GoSlash27

Joe Schmuckatelli, You do lose at least a little speed if you're suborbital, but how much depends on where you are when you stage. If you're slow, vertical and in thick atmosphere, staging may cause you to tumble and lose the whole vehicle. If you're fast, horizontal, and in thin atmosphere, taking the time to stage won't cost you enough to care about or even notice. I design my lifters to have 1800 m/sec DV in the first stage. This gets me right about 30 km in a gravity turn, which is high enough so that aerodynamics is no longer a concern. I can concentrate any fins on the first stage and treat the second stage as essentially being a full vacuum low thrust stage. Best, -Slashy

It's a 2.5m engine with a 1.25m footprint. It's good for making shuttles, but that's about it. It doesn't really do anything useful that can't be done with a Skipper or a Mainsail. Plus it's crazy- expensive and shows up late in career. Not an engine I'd find a use for outside of the sandbox. Best, -Slashy

True, but the dilemma still remains. It's one thing to already have a handy design already standing by, waiting to be used. It's quite another if you don't. Me *personally*, I love designing SSTOs so I already have working designs, but even then... I won't necessarily bother with moving files around just to save like $15 per passenger. Tankers, though... the less flights I have to make to fill up my orbital station, the better. Especially if it's cheaper. RAPIERS are really good for large spaceplanes. Best, -Slashy

Joe Schmuckatelli, It won't hurt anything if you fire the second stage immediately. Me personally... I don't like things going all 'splodey around my rockets. Best, -Slashy

The thing about Whiplashes and RAPIERs in career mode is this: Once they're unlocked, you have to ask yourself whether they save enough money/ flight time to justify designing and developing an entirely new SSTO that uses them. Yeah, they're better than the Panther... but are they *enough* better to make the R&D hassle and expense worth it? For small crew shuttles, probably not. For fuel tankers, probably so. I love the ultra high tech engines in sandbox, but I don't use them very often in career. Best, -Slashy

Jetski, Congratulations on successfully completing the Caveman Challenge! Best, -Slashy

Hyomoto, I would never attempt to "debunk* your personal experience". That would be a silly argument. All I'm saying is the exact same thing you are: There is no early game hump intrinsic to the game itself, only that which the players create for themselves (intentionally or otherwise). This holds true for hard difficulty mode as well. There was nothing I did that's beyond the capability of average players, I merely, as you put it, "took the direct route". I should add that I didn't upgrade any of the facilities through this exercise and the part limit was never an issue.For a little while I thought that funding would pose a problem, but it turns out that the "world first" awards provide plenty of funding. Having said that, I'm going to move on to greener pastures. Your habitual and completely unwarranted rudeness is frankly tiresome. Best, -Slashy * The phrase "I'm going to officially call this myth busted" is from a popular American TV series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters#Outcomes_of_the_experiments

After completing my series of Mun and Minmus flybys, I'm going to officially call this myth "busted". I have unlocked all of the important nodes, I have a comfortable bankroll, and I'm capable of returning science from the surface of Mun and Minmus. I never had to grind for science, never needed to take any contracts, and never entered the Admin building. There is no early game "hump". I did have to complete one very difficult step: Returning from a low Munar flyby for science with no SAS and no solar panels. That's something I never had to do in normal mode and it was *very* challenging. Other than that, same as normal. Best, -Slashy

Hyomoto, So far no problems. I have 4 nodes left that are useful for strip mining the Mun and Minmus, and I'm at a level where I can do nearly full science flybys (don't have the barometer yet). I'm on day 2. Cash is definitely tighter than it was in normal mode, but I have enough in the bank for maybe 8 flights. I may have to work a contract or 3 down the road. Best, -Slashy

Hyomoto, Likewise, I apologize if I came off as facetious; that really wasn't what I was getting at. All I was saying was that I had also noticed a "hump" in early career, but after working on how I was approaching that part of the game it disappeared. I realized that the "hump" I had previously experienced was of my own making, not anything intrinsic in the game. It is possible to put 3t of payload into orbit within the limits of the base facilities. If you can do that, you can do almost anything you want from there including returning science to Kerbin from the munar surface or manned (not suicidal) science flights in solar orbit. I've just started a hard career to see what you're talking about, but it's still way too early to notice a bottleneck. I'd imagine if I run into a problem tho'... it's not going to be due to the part count or mass limit, since I already know how to "strip mine" the entire Kerbin system for science under caveman conditions. I can picture running into a science shortage or funding problems down the line, but I can't picture being hindered by the part count or mass limit. To your original point, I agree. It would be nice to have a more gradual progression for mass, size, and part count. Jumping from 30 to 255 is pretty silly. Best, -Slashy

322997am, I'm personally a fan of the Panther. It can cruise at high altitude and high speed very economically, making it probably the best choice for a science gathering plane. Although by the time you've unlocked it, you probably don't need to collect science from Kerbin anymore. It can also be used as the air breathing engine of a practical tech level 6 spaceplane. If I had to pick just one jet engine for career mode, this would be it. Best, -Slashy

