King Arthur

Certainly looks far more similar to the J-2X than the F-1 if you ask me. The J-2X was intended as an upper-stage engine to be used for such things like transfer burns, so that goes well with the KR-2L's ridiculously good vacuum ISP.

Do bear in mind that SpaceX gets a lot of its funds from NASA.

You are failing to look at the whole picture. Yes the Poodle is about as tall as an LV-T30, but it's also twice as wide. Comparing the Mainsail to its other 2.5m engine counterparts, the Mainsail and the Skipper, the Poodle is very noticably shorter in height and thus a low-profile engine in exactly the same way the LV-909 is considered a low-profile engine compared to the LV-T30/T45 and LV-N 1.5m engines. If you are tail-striking during landing, you aren't placing your landing legs down far enough. I've personally found more use for the Poodle as the primary engine for my orbiters and some of my tugs thanks to its great thrust and efficiency, with it also seeing use in many of my landers because of its convenient form factor. If you don't need the entire 220kn of thrust that the Poodle provides then simply don't use it, tweak it down if you really have to. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it.

Try Alt+F9.

If the Poodle is not low-profile then what do you call a Mainsail? Mega-profile? Either you're confusing the Poodle for another 2.5m engine or you don't understand what "low-profile" means. A 48-7S under a 2.5m tank also looks butt-ugly, some of us aren't number min-maxers and actually want to design and fly rockets that are aesthetically pleasing. --- Perhaps you should fly a different ascent trajectory that gives you more horizontal velocity? The Poodle is a decent engine, the problem you're describing sounds (with all due respect) more like a problem with your flying and failure to adjust appropriately to the situation.

Rather than debating whether or how to nerf the LV-N, perhaps it is much more prudent to discuss how the LV-N can be made more realistic while staying fun to play with. I mean let's be real, it's understood that the LV-N is currently what it is to simplify the development process of the game, but real NTRs don't run on liquid fuel and oxidizer like conventional chemical rockets. The entire premise that the LV-N is currently working on is fundamentally flawed, and no amount of tweaking will be able to ultimately address the LV-N's downfalls without fundamentally reworking it. Let's have a solid foundation before we decide what thickness of walls we want on the house, aye?

This. Quoted for truth. And besides, practically speaking the only potential bad thing that can happen from clipping parts is the Kraken deciding to have tea with you.

I've found many uses for the Poodle as orbiter and lander engines. Its efficiency rivals the LV-909 which I use for 1.25m orbiters/landers, and it's far more practical than spamming LV-Ns for similar purposes (also less radiation). I almost never use the 48-7S outside of probes despite their overbearing efficiency and effectiveness. Why? Because 0.625m engines clustered on 1.25m and 2.5m rockets look arse-ugly; plus, the Poodle and LV-909 simply sound better than the 48-7S.

As someone who reads and appreciates informational data, I'd appreciate if the "KJR stabilizing physics load..." line is kept (I presume this is what you're talking about). I've noticed (and fully understand the need for) that KJR locks controls while the physics is getting slowly loaded up, and I've always used that line as to when I'll have control of whatever I'm flying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit I am going to agree with Wikipedia's definition and argue that an SSTO is a vehicle of whatever description that reaches orbit (implied and presumed to be a stable orbit) without dropping any parts, with subsequent reusability not necessarily being a factor. EDIT: With further reading of that Wiki article, I realized and would like to point out that the LEM from the Apollo program is a fine example of an SSTO (launched from the surface of the Moon, its landing stage serves as a launch pad) that is subsequently not reusable (disposed of in the Earth's atmosphere).

I'm aware that B9 bundles RPM, but the spotlight is misleading as it appears to promote RPM's own stuff (like the Mk1 Command Pod IVA) as B9 components. RPM's stock IVA replacements/upgrades like the Mk1's can be had just from installing RPM alone, so it's not directly related to B9.

I'd just like to point out that the IVA you're spotlighting inside the Mk1 Command Pod is with regards to RasterPropMonitor, it's not a direct part of B9. Also, "Mk" is pronounced "mark". It's a synonym of "version", so the "Mk 1 Command Pod" is essentially "Command Pod version 1"

Perhaps you could employ MechJeb or kOS to automate the launch process? Putting aside "that" debate about autopilots, MechJeb or kOS would be able to produce repeatable and consistent results which would make your testing process a lot easier and more accurate.

My apologies, but the wording here is confusing me greatly. You start off by stating this Alcubierre Drive is standalone and then go on to say it depends on Regolith for making Exotic Matter. Long story short, do I need or not need Regolith? Do I need or not need anything else? EDIT: Ah, I see this mod includes the Regolith DLL. I guess that's what you meant when you said dependency, I personally took that to mean I'd need to download Regolith. Oh well.

Yes, the _MACOSX directory and score of DS_Store files are just OSX being stupid and littering everything with its own metadata in gibberish. You can delete them with extreme prejudice without worry.

The last thing we want to be doing is littering space with our crap, literally.

Considering that the ISS has a maximum crew of 6, we really have no pressing practical need for a 7-man vessel beyond the "we want one!" argument that the SLS is pretty much built upon.

This is a stupid argument, if I may be bluntly honest. Playing in Sandbox only removes the "icing on the cake" that career mode provides, everything with regards to the actual simulation is still there. If someone wants to talk about individual rocket/plane parts, whether he/she plays sandbox or career mode is irrelevant. Now since I posted here, I might as well post my two cents: 0.25 is better. The game as a whole feels a lot less taxed for system resources compared to prior versions and the new SP+ parts look snappy and perform better than the plane parts we had before.

Just for clarification, I can keep the settings.cfg file while replacing everything else when upgrading KAC, right? I looked through the documentation, but unless I missed it there were no specific instructions or notes for upgrades. I only noticed now that KAC was up to 3.0.4.0, goes to show I shouldn't just be glossing over thread titles.

Ah, so I've learned. I guess I should've read the documentation more carefully, I've been using KAC since before asteroids were implemented so I'd missed that option it would seem. My apologies as it seems I'd taken up your time on a moot issue. Thanks for the great work you've done for all of us, KAC is one of those essential mods we can't live without once we have it.

I've destroyed the launchpad numerous times from simply launching a rocket or soft-landing onto it. The runway on the other hand has proven so far to be nigh invulnerable to my crashing a multitude of rockets and planes onto its tarmac.

Apologies if this was reported before and/or elsewhere. I found out that if I have an asteroid that's being tracked by the Tracking Station setup with an SOI transition alarm (SOI transition into Kerbin from Kerbol), I can use that alarm to "Jump to Ship" and as a result jump straight to the asteroid. As the Tracking Station does not allow "Flying" an asteroid all on its own, I am going to presume this is unintended behavior.

Tie between Scott Manley and Danny2462, impossible to choose just one.

I may not speak for everyone, but I'd just like to say that I for one greatly appreciate the work that you and all the other contributers have done for MechJeb. I wouldn't be able to enjoy KSP nearly as much as I do right now without MJ. So again, thank you.

If nothing else, KSP's version number system is still far more meaningful than Firefox's or Chrome's version numbering.