Tokay Gris

Lots of things. First, this is not the real world. Asparagus tends to be rather large in diameter. Which in the real world means higher drag. Quite a lot higher drag. Which is not the case in stock KSP. Second, Asparagus is expensive. Which does mean nothing in Science or Sandbox games. There the only thing that counts is "Can it be done?" Since the contract-version of KSP came out, I changed my lifting vessels a lot. But I still have no idea how to lift my biggies to space cost-wise. I had an asparagus lifter that was able to get 200 tons to orbit. With cost effectiveness I can get 100 tons to orbit for just above 60.000. My two cents: Asparagus is good, until you need to figure in cost. Which just a few months ago, we didn't need to. Just build it, get it up and thats it. Now, we need to keep in mind how much that costs. Thats the whole difference as I see it.

"What is this speed relative to?" I am pretty sure there have been tons of answers to that one. But here is mine: It isn't. Beside the fact that light doesn't always actually HAVE the so called "speed of light", the funny thing about it is that it is not relative to anything. No matter how you measure, it is always the same. To the last decimal. It does depend on the medium, though. "Speed of light" is different in water/glas/whatever. (Thats why you can "break" light) Thats why there is no "ether". Because if there was, the speed would change depending on your own velocity. It doesn't, so there isn't. Quite some funny conclusions can be drawn from this. It means that "time" is relative. It also means that "space" is not as fixed as was once thought. (and don't get me wrong: the twin paradox still gives me headaches...) But thats FACT. If "speed of light" is absolut (the same, no matter how you measure it) then "space" and "time" aren't.

Depends very much what you use it for and what vessels you intend to refuel. If you are like me and your vessels heading for - say - Jool are massive monsters with abysmal TWR and need an incredible ejection burn (on the order of 15 min or more), then a good orbit for a fuel station would be in fact LKO. 70 - 80 km. This because the launching orbit of your interplanetary vessel will most likely be somewhere above 100 km. With such a difference in orbits, you will get Hohmann-orbits often enough that it is worth it. On the plus side, you need less delta-V to refuel your refueling station.... If your vessels are small and have a descent TWR, they can actually start of from LKO. But if you have a fuel station in LKO and the to-be-refueled vessel also in LKO, you need a phasing orbit first to actually rendezvous. So in that case, an orbit for the station is better at about 180 km. Then, you get a Hohman-tranfer about every fifth orbit. So, depending what your tug is supposed to do, you can set the orbit accordingly. If it is "just" for orbital maneuvers around the Kerbin system, then you need to change orbits often anyways. And LKO has the benefit of needing less delta-V. If you have an interplanetary tug that needs to start burning above 100km (i.e. abysmal TWR) so not to dip into the atmosphere on ejection, the station - in my opinion - would be best at about 150 to 200 km to get Hohmann-tranfers more often. Well, thats the way if you have a hugh refueling station that cannot leave its orbit easily once it is up and are using a refueling tanker to shuttle fuel between the Tug and the station. If you want to dock the tug to the refueling station directly, then the orbit you are aiming for is the lowest orbit your tug can do an ejection burn and not dip into the atmosphere. Which with interplanetary vessels is usually not just above atmosphere. At least with my designs.... Usually I start with the "smaller" ones at about 100km. And I did a few ejection burns that got pretty close to getting too low with 150km.

I am pretty sure this has been asked before and I could find out the answer easily myself, but I am not on my KSP-mashine right now. How much science do you need to fill the (unmoved) Tech-Tree? Reason is this: I started a new save with every update. So I drained Mun and Minmus four times now for science. Now, this is 0.25. And I just can't bring myself at this point to do it again. It was fun, but the fifth time is not that much fun. So, I will "cheat". I will give myself through editing the persistence file the amount of science it takes to fill it. (And just stipulate that I did get a bunch of science on Mun and Minmus.) Why, you may ask? Because I like the stuff about contracts and fundings and missions and cost effectiveness and the works. I just don't want to do the work to get the science AGAIN.

How about sounding like "byte"?

Great! More possibilities to pronounce it... ;-)

...do you pronounce that? Like "Lay - the" (the "the" spelled like "the")? Like "Laiy-te"? Like "that frigging moon of Jool with oceans and athmosphere"? Na, seriously. "Laite"? "late"? "lay-the"? "latte"? (like "cafe latte") I write that name all the time. But in normal life, I don't know that many KSP-nuts. So how do you actually pronounce that name? I mean, Mojo, Kerbin, Duna, Jool, whatever, are easy. Even "Eeloo" is simple. But Laythe?

Yes and no. You can dock multiple ports. But only one will be a "real" connection". I once did a space station consisting of six parts to form a hexagonal structure. It did dock all right, but because there were quite a few connections, the difference in the end was noticeable. It worked out fine, until time warp was used. The last two ports (each of the six parts had four) slid away from each other in time warp and had to realign again coming out of time warp. That said, if you use - say - three ports in a triangle shape and succeed in docking them, you will get a pretty strong connection. But only one will be "really" docked. (All will say "docked" on right click, though). This becomes important if you dock tanks together. The "real" docked ports will let fuel flow through, but the others will not.

Once upon a time I did a Jool mission and had a lander with redockable rover attached. Here is a picture on Pol: Quite a slope, but it did work. And here a picture of the same lander with detached rover on Val:

Depending on how you design the SSTO, you could get most of the initial cost back on retrieval. I have a SSTO currently in use that costs just under 60.000 and that is just the fuel. The rest can be retrieved. This current design can get about 100 tons to orbit, then land almost pinpoint on the launchpad again (using MechJeb). (That can be a problem, because you need to retrieve the launch stabilizers first or you can't land there)

Thats kind of the "fly by the bottom of your pants" way. And it works! Get into LKO. Wait till Mun appears on the horizon. Burn prograde. Wait in map view till you get an encounter. Stop engines. Actually, the ideal point of burning seems to be a bit before Mun appears, but thats just peanuts...

