SkyRender

Now I'm starting to wonder... See, that wasn't on a fresh install of KSP overall; I had a Career mode save on it that was about 7 years in where I'd sent out probes to every single planet and moon. Now theoretically you shouldn't see one save file affect another, but I noticed as well that I didn't start running into that "inconsistent and increased delta-V requirements" problem until I'd run quite a few launches in my Career mode save. In fact, the first launch that gave me that problem was the first one I'd sent up after sending out a craft towards Duna. It seems like the second it left Kerbin's SoI, suddenly all of my rockets needed a lot more fuel to get off Kerbin. Once they get to space they're fine, of course, but before that... Well, you saw how radically different your results were from following basically the same ascent pattern. And the oddity involved wherein you were able to reach orbital height long before you hit the time to apoapsis requirement listing.

Originally designed to be an Eeloo craft by the name of Eeloosive, the Mohotivated was slightly altered to be a one-way trip out to Moho that can land on the surface with a fair margin of error. I've conveniently included the delta-V counts on the parts via Kerbal Engineer Redux, just in case you want to plan that sort of thing instead of tackling this blind. Good luck!

For testing purposes, I didn't perform an absolutely-optimal ascent, focusing instead on one that should have provided consistent results. Definitely should have reached orbit each time, however; the profile is close enough to optimal for that. It's outlined above in terms of angle and altitude, and the rocket used is also outlined (it was a very simple vertical stack, so everything is listed in order), meaning you should be able to reproduce it easily if you want to test for yourself.

So I figured, given my strange troubles, I would see if I can diagnose this problem as scientifically as possible. And so I ran this experiment. Test control conditions: * New Sandbox file, immediately went to VAB to build the rocket * Exact same craft is used in all tests * Exact same launch profile is used in all tests Craft Overview: 1.37 initial TWR 4,876 dV Structure: MK16-XL Parachute Mk1 Lander Can TR-18A Stack Decoupler FL-T200 Fuel Tank FL-T400 Fuel Tank FL-T800 Fuel Tank LV-T45 Liquid Fuel Engine 4x TT18-A Launch Stability Enhancers Launch Profile: * Full throttle at start * Stay vertical for first 1000m * Slowly pitch towards 45 degrees east, reaching the 45-degree mark at 10,000m * Remain at 45 degrees east until time to AP is 1m5s * Lower speed to keep time to AP between 1m5s and 1m10s (as close to 1m5s as possible), and follow prograde * Stop when apoapsis reaches 70,000m to 70,100m (target: 70,050m) * Circularize at 70,000m to 70,500m (target: 70,050m AP/70,050m PE) Test Series: Rapid-succession identical launches Overview: Launch of 5 identical vessels in quick succession (each one was launched ~15 minutes apart). Observed Data: Fuel levels upon attaining a 70KM orbit. (If failed to reach orbit, indicate with DNRO and list velocity closest to apoapsis.) Launches marked with * are ones where the program was quit and restarted prior. Hypothesis: There may or may not be a problem which causes vessels to perform differently depending on how they're loaded at launch. Results: 1. *DNRO (2161.9m/s) 2. DNRO (2100.1m/s) 3. *DNRO (2036.0m/s) 4. DNRO (1983.7m/s) 5. DNRO (2223.2m/s) Conclusions: Rocket should have reached orbit with fuel to spare every single time, but did not even once. Furthermore, despite identical launch profiles, the final velocity at ~70,050m for all five flights varied immensely, without an absolute pattern. Likely culprit is something relating directly to when the rocket is loaded onto the launchpad, given these results. Further experiments may be warranted.

I think I need to run a comprehensive battery of tests to be sure of this, but it's something I've observed in the past: sometimes a rocket will just plain underperform compared to how you would expect it to. Granted, a slight difference in launch profile can add or subtract a fair bit of delta-V from a launch, but generally not on a scale that large and definitely not with a launch profile that's utterly identical. Time of day might have been a coincidence in all of this; it could just be that something is getting loaded that gets "stuck" somehow. The discrepancy is too much for it to be mere chance, however...

I think the "increased delta-V requirement at sunrise and sunset" problem is actually more of an issue with the atmospheric modeling in the game. It only is a problem with stock aerodynamics; FAR launches work properly no matter the time of day (as long as the rocket is aerodynamic to begin with, granted). It's not a new problem, either; I've noticed this effect quite a bit in past releases. I design my rockets to very specific standards (with Kerbal Engineer Redux's help), meaning that I know when something is off in the lift-off part of the program if one of my rockets can't quite reach orbit on its boosters. I saw dramatically just how true this problem is with stock aerodynamics just yesterday: two identical rockets launched within 3 hours of one another, one at midday and one at sunset. The midday one reached orbit with a little to spare in the boost stage, as per design. The sunset rocket was about 300m/s short of orbital speed when those very same boosters ran out. Their launch profiles were as identical as you can get without resorting to an autopilot, too. I re-ran that sunset launch 3 times just to be sure, but the end result was identical each time: around 300m/s short of orbit when the booster stage burned out. As I said, I've seen it happen in past versions too, but this was the first time I had any solid evidence of the effect.

No, but I have noticed a strange phenomenon wherein the time of day of the launch somehow messes with rocket launch efficiency. A rocket launched at exactly midday will somehow be more efficient going into orbit than one launched at dawn or sunset. This... makes no sense, but my tests have been fairly conclusive. Exact same technique for each launch, but the sunset and sunrise rockets need an extra ~300dV to reach orbit than the midday launches no matter how well I fly them.

