CorBlimey

slight balance issue with price - the XT-L1 costs 950 when then the XT-L2 costs 650. Perhaps change the XT-L2 to 950 (same as the XT-L2B) and XT-L1 to 600

just had to say, loving the new warp to buttons! thanks

Love it

whoops - realised i was replying to an ancient post

hmm yes, good point. I can use landing guidance marker to get the longitude then type that in to the man plan. Thanks - - - Updated - - - select a planet as your target. The calcs will run (as long as you aren't in Kerbol's SOI) and show you a heat map. The x axis is time until the transfer (e.g. the burn will take place in 100 days). The y axis is time the transit will take (e.g. after the burn, the craft will take 150 days to arrive at the target SOI). The colours show the cost in m/s dV for the burn (for example, you can go at an optimal transfer time or transit time for 2k m/s dV burn or spend 5k m/s dV to leave sooner or fly faster). Dark blue is optimal with respect to m/s dV, green through red is increasingly inefficient. However, note that sometimes the optimal flight can take twice as long travel time as only a slightly less efficient flight, so think about the trade-offs. Click on the part of the heat map you want. If you want the optimal flight, then rather than trying to click on the darkest bluest bit, you can switch from porkchop selection to "limited time" mode which will choose the best time to burn such that you arrive within a certain time. Bear in mind you will need to brake once you reach your target SOI assuming you don't want to flyby. This can be very expensive in dV unless you can aerobrake. If you burn 5k m/s to do the faster transfer, in the example above, you will need to burn (or aerobrake), approximately, an additional 3k m/s compared to the optimal burn in order to decelerate and be captured in the SOI, for a total extra cost compared to the optimal transfer of about 6k m/s (3k m/s extra initial burn then 3k m/s extra deceleration needed). Also, you may need a small correction burn to fine tune your intercept. I generally leave these burns until I enter the sun's SOI. They should cost from a few m/s to 50 m/s but rarely more. This will be for things like a small plane change or a radial burn. Edit: a cool feature that I didn';t realise about but read in a post above is that you can zoom in to the porkchop chart with mousewheel to better select.

thanks - yes the updated title clears all doubt /runs off to install

is kOS based on a particular language and syntax?

is there any way to change the default controls? They conflict with my use of the numpad for rover wheels. Also, what is the usage of an anchor? I can't seem to think of a situation when I would prefer it to a grapple.

i couldn timmediately see from reading a few pages back, but are the 'trons compatible with 0.90? I am thinking of some Remotetech probe landings

Is it possible to install this in the middle of a career game? I am already on a 2nd restart and don't quite fancy the grind to get 2M funds to unlock some toys I read somewhere that Kerbals don't start consuming resources until the first time they are loaded into the 2.5km active range, so I am hoping I can install -> despatch a supply ship -> wait a few hundred days -> land supply ship -> feed them. It sounds like yes, but if you have any tips for a first-time TAC'er then...!

Thank you for this. Very helpful! No more stresses over rovers + kerbals in command seats

idea if you don't think this is too automated : Maneuvre that puts one of the apsides over a certain point on the orbital body, showing a marker like for the landing guidance. This would be used for setting up stationary orbits over specific points (e.g. for use with Remotetech to establish a KEO constellation of comsats) Anyway, huge thanks for Mechjeb. I do manual courses a lot, but MJ adds a lot for those times when you just want to get things done.

11km ~= 1 mk1 pod + 1 chute + small SRB at about 20% thrust with about 1/3 fuel. Just guessing . Some random musings for the next stage after altitude records: I have found that the top 4 factors in order of importance for an efficient ascent to orbit (not your question but still rubs in the factor of air resistance): 1) Keeping speed as close to terminal speed as possible (about 80 m/s at 0m to about 230 m/s at 10km, approximately linearly, then very roughly doubling every 5km - see http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbin#Terminal_Velocity_Table) . 2) Not skimping on Thrust to weight ratio so as to be able to maintain number 1 - just because something has higher dV on paper doesn't mean it can get to orbit as efficiently. You will generally want a variable thrust main engine (you can use boosters but dial down your main engine as the boosters burn off their fuel). Approx. thrust to weight ratio of 1.5 minimum at launch which should climb to 2+ by the first 10km of ascent. Higher TWR (2.5-3 ish) is useful above 10km until about 30km altitude to keep accelerating up to terminal speed, which rapidly increases with altitude. 3) A smooth ascent profile (the simplest to learn first is the classic 10km vertical then 45 degrees until apoapsis is 75km, then coast to apoapsis for circularisation. I personally (unless I have seriously too much TWR) start turning slowly at 8km then keep reducing heading until dipping below the artificial ground horizon so the gravity turn continues at about 50-55km until apoapsis hits 75km) 4) Adequate torque (for a light craft), or a gimballed main engine (for heavier craft) and/or control wingtips to maintain this smooth ascent profile. The T30 engine may look better than the T45 engine due to lower mass and more thrust but for any early-career typical multi-stage tall and wobbly rocket, the T45 will give you more consistent dV to orbit due to a superior ascent profile. T30's work ok if you have lots of torque or wingtips and a symmetrical design. The best launch vehicles at early game include SRB's for cheap launches. Tweak the thrust downwards in the VAB to prevent it blasting above terminal speed. Boost initially with your main engines till 100 m/s then let the SRB's carry you up to 10km or so. Being able to ascend efficiently makes a vast difference to the tonnage and dV you have to play with once in orbit for your payload. Ascending too fast or too vertically can easily cost upwards of 500 m/s which is equivalent to the dV needed for a Munar landing descent.

