GoSlash27

The NASA CECE deep- throttling engine. Honorable mention to the NERVA.

I blame my coworker for getting this song stuck in my head. Now you folks can all blame me

What HebaruSan said. I always design my orbital stages to have a minimum acceleration of 0.5G. This allows me to execute interplanetary burns without excessive cosine losses. Best, -Slashy

I start my careers "caveman- style", and one of my goals is to have missions ready to roll to Ike and Gilly on the first transfer window. Accordingly, my DSN and access to powerful antennae are limited and I am forced to go manned. My first interplanetary missions are much simpler than my later expeditions. First, I launch the reusable mothership intact and unmanned. It acts as it's own central core during launch and is unmanned and nearly out of fuel in LKO. Then I crew and fuel it in orbit with follow- on launches. Next, the landers. Once all the pieces are in place, I will park it in low munar orbit and refuel again, topping the tanks off and awaiting the first transfer window. Later missions rely more heavily on probes and higher tech, since the tree is filled out. My manned missions become more complicated affairs that combine orbital assembly, an orbital station, and SSTO spaceplanes. Eventually I end up with a completely reusable interplanetary transportation and communication network, where the only thing that needs paid for is fuel. When that happens, I consider the game "won" and await the next update. Best, -Slashy

As usual, I concur with OhioBob. The Twin-Boar is the most economical lf&o booster in the game. When combined in parallel with Kickbacks, it can lift huge payloads extremely cheaply.

I suppose it really depends on how you play, but I personally don't use any admin strategies. I Don't bother upgrading the offices, either. Best, -Slashy

^Succinct. Pure science folks often forget that there are financial and practical constraints at work as well as technical. Ultimately, orbiting payloads isn't just a technical exercise, it's a business model. If you can't deliver your payloads cheaper and more reliably than the other guy, then you may as well forget about it. All this talk about tracks up mountains, boring holes hundreds of miles long, building the world's largest circus cannon, etc... It's a whole lot cheaper for the customer and attractive to the investor to just go ahead and build a bigger rocket. Best, -Slashy

Kerbalfreak, I'm not sure I understand the concept of "game balance" where sandbox is concerned. If you are free to build whatever you want with no financial or practical limitations, what does it matter which parts you use, or which parts you don't? The Aerospike outperforms comparable engines if you ignore the cost, but the Vector and Mammoth don't. The Vector is deceptive in that it's small form factor belies it's mass. It is really comparable in mass and thrust to the Skipper and Mainsail. When you factor in the cost (career mode) and mass (career and science), these engines get used a lot less frequently. *edit* There are a lot of different ways to define "efficient", especially when comparing career designs to sandbox designs. Best, -Slashy

https://imgur.com/K5aKgJb Looks good from my house... Again, it's your chart so do it how you think is best. Best, -Slashy

A-37 Dragonfly? Those show up at airshows from time to time... -Slashy

I like the way the log scale graph looks. Might just be me -Slashy

Kergarin, No, you're right about Minmus' SMA. I was just (ironically) confused by the scale change. The space between Minmus and Eve is only interesting in the sense that there are so many antennae combos/ DSN levels that top out in that range. IIRC, the Communotron 16, HG-5, and RA-2 all fall within that neighborhood in combination. Best, -Slashy

I think the hard scale changes are actually more confusing than the log scale. Isn't Minmus in the wrong place? When you populate with the ranges of the available antennae, I think you're going to end up with a crowded jumble between Minmus and Eve. It will also appear deceptive about the difficulty of reaching Eve with (for example) a 2G dish. Best, -Slashy

If your wing mounted gear are unequal to the loads, you can always put another gear inline with then under the fuselage. I have used this technique for large rough field capable aircraft before. Best, -Slashy

Same as DDE, 5th Horseman, and Pthigrivi. I design every stage so that it's on a course to impact or burn up somewhere when I'm finished using it. I *hate* leaving debris. Best, -Slashy

Kergarin, Well, it's (of course) your chart and your call, but I don't see how any of that is really a problem. The nonlinearity shouldn't matter, since it's immaterial to the decisions that will be made using this chart. As for the vertical size, that just allows you to populate more data horizontally. Best, -Slashy

Kergarin, I'd add a few more steps at the low end to get all the way back down to Kerbin's surface. Personally, I think the big gap is helpful. Even though there are no targets in that area, there are antennae and antenna combos that wind up there. It provides a good visualization of what can and can't be done. Best, -Slashy

TMML, Good call. When in doubt, always pick something that allows you to collect science. I always open my games "caveman" style, so I need to stay within 18t and 30 parts. If you don't do that, YMMV... First choice is definitely Basic Science. Having the Science Jr. on hand allows you to collect science from the pad, runway, low and high flight over Kerbin immediately. Plus, a lot of other useful bits that will come in handy later. More science. #2 is Aviation, because the jet engines and landing gear allow me to build a jet- powered science rover to do full sweeps in all the biomes of KSC and the surrounding area. Also, being able to fly expands your access to Kerbin's biomes. More biomes. #3 is Advanced Rocketry. The LV-909 is a game changer for space science. Depending on how you use it, it will either greatly increase the payload you can put into LKO, or greatly increase the DV at your disposal for deep space probes. Plus, the t400 tank lowers the part count. More biomes, lower part count. #4 is Flight control. You need the reaction wheel to make the Stayputnik useful for deep space probes, and the steerable fins can be helpful during the boost phase. Nothing critical, but still useful. More controllable rockets, makes deep space probes possible. Last is the General Construction. If you're limited to small rockets like me, then there's nothing useful in this node. Best, -Slashy

I'd also add "ease of implementation" and "reliability", but yeah... The Mk.1-2 is easily the worst pod in the game for cost and mass vs. capacity. (Excepting the command cupola; all that glass) I have recommended a rebalance of the Mk. 1-2 for years. Best, -Slashy

Humanity wasn't ready to see what they would've shown. You don't wanna know, man! -Slashy

Well, really... Math *is* a language. Best, -Slashy

When you come up with two equivalent time saving proposals, and then spend more time comparing them to figure out which proposal is most efficient than you would've saved by simply adopting one at random.

A couple more for fun. Peacekeeper "Cold launch". SLBM "Gas generator" launches. Best, -Slashy

Yeah, I can see how that would want to fly backwards. The empty mass is centered longitudinally well ahead of the center of lift, but you have a large, draggy, light structure in the front. You would need a lot more drag in the back to compensate for that. Maybe clamshell airbrakes? Best, -Slashy

Aside from the structural/ mass issues, I would add that "a few hundred m/s" is basically Mach 1, so not a minor undertaking for the LV or the catapult. Plus.... How long would it take for the infrastructure to pay for itself? Best, -Slashy