Tex_NL

Never knew HyperEdit had a timetravel feature. This thread dates from September 2013. The OP hasn't posted since. Either he solved his problem or gave up long ago.

Totally agree. I'd love to see AGM updated. Or even better; stock.

Pictures, pictures, pictures! Answering questions like this always start with pictures. Preferably in the SPH showing the CoL, CoM, landing gear and everything else that could be important. Usually an inability to leave the runway has less to do with the number/type of engines but rather poor plane design in general.

As @FancyMouse says your thrust is most likely not aligned with your CoM. Either that or you still have an active trim setting. Use [Alt]+[X] to reset all trim to zero. Under normal circumstances the torque from a cockpit is enough to counter a minor trim or thrust offset. As long as it has power! And Rapiers do NOT generate electricity. You might have simply run out of power. But, as FancyMouse said, pictures would help a lot in diagnosing you issues.

I do see the possible use for a button like this but I also see a few problems. First and foremost; idiots. (Sorry, there is no other word for it, they're just idiots.) Even with triple confirmation people will manage to cock up and delete craft they did not want to delete simply because they don't think and/or read. And for recovering all but a few this feature will be pretty much useless. You'll still need to select and delete/recover each of them manually. A slightly better option would be the option to mark or select multiple craft and THEN batch recover/delete them.

NASA itself is a great source when it comes like material like this. The Nasa Launch Protocol for example. Even Wikipedia can help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_status_check All that (and a lot, LOT more) from a simple 5 second Google search. P.S. You do know what Google is, right?

Then you go into your settings and change it. This has been a stock feature for quite some time now. I understand new players to miss features like this but you ... You have been playing KSP for a few years now. Have you EVER paid any actual attention to the settings menu?

Read the FAQ. It's there for a reason: And YES. Your NavBall question is on it too.

Short answer: No. Long answer: Make a back-up of your game. Update it. And give it a try. If it breaks revert back to your back-up. If it doesn't break continue playing. Either way you'll have your answer.

Your best chances of getting the language mod you want is probably in this thread:

He asks what it is. You know what it is. For gods sake, just provide the link.

Absolutely. For its size it is an incredibly good engine. But people are expecting their planes to go unrealistically fast. With the extremely meagre thrust from the Juno this is hard to achieve without spamming. As a result people call it crap.

No, not really. EEX not only makes everything surface attachable, it also removes the translation offset limits. EEX makes it very easy to temporarily move a part aside without detaching it.

With EEX there are no 'node-attachable-only' parts. EVERYTHING can be surface attached.

OK, you've got me there. I wasn't thinking about rescue contracts at that moment. Properly placed RCS ports will only add a very small amount of drag. Again with your craft as an example add a single RV-105 RCS Thruster Block and a single Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS Port on each side of the CoM. (You can even clip them inside each other to make a nice looking 5way RCS port.) The torque from the cockpit should be enough to hold you steady and monoprop contained within it should suffice for docking if you know what you're doing. If you need more monoprop add a single Stratus-V Roundified Monopropellant Tank. A MK2 Drone Core is great when you need more torque with the added benefit of extra electricity and full probe control.

When it comes to SSTO planes you're probably a lot like me. They need to look plausible in real life AND be useful. There are plenty of examples all over the forum but for me they all trigger the same responds: 'You build a nice plane but what does it do? Yes, it can get to orbit but it can't DO anything. It doesn't carry cargo. It doesn't carry science equipment (or VERY little). It can't transfer crew since it doesn't have a docking port. All you've build is an inefficient way to burn fuel. A very elaborate and expensive piece of orbital debris.' And, no offence, @sardia's little critter two posts up falls square in the middle of that category. It can go up. It can come down. That's it. Completely useless. (Again sardia, nothing personal. It's just that your craft is the easiest and quickest example.) Just building an SSTO is pretty easy. Building a useful SSTO plane can be hard.

The Micronode I agree. Totally useless. The 0.625 Juno jet is anything but underpowered. A pair of them can fly mid sized jets close to Mach 1 and an unmanned drone all the way up to Mach 2. And if you don't believe me check out this thread. I very rarely us any of the she structural plates. Neither see I any use for the large size adapters like the Rockomax Brand Adapter and Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3. Whenever I need an adapter like that I prefer to use one that actually holds fuel.

With MechJeb setting up an equally spaced comnet is extremely easy. Yes, you read that correct; it is EASY! Launch a craft with multiple satellites to your desired altitude and circularize. Make sure each of the satellites has its own fuel and engine! Use the manoeuvre planner to set up a resonant orbit. For a 3 satellite constellation go for a 2/3 resonance. For 4 satellites go for a 3/4 resonance. Release the first of your satellites and execute the manoeuvre with the carrier craft. When you come up to Ap after one orbit you'll notice you're, depending on the number of satellites, 1/4 or 1/3 ahead of the first satellite. Before reaching Ap release the second satellite. Switch to it and circularize at Ap. Repeat step 5 for the remaining satellites on subsequent orbits. Once all satellites are in their orbits switch to them one at a time and try to match their orbital period as close as possible to prevent drift.

And that's why it's #1 and #2 in the FAQ.

No, this is not a matter of opinion. You say it is a 'must-have' As in 'it is vital' or 'you must have it otherwise you can not do it.' I use neither FAR nor Mk2X and still I build SSTO. Therefore your statement simply can not be not true. And if YOU can not build SSTO's without FAR or Mk2X that's YOUR shortcoming. Do NOT assume your shortcomings are true for everybody else. SSTO: Single Stage To Orbit. If it does not stage off anything (like tanks and or engines) and reaches orbit then by definition it is an SSTO. No matter if it CAN reach orbit on a single stage, as soon as it drops anything, by definition it is no longer a SINGLE Stage To Orbit.

Complete and utter bull crap! FAR and Mk2X might make it easier but neither of them is a must-have. Stock SSTO's are still very much possible. Purely by definition a plane that drops tanks is NOT an SSTO.

Start reading here (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/136744-what-is-your-biggest-science-pet-peeve-in-movies/&do=findComment&comment=2877003) and you'll learn this is not as far fetched as it might seem.

A separate building would be nice but I prefer to see it integrated into the SPH. Switching back and forth between the SPH and a wind tunnel to make minor adjustments would get very tedious very quickly.

No problem. Since I dealt with this very same thing I knew exactly what to search for.

Without a doubt science labs. As soon as I completed the tech tree I set up a strategy to convert science to funds. All experiments are collected multiple times in order for them to be researched in multiple places at a time. And whenever possible I try to pay for my launches with science, tourist and rescue contracts. Excess pilots and engineers get fired. Scientists get trained and put to work.