GoSlash27

My valuation is different, but I think this is the closest to the correct answer. Funds are simply a game mechanic to limit what you can do in career mode. They have no value beyond that. Best, -Slashy

The Econ 101 answer is fraught with political peril. Suffice it to say that many would find that answer insufficient at best and inflammatory at worst. Understanding that politics are not to be discussed here, I will refrain from traveling down that path Best, -Slashy eloquentJane, I like the way you're going with this, but minor quibble: Xenon may be relatively abundant or scarce in comparison to Earth. Or relatively easier/ more difficult to collect and refine. We therefore can't draw a direct comparison based on the commodity. Best, -Slashy

http://rs782.pbsrc.com/albums/yy108/mysurfacedotorg/daydreamersforum1209.gif~c200 I like where this is going... -Slashy

notrealDannyDeVito, http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/KerbNet ^ This is what KerbNet is and how to use it. What I think you're talking about is setting up a communications network. That's basically using relay antennas to extend the range and coverage of your communications for controlling remotely guided probes or transmitting science. Best, -Slashy

I do lots of orbital construction and refitting/refueling of existing ships for new missions. Space stations are a handy way to keep kerbals, fuel, ships, and ship subassemblies all in the same place without worrying about collisions. Best, -Slashy

A little food for thought: @Jarin is using a clever combination of radiators and shrouds to stay alive. You should pick his brain. Best, -Slashy

galactictaco, Don't worry, you only have to fill the level 1 tech tree. And sorry, no. KER is illegal for any purpose. Any mod that alters game play is illegal. Mods that change the scenery, lighting, or sounds are fine. Best, -Slashy

BentRim, You got home safe. That's the most important part Kudos, -Slashy

Snark, The issue (which thankfully didn't seem to be a problem here) is that the shape won't hold a retrograde attitude. If the center of mass is above the geometric center (which it would be in this case), there's a good chance it will flip. Likewise, if the bottom is draggier than the top, same deal. I recommend moving the chutes up not to keep them from getting fried, but to create more drag in the nose during reentry. Best, -Slashy

BentRim, I'd recommend starting over. I don't think that thing will survive reentry even without the stage and science jrs. You might have a chance if you move the surface mounted parachutes way up on the nose, but that's the sort of thing you want to test before launching it with a crew. There's definitely no way the Sci Jrs will survive reentry like that. Good luck, -Slashy

All, There is a way to fill in the tech tree even further than the basic facilities allow. *MAJOR* spoiler... Best, -Slashy

You know that clingy, annoying grandma? The one who hasn't said or done anything interesting since the Eisenhower administration, but you're still forced to visit her anyway? Your mom dresses you up in that ugly suit, wet- combs your hair, and admonishes you to be on your best behavior, only to leave you for hours with nothing to do except listen to the clock ticking in a dark room full of ugly gray furniture. And then when it's all done, you have to write her a thank- you letter talking about how much you enjoyed your visit and other assorted lies? Well, grandma's name is Dres. You never really visit her because you're excited to go, you really just go so you can say "there, I did it" and people will get off your back. Personally, I think Dres needs to be a little livelier. If she was the kind of grandma who used to tour with Dean Martin or made her own bathtub gin or skinned bears or sumpthin' , we'd all look forward to visiting her. But she's not livelier. She's just Dres.

I've only ever tried to transmit once while flying in 1.2.2. I used the Communitron 16S and it worked just fine. A+++++++. Would transmit again. Best, -Slashy

The point of the constant altitude method is that there is no final descent at the end if done properly. You should be very low to the ground when horizontal velocity is cancelled. Think of it as an efficient launch to orbit, just in reverse. Unfortunately, I'm not the guy to talk to about that, since I almost never use the method. If you really want a good indication of the relative efficiencies, I recommend doing it on Tylo. Nice flat terrain and the high gravity will accentuate the differences. Best, -Slashy

@mobylettespaceindustries, Those are the 3 main techniques in use, but I'd recommend getting some pointers from someone who's more adept at the constant altitude method. You really don't want to do a free-fall suicide burn at the end of it. That skews the results. Best, -Slashy

