Tex_NL

Is that the one in @Daveroski's images? Juts by looking at the pictures that one too suffers from quite a few stability issues: It doesn't have a vertical stabilizer. It's very short compared to a very wide weight distribution. The wheelbase is very narrow. And just as with the first plane the control surfaces are again very close behind the landing gear.

Of course it does. Any movement that puts the root in an ever so slightly different orbit than the CoG can ever so slightly change the Ap, Pe and inclination.

Your ship rotates round its Centre of Mass (CoG). If you rotate your ship, at some points the root part will move faster and at others it will move slower than the CoG. And since the orbit is calculated from the root part your Ap, Pe and inclination may shift slightly. On craft where the root and CoG are very close together you will barely notice anything. But the further they are apart the bigger the errors. Over the past few versions Squad has made significant progress in reducing these oscillations. Combined with the already mentioned floating point errors no orbit will always be perfectly stable.

Every time an issue like this comes up I wonder why I even bothered to start a FAQ. And now to your question. It doesn't surprise me one bit that this design has issues on the runway. This thing is guaranteed to be 'wheelbarrowing'. First issue lies with the control surfaces being too close to the rear landing gear. Pushing the tail down will proof difficult. The second issue also comes from the landing gear. The rear landing gear is way too far backwards. It should be just behind the CoG. As an added bonus moving the rear wheels forward will make it much easier to push the tail down. Those two issues combined will result in 'wheelbarrowing'. At speed you will start to generate lift. But since you are unable to push the tail down the lift will start to raise it. And since the only wheel left on the ground will be the nose gear the plane will tip over and steer off the runway. (The wheels don't actually have to leave the ground for this to happen. Even just partially taking the weight off a wheel will reduce friction causing it to steer.)

This same question came up 2 weeks ago. Even the title is nearly identical:

I have seen many ME Andromeda trailers over the last year. But I have seen none that show the moon from earth nor one that shows the LEM on the moon. A link to that particular trailer would be appreciated.

What is camber? You'll find all about it right here!

Exactly. That PUR-1 reactor you're talking about may only be 1x1x2 ft but without all the peripherals it's just a 1x1x2 ft nuke. It may not actually explode but all you get from it once it is activated is a meltdown and a big ball of radioactive death.

Indeed it is. An engine without the equipment to make it actually run (fuel and ignition systems etc.) is only fit the serve as a boat anchor. Same goes for a reactor without the equipment to run it.

All very true. It can be as realistic (or unrealistic) as it wants. It's just coding. Even if you want your Kerbals to ride pink elephants that shoot chocolate rainbows when they fart. It's just coding.

It's been broken for at least half a year. Probably longer, perhaps even a year.

And the Death star can blow up a planet. That's just how the story goes. In the game EVERYTHING is possible because it is just 1's and 0's. A mod may LOOK realistic, that does not mean it IS realistic!

How do you keep a VTOL stable? Practice, practice, practice! (In both flight and design.)

Fusion: Humanity has not been able to control sustained fusion in ANY reactor yet. Once a big one is build they might be able to shrink it but until then nobody knows. Fission: You will need a certain amount of nuclear fuel. The so called critical mass. Anything less than that will not sustain a reaction. And to prevent it becoming a bomb you will need control rods, cooling shielding. Don't count on a nuclear fission powered can any time soon. They will remain building size for quite some time.

The first of the two contracts won't complete for one VERY obvious reason. It's a contract for orbit around the sun. And you're orbiting Minmus. The second should complete. You are, by the looks of it, well within the margin. You might have run into a classic bug I have mentioned in the FAQ a long time ago. To solve save your progress and exit the game. Restart and return to your craft. Usually the contract will now complete without issue.

OK, I just did a test and I am now 100% certain this an error in HyperEdit. It is NOT related to ANY other mods because I currently have NO other mods installed. At the same time I am baffled why @Ezriilc has not been able to reproduce it. I had it on the very first try. And on the second. And on the third. To reproduce: Win7 KSP 1.2.1 x64. Clean installation with ONLY HyperEdit. Build a craft. Manned, unmanned, big or small. Doesn't matter. It's all equal. Launch and use HyperEdit to bring it into orbit. Point normal and burn to at least 45 to 60 degrees inclination. Go to the map screen and zoom in. Pay close attention to the craft and the orbital path. Enter 5x timewarp. You'll notice your craft making a small jump to the right. The moment you leave timewarp the craft does not jump back to the original orbit but rather the orbit will jump to the craft. The 'jump' in a 15 km orbit around Minmus was small but in a 25km orbit around Val it was actually a HUGH jump. Around Eeloo the craft did not jump to the right but rather to the left.

Don't burn your engines all the way until your PE clears atmo. Once your AP hits the desired altitude cut your engines and coast. At AP burn prograde to raise your PE. Easy as pie.

I'll make a clean install tomorrow and add only HyperEdit. I'll let you know if I can replicate.

Pretty sure @ryan234abc's problem is HyperEdit related. I have seen this behaviour too and it ONLY happens after using HyperEdit. The problem obviously is not that a ship moves during timewarp. The problem is that on exiting timewarp the entire orbit is moved. On a circular equatorial orbit you will hardly notice anything. But on sub-orbital or inclined you can clearly see the entire orbit shifts counter-clockwise.

That is some mighty fine photoshopping. Scale, lighting, shadows, reflections. Not bad. Not bad at all. Kudos.

A (nearly) non-reflective object covered in radar absorbent material that does not emit a power signature or heat pattern will be VERY hard to detect. We already have those materials. No unobtainium required. But sooner or later you will have to 'vent' waste heat or you will cook your crew alive. And even the smallest thrust from RCS will light you up like an X-mas tree.

Same here. Most craft available are a dime in a dozen. There are of course exceptions. I won't download them but gladly take design cues. I've downloaded a craft once. It was in the time the water was still liquid concrete and this guy made a water craft that was bloody fast and did no break. I just had to see how it was done.

You might have a connection, but do you have power? No power = no control.

Never say never. But I do I agree it is not a good idea. The same was true for console. We, the players, urged Squad NOT to port to console because it would lead to a lot of problems and a lot of bad press. I don't have to tell you what happened. Squad is known to make weird and inexplicable decisions so who knows. Who knows. They might screw up again and go for a mobile release.