Tex_NL

I don't believe that's what inigma means. He wants the EAS-1 External Command Seat filled. If I am correct in this I must add this has already been suggested and/or requested dozens of time. To my knowledge there is no such mod (yet).

Don't want to be a buzz kill here but if you do want the science but don't want to be bothered with money. Why don't you play your game in science mode? Straight from the wiki:

Nope, not even vaguely familiar with it. And looking at a few things posted there I prefer to keep it that way.

7581 pages (close to 115.000 posts) of political rant? No thanks.

In the mean time you might be interested in this mod: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75074-25-Taurus-HCV-3-75-m-Crew-Pod-and-other-parts-v1-3-Oct-7-2014

No, stock aerodynamics nosecones increase overall drag and decrease terminal velocity. You'll spent more time in the souposphere wasting fuel.

Some posts became a bit technical but most others where completely ON TOPIC. Like when I tried to summarize to answer the OP question: Long story short: With stock aerodynamics you're better of NOT using nose cones and/or fairings. In some very select cases you might get a tiny benefit but in general the pros don't outweigh the cons. And the wobbling? I do have some idea's but to be sure I would need to see what you're doing. Could be a high angle of attack, could be unstable payload, could be something completely different.

You could have saved your original autosave if you had handled it correctly. After you realized your mistake you should not have crashed your rocket and allow the game to make a new autosave. Instead you should have killed the game immediately ([Alt]+[F4]) before it has a chance to autosave.

A common mistake. Next time make a manual save before important events with [Alt]+[F5] and manually reload with [Alt]+[F9].

Not too long ago there was a website where you could drag&drop your persistent.sfs file. It resulted in a detailed page listing all science you had already done and what was still to be gained. Sadly I have no idea about the sites address and whether or not is still operational.

And a lower TWR. Long story short: With stock aerodynamics you're better of NOT using nose cones and/or fairings. In some very select cases you might get a tiny benefit but in general the pros don't outweigh the cons.

Never heard of that plane before but it looks suspiciously like a jet powered Lockheed P-3 Orion.

Toggle engine mode Activate reaction wheels Deactivate reaction wheels Toggle solar panels Toggle antennae Toggle cargo bay doors . Science Toggle air brakes . Don't know why but it just grew into this and by now I am used to this. As others have already stated: I don't want to change them because someone else says it's not 'standard'.

I just gave it another try. This time with a better stock engine and hacked gravity. Again I launched straight up at midnight and reached 68.282.689m. Again not enough to leave Kerbin. I won't say it's impossible to leave Kerbins SoI within 10 minutes but it won't be easy.

I totally forgot to turn of gravity. And I didn't bother to look at TWR at all to be honest. I just took the biggest one. I just wanted to show how far the rules could be bend without breaking them. Turns out I didn't bend them far enough.

Oh damn. You are so correct. I totally forgot I could have hacked gravity too. And chengong. I never said my entry was fair. I simply took advantage of a gap in the rules and bend them to my advantage.

FAR can be a bit intimidating at first. If you find it too complex you could go for NEAR. A bit less realistic but much more forgiving and still a tremendous improvement over stock.

Darn, no monoprop. My tiny monoprop rocket can reach interstellar velocities within a minute. I wonder where it will be when I enlarge it to burn for a full 10 minutes. And you might want to add: No infinite fuel. The largets stock engine with the smalles stock probe. Infinite fuel ON! With infinite fuel on I reached interstellar velocity within 30 seconds and passed Mun orbit in 4:30 minutes. Passed Minmus orbit in just under 9 minutes. Can I leave Kerbins SoI? Sadly no. MJ was ONLY used to monitor, not for control. NEAR atmosphere. I might be able to squeeze out a few more km by launching at another time of day. This launch was straight up, very close to midnight

Exactly. In the stock game drag is largely based on weight instead of shape and surface area. An empty fuel tank experiences less drag than the same tank full. Weird, yes, but that's the way the stock aerodynamics works. Adding fairings adds weight and therefore drag. FAR/NEAR use a more realistic model. Now it's all about shape and surface. Adding fairings smooths the airflow. The reduced drag more than enough makes up for the slight increase in weight. And of course it looks a lot better.

By now quoting the 'What not to suggest' list is becoming quite a cliché. But I am going to do it anyway: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/36863-What-not-to-suggest

As I've said in the original thread: 'That's what happens when English isn't your first language and your spell checker doesn't see anything wrong.'

Oops. That's what happens when English isn't your first language and your spell checker doesn't see anything wrong. Exactly.

Then don't dock both ports, simply just dock one. Thrust me, I have dealt with this myself in the past. Docking the two huge semi-circles is a lot easier that trying to squeeze the last wedge into place.

Sliding in the 8th piece will be difficult as there will be very little space to move. You might find it a lot easier to first build a big S. Then cut that in half and dock the two semi-circles. That technique definitely works. Check the tutorial link in my signature to see exactly how it is done.

Random events have been suggested dozens of times already. And SQUAD has responded with the same answer each and every time: NO! SQUAD does not want random events in the stock game. A design that has worked once should work always, for all players. Even if you rebuild it from scratch.