Woopert

Dropbox or Box are good. I don't like Mediafire much anymore, because there's pop-up windows when downloading from someone without a premium account or something. Dropbox is a very straightforward, non-bogus file sharing site but IIRC they have limited bandwidth -- i.e., if your craft or mods get very popular they might take it down. (though craft files are so small that probably won't happen, not sure though) Box is a new site, I believe, and it has a nice intuitive interface. Google Drive is also becoming quite popular now.

This is an old argument, though I will say I support procedural solar systems, not random ones unique to each user. Like in Space Engine, they are generated randomly but it's the same on every install. That would be good for KSP, although not until the far-fetched future of KSP. I'm not even sure if interstellar travel is a good idea for KSP's flavor of gameplay, but that's a whole other argument...

blackheart, would you be able to whip up a 5 meter to 8.4 meter adapter for RSS use? Just theoretical, I know you're limited on time as you've mentioned before. I've [kindly ] asked RedAV8R to make realism patches for your pack (I'm assuming that's fine with you, they're just ModuleManager patches), but one thing is that the adapter won't work to scale in RSS. The reason is, in KSP it's a 2.5 meter to 3.75 meter adapter. The real SLS is 5 meters to 8.4 meters. For stock KSP, the capsule is half as big, so for RSS it should be doubled. But if it were doubled with the current part, it would make it a 5 meter to 7.5 meter adapter. Again, please don't do this if you don't want to. I just thought it might make it more convenient. It could still be done with Procedural Fairings in RSS but then they split open, I think the real SLS adapter is just a cone that separates; i.e. it doesn't split into 4 panels.

Hmmm... FASA Apollo for 4m, Taurus for Orion 5m, and Mk1 for an *imaginary* pod... I like the shound of that! 2.2 meters might be good too, that's the width of a Soyuz capsule. So, Taurus support coming soonâ„¢? Schweet!!

Wow, you got another rep bar! Congrats, iDan!

Much appreciated! I had an SLS Block I and II but the files are incompatible now, if all goes well with the re-scale I can re-build them a whole lot easier!

Does the Modulefixer.dll affect any other plug-ins?

Hey RedAV8R, got a "request" (not really, go at your own pace ) blackheart612's Aerojet Kerbodyne pack. It will make replicating the SLS Block I much easier, as it's basically a pack for the ICPS/DCSS, and includes a RL10B-2 like engine (there's already one in RO but it has a big honking thrust plate). It also has the stage adapter, though I'm not sure it will scale properly as a 5 meter - 8.4 meter adapter like the real SLS (since it's built for stock KSP with a 2.5 meter - 3.75 meter adapter). Anyways, good luck if you try to do it, it would be greatly appreciated since I love using RSS for replica craft! http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76170-0-23-5-Aerojet-Kerbodyne-%28SDHI-Extension-Taurus-Parts%29-April-28-Some-FX-Rebalance?highlight=aerojet+kerbodyne

Nathan, do you think now with the FASA Apollo command pod, it might be time to re-scale the Mk1-2 and SDHI parts to 5 meters? Please?

Very nice! Hope to try out later!

I can upload videos in 5-10 minutes here in the U.S., usually 5 minutes haha. That is a long time for such a short video, at least you have Internet though!!

Nathan, do you know what it was that made my SLS craft and Saturn V incompatible? They appear as locked in the VAB. It's quite weird, I assume it's from 0.23.5? Or something else? Thanks!

Back in October, forum user Jamie Logan made a Dragon with a Falcon 9 v1.0, using Gigantor solar panels. It actually looked pretty good! http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/51415-SpaceX-Dragon-unmanned-capsule-(plus-Falcon-9-Launch-Vehicle)-STOCK-REPLICA

Amazing stuff, both Rune and Giggleplex! Well, everything on this thread is amazing! By the way, do you still use Better Atmospheres, Giggleplex?

Spacecraft Exchange, here on the forums. The Munraker rocket, by Wayfare, is probably one of the easiest to use and best learning experience for a Mun craft. Also be sure to check out their company, Wayfare AE&KA. They offer extremely user friendly lifting rockets. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63286-0-23-MUNRAKER-(formerly-Munshine-V)-Apollo-style-Mun-rocket-under-200-parts

Yes, you're very correct Tiberion. I always get slightly aggravated when people claim "SpaceX is going to put NASA down!!!". SLS is clearly suited for a different purpose.

