Tex_NL

I'll see what I can do. I probably have to star from scratch but that would only make things easier.

What's wrong with giving the prograde and retrograde a narrow black outline? It's a bit more work but will look a whole lot better. Still, glad to see those finally added. It's a small step into making things bearable.

* It * Will * Not * Work * !!! * PERIOD! * Take your idea and your experiments to your physics professor. Take it to any high school, university or anywhere else that teaches physics. Have them take a look at it. I guarantee you they will say the same thing as we''re saying right here: It will not work!

Sorry. I don't speak French.

Instead of the Mk1 cockpit/inline stabilizer combo you could use a Mk2 cockpit/Mk2 Drone combo. The second combo will be a bit heavier and the total amount of torque is a bit smaller but in return it can tolerate more heat and gives full SAS no matter the skill level of the crew.

AFAIK they will not block the air intake. And even if they did, who cares? The shock cone's intake area is four times bigger. The precooler is not very special. It just combines a fueltank and an air intake. It does AFAIK not increase engine performance. The nacelle is heavy, It does have a large intake area but the shock cone performs better at high altitude and speed. Personally I would recommend the liquid fueltank or just the structural fuselage to save weight in case you don't need the extra fuel.

Not exactly what you asked for but ScienceAlert will remind you if there is new science to be done. It will even stop time warp if you want it to.

The CoL is a bit far behind the CoM. Both empty but most especially full. This would make it harder to control but at least it should be aerodynamically stable. However ... those engine nacelles are blunt and will create MASSIVE drag. And since this drag is applied well in front of the CoM it wants to flip. Try adding some shock cone intakes to the engines. This will reduce drag and increase engine performance.

Going WAY off-topic here but this reminds me of a different version: Can I borrow €100? €50 now, €50 tomorrow. You give me €50. So I owe you €50 and you owe me €50. That makes us even.

It took some Google-Fu but I found the missing diagram at http://contest.techbriefs.com/2016/entries/aerospace-and-defense/6285 We can discuss the physics till the cows come home but there simply is no such thing as free energy. And there is no propulsion without some kind of mass thrown out in the opposite direction or something to push against. Until you build and show an actual working prototype in an unbiased setting I won't buy it. It simply is not.

No problem. Everything is new to everybody once. Now that you know you'll never make the same mistake again. The only stupid question is the one you do not ask.

A most fortunate encounter: On my way to rendezvous with a lander already in low Minmus orbit I just entered Minmus' SOI. Less than 2 km separation without any planning.

I used the term 'wheel' to describe the entire contraption you're trying to remove. The beams, the seperatron and the wheel itself. Yes, of course the entire contraption is connected to the docking port. I already said that. But it is not connected to the docking node. Only parts connected to the docking node can be decoupled/undocked. Next time try attaching something like an FL-A5 Adapter to the docking port and add the wheel contraption to that. The FL-A5 is cheap, light weight and saves you a whole lot of trouble.

That wheel is not connected to the docking port. It is connected to the part but not to the node. Only objects connected to the docking node can be undocked/detached. All others are rigidly connected similar as how the port is connected to the rest of your craft. Options: Keep it as it is. Revert and try again. Crash something into it and destroy it. Use KAS to remove the offending pieces.

But 'just the basics' is not a book. It's a brochure.

If it's only going to cover the basics it's already obsolete before you even start. As others have already said pretty much everything you ever want to know and learn can be found online for free.

Complete and utter waste of money! As @Alshain already said it will be outdated soon. And if it isn't outdated by 1.2 it will be by the next one. Besides that, it smells fishy. EVERY sane and experience KSP player even remotely capable of writing a guidebook like that knows it will be outdated very quickly and won't waste his/her time on it. I highly doubt you will ever see a single shred of paper after buying this.

In the mean time there is Throttle Controlled Avionics. Personally I have no experience with this mod but it should do pretty much the same as what you're looking for.

I think I understand what @awsumindyman means. He wants to lock an engines thrust at a certain level so that it stays at that level even when all other engines are either throttled up or down. This can indeed be incredible useful for balancing asymmetric designs like shuttles. Even better would be a second throttle group as has been suggested on many previous occasions.

@Nibb31 'Can not' is dead. And 'want not' is buried right next to it. What you're talking about are all mere mental restrictions, not engineering or physical. Of course it's unethical to work under century old conditions but it is not impossible. You do not have to work under slavery conditions to build a cheaper, simpler design that does the same thing.

Liberty Ships did their job just as well as modern ships of similar size. Modern ships do it faster, cleaner, with more reliability, luxury and style but the old galls got the job done just as well. And herein lies both the problem and the solution. You do not need modern shipyards to build Big Dumb Boosters. You actually CAN slap them together just like the old Liberty Ships. A Big Dumb Booster doesn't need to be fancy. It doesn't need a fancy paint scheme. All it needs to do is get the job done.

HyperEdit on its own does not cause bugs or crashes. KSP causes bugs and crashes. I too applaud you enthusiasm. I also envy your ignorance. KSP has been overflowing with bugs for as long as I can remember. (v0.18, early 2013) It has been and will be for the foreseeable future. No offence but you better get used to it. I have no clue about the total number of crashes I had. Probably close to a hundred. Anything after 1.0.5 has been completely unplayable. The 1.2 pre has not crashed on me a single time ... yet.

Sharing textures is a great way to reduce the memory footprint.

Don't feel obliged to actually create them. I would love to see them but I don't want to push you in a direction you do not want. I merely dropping some ideas to keep the creative juices flowing. And you're right. Too many parts can kill a mod. I know several examples of brilliant mods that simply grew to big. I even had to drop a few (or severely prune them) just to keep the game playable.

@udk_lethal_d0se I see you've revived the old Crossroads. Nice. The "Lean" The 90degree curve. Will that too return? And if so will you also be making curves like 45, 22.5 and 15 degree parts? Smaller curves would make great circular stations.