@mobylettespaceindustries, When executing the "reverse gravity turn", I don't reduce the periapsis first. I just shoot it straight from orbit (for the reason you encountered). It costs a little more DV that way, but I think the safety, precision, and ease of use makes it worth it. *edit* Incidentally, I tend to stick with the map view until I have trouble differentiating where I am on the line between apoapsis and touchdown. The "constant altitude" approach *should* yield better results AFA total DV expenditure, but I find it to be a lot more hazardous and a lot less precise. Cool video, thumbs up! -Slashy

Honestly, I'm pretty much in the same boat. Once I've unlocked the tree, I see little point in continuing that career. I usually start over at that point, looking for more challenging or efficient ways to do it. Best, -Slashy

Ah, I believe that's at the root of your problem. It can be difficult to get a reentry pod to remain stable blunt end first when you add stuff like that. It winds up wanting to go pointy-end first. My cures for that situation are twofold: 1) Make sure that the center of mass is as close to the ablator as possible. All the heavy, dense stuff should be back there, while the light stuff is in the nose 2) Draggy stuff needs to be up near the nose so it can act like a drogue during reentry. My favorite trick is to use solar panels canted inward at an angle and mounted as high up on the nose as possible. You can often fix an unstable design this way. If not, I'd recommend ditching the Science Jr. and installing a science pod in the nose. Or simply go EVA and retrieve the science. Your reentry pod will be much more stable without it. Good luck, -Slashy

Congratulations, @Leafbaron! We've got an animal hide all set up for you in the cave. Ugug, -Slashy

^This. I never go out of my way to make my craft look appealing, I just make them as cheap, effective, and simple as I can. As a result, the form follows the function and I wind up with designs that I find visually appealing. Best, -Slashy

Benjamin Kerman, No, all SRBs and the core stage all fire simultaneously. The SRBs generate 1G of acceleration in total, while the core stage generates about .25G initially and all steering control. The earliest stages are throttled higher, and the later stages are throttled down to act as sustainers. By the time the boosters and drop tanks are jettisoned, the core stage is generating about .5g to the remaining mass. The entire lifter is balanced to shed boosters and tanks as it goes to keep acceleration within reasonable bounds to avoid aerodynamic instability and heating problems. This is all stuff I've already balanced, so all the end user needs to do is pile on the payload and whatever propulsion they deem necessary to circularize and complete the mission. Best, -Slashy ^ This. The easiest way to understand how the whole system works is to download, pile on a payload, launch it, and observe it in action. Best, -Slashy

Actually, the tanks are connected to each other and then the core asparagus- style. The SRBs are jettisoned in pairs, and their tanks drain just before that occurs. Once all 3 SRB/ drop tank stages are jettisoned, the core is left full. Best, -Slashy

Delay, Here's an example of a launcher for your mission: It has 2,000 m/sec DV on orbit and the full ablator. It's designed to be cheap, so total cost at launch is $26,000. Best, -Slashy

Delay, You mentioned that you are very comfortable doing DV and t/w calculations. Perhaps it's time for you to start doing them backwards... Designing rockets in 2.5m scale is exactly the same as designing them in 1.25m. In fact, it's a little more forgiving because 2.5m rockets have less drag per tonne. FWIW, I love the skipper. It's a great all- around engine and very economical as well. It makes a good upper stage for heavy payloads and a good lower stage for medium payloads. It almost begs for a nerf. In your case, you're looking at a pretty light payload; one that can be handled easily with 1.25m parts. http://wikisend.com/download/181788/Cheep15Final.craft This little guy can get 15 tonnes to the circularization point, which is way more than you need. Best, -Slashy

Ohm, I personally lean the other way. I think it's important to understand what all those mods are doing and more importantly *why* to give you a better understanding of the physics of it all. I'm notorious for never using any mods, but only spreadsheets that I personally wrote. I believe this gives me a deeper understanding and makes me a better player than I would otherwise be. YMMV, -Slashy