Sᴄɪɴᴛɪʟʟᴀᴛᴏʀ

The Developer team working on KSP is very small and while they work very hard and do their best to fix bugs and roll out new content they can only do so much at a time. Thats' where the mod makers come in. When you look at all those planned features on the KSP wiki you'll find that a lot of them currently have a mod that will do the same thing or something similar now, just look at the Kethane or sub-assembly mods for example. Some mod makers have even been hired as developers and a few of their mods will be integrated into the stock game such as KSP X. So no, mods are not bad or "cheeting", they are just getting early access to planned features as well as more variety with existing ones.

I'd recommend you just use standard mechjeb and mount a radial pod if you want the life support mod as well. They don't have any mass so they won't negatively affect your craft in any way. Both mods will replace the stock pods part folder so it isn't practical to try and combine them, especially since a radial mechjeb pod yield the same results.

OK Step one is download and unzip the mod file. Step two is to open the folders until you get to GameData. The folder directly inside this (usually the name of the mod or mod author's name) is what you want to drag into the GameData folder in the KSP directory. Step three is put the ships from the mod folder into the Ships folder on the first list of folders in the KSP directory. Hope this helps.

The thing about centre of mass is that the burning of the fuel will gradually shift it upwards and then when you attempt your gravity turn the tip of your payload becomes a pivot point and if the torque and lift of your rocket can't compensate for the craft's inclination to tip over the rocket will begin to flip. Try test launching it with the current set up but remove the service module and see if the results change.

Just my thing, I do it on all forums that I register with. I find it easier on the eyes against the white background. I also like the colour

That wouldn't explain why the mün is also 64% the size of its Earthly counterpart, if anything it would be bigger due to some of the debris becoming caught in its gravity well. Even if you look past that, in the time it would take for the planet to recover from such an event so that liquid water returned to the surface, the sulphur and other Poissonness gasses where buried within the crust and life evolved to a point that it has developed spaceflight the moon/mün at its current rate of departure would be much further away from Earth/Kerbin and may have left the planet's sphere of influence entirely. The sun would have also expanded and consumed Mercury/Moho and the water on Earth/Kerbin would be turning into a gas. I know this whole topic is just a "What if..." but my logic-focused brain just can't look past the huge flaws in the concept, an interesting discussion though.

If the mod is updated for .20 just drag the parent mod folder it into the GameData folder and it should be ready. Older mods are installed the same way as before.

The payload is overweight and is making your craft top heavy. You should try and compensate by adding some control surfaces to the base of the rocket as well as adding more struts between the payload and lifter. If that doesn't work I'd recommend a separate launch for the top of your payload which looks like a service module of some description and dock the two craft in orbit before transferring to Duna.

As Pulstar said its important to keep the centre of mass low. I also find that designs that feature 6 or more wheels are much more stable compared to 4 wheeled rovers which have a tendency to flip at higher speeds.

Its likely the centre of mass is too high, what is the weight of your upper stage? Aerospikes are quite heavy and you have some atomic engines there as well so that may be your issue.

And how did Earth become 64% of its current size?

Looks interesting, I think adding windows and maybe a few asthetic neon strips or some other detail would add to the design though. All in all it looks good and would cut down on the part count when constructing hallways versus structural panels. Look forward to seeing more.

I don't do checklists for actual flights but I do keep a reasonably complete record of completed, failed and planned missions.

Jebediah Kerman at the helm of a star destroyer

I find myself listening to Dead C∆T Bounce quite a lot lately in general. When I'm playing KSP specifically though one of my favourite acts to listen to is Ratatat, their music is just so...chill. Its great to listen to when designing new ships or waiting for manoeuvre nodes.

"The best weapon is one you only have to fire once"

Are you using any modded parts besides Kethane? Also, some screenshots would help.

Better than Comic Sans

Thanks for the tips, I'll be sure to check those sections out

I'd recommened you get Romfarer's lazor cam mod along with ISA mapsat. It gives you that optical capability instead of just scanning with a sensor but don't expect to see too much from LDO.

Turn off gimbaling on the radial engines in the first stage and add some struts between the lander and the rest of the craft. Your ship has a lot of thrust and channeling that through a weak joint may result in spectacular disassembly. When designing your ship have a clear focus on what you want it to do, I'd recommend you give more fuel to the atomic engine stage for a general boost to your delta-v.

Ah, I see the port you're talking about. I've had that bug before, restarting the game fixed it for me but I haven't seen it since 1.8.0.

It looks like you have some of your docking ports backwards, the one facing you in the screenshot for example. You won't be able to dock with that port as a result of this but the one to the left and right of it are fine and you should be able to dock with them. When you tried docking where they wobbling together? Thats' what happens when the magnetic force is trying to dock them together, make sure ASAS is off when they're doing this.

It will last as long as other measures of launching nuclear weapons are cheaper. The cost of putting a nuclear missile battery in space and keeping it in orbit and secure would be massive. Not to mention the public would be unanimously against it so no politician would risk approving it in the first place. Its cheaper and easier to justify a low maintenance ICBM silo in a rural area than an orbiting missile fortress.

To address this issue you first have to look at why land is claimed and defended on Earth. Land has value here and has multiple uses, the main ones being domestic property, industrial property and farmland. None of those are currently profitable to do off of Earth. What good is a chunk of the Lunar surface if no one can live there, produce there or grow there? If there was no oil under the Antarctic no one would want that land as they would be obligated to defend any of their citizens that chose to move there which would be costly and not worth the effort. Land will eventually be claimed on other planets/moons, it has to be if humanity ever intends to colonize the stars to any degree but allowing it now would not promote further exploration because people tend to think short term and financing a massive exploration program is a long term project that would leach huge amounts of money out of whatever country committed to it. Money that could be used towards health, education and the creation of additional employment. What politician would be re-elected after saying "No healthcare for you, we spent all our money on claiming the solar system"?