biohazard15

Yes, that's NP parts. Fuel ducts run from main tank to radial decouplers. Here's the craft file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-l1kSh8cSSAZ1B6aWZvak1oSkk/edit?usp=sharing You need KM Special and NovaPunch 2.06. Root part is HH-250-C; replace two small top tanks with HH-250-B to create 2.5m variant (good for satellites). Replace 1.25-2.5 tank with Poodle and HH-250-A to create Atlas-Centaur (can be tricky to fly - 1st stage is somewhat underpowered for this) Built for FAR\NEAR. I didn't test it with stock aerodynamics, but it should be able to put small payloads (1.25m Mercury-like craft, Agena, light satellites) into low orbit. With NEAR, you might even try KSO. Usage (FAR\NEAR): start gravity turn at around 1.2km, drop boosters when speed indicator switches from surface to orbit (at around 1100 m\s). Then just cruise to orbit. Oh, and do not use radial decouplers as decouplers (you may note that they staged after booster assembly) - they're just holding engines; drop them with booster assembly.

The basic idea is that end cap have two nodes on top (or bottom, in this case) - one is used for engine and fuel tank, second is for decoupler (note: do not decouple it with boosters assembly, it will not detach properly).

Um... yes? The idea of resupplying capsule with other capsule is kinda goofy. Hitchhiker is heavy, expensive and comes lately in a techtree. Besides, real resupply vessels (Progress, ATV, Dragon) are all unmanned storage pods.

Hmm, I'm totally OK with Bearcats. 1.25m is kinda unique in one way - it doesn't have engine plate, which can be used in some designs.

It's not a decoupler shroud, the only decoupler used is your 2.5m It's actually a fairly simple construction: The part between SAS and decoupler is a KM end cap for KM bays and shrouds, it got two nodes on top (one for bay\shroud, one for payload). First node is used for engine, second - for decoupler. Boosters is made of KM storage shrouds, SLS-125 and SL-55 decouplers (not used as decouplers). Fuel ducts run from central LFT to SL-55. BTW, I never used any decoupler shrouds - I find them kinda useless, since most engines have autofairings anyway. Besides, they can be tricky to place. And these are not 1.875m parts - Spica is 1.25m except engine block, which is slightly larger, but designed for 1.25m size. Sorry

Yeah, my bad - I didn't look into end plate description. Sorry about that. Your parts allow some nice feats - like this Atlas:

I like this mod, would look great in conjunction with Tantares!

These KM Special parts are amazing. Atlas, now 100% more Atlas-y! Who needs FASA, anyway?

Be careful, though: you may easily break balance if you change only thrust; it might be better to tweak thrust in VAB for every launch, and design a wide lineup of launchers for every payload. One area where 5m parts need to be used with FAR\NEAR: wide-body launchers. There is a cut-off example of 5m launcher, payload: 30t station module destined to 300 km orbit. That is a very interesting design, indeed. First stage (large 5m tank + 5m K2X) has Dv of 3200 m\s, and is used for lift and partial circularizing (You need about 3500 m\s to achieve stable orbit with NEAR). It also has sepratrons for safe decoupling. Second stage ("smart" design with probe core) is used to finish orbit and to rendezvous maneuvers. And now for something completely different: Atlas! The payload is Spica from Tantares mod. Connect radial decouplers and lowest fuel tank with fuel duct, and drop booster engines at around 1200 m\s.

That would be something like @PART[NP_lfe_5m_Bearcat5x] { @MODULE[ModuleEngines] { %maxThrust = 7500 } } Note that new engines (like AHL) use ModuleEnginesFX instead of ModuleEngines.

2 Malkuth Please read http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90428-Contract-Manager and consider implementing it, at least with stock contracts. Apparently, you can disable contract type generation (as with Rescue contracts), the only question is could mod contracts be recognized automatically. On upcoming 3C: - Between 11 and 13 Kg? 1100 and 1300, maybe? Or 11 and 13 tons? Because the lightest probe (OKTO2) weighs 40 kg - Consider broad selection of Pe and Ap (right now they're circular, and can't be very high; I suggest making MinPe at 71000, and MaxAp beyond Minmus orbit) - More part requirements (solar panels, RTGs, antennas, fuel quantity, science parts)

6.25m heatshield and NEAR doesn't seem to work right. I've sent a very small surface probe to Eve, aimed for 60km Pe. This is what I got - heatshield is basically super air brake. Also, you might wish to fix normal texture name for it - that weird lightning is due to ATM not recognizing it.

May I suggest TMK-MAVR (Soviet Mars\Venus fly-by ship): http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tmk1.htm

That means new low-profile Mega Mother, I guess? One that will melt launchpad (and your PC) with its exhaust? Funny thing, I've never used 5m engines since I've started new career with NEAR and DRE. They just too powerful for payloads less than 100+ tons (FAR\NEAR requires a lot less TWR to achieve orbit, and you don't want high surface TWR with these two mods)

It would be ideal if you make controls lock toggleable through config, so those who don't like it could just turn it off. Variable snack quantity and using Hitchhiker and crew pods for snack transporting is an interesting ideas, but it will complicate things (both gamer-side and developer-side), and this is what you definitely do not need in a casual life support mod. All resources have respective containers in stock; snacks should also get containers. Three parts (in 1.25, 2.5 and 3.75 size) will be sufficient; it will also allow to avoid potential problems with mods, because you can just add snacks through MM config instead of balancing "empty\crewed" amount for every pod out there.

