Temeter

Utterly pointless, but i thought it looked cool.

You also got the overlapping nodes, interesting. Guess it'S because of older saves. I've got 2 RS68 engines in that node: One just called RS-68, and another RS-68 Booster (3.5 m). First one is from Nerteas Cryogenic Engine pack, not sure where the second one is from (partname: VR1vulcan). Kinda low res, maybe SXT or FASA? Personally I'd recommend getting Cryo Engines, looks really good. Mind it's enough to install the parts folder afaik.

Missing from OP. No asteroids there.~

Good to see my issue in the tech tree is basically one or two lines being shifted. Pretty irrelevant minor visual issue then. Thx for reminder about Asteroid Day tho, totally forgot that little mod after so many updates! Maybe add Asteroid Day to recommended mods? Might help some people, considering you usually make a new install for something groundbreaking like RP-0. Thanks, that was my problem! Didn't even remember that menu was there. Also shows exactly which contracts should be disabled by RP-0, quite usefull.

Got all mods up to date recently, contract was still 1.94. Updated, and just removed/reinstalled all mods, and nothing changed (+waiting for time to run out/regenerating contracts). I'm getting interesting warnings in debug, looks relevant: [Warning]: ContractConfigurator.ContractDisabler: Couldn't find ContractType 'RecordTrackContract' to disable. [Warning]: ContractConfigurator.ContractDisabler: Couldn't find ContractType 'SentinelContract' to disable. [Warning]: ContractConfigurator.ContractDisabler: Couldn't find ContractType 'DMAnomalyContract' to disable. [Warning]: ContractConfigurator.ContractDisabler: Couldn't find ContractType 'DMAsteroidSurveyContract' to disable. [Warning]: ContractConfigurator.ContractDisabler: Couldn't find ContractType 'DMMagneticSurveyContract' to disable. [Warning]: ContractConfigurator.ContractDisabler: Couldn't find ContractType 'DMSurveyContract' to disable. While we're at it, i've got some weird format issues with the tech tree. Notably the two branches starting with 'advanced rocketry' and 'mature staged combustion' are overlapping each other, also having lots of empty notes. Not really sure how it's supposed to look like, and not really bothering me, but it does look weird? imgur example pic

So i'm not supposed to have those stock explore X missions? Assumed so already, but I always had them in RP-0. Strange, guess I gotta reinstall the contract mods again... Thanks a lot, that'll change my research priorities a bit! Boiloff is a poodle.

I got the first (early) hydro node, but no cryo tanks. No clue about construction, doesn't seem to show symbols for fuel tank upgrade in tech tree.

Small question, when do you get cryogenic fuel tanks?

While you're right in how there is a clear distinction between the parent and sub company, isn't the marketing company itself called SQUAD? Remembering it like this, and from the KSP website:

I can imagine! Honestly impressed you even found anything about pricing of some russian rocket engine from the early seventies.^^' Probably gets even more complex trying to normalize different currencies. Funnily enough, the RD-253 is apparently still used on the core Proton M rockets. Guess that thing was kinda good. edit: Thinking about it, the price difference might be easily explained with these hypergolic engines being solely used for unmanned rockets.

That's dope, congrats!

Usually, I'd say a more advanced capsule should be either more capable or lighter. KSP's 3 man capsule isn't either. Also, wasn't the weight of the empty gemini crew capsule (ofc lacking some equipment mercury had built in) only 1.4 tons?

Btw, just something smal I noted: Is the RD 253/275's (1.5kn hypergolic engines in staged combustion) price correct? Only costs ~510 bucks, which is, measured to almost every other engine, absurdly cheap, especially considering it's quite powerfull. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a cheaper (if super toxic) engine, especially to lessen the price explosion around apollo and hydrogen costs. Just rather unexpected.

I'm fine with this. Major points for me are 64bit, and performance (physx/multi/ui/etc)! Too bad if some other stuff gets delayed, but I't's not like antennas are just going away. And there is already some fun stuff coming, like the new wheel physics.

Neat idea, but my main issue is the AI, which doesn't yet seem to be able to handle ground to ground missiles turrets. Well, guided missile turrets, unguided turrets work wonderfully. edit: Nice ship! Mine are mostly armed fueltanks, for now.

Baha, while there are probably a lot of things on your to-do list, would you consider adding a radar-guided anti-surface-missile? Practically, the Hellfire apparently got the AGM-114L "Longbow Hellfire" variant, which is radar guided and otherwise nearly identical in weight, warhead and range. And ofc appearance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire On another note, is there some way to make the AI use the current air-to-surface missiles as surface-to-surface missile? With enough ground clearrance (or slightly angeled turrets) Sidewinders, AMRAAMs and even PAC3's are e.g. fine ship vs ship missiles, but the AI of course won't use them that way. I think atm only unguided missile turrets are used by the AI against ground targets?

Oh man, this looks sick, can't wait to try the update. Ur making me happy baha! <3 Also thanks for adding radar to land/water targets. Naval warfare's gonna coming to your carriers today!

But can't we just add life support tanks and get our X-1 cockpit moon lander anyway? Well, it's rating is hard to tell when the heatshield/ablator is part of the capsule itself. I'm not talking about soyuz tho, but the 1 man capsule that looks like the soyuz crew/reentry section. Thanks anyway, guess I have to switch to specifical heatshield parts to be sure!

I've just seen the last changelog update contains a 'Place and price CryoEngines mod'. What's that about, support for another mod (e.g. nerteas cryo's)? edit: Also, another question: Do only certain craft survive the 11km/s reentry after returning from moon? I'm trying a mercury level sub 700 ton moon mission and I've found the capsule i've used for a test flight (the soyuz style STX capsule) just burns up at high altitude despite 280 ablator.

Seen it a few times. Never really thought anything about it until people on forums mentioned it.

Tumbling is mostly caused by aerodynamic instability. Press F12 to activate the aero arrows, then you'll see if the top of the rocket develops lift. If it develops to much lift, try using larger fins to create counter-lift. Also, if you keep the rockets nose close to prograde you'll get less lift. A tw/ratio of 1.2 to 1.5 should be safe for easier launches, but you can go much higher.

Super early NK-31/39 x4 is known bug+fixed in next update.

Btw, isn't it funny that the Astris engine seems to be one of the the most efficient engines for use in space, even more so since you get it relatively early in carreer? And in reality, while developed in 1968, the astris and it's stage failed 3 times, and performed only a single succesfull burn, which ended in a failing fairing seperation?

This mod is severely outdated, kerbal spaceport doesn't even exist anymore and therfor only links to a fraud website. Just look at the year.

I think cruise missiles are GPS guided bombs. Afair it was basically aim with the ground attack pod where you want to shoot and klick 'send to gps'.