It's not 55 mT when re-usable. It loses like 20 mT when they recover the stages, 55 mT is max when they go expendable. SLS Block II will lift 3 times as much as the Falcon Heavy if the use the F-1B boosters by Dynetics. That being said, SpaceX still continues to impress with their low costs and quality of design. (NASA makes great quality stuff as well)

Lunar landing missions aren't planned by NASA, IIRC, but Boeing has a concept for a re-usable lunar lander that could later evolve into a Martian lander. Link to the PDF file! http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604643main_2-Panel%202_Donahue_Final.pdf It's from 2011, so the designs might have changed (and the SLS design has changed a bit, different engine set-up of 4 engines rather than 5)

There's not much of a use for it. Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) is already making the Dream Chaser for orbital flights and it's not too expensive, hopefully. It's not SSTO, but it's cheap and gets into orbit so what's the difference? DragonRider and CST-100 are capsules, get into orbit, and are still cheap. The Lynx spacecraft is suborbital but takes off like a plane. For carrying payloads, conventional rockets work just fine.

Whoops, sorry. Didn't see that. I don't know how I missed that, I thought I read the whole thread.

Hey Padishar, cybutek just updated KER. Which version should I use? I love your work but I'm not sure which one is more up to date.

Thanks Padishar, you've done marvelous work for KER and deserve a lot more rep!

I don't like it, it's the easy way to get to Mars. Bringing them back is more of an accomplishment and will prove important for long range space travel, and remember what JFK said: "We choose to go to the Moon and do the other thing, not because they are easy, but because they are hard!" NASA is planning return missions obviously and they know what they're doing. Mars One is a hoax, anyway.

That's awesome! That must have been really cooL!

Ha, that's exactly what I did. I also had to delay the process for personal reasons and came home in August 2013. I would recommend Newegg for online shopping (Amazon is good as well), or a local PC store. I am lucky to have a Micro Center nearby and I can say it's a good store. Also get Windows 8.1 when you can, don't go for 7. It's a LOT faster on boot-up and various other processes. AMD processors are very good and are not "cheap" as in being poorly made; they're quite far from it. I have the FX-8350 and I will say it's quite a good bargain but for your needs a FX-6300 (FX-6350 is good too, but a bit more expensive for not much of an upgrade) would work quite well. Graphics cards, ask yourself this: would you like to record videos and get Advanced PhysX which is VERY uncommon on games currently, or spend a lot less for almost equal performance? If you'd like the former, go for an Nvidia -- the GTX 760 is quite a good deal, and should run most games 1080p on Ultra settings. For AMD cards, they are a better value, and an R7 265 is a good value -- though the R9 270X is a very good value so go for that if you're able to. It competes directly with the GTX 760. Certain brands of GPUs for the two chip makers (AMD and Nvidia) are cheaper, but if price doens't matter EVGA is good for Nvidia and Sapphire is quite good for AMD. You can never go wrong with an ASUS card, either. Make sure your GPU has at least 2GB of GDDR5 memory, that's important. For RAM, 8GB is good for gaming and is the minimum if you want a good experience. Most RAM works pretty similar, I have Crucial Ballistix Sport IIRC. Corsair is highly regarded but might be expensive. Motherboards, go for either an ASUS or Gigabyte or MSI. They're good, and MAKE SURE IT MATCHES THE CPU SOCKET! I'm sure you know this already, though. So to conclude, PLEASE go for the AMD chip. They're much cheaper and give more than enough performance for gaming. For your needs I recommend the FX-6300. I'll find a good motherboard, too. model name below. If building the PC is hard for you, you can pay money to the local PC shops to build it for you (that's what I did). Motherboard model name: MSI 970A-G46 ATX AM3+ Motherboard Get it if you're going for the FX-6300! MSI makes real high-quality boards for the price. I have a Gigabyte 970A-UD3 if you're curious, it's quite good too but about $30 more expensive. They're the same chipset, too. So the MSI might be better for you. Also below if you're curious, my PC specs. Mine was about $1000 IIRC. AMD FX-8350 EVGA GeForce GTX-660 Ti Gigabyte 970A-UD3 8 GB Crucial Ballistix Sport Samsung 840 EVO 120 GB SSD Western Digital 1 TB Caviar Blue, 64 mb cache Cooler Master HAF 922 Stock Heatsink Corsair CX600M PSU Good luck!