at KSC. Well...if the game bothered to follow them. I think of them as recovered.