Ruedii

FAR has been updated to work, but I'm getting mixed results. The panels aren't coming up anymore on probe based rockets. (This is a regression of a previous bug.)

It's probably easier to list the not added then the added. Of the parts I regularly use: specifically not added: mini-SAS and mini-ASAS, radial fuel and oxidizer tanks (both sizes).

Is there a way you could add GUI buttons and indicators for this?

The thrusters used on Star Trek are usually combinations of either ion drive, magnetic-plasma drive, matter-antimatter heat-expansion or fusion rocket, depending on the craft. All of them use super-heated plasma as their propellant, although shuttles have a non-plasma propellant for use in volatile atmospheres. (Super-heated plasma + volatile atmosphere = global scale disaster.) As of impulse it is another form of subspace propulsion, likely combined with specially designed thrusters. It somehow alters space to make the ship more capable of moving, then uses a specially designed set of thrusters to move it.

Two things 1. Try not doing your gravity turn so rapidly. You should only pull your nose at most 10 degrees off of your current trajectory at any one time. 2. Don't put fins in the middle of your rocket. The fins need to be at the back of the rocket to keep it stable. Remember, rockets are not airplanes, they have a thrust to weight ratio well over 1.1, often exceeding 4.0. This means that they need no wings, just tail control surfaces. The purpose of the tail control surfaces is to swing the vehicle back so the nose points towards the trajectory. It does this because the center of lift is BEHIND the center of gravity.

Eclipses due to the Mun on Kerbin, or Kerbin on the Mun occur once every Munar month. I'm not sure exactly how many days that is, but it's much shorter than earth's lunar month. The mun is big enough with small enough orbital inclination for a total eclipse every month when you are at or near the equator, but some other moons are not. Obviously, Gilly and Ike are small enough that you may only get a partial eclipse, even at the equator, due to the inclination of the moon and the tilt of the axis of the planet. I've found the easiest eclipse to see is a solar eclipse caused by Kerbin as seen from the Mun. However, interestingly on Linux it seems that such eclipses don't cast shadows over the landscape like they should. Because of this there aren't any Munar eclipses visible from Kerbin. I don't know if this affects the Windows version, though. (I've already reported the bug, and the team is working on it.)

Since any mission to mars is likely a one way trip, they will have to make due with the medical equipment they brought, and provide the best possible care with that.

I'm probably one of the more recent players. I got 0.19. After a few weeks of playing the demo, I knew I had to have it. This was shortly after the Linux version became available on Steam.

Try turning off the jet engines before they flame out. This is a known issue, the jet engines turn off one by one when they flame out, instead of turning off all at once. This will throw your plane into a flatspin. You need to kill them before hand. You can choose to turn them off a pair at a time using an action, if you like. This will reduce air consumption and allow you to stretch their use a little longer. Just don't push it too far. Furthermore, you can get to a higher altitude before you have to shut down the jet engines if you increase your number of air intakes. Another option is to use Mechjeb2 to auto-kill the engines right before they flame out. This feature is experimental, so I can't be 100% sure it will work, but you can try it.

It's been known for some time that Earth's Moon has an abnormal gravitational field with some regions having higher gravity than others, causing objects in low orbit to veer off course when going over certain points. After mapping the gravitational field scientists have finally come up with a theory as to why. They believe it has to do with how the crust of the Moon restructures after a large meteor impact. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/an-answer-to-why-lunar-gravity-is-so-uneven-0530.html

You would have to burn forward with Kerbin's rotation. Otherwise your lateral speed would remain the same as Kerbin's rotation speed, but you would be in a higher radius, thus moving you west. So, no the burn wouldn't be straight up, unless you had a tether to convert the forces. (a.k.a. a Space elevator). There is however one advantage to synchronous orbit, you can always predict where the object will be, so you don't need to move forward or backwards in your orbit a whole lot. However, it takes a lot of fuel to get there in a single arch. You will likely get some really bad gravity losses if you try to go straight to synchronous orbit.

Hmm, they don't care about lives and like funneling tons of money to corporations that build rocket parts. It sounds like Crony Capitalism to me. As of political system. It could be anything, but it's just a puppet show as clearly companies like The Rockomax Conglomerate, Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co., O.M.B. Demolition Enterprises, and C7 Aerospace Division seem to be running the government, with their campaign to promote recklessly fast space development in order to pocket lucrative government contracts.

It does take a while to get a hang of orbital maneuvers. You can try looking on the tutorials on how to use the maneuver nodes. Until you learn the principals, things seem a little counter-intuitive. Fiddling with the maneuver nodes can teach you what you need to do.

Generally I use one drogue chute and two main chutes for a small lander. The only reason I use that combination is there are radial drogue chutes yet. For something heavier you probably want more power. As of the aerobreaking altitude, if you take several passes, anything below 40,000 should be sufficient to reduce your speed.