Really helpful thread discussion. Thanks! Just started out a new career game with SCANsat and RT2 and these ideas about different ways to get off the ground are great. Edit: Just posting that I went for a single sat in stationary orbit above the KSC, with a 1 cone pointed to Kerbin and second cone pointint to a sat in a highly elliptical polar orbit (relay sat). The relay sat has 3 mid-range dishes - 1) @ the sat above the KSC, 2) @ Mun and 3) @ Minmus. It then has 1 long-range dish for interplanetary communications. I may add a 2nd stationary sat over the far-side of Kerbin and a second relay in opposite polar orbit. I have comms to the near-side of the Mun and Minmus which is enough for most of my science needs. For the Mun, which is tidally locked, I will stick 2 small omni sats around its equator which should provide 90%+ coverage and uptime. Ultimately I will need to add some more dishes to the relay sat to allow pointing at multiple different planets but 1 is fine for me now (to point at Duna). Much much simpler and cheaper than establishing whole constellations networks around Kerbin.

just been enticed by your enticing pictures. Restarting my career with SCANsat and Remotetech2

agree with all these points. The Admin 'factors' or ratios are the issue.

F3 button shows mission log and some stats like mission time, distance travelled etc. It would be helpful if, in career mode and science mode, it also showed: 1) Science collected and kept/stored awaiting recovery or transmission 2) Science collected and transmitted (perhaps both the base amount and the amount after transmission penalty). It would be pretty cool to see how much your probe has scooped up whilst hurtling through the kerbol system or how much little Jeb on his rover has discovered on a trip to the Munar pole.

I agree with this completely. But at least some of the contracts are fun (like building Mun base etc) though could do with them better integrated with later contracts (e.g. 'Extend your base by adding 8t of fuel') and it counting anything landed within a certain radius of each other as part of the same base. On the other hand, I had a silly testing contract for an engine that, because of some reputation and funds to science conversion thingies (forgot the name) gave me 1.5k science, thus unlocking pretty much a whole tier of tech. This was silly and demotivated me to do the more interesting contracts.

can't answer the scientist boost question (I came here hoping for an answer too ) however I like transmissions on small probes. You can stick 4 goo and one or 2 materials bay (with a means to detach them once used to reduce mass if desired) on small probes and ping them around the solar system for some nice science. Yes, you will need to repeat and recover to max the science out but they give decent % the first few transmissions, and can easily be sending over 50-100 science for each experiment (100-200 per probe). A very useful bonus, and an excellent way to practice maneuvres before you send up Kerbals, in the early-mid career game. And, all for a cost of about 5k per probe including launch costs (I send up 2 at once on a simple rocket + SRBs).

Hi - thanks for these. Really pretty lifters. I love what you did with the fairings and seperatrons. It actually feels real However, I am having trouble pushing the 20 tonne launcher into LKO. I have tried manually piloting it and then with a mechjeb assisted flight profile but I still tank out with about 300 dV required. Any tips? Or perhaps the game version now means these are no longer viable for their listed payloads?

Ok thanks - I understand about the vectors being based on velocity (which I would point out is a speed and an angle to something, angle being the important part). They are displayed on the navball relative to an orientation and are interpreted by reference to x,y and z planes relative to something. You say that that something can be changed to the docking port so that is the solution as long as my additional module engine thrust vector is straight through the docking port (which I will make sure it is by sticking to a stack). So, I think I understand what you are saying. I can simply switch control to the docking port of the additional engine module to make my burns in the right direction. Now I can merrily proceed with building the core of the station whilst I wait to unlock the tech for the additional modules. Thanks! p.s. thanks cantab for explaining about SAS and flex

Does the thrust vector and, more importantly, the ship's orientation to prograde and other vectors (for maneuvre nodes and manual burns) adjust to take into account the currently powered up engines? I am currently building a space station with either a nuclear engine or, to start with hopefully, just a Poodle engine as its primary thruster but it would be nice if I could fit this or a interplanetary ion engine module on later connected to a docking port. The engine modules would probably be either docked at the 'front' of the main station module or docked to a perpendicular bay and so would not be in the 'default' location of thrusting straight 'up' the stack. I can tell that thrust obviously is accounted for (e.g. when shutting down jets engines) correctly but does the orientation to prograde etc vectors take it in to account? Apologies for the drawing - perhaps it explains my question

Now put an Unpaid Research Programme and Outsourced Contracts on. Watch that science jump to 1k+ (or the whole early tech tree).

Indeed. I think test contracts should be a fallback only in case you run out of funds on missions. But, as a result, I think missions (like to Mun etc) need to pay out more. Tier 3 science upgrade costs 3.5M funds so there does need to be a way of making some profitss.

Some contracts barely cover their cost and some fun contracts (like land on Mun, set up Mun base etc) pay ok. Other contracts pay out far more than they should be worth like this that surprised me so much I bothered to come here and post! The contract below (on Normal difficulty) gives me 650k funds, 2.5k science, 233 reputation (I have some funds and reptuation partially converted to science but still!) for a piddling engine test in LKO. I have all tech unlocked up to the 300 science nodes but this contract would allow me to unlock virtually a whole next tier once I upgrade the science lab. I am ok with having high funds payouts (lower than the above though) as high funds allows fun contraptions to be hoisted in to space but the high science rewards really kill the main 'point' of missions to get science. It hardly seems worth bothering with a tub of goo for 50 science compared to 2.5k for next to nothing. The problem appears to me to be the conversion rate of reputation and funds to science in the Administration Building. I think the ratio should be 10 times poorer. I am tempted to start a new game on Science Mode instead as the contracts have virtually broken my current game (my first game so I didn't realise that I was ruining the tech tree fun by accepting such a contract).