I really like idea of "casual" life support - one resource, no deaths. I do not like idea of delayed\disabled\forced controls, though. This a) can become irritating, can become dangerous if you doing something like landing or docking (to supply ship, for example), and c) probably will mess with MechJeb. Instead of that, there should be rep\science\funds fines. For example, you pay 100 funds and 10 rep points per hour for every kerbal that is starving ("easy" setting; make it 5x for "medium" and 10x for "hard"). This will not break anything, and definitely will not break gameplay, but it will add mechanic that can be appealing for these who don't want to go all-realistic. One very important thing that there should NOT be any new resources (except Snacks) and there should be only one new part type - Snack container (several sizes). All manned pods should get snacks (through MM config); Kerbals on EVA should get enough snacks to sustain them for 24h Earth time (or 4 Kerbin days).

It's simple: your design is too bulky, and payload's CoM is too far from docking port. You should use 2.5m docking port, and you probably should put your payload in front (push it instead of pulling)

Good to hear that, since the only mag survey contracts that can be completed properly (without sending probe in advance) is the Mun\Minmus ones. Kerbin contracts are uncompletable at all (20 days to deadline and something like 35 days to survey)

Less than 40% collected or less than 40% left to collect? That's what Wernher tells me:

Alright, looks like I found a bug there. I've accepted an "Collect Mystery Goo data from Minmus orbit" contract. Two of them, actually - for low and high orbit. Note that I've collected Goo science for these areas before (during Explore Minmus contract), so there is 0 science points there. So, I fly to Minmus, do a Goo experiment, transmit it... and "This area already been studied, try to find another place to complete contract". Funny. This is the first time I've got such thing. Magnetometer contracts works flawlessly (right now my second magsat is flying around the Mun). Man, you owe me two Goo canisters now, since that particular ship wasn't designed to return

Actually, fuel tanks is maybe the only well-balanced part type in KSP. They follow a simple formula: "LF price + OX price = 23% overall price". This is true for Rockomax and Kerbodyne, almost true for LF-T (some deviations there), and not true for two "unique" tanks - Oscar-B and Round-8. Regarding them and LV-1s, Squad might had the same balancing idea that I got when I did price patch for NovaPunch - "unique" parts for advanced designs (tiny tanks and engines, or, in case of NP, low-profile engines) cost more than "standard" parts. RLA-s balancing seems alright with heavy Monoprop engines (they balanced against KW's SPS, as it seems) and RCS blocks. LF engines and fuel tanks looks too cheap for me (but that's me), monoprop tanks is totally off-balance (200 units in FL-R50 cost more than 750 units in FL-R1?). As for monoprop\xenon engines - I don't know. That looks like Near Future stuff, and NF stuff are overwhelmingly expensive.

Wow, a wild update appears!

Yeah, that "green" stuff can be a constant pain in the lower back, if you didin't disabled that "green" stuff altogether (which I do for any computer - mine or not - when I'm installing OS on it). But that alone shouldn't be the reason by KSP (or any other application) shouldn't use dynamic memory management.

Thing is, I didn't use any formulas (except 23% for fuel tanks), I did my balancing purely with gameplay in mind I've used stock and KW prices as reference, and tried to balance NP to fit neatly with these. My ideas about engine balance were: - Engines are balanced around thrust, Isp, weight and profile - Low-profile means higher cost (Berthas and Mothers) - Low Isp means cost reduction, if applicable (I referred to KW here - they refused to switch to 0.24 "320-360" formula for 1st stage engines, and I like that). - Big mass means cost reduction, again. With previous point in mind, you can see why NP 3.75m engines are kinda cheap when compared to NASA engines; but, they fall in-between KW engines just fine. - LFBs were scaled against NASA LFB, with thrust and fuel quantity in mind. - ASRBs are cheaper than KW counterparts if you compare their thrust; after 2 weeks of playing with both mods I feel that their cost should be raised, at least for large versions. - Bearcat 5x: direct competitor to Griffon Century (DAT BASS! NP really needs sound overhaul), scaled accordingly (GC is 55K$ and 11KN thrust; B5X is 50K$ and 10KN thrust). Other stuff: - Monoprop tanks were balanced against KW tanks (I couldn't get LF\OX-like formula for them, so I kinda improvised here) - Fairings: bulkheads are rather expensive, but walls and noses are cheap and scaled according to their size - Nosecones and winglets: I gave them stock-like price - Unique parts (stack chutes, adapters, HMX nosecones, some other stuff): I tried to give them gameplay-wise cost (not too cheap, but not too expensive; they're meant to be used in advanced designs, which are expensive by definition)

Sorry, but I fail to understand what this mod does. It automatically deletes duplicated parts or what?