TimePeriod

So, if NASA got a bounch of $$$ for taking a few snapshots off something in space while their probe was en route to another destination would that be considered cheating? No, that's sound busyness models.

The trick is to attach a standard 100 unit battery and disable its flow (like rocket fuel). So when you muck up, just turn the power back on and orient your solar panels towards the sun.

If you do manage to pull it off, my invisible tophat is coming off. It'd be a whole lot more then I'd ever bother with.

I realized we now have a use for fuel depots in space. With the 'build a spacestation in orbit, with x number of fuel'.

They are all KIA.

What I can get from MechJeb, I can also get from Kerbal Engineer. Which is also, 200 x more simple and easy to use.

Brimstone... Fire... Pain... Sulphur.. Panic... Whackjob... And, oddly, camion.

Mix/match, depends.

I stick them below liquid engines with other boosters on the outside, at a fraction cost I can get a lot of dV early on.

If you enjoy a tougher challange, by all means reduce the amount of stuff you can do and gimp yourself. On my own account, please don't. I'm having an excruciating amount of difficulty keeping everything working. And no, I don't want your help.

Thats all fine and dandy but... The service bay was causing my +900 part monster to shake itself a part. Always. Regardless where I put the service bay, it would ALWAYS break.

Everything is perfectly centered, 4 struts connect each part and all manner of ungodly rituals.

This is just the plain Model A, the Model C version will have twice the payload, if my computer don't crash.

I'll just leave this here.. Yeah, it weights around 1800 t. Higher quality images found in my Photobucket, see my Sig

I would't mind if we could adjust how much force the fairings explode with.

I like them too. Allows good room for flavour.

If you want hard, then play on hard. If you want easy, then play on easy. If you want to be a masochist, then punish yourself. If something was "easy peasy lemon squeezy" then you are not challenging yourself hard enough.

I've always prided myself building rockets using low costs, low tech parts and allowed a good degree of modification.

You added half a ton of mass to your finely tuned ship... Right at the tip of the rocket... And expected to it to preform as usual?

Everything you need to complete a satellite contract, at a discount price of 21.600 spacebucks. 41 tons and 67 parts. I spent around 4 hours to finish this rocket. High quality images found in my Photobucket - See my signature.

I did the same experiment in space and the results were the same, the nuclear engine was being heated at a lower rate thou the tanks themselfs was not able to cope with the +2000 temperature and exploded. As for fuel depletion, I didn't test for that. These tests were done at random to give myself some kind of bearing on what I could do with the new thermodynamics, engines and parts in general.

These statements are not factual, just the impressions I have gotten after a series of tests on Kerbin Launch Pad: - Wings/structural parts are not good at removing heat. - Fuel tanks stores and keeps the nuclear engine cold, allowing longer duration burns. - Linear size of fuel tanks determine how long a single nuclear engine can burn. - Heat is dispersed linearly in a straight line upwards from the engine, with secondary objects attached to this line having a far reduced dispersion/storage of heat. - (Removed) Updated To this I conclude: -Heat can be stored and slowed down, thou never totally negated.*1 -FL-T400 in a line of tanks was the best option at preventing overheating. *1FL-T400 used in a line of 5 continued to rise in temperature, even after one hour of IRL-time burning, thou the acceleration of temperature had slowed down drastic. - New info- Temprature comes to a near-stop at 1850-ish. You can find a better quality image, in my photobucket under Kerbal Space Program ~ See my Sig

The question I am asking myself is: Is there really a root cause of concern? How long are you planning to run the nuclear engine? A 10 min burn does not overheat the engine enough to cause it to explode, which far exceeds any burn I have ever done with it so far. + Given I use it for interplanetary transfer, there is a VERY long time for it to cool down until my next burn.

Ore is not overpowered, its an option. Option A Launch everything at once from KSP to reach your desired destination. (Fixed amount of fuel) or Launch a refinery+support equipment and then launch the main spacecraft to its destination. (Extended/unlimited amount of fuel) Pro: More range. Less cost in fuel. Con: Refinery costs money to setup. More player action required. You are paying for the ability to refuel your spacecraft.

or you could just modify the the heat parameters in the config if you feel that certain parts are not preforming to your desires. What am I saying, that would be heresy. Stock zealots ahoy!