My first response was: "I might have a high opinion of some members of the human race but not of the human race in general." Then I actually READ the comments. Well, you find the obligatory "conspiracy theorist" (and believe me: The weirdest kind we get in this country, i.e. Germany), but most are like the comments on Amazon for the "Wenger Giant". (Along the lines of "Flux compensator does not work if you activate the disrupter array AND the phasor banks on the left side.") Weeelll.... I heard worse.. ;-) P.S.: By the way: This knife DOES exist. And is sold. And is neither photoshoped or a fake. Wenger (One of the two swiss army knife manufacturers) actually produces this. P.P.S.: I would guess that Jeb would LOVE this knife. Who needs a rocket when you have a Wenger Giant? Boosters included!

A while back I did a mission to Jool and landed on four of the five moons. Massiv mission, three vessels (two landers, one fuel tanker). Not efficient, but I had fun! So I am currently working on an "all five" mission. So far, I don't see any way to build a lander that can tough down on Laythe and Tylo. (Bop, Poll and Val.. well. If you can land on one of the others, you can land on those three). The plans for Tylo have progressed. Pretty lightweight. But to get the landing Kerbal as well as the science data up again, I am using a command seat. The current lander is slightly below 20 tons. Finished the tests with it and it needs to be the first target (Since I can't put anything atop of the command seat...). The Laythe design, I am not happy with so far. Tested air breathers and rocket-only designs, but none that worked to my satisfaction. A design problem, so far. Since my Tylomodule will basically stay on Tylo, I am trying to get the Laythe-lander to be able to do Bop-Pol-Val. Probably with a modular design. This kind of determines the order in witch this mission will have to be done: First, Tylo. Second, Laythe. Bop-Pol-Val probably can be decided on site. So far, only planning and testing. Just like the real world. (Wait, KSP is NOT the real world?)

Undisputable, I would say...

First of all, thanks for the prompt help. I found another way to update: Tethering with my smartphone.... The update didn't look too big. Hehe. Thanks for the warning, but not necessary. I am not exactly "employed" either (so they can't really "fire" me), since I am a freelancer. And in that job, it is basically "standby till something happens". Which usually is about three times in 24 hours, so I have plenty of free time. Talking about an "IT department"... there isn't one. I have no idea who configured the router (it looks like a pretty prehistoric one). And if it broke down I wouldn't know who to call to fix it.

Not quite sure if this is the right place. Problem is this: I currently am at work (a job with plenty of free time, so no worries there) and have an internet connection. But this connection has a lot of closed ports, so I can't connect to Steam (the Steam-App). And therefore can't update KSP. Or can I? How? Since I will be with this handicap for a few days longer and am eager to try 0.25, does anyone have an idea how I can update with this problem in mind?

Eh. Wait. What? Where? Omigod! There is?

Yes. But now they have the advantage of being cheap. Before 0.24 and contracts (and funds) you could build incredible lifters. But since 0.24 you need to keep an eye on funds. Asparagus are still the most powerful constructions. But they are expensive.

Couldn't let go. So I build a SSTO with lifting capacity. Looks like this: This test, however, showed that 120 tons (and change) was too much. This stage gets 100 tons to orbit and is (like Pecans) fully recoverable. What this boils down to is that I can get 100 tons to LKO for about 64.000 creds. However, I ran into a rather funny problem: This lifter is apparently so maneuverable that MechJeb lands it right on the launchpad. During testing, I repeatedly botched the landing, because I collided with the stability enhancers. Well, a couple of tests later, this baby works pretty well, I must say. P.S.: Anyone know why the colors of the tanks don't exactly fit? Doesn't look like a five degree mismatch.

Tried to recreate that vessel. Once I understood what you meant... BUT: Even without payload (and just counting the tanks you had on that vessel) with four KR-2Ls I get a TWR on the launch pad of 1,59. Enough delta-V to get that vessel into orbit and back. But not with a payload... If I attach a payload, TWR drops to 1.36. (roughly 100 tons) So... first test: Payload 108 tons (one orange and four tin cans). TWR on the pad: 1,36. Turning at apogee was a hassle. Got to orbit. Kind of. But empty. Last drops of fuel to get there. But I like the idea of a lifter that can get back to Kerbin. Would you mind posting the .craft? Not to use it, just so I can see what you did there.

Thanks, but no. First of all, I kind of solved the problem. And am currently in the process of build a lifter like Pecans. First tests looked promising. Secondly, I prefer to build my rockets myself. I really like tips and tricks, input and criticism, but not "We edit it for you". Thanks again for the offer.

Trust me: It isn't energy. Couple of thousand units.

Tried that. Didn't work. The fairings got stuck between the engines and the tank. But solved that with actually putting the boosters laterally. It looks kind of cool, I must say....

Oh, and a quick update. I changed the design a bit (still have 12 nuclears), can now make orbit easily with enough delta-V left to land on Mün or Minimus AND achieved this for only 300.000 instead of the 400.000 the problematic launch took. Will post a picture tomorrow. EDIT: And it also looks better... And I managed to design it in a way so that really all engines fire at launch. First tests showed some flaws (such as way too few RCS ports to allow for docking, when the vessel is full), but were promising.

Haven't tried that yet, BUT: By switching on a gimbaled engine during ascent I managed to get the rocket to turn. But once I switch it off (basically switching "limit to terminal velocity" in MechJeb on and off), it straightened again. There seems to be a tendency of boosters to go straight up. Not quite sure why yet. Will try that tomorrow. But my guess is that those 5 degrees from launch will stay 5 degrees during ascent at best.