Thorbard

I was struggling with reentry of Mk2 "sled" sort of like the ESA IXV or Dream Chaser and this seemed to be the way to go. I did struggle with atmospheric pitch authority though and had to rely on RCS most of the way down.

Likewise. I notice this on a clean install of 1.1 but never before. Seems worse on the map view for me.

That sounds like a great addition. It would pave the way for airlock parts and crew containers without external hatches, which often get in the way of good RCS placement. Obviously things like the 3-kerbal command pod need an external hatch, but why does the coupola or the science lab need one?

It was discussed recently in another thread about adding different kinds of runway and pads. A second pad for polar/retrograde orbits (so you don't have to fly over the VAB at low level), different designs of runway (ski-jump for example) helipads and docks for water vessels were all mentioned. Perhaps the entire area around the KSC could be made into some sort of hexagonal grid, so that items could be added in different locations without problems with the interactions between adjacent buildings.

A second runway would be an interesting addition, particularly if it had a unique feature like the ramp. Maybe it could be part of an upgrade from tier 3 to tier 4? I would also like to see a second launchpad but better orientated for polar and retrograde orbits.

Didn't realise that. Is that also why aircraft start rolling down the the runway of their own accord?

Nice looking boat!

[quote name='Clear Air Turbulence']This is very useful advice. I could never understand where that lateral movement came from. One thing: when calculating RCS placement, how do you deal with fuel related changes? If a liquid fuel tank is going to be part of my final stage, then the CoM is going to change as the tank empties.[/QUOTE] Firstly, you should have a rough idea of how much fuel you will have left when you get to the docking phase. You can use this fuel quantity to see how the CoM changes. Secondly, the game actually tries to balance the thrust from different RCS ports to give balanced movement. Try building a ship with them very unbalanced and see how it behaves in orbit. The game will also use the reaction wheels to counteract (or assist, depending) any turning forces imparted by the RCS. If the RCS nozzles are too imbalanced the game can't adequately compensate.

Not to mention that airbrakes, and some of the wings are also very useful for rocket stability under the new atmospheric conditions.

Some interesting building techniques and great looking craft. Thanks for sharing with us!

I'm sure I'm not alone in this; I'm aware of the anomalies, but I can't say I've ever found any. This might be an incentive to go looking for them!

In flight, use reverse thrust to change direction, switch back to forward to decelerate for a backwards landing?

I can't help but think this is the intended behavior. Stages need to be separated by something to be recognised. What I can't understand is why the engines don't end up in the same stage as the decouplers. Also this! How?

It depends if there is save compatibility. If so, I'll carry on with my current save. If not, I like the idea of a large initial science budget, but low percentage rewards. I'm also interested in playing with some of the near-future technologies, and maybe community tech tree too.

That is kind-of what the "Kerbin Record Keeping Society" missions mean to me. Not really commercial missions but more like X-Prize type goals.