cantab

Looks good, and 10 km/s is pretty good going for a serial staged design. But I'm noticing KER reporting a TWR of 0.63, which is not so good. Remember Eve has even stronger gravity than Kerbin.

War Thunder? You mean the AC/DC song?

Yeah, it's a big problem with any thin parts now that the VAB doesn't even try and stop part clipping. Shows up a limitation in FAR too, you get abnormally high terminal velocities. It would take another mod or a change in the stock game to fix it.

Since you're using FAR and RSS you already require a real-world delta-V to orbit. If you want to use stock parts you can use KIDS to make them perform better, but really you'd be better off using modified parts or configs so you get realistic engines rather than fudged ones. Then KIDS would just sort out scaling maximum thrust with altitude, and not change Isp (leave atmo and vac both at 1).

Completed two course corrections - one in interplanetary space, the next in the outer parts of Jool's SOI - to set up my initial gravicapture. I've done tons of planet-planet assists but this is the first time I've tried to gravicapture into a system. And not too bad of an initial orbit either. I set Vall as the target just to check inclination, but as you can see I'm not far off getting a flyby of it if I want.

Granted. Your computer draws 3 kiloWatts at idle rising to 11 under heavy load, and doubles as your central heating boiler. It doesn't run programs any faster though. I wish I had a lighter, more powerful, and easier to control random orbital sander.

Ease of coding on their part or simple carelessness would be the most likely reasons for rendering any aspect of the game difficult to mod, I think. Squad aren't likely to go out of their way to stop mods working, but equally they won't necessarily go out of their way to help mods work.

The GPL is pretty straightforward. From reading the FSF's advice, my understanding is that anybody may lawfully distribute FAR and provided they include FAR's source incur no further obligations in doing so, except Squad who would then be required to make KSP's source available. That restriction does seem odd to say the least. But mind you I am not a software lawyer.

Seeds? Eggs?

Raindrops?

I think what I'd try is fly to around 23 km then fire off the rocket. It needs loads of thrust to establish a good apoapsis before passing out of physics range. Then land the plane *sharpish*, before switching back to the rocket.

Photons? 10char

I imagine if you did this you would rage hard.

Well the whole point of KIDS is to "correct" the balance changes caused by FAR. Of course there are always compromises. You can correct the performance for any two of launchers, aircraft, and spacecraft, but not all three. A few things to consider: Most of a launch to orbit is done in near-vacuum conditions as far as engine efficiency is concerned. That's why the FAR to Stock Atmospheric preset has to hammer the atmospheric Isp so hard. For that matter, much aircraft flight is done where the pressure is much closer to vacuum than to sea level too. At 8 km, a reasonable cruising altitude for a basic jet powered craft, the pressure is 0.2 atm. Turbojet or RAPIER powered craft are likely to fly even higher. In stock the jet engines are already way too efficient. I know FAR changes the jets but I don't know if it really fixes their efficiency. So a nerf to their Isp might not go amiss.

Well, we'll all have to wait and see. If Squad don't get an expert in - and unless you're keeping very quiet about it they haven't got you in at least - then I don't think they'll get a very good aerodynamic model in stock, meaning there'll still be some interest in FAR. Then it's "just" a case of finding a way to null out the new stock aerodynamics.

Venus is easier to take off from than Minimus.

Flew Tanuki's seaplane, Gunther. In FAR. It flew alright, though you need to co-ordinate your turns, and watch it doesn't develop too much sideslip. The stall speed though is about 65 m/s, which I think is too fast to land it on the ocean. I've not tried reassigning the control surfaces, probably some flaps would help.

There's two basic approaches I see: Suborbital rocket. Easy to build and quick to fly, but aiming well takes practice. Maybe expensive since at best you'll incur a major recovery percentage loss, and will need a new launch for each site. Aeroplane. Harder to build, but once you have a good one flying it to the destination is easy, albeit slow for long flights, though you can potentially hit multiple sites in a single trip. If you can fly back to KSC afterwards it's cheap but even more time-consuming. An approach I've not seen often is a suborbital mini-shuttle. Basically launch a glider, or even a powered aeroplane, on top of a rocket. You'll get quick flights like with a rocket but be able to correct for poor aim.

Yeah, that was my understanding. Technically it's multithreaded, but one thread - the physics - ends up with 95% of the work.

When you can reliably build a vehicle to put a certain payload in orbit, and fly it into to orbit. That's the basic gameplay aspect on both the building and flying side of things, and the first part of most missions. There's a lot more to being an experienced player, but that's where I'd put the step from total beginner to intermediate player.

Incorrect, in my experience. A rocket with a nice delta-V margin, plenty of thrust on every stage, and loads of control is relatively easy to fly. You can make a right hashup of the ascent with such a rocket and get away with it. A rocket like that is also quite probably overbuilt, more massive than it needs to be for its payload.On the other hand when you build a rocket that maybe has a low TWR upper stage, or has very limited control authority, or only has barely enough delta-V to make it, then you need to get your ascent right. And it won't always be the same "right" for different rockets either. Said rocket that isn't wasting mass on oversized engines, unnecessary control parts, or excess fuel also might well have a good payload fraction.

A lovely theory probably torpedoed by an ugly fact, as you admit yourself. The balloon result showing noticeable vertical winds may or may not be real, but it certainly can't be ignored.Of course, the atmosphere of Venus will be far better studied before anyone puts a manned balloon there.

Indiana Kerman and the Boosters of the Lost Stage.

And I believe in time lead to difficulties finding satellite pairs that could go up together, as more and more became heavier than half the Ariane's total payload. Launchers designed for a single primary payload, and maybe a smaller secondary one, are probably the better approach.

Sent some extra oxygen to my Tylo ship, I'd undersupplied it. Launched shortly after the Tylo ship had left Kerbin's SOI and caught it about 20 days later. Wasn't too hard to make the rendezvous, I guess I've had lots of practice with asteroids. Now maybe before the end of this year I'll land the thing.