GoSlash27

For asymmetric rockets, the most important thing is to know where your center of mass is and where it moves to as the fuel drains. The engines need to be aligned so that the thrust runs through the Com and the tanks need to drain in an order that keeps the CoM in line with the thrust. If you can do that, you can make wildly crooked lifters that still fly more-or-less normally. The one thing to watch out for is gimbaling; vectoring the engines in yaw produces a roll. Best, -Slashy

Welcome aboard! Adding to RIC's list, first successful spacewalk should be in there somewhere. Good luck! -Slashy

https://youtu.be/nMe7dRoPRVU?t=125 "Getting to the moon is going to be all about weight. Do you really need to take all of that to the surface?"

As @5thHorseman points out, docking 2 craft with no RCS is actually a trivial matter. Many of us have done this. All you have to do is point the docking ports at each other and initiate a closure rate. RCS for docking isn't a necessity, it's a luxury. Best, -Slashy

^ What @Gaarst said. Not absolutely "necessary" in most cases, but it can be advantageous. Especially in career. If you have an orbiter that acts as a "mothership/ tanker" and a fully reusable lander, you change your mission from a simple landing to an full-blown expedition. It allows you to collect science at many different biomes instead of just one. That's a powerful advantage, considering that interplanetary missions are measured in years. Best, -Slashy

Tom Clancy postulated this once in Clear and Present Danger. He disguised an ELINT sat launch as a stage failure. They didn't try to hide the existence of the sat itself, they merely disguised the purpose and target. As a result, everybody dismissed it as a piece of space junk. Best, -Slashy

This, and the additional benefit of orbital assembly/ refueling and the question of the gate orbit. Theoretically, shooting directly for an interplanetary transfer will save a small amount of DV, but as a *practical* matter... Any DV savings will be erased by the additional correction burns. The most efficient way to do it is to use the vessel as it's own upper stage. Place it in orbit at the gate altitude and refuel it there. Then work out your transfer burn. In many cases, it's actually cheaper in the long run to start from low Munar orbit! Ultimately, the goal isn't to achieve an intercept with the minimum expenditure of DV, but rather to achieve the intercept with a minimum expenditure of cash. Best, -Slashy

NEF, According to my spreadsheet, the average hohmann transfer to Eeloo is 3 years 308 days. Average DV is 2,100 m/sec, neglecting inclination change (which is substantial). Eeloo's orbit is highly elliptical, so there's a lot of spread. Doesn't look to me like you screwed anything up. Best, -Slashy

Gravey Sockett 1. Just a very simple all stock entry. 8.1 km. Very crude and doesn't look much like the real thing, but it goes the distance. Best, -Slashy

Victor3, Low thrust is your friend when it comes to establishing a precise orbit. I like to keep my apoapsis 45 seconds ahead throughout my burn. I'll nose down below the horizon if that helps maintain the time and altitude I need. Once I establish a periapsis, I let the apoapsis close to within 5 seconds and burn prograde just enough to keep it there. This allows me to establish a perfectly circular orbit every time. I should add that once I've transitioned to second stage, I switch to map view. There's nothing useful to see from external view at that point. Best, -Slashy

Gaarst, In that case, I don't have any answers for you. The best recommendation I can give you is to analyze the problem using the reverse rocket equation. You will have to populate with parts from RSS instead of stock. Doing that, you can easily see which combination is ideal for your needs. It's a PITA to set up the first time, but it'll make your life a whole lot easier in the long run. Good luck, -Slashy

DD_bwest, Congratulations! That's why we do it; it helps improve our KSP- fu We learn how to design efficiently, mission plan, and pilot without add-ons or aids to do most of the work for us. It's sort of the KSP equivalent of "if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball". FWIW, normal mode was much more difficult to achieve back when we first started the caveman challenge. It's been nerfed quite a bit since then. Congrats, -Slashy

Gaarst, If this is the case, then it appears you'd be better-off running 3 stages instead of 2. I mean... it takes your upper stage almost 5km/sec just to get to orbit, right? If you're not realizing the full potential, I'd guess that it's because you're trying to design from the bottom up rather than the top down. Good luck! -Slashy

foamyesque, All Gaarst wants to know is which approach is more mass efficient. He has already demonstrated that he is capable of doing it either way, so he's clearly aware of these technical points. Best, -Slashy

IncongrousGoat, I should clarify. It should be perfectly achievable without landing on either the Mun or Minmus by simply completing more contracts for science, but that will take a fairly long time. Likewise, you *could* land on the Mun instead of Minmus, but that's actually more difficult. So if one were to complete Hard mode without grinding contracts for science and without making their lives more difficult than they need to be, I'd expect at least one landing on Minmus. Best, -Slashy

As for the whole "you have to go through LEO" argument, that's pedantry. You do not have to establish LEO before moving on, but you *do* have to expend the DV it would've required along the way. The difference in total DV is negligible and not worth arguing about IMO. For planning purposes, it's fine to assume circ in LEO before pressing on, even if you're not actually going to do that.

Gaarst, Actually, a lot more than just the DV requirement changes. Having no experience with RSS, I have no idea where staging becomes more mass efficient wrt DV budget. In the stock game that's generally around 2,300 m/sec. In RSS... I have no idea. You have different Isps, engine masses, tank mass ratios, etc. I'd guess (emphasis on "guess") that squeezing another 2km/sec out of a (roughly) 5km/sec transstage would be lighter overall than tacking one on in RSS. This would not be the case in stock. Best, -Slashy

He must mean European Kerbals. African Kerbals are non-migratory. Best, -Slashy

MoeslyArmlis, I corrected the list to include your observations. Thanks, -Slashy

DD_bwest, Give 'em hell! -Slashy

DD_bwest, Science landings on Mun and Minmus are totally doable with caveman tech, especially if you transmit from the surface. And with the new science containers, it's possible to recover it intact for a huge bonus. Even fairly elaborate science probes are light enough to be well within the capabilities of caveman parts and facilities. Just have to be careful to stay within the max part count. Not suggesting that you should alter your plans, just saying that you don't have to avoid it. Unga bunga, -Slashy

My run on "normal" required a flyby of the Mun. I'm pretty sure at least one landing on Minmus will be necessary in a "hard" playthrough. List of Caveman biomes (let me know if I missed any): HTHs, -Slashy

^ This. Part realism, mostly game balance. The KSP solar system is extremely tiny in comparison to the real thing, so there's simply no call for the absurd DV that RL ions can produce. As @Gaarst points out, if ions were *truly* realistic in KSP, nobody would ever use them. Best, -Slashy

RIC, Absolutely true, and the converse is also true. Efficient builders often don't bother with reusable launchers because the savings are so minor. Having said that, there are some cases where recovery costs are a factor. The savings from reusability are pretty minor *per launch*, but over the course of an entire program they can make a difference, especially if you're not fulfilling contracts at the time. I try to go reusable for "housekeeping" missions (ones I execute regularly) vs disposable for launches I'm only going to need to do once. Best, -Slashy

Pretty much what Snark said. It shouldn't cost anywhere near $2,000 per tonne total for a large launcher, let alone $2,000 just for the recovery value. Best, -Slashy