cantab

I've used various approaches, but I'm leaning towards one launch from Kerbin now, or sometimes one hardware launch and a refuel. The downside of orbital assembly is lag. You need some way to put it together and if you start putting probe cores, RTGs, RCS blocks, and monoprop on every module the part count adds up. If you use a tug that presents its own challenges, like how you balance the thing. And if the ship is complex and high part count anyway then while lag is never fun it's especially not fun when you're docking. Oh, and the current release of KSP is a performance disaster.

I've been playing KSP exclusively on Linux since 0.23, usually the 64-bit version. Crashes have been rare in my experience, there are no memory usage limits with KSP.x86_64. Currently my distro is Xubuntu, it's a good once to choose I reckon. Mind you, I've been using Linux as my main OS for a decade. It's a big step to install Linux just for KSP, especially with the next KSP update expected in late October/early November with stable 64-bit for Windows. I suggest you run the game from the command line, that way you'll see any errors it spits out.

If there's no refuelling involved, though, what we care about is how much delta-V it takes from the ground.

For surface dockings I think it's better to dock "vertically". For example put a docking port on the base of the lander and have a fuel rover that drives under it. Then by deploying or retracting legs, or by equipping the fuel rover with rocket engines, you can dock, no alignment issues.

Too much lower and it's liable to be grindy though. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to nerf the Mun and Minmus science multipliers, so that relatively speaking the rewards for going interplanetary will be bigger.

I haven't really tested, but in general I expect a rocket that works well in newstock to also work well in FAR. The reverse may not be the case though - a rocket reliant on FAR's whole-vessel approach to drag could have problems in newstock.

If you're flying an efficient ascent it's slightly better to go straight to your target orbit. During an efficient ascent you'll normally pass through something like a 50x50 or 60x60 orbit. From there you carry on burning, and you may as well carry on until your final apoapsis instead of first reaching some intermediate orbit. Plus if you stop on something like a 60x70 orbit you'll be in the upper atmosphere for ages and get your apo slowly dragged down, whereas if you get into a 60x250 orbit you'll get out of the atmo quickly and suffer no more drag.

Yeah, I've been caught out by KER doing that, assuming I'll decouple parts of my ship before I actually will. At this point your best solution is probably to fly off Tylo then bail out and jetpack to orbit. That's what I had to do on my Tylo mission, because I forgot one of the steps when adding up the delta-V requirements.

I just do tests around Kerbin. Where applicable I'll apply a correction factor, for example if I know Duna's air pressure and gravity I can estimate the fall speed under chutes on Duna based on the fall speed on Kerbin. Or I'll do an aggressive re-entry to simulate returning from an interplanetary trip, which is pretty much how NASA tested the Orion capsule.

Fuel is heavy, which means to transport it to your destination needs even more fuel, and to get that going needs even more fuel, and so on. It's known as "the tyranny of the rocket equation". But if you can stop somewhere on your journey and collect fuel there, you break free of the tyranny.

Hmmm. Well Pergas is nice. I can't remember which other ones there were.

I've heard that it doesn't work, that Jool's atmosphere is "cut off" so you go from no air at all to enough air to heat you to blowing up.

Exposure is barely noticeable, and it's one of a number of poisons that by the time you show symptoms it's too late to treat. Nasty, nasty stuff.

Both are just freely flying right, with no probe cores? Consider retrying with a probe core on each. If I remember rightly FAR applies quicker but less accurate drag to debris than to controllable vessels.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Microsoft hold monopoly positions in multiple markets, and it's not uncommon for there to be no viable alternative. If only MS Office will render a job application form properly then I need MS Office to apply for that job, if the employer receives a form that's been garbled by LibreOffice it's just going straight in the trashcan. (And if I'm claiming unemployment benefits at the time then I am legally obliged to apply for the job.)To paraphrase Interstellar, disliking Microsoft while using their products isn't possible, it's necessary.

The pressure shouldn't be a problem, thicker air is generally held to make flight easier. Or at least the same plane will fly more slowly. The gravity is what will get you on Titanus I expect. With 2.2 times Kerbin gravity the same plane would need 2.2 times the lift to stay up. So you'll either need big wings on a light airframe or you'll need to fly fast. But flying fast requires more power to overcome the drag, and big wings will themselves add drag. Nonetheless I reckon if you build a plane that's got a low stall speed and plenty of power on Kerbin it will have a decent chance on Titanus.

While it was never explicitly stated, I interpret "most dangerous" as meaning dangerous to people.Sarin still doesn't count to me though. The Tokyo subway attackers carried it around with plastic bags, poked holes in them, and walked away. Sarin's certainly highly lethal, but I feel a real "most dangerous" candidate would have leaked through the plastic, blown up when poked, or otherwise found a way to kill the terrorists who carried it around.

Well, most stuff on "Things I Won't Work With", of course. In my view to be a contender for "most dangerous" a chemical needs to be not only potentially lethal, but extremely difficult to handle safely except in amounts small enough to be harmless. So anything that's been used as a chemical weapon is out of consideration since it was safe enough for soldiers to handle. Any rocket fuels that went beyond early experiments are out of consideration for the same reason. Radionuclides can be very dangerous by that standard, especially either an easily-ingested alpha emitter or a strong gamma emitter, but they run into problems with "chemical" if only some isotopes are very dangerous. So probably an excessively sensitive explosive, maybe C2N14. Then again, to be really dangerous we want something that not only explodes if you look at the wrong way, but produces viciously toxic gas when it does. Any ideas?

Use a Transfer Window Planner and you'll know.

Well, according to one unreliable source, the Model M went for $150-250. And that was in the late 80s, it's more like $400 in today's money. While a mechanical keyboard is still a decently expensive bit of kit it's a lot cheaper than it used to be. My only minor gripe is how the "gaming" side of things has encouraged over-flashiness. On the topic of mechanical keyboards, how do people think about adding O-rings? I think I do bottom out on most keystrokes when typing, possibly because I have to use other keyboards at work, and my fingers and family might appreciate the o-rings. But I know some people say they're a bad idea because they just encourage bottoming out all the time. (I've a Gigabyte Aivia Osmium with MX Browns, by the way)

It's all about the minus, bout the minus, no pluses. -22

That was somewhat what was done with New Horizons. First launch of the Atlas V with five solid boosters, first launch with a third stage (a Star 48B solid booster), and instead of launching a heavy payload to LEO or GTO it was sending a light one clean out of the solar system. The launchpad TWR was 2.13, exceptionally high for an orbital launch vehicle.

Like I say to the guy in McDonald's, "to take away". -20

10 kg is the same everywhere.

You are playing the full game I assume, not the demo. Did you mess with the stock parts at all? In one of my installs I broke the contracts when I deleted the stock solid boosters.