Exactly. I just put it in Kerbin's orbit around the sun and just ahead of Kerbin. If I want to go somewhere, I just use the maneuver node to set up a hohmann transfer for the probe and then drag it around until I have an encounter. The time to burn gives me the transfer window. Best, -Slashy

WinkAllKerb", Sorry, not the track I was looking for. The Staple Singers did this, and the Rolling Stones did a more famous cover of it. That gave rise to this obscure instrumental cover of the Stones version, but about 30 years later it formed the basis of a very famous song. That's the song I'm looking for. Best, -Slashy

For figuring out interplanetary transfer windows without calculating, I use what I call a "pathfinder" probe. It's a simple probe that just barely escapes Kerbin's SoI. Once it's established in Kerbin's orbit about the sun, I can use it's maneuver nodes to find launch windows to various planets. Best, -Slashy

arsenal, First 4 "flights" are just collecting science from the pad and runway. Next flight is to orbit. Next flight is science from space low. Next flight (depending on difficulty setting) is to hoover up the science at all the facilities at KSC. After that, it's either back to space or flying around Kerbin to collect science. Your choice. After that, you should have all the parts you need to hit all the "in space" biomes in Kerbin's SoI as well as high solar orbit. Best, -Slashy

Xavven, Yeah, I'm talking about normal difficulty mode. As you have observed, there really isn't a "hump" there unless the player makes one. Depending on how the difficulty is adjusted, there may be points where the game gets tough or grindy in various spots (I haven't tried them all), but honestly I fail to see the point of discussing the difficulty/ ease of various points in the game when it's been adjusted. Best, -Slashy

Hyomoto, I see your sarcasm is still in full force, though I have no idea why since nobody's attacking you. My post isn't about me, it's about this "hump" you speak of. It doesn't exist. At least not beyond being a by- product of how you're playing the early game. I do agree that the facility upgrades open up a lot of possibilities, but for what you're doing in early career the restrictions aren't really a hindrance. Best, -Slashy

Congrats! I love seeing people make orbit! -Slashy

Kantall, You'll definitely have an easier time if your elevators (the horizontal fins at the back) are set to only pitch, the ailerons (control surfaces on the wings) are set to only roll, and the rudder (single vertical fin at the back) is set to only yaw. I personally prefer to not have the rudder respond to *any* inputs. Best, -Slashy

Hyomoto, I definitely have limitations. This "hump" you're talking about just isn't one of them. I am suggesting that if you 1) get better at the early game and 2) build better early rockets, then you won't have the hump that you're talking about. If I can do it, then you can too. Best, -Slashy

Hyomoto, I start my careers "caveman" and I've gotten to the point where "the hump" doesn't exist for me. It's a snap to unlock all of the tech nodes and build up a half a million dollars without upgrading any of my facilities or grinding. It's really just a matter of properly designing your rockets. What gets grindy for me is rescuing all those kerbals to fill out my crew roster and then strip mining the Mun and Minmus for science in order to get them all experienced. One biome per kerbal gets tedious in a hurry. Best, -Slashy

CaithLoki, Not a lot more difficult, just a little. They were little SRBs. But that big honkin' BACC was hurting you pretty bad. I think your early avoidance of the aviation node made it more difficult than even the BACC booster did, but you were resourceful and tenacious. Ultimately that's what matters most. Caveman challenge is like a wilderness survival course; proving that you can survive on twigs and berries. You made it through and have earned your badge. Best, -Slashy

Aethon, 1 precooler isn't enough for 2 RAPIERs. You'll want to add a couple radial mount variable ramp intakes to that or another precooler. Or better yet, get rid of the extra unnecessary RAPIER. Spaceplane design is backwards from standard KSP engineering practice; you want to look at what you can ditch instead of what you can add. Best, -Slashy

Jimbodiah, STS designs are about the hardest thing to do in KSP. I fly mine by designing it to be perfectly balanced throughout the flight. This isn't easy. The engines must be set up so that they thrust through the CoG. The fuel flow must be set up so that the CoG naturally falls toward the engines as the fuel drains. Even the SRBs must be mounted a little offset so the total thrust is through the Com. The actual flying is weird because it flies "crooked". To roll, you use yaw. Any roll input will generate an unhappy yaw response. The Vector's wide gimballing range would *seem* to improve this behavior, but in reality it just makes it worse. Good KSP STS replicas are do- able, but they're not easy to make or fly. A well- balanced shuttle is hard to fly. A poorly balanced shuttle is *impossible* to fly. Best, -Slashy

Aethon, I can't tell from that pic what you're using for intakes. It could be you're still too slow for the altitude (900m/sec is slow, believe it or not) or it could be that you don't have enough intake area to feed 2 RAPIERs. Best, -Slashy