Commander Zoom

Nice! Though, the lens flares... (Someone else has already made the JJ Abrams joke on this thread, so I won't.) Any chance of you posting the .craft file for that rover, or more pictures, maybe on the rover megathread?

I give you the imaginatively named "Orbiter 1", from back in the single-digit versions (circa .8 or so): Note that the command pod is a classic three-kerbal Mk I, with a replacement model (by Silisko, I believe); this is from before we had an actual one-kerb pod, which my more recent "first try" rockets have in a nod to the Mercury program. See that bottom stage? That's six old stock SRBs, glued together. No struts, no symmetry, just surface attachment and best-guess hand placement. It's a wonder the thing flew at all. A later, saner revision hung them off the liquid fuel tanks with radial decouplers, making the stack shorter and wider. The upper stage in flight.

John FX: I laughed out loud at the first one. NICE. Can the second actually land with just its chute, or is it too heavy and requires rocket assist for a safe/soft landing? How'd you get the rockets to attach like that, and to what? And what's that on the nose right under the chute? I'm dumb and not recognizing it.

They don't just "turn off" the wheels, which are of course still spinning (at close to their max rated RPM, that's the problem); instead, they gradually bleed off the speed (energy) by letting them push against the RCS and vice versa. (Action and reaction, good old Newton.) The effect is to trade flywheel velocity and potential/stored/mechanical energy for monopropellant, requiring that the latter be replenished in the next supply run. EDIT: And I should have refreshed this window since I began my latest play session, 'cause of course Temstar beat me to it.

I see what you did there.

Damn, that new lander. *whistles*

I like the prow (front end) design on that. Looks like some sort of APC, view-slit and all.

I maintain separate "real" and "test" saves. The latter is my version of a simulator for testing new designs and just messing around without screwing up my past and present missions. Sometimes Kerbals die there, but as Jim Lovell said, "If I had a nickel for every time they killed me in that thing..." In the "real" save, if something goes badly wrong, I quick-load. Didn't happen.

also Q and E, to rotate the ports along additional axes.

I'm amazed you didn't lose your solar panels.

My reaction can be adequately summarized as "holy ****."

Amazing replica! I'd definitely go with the 2.5m NERVA, though. (And I run almost-stock myself, as close as I can help it.)

So here's a question - why Baxter?

So... did you just not realize that you'd picked an omnivore mouth (Proboscis) there?

If part count is a concern at all, may I suggest getting rid of some of those scientific instruments? even nudging the symmetry down to 4x, or 2x...

"Multi-part ship" is usually considered to mean ships that are assembled in orbit from multiple launches.

"Ion Maiden? EXCELLENT!" *air guitars*

(So was I, actually. I decided to do without the link; maybe I should have. )

What kind of crazy made-up animal is a Puma? (Seriously, great looking design. Thanks for posting!)

From the rover megathread, my creation:

"Treacherous bastards."

Temstar. (also kurtjmac - "accomplished" is not always the same as "successful"! )

I enjoyed it a lot, and laughed several times (including the space cannon BLAMM). Dept. of Improbably Dangerous Experiments indeed.

And here's my extremely quick edit of the new texture, for those who liked the pristine white tank(s) from before, but also the new caution banding: http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b348/cmdrzoom/KSP/model000_zps71411b65.png

Okay, if I'm understanding right, when we say "endcaps", you should read "connector cap(s)". Something that looks a bit more like this very quick and dirty sketch: Same tank dimensions/volume, larger connectors.