Since everyone has given rather complete answers to question 1-3, I'll just cover 4: interplanetary space planes. From what I've heard, the secret to interplanetary space planes is two fold: 1: Use multiple engines. A nuclear rocket can be very good for interplanetary travel, but it won't have enough thrust in the atmosphere. I recommend Aerospikes for in-atmosphere maneuvers. You can use jet engines, but you need to kill their throttle before they shutdown from lack of intake air. Try using an action group for that. (The blue icon with the gears brings up a menu can tie actions to the number keys.) 2: Dock and refuel at a space station. Still I recommend getting a lot of practice before trying it. You can send some nice probes out. 0.20 has some new larger probe cores that are really nice, and let you make better probe lander. This is great for practicing entry and landing on various planets. As of other things that you can experiment relating to space planes: 1. There is nothing preventing your space plane from taking off vertically. 2. You should learn how parachutes change the behavior of your planes when attached to different points. This can make it much easier to land on planets with thin atmospheres, if you learn to do it right. (It also can let you splash-down a plane safely if you can't get to a runway.) 3. You should practice reentry a LOT. It is the most difficult part. You can also practice trying to recover from various flat spins. If you don't like killing your poor pilots you can put in ejector systems or use probe cores to control your vehicle. 4. If you want more realistic drag and lift models you should try the FAR community plugin. As was said by others they will eventually be implementing better drag and lift, but this plug-in can help until then. It also lets you adjust several things like the sensitivity of control surfaces.

Is there a way to use the new directory structure to avoid overwriting the parts files? Just curious. If not I would encourage you filing a feature request to be able to add changes to existing parts using the new plugin structure.

Depends on your purpose. For one that is purely for fun, around 100-130km will provide you with the best view, and still provide reasonably easy docking. Higher orbits are easier to dock in, though. There is also no reason you can't have several space stations.

No way to completely stop it. However, you can reduce it by several methods. First, don't quick save with time warp enabled (especially physical time warp.) Second, try to quick save when vehicles aren't touching each other without docking clamps. Third use the largest docking clamps that fit. Fourth, when you can, use struts in your vehicle design. They should be making progress in future versions to reduce this effect. However, in the mean time it is something you have to put up with on large vehicles. I hope that helps.

You might want to take a few landers to Laythe first. There aren't a lot of flat areas on Lathe to take off from. It might be prudent to search for one, or design something with VTOL capability. A simple lander isn't that hard to get there. I presume the return trip wouldn't be too hard if you design the lander properly and leave the real return vessel in orbit. As a note, if you only use the nuclear rockets once you are in orbit, it will dramatically increase your fuel-efficiency, and thus the delta-v capacity of the craft. You there is no real limit on how long your burns are and you can always aerobreak when you get to Jool so you don't need a lot of power to stop. (My solar escape probe had a power to weight ratio of under 0.1, although I should have probably put way less fuel on it.)

I keep getting flutter in my controls when using auto-ascent. It seems the control gain is too high. Is there a way to correct this that won't cripple my ability to control my ship? Additionally, it seems the auto-throttle runs full throttle all the time. This can really decrease the fuel efficiency of your craft. Is there a way to make a target ascent speed for the initial ascent?

I usually stack my items one on top of the other, then surround them with a Fairing (You currently need mods for fairings.)

FTL drive isn't impossible, it just consists of bending the rules of space time. Two leading theories exist. First is to create some sort of wormhole, or punch a hole from one point in space to another to make a shorter route (hyperspace). Second is warp theory, where you bend space around the vehicle so it can go faster. Scientists have actually had some near-working theory on warp drive, however when they calculate the energy needed to create a decent sized field (large enough for a small space probe) is far more than what we can currently produce. By estimates we will require a working matter-antimatter energy source, and we currently don't even have practical fusion energy. (However, I think the second earliest form of contained fusion, plasma stream containment, may be possible with modern micro-production methods, since other magnetic control methods like LVD displays were incredibly inaccurate at the last time it was attempted.)

A simpler method is to use the action group with the toggle of a part, such as lights.

The International Space Station recently announced they would convert the remaining Windows computers they used over to Debian Linux. They cited security, stability and an OS that "would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust or adapt, we could."

I'm not sure if this is the right place to give suggestions, but have you considered using namespaces so that the modifications to the part config files get ignored by the stock KSP binary? This should be possible. You are doing this in the main code. However, I'm not sure how the config files are loaded, and if different modules can be loaded into different namespaces. The reason for this is It's a technique commonly used by modders in other games that use Mono/.Net cores in order to reduce conflicts between their mods, and other mods or game updates.