Alternatively, just send out comprehensive missions to every planet in the solar system as their launch windows come up. If you lack the tech to do it efficiently, all the more fun!

It seems to be a glitch. Patched conics aren't perfect, and they get especially dodgy when you're performing calculations on a potential orbit within a future SoI change, especially if you alter the trajectory within that SoI change after plotting the change in course on a maneuver node.

That is not a bizarre orbit. THAT is a bizarre orbit.

Nothing wrong with taking a break. If an experience isn't doing much for you any more, pressing on will just kill all interest before long. Better to step away for a while, do something else, and come back with fresh enthusiasm later. I've done that multiple times with KSP, though rarely for very long; usually just long enough to finish a few other games (a week or two, give or take). But it's always helped.

The problem is that Eve's first really "good" encounter happens a LONG ways out from the other planets. It happens around year 2 day 175 in Kerbal time, in fact, while all of the other planets get a decent alignment somewhere between 200 and 265 days into the first Kerbal year (except Dres; its first good launch window is about day 375 or so). It's just the case that Eve starts out in a position that doesn't lend itself to efficient encounters for a really, really long time.

I also finished up with 0.24's offerings to date, in that I now have a landed and orbital probe around every body in the system (well, except for a lander on Jool, for obvious reasons). Funnily enough, it left me with almost the exact same funds, rep, and extra science as the original poster.

I think they'd be good for some of the currently black-screen transitions too (such as the transition from VAB/SPH/Space Center to runway/launchpad/tracking station).

Experience and a proper TWR/dV breakdown are both great teachers for if a rocket is going to cut it or not. There's no mods for the former (for obvious reasons), but you can get a less takes-forever-and-a-day-to-hand-calculate solution to the latter with Kerbal Engineer Redux. It really does make a world of difference, actually knowing how far you can go and how well your rocket is going to perform in a given gravitational environment.

Rule #1 of contracts: it's not about the cost of the rocket, it's about how much you accomplish on the mission. As long as you can get it where it needs to go and make back the cost of the rocket plus enough to cover your next mission, there's no reason to skimp on your ability to control the rocket by adding solid rocket boosters. After all, if it doesn't even make it to space, would you say you actually saved anything over the more expensive liquid boosters that would assuredly let you get it into orbit?

The addition of significant new features always bumps my interest of a release up by a bit over the aesthetic- and fix-only releases, I will admit. While I doubt any release is going to top 0.18 in terms of sheer scale of how much got changed, 0.24 is certainly a good step in that direction. The new systems need some balancing and TLC, I won't argue that, but for what they are right now, I'm alright with them. They don't really affect my play style at all, other than to actually give me some incentive to keep playing past maxing out the tech tree (which lately takes all of two launches and never takes me outside of Kerbin's SoI).

That looks pretty much like a redesign for the inline one-seater cockpit. And much-needed it is; the current one has some issues, not the least of which being that it's trial-and-error to even figure out which side is the crew hatch since it's not very clearly marked.

I always found the Krak-Attack that follows a Kerbal tripping and/or sliding down a hill to be amusing. The KSP universe is so unstable that a misstep is all it takes to consume the world into an eternal void! And of course, upon reloading the autosave after quitting and restarting the game, you will inevitably find that certain flights are... not where they should be any longer. And usually moving at speeds just a bit above what you'd expect. Or that might actually be feasibly obtainable without cheating.

You could feasibly unlock a lot of the tech tree temporarily with contracts like that. Sure, you have to finish them eventually before they get removed from your parts list, but the time you're given is absurdly generous. I'd say it would let you master the tech tree faster, but it's already perfectly feasible to max the tech tree in two launches even with Funds in play, so yeah. Mostly it's just really convenient.

Well, it kinda couldn't because this is what it looked like before the launch boosters were separated: Yes, the whole thing got into orbit with a pair of massive side-mounted fuel tanks. That is a freaking Kerbal launch stage right there.

The 502 errors seem to be coming in waves. About 15 seconds of every minute, the forum gives out 502 errors instead of allowing access. I'm not sure if that's helpful or not, but I am sure that this is not supposed to be the case.

With the advent of Funds, it seems only logical to make sure that you get the most contractual bang for your buck with missions. And what better place to rack up the Funds and Reputation than the Joolian system? Launching a comprehensive mission there to visit the surfaces of all the moons, leave a probe in orbit around each, and get some good data on Jool's atmosphere can't possibly be inexpensive, can it? That depends on your definition of "inexpensive", I suppose! Behold the Joolific, on its way out from Kerbin to Jool. 2 Kerbin years from now, it will arrive at the green planet with its massive payload of 5 full-fledged lander craft, 1 sacrificial Jool science probe, and 6 orbital satellites. And it cost just shy of 350,000 Funds to launch, a pittance for such a massive undertaking.

Amusingly, that already happened some time ago in the Challenges forum. The most convincing one was done at the north pole of Kerbin.

The title screen of the Kerbal on the Mun with the Mun or Bust rocket is actually the video game equivalent of a set on a TV show: it's a separate location from anything you can visit in-game that doesn't exist past what you can see in it. The same is true of the other title screen with 3 Kerbals in orbit around Kerbin. So you can't find that rocket anywhere on the Mun, as it so happens, because it only exists on that title screen.