GoSlash27

I use the Juno for 2 things in career: Science carts for gathering science from around KSC... ... and small planes for gathering science from other Kerbin biomes. Very useful little engine. Best, -Slashy

In defense of the LV-T30: It's an engine that's so underrated, I consider it to be a secret weapon, especially in career mode. There are very few LFO engines that can beat it in terms of cost/ tonne to transstage burn, and those engines are way too big for early "caveman" style missions, where mass on the pad, part count, and price tag matter. I probably use the LV-T30 more than any other engine in the game in career mode. Best, -Slashy

I have had contracts directing me to collect science from around "anomalies" before. Other than that, I think you just have to stumble across them or look them up online. Best, -Slashy

FyunchClick, It could've been either of us... or both. I like to tailor my wing incidence so that I am flying at zero angle of attack (forward velocity vector aligned perfectly with my nose) at Mach 1. This gives me the absolute minimum drag in the transsonic region, which allows me to use the least engine for the job. Best, -Slashy

jlcarneiro, It's a substitution. t=v/a, so at2= a(v/a)2 = av2/a2 = v2/a Neat insight! -Slashy

dire, I design 2 basic spaceplane types: Crew transports and fuel tankers. Crew transports handle around 5 kerbals per trip because I rarely have the need to move more than that. This makes crew transports small, compact affairs. Tankers, OTOH... I like them to be as big as I can make them while still have them manageable for landing. Here's some design idea (all have flown missions) Best, -Slashy

PLAD, I'm too busy to participate, but I would just like to point out: Given the Isp of the engine used, it is possible to verify the DV expended by comparing ship mass at start and finish. DV=9.807*ln(M1/M2) where M1=mass in LKO and M2= mass at Eeloo. Best, -Slashy

I'm not all that picky myself. A fairing is just something to ditch once the air gets thin enough. As an aside... does reading the word "shatter" make anyone else instantly think "shadooby", or is it just me? Best, -Slashy

I would love to see a small prop engine in KSP. It would make a lot more sense in early career than the Juno. I've never seen anything to suggest that it will be incorporated into the stock game, tho'. Best, -Slashy

sdrevik, As pointed out earlier, SRBs aren't intended to add DV. They add buckets of thrust and do so very cheaply. If you want to sling payloads into orbit for cheap, your first stage will need to utilize SRBs, at least in part. Best, -Slashy

Pokemon came out in, what? '96? My son would've been in elementary school by that time. /lawn I see a lot of my friends (and my son's friends) posting about this and they seem to be having a good time with it -Slashy

Yeah, I'll go along with this as well. The Wheesley and Goliath are fine engines for what they do, but what they do isn't useful in a career game. Best, -Slashy

Jestersage, I run a complicated munar rendezvous scheme in career. I use 2 landers, 1 manned and 1 unmanned. These are reset and refuelled between missions. I use a single fuel tank with docking ports (barely qualifies as a station) in munar orbit, and a disposable stack to get me from Kerbin to the Mun and back. This allows me to scour the Mun for surface science very rapidly, keeps my launches small, and allows me to operate cheaply by reusing as much hardware as possible. When messing around in sandbox, I usually just go direct ascent. A one shot trip to the Mun doesn't require much. Best, -Slashy

AlamoVampire, Absolutely. But conversely if somebody's getting frustrated then odds are they're doing it wrong. Best, -Slashy

AlamoVampire, Speaking for myself, I actually *enjoy* doing all the stuff that most people leave to MechJeb and KER. Best, -Slashy

Another vote for the Flea. There's nothing that engine can do that can't be done better with another engine. The only reason to ever use it is it's the only game in town in very early career, but I work my early career so that I never need it. Other than that, I'll put in a highly controversial vote for the Vector. It's got great numbers on paper, but it's so expensive that it can't be used in career unless it's brought home intact and there always seems to be easier/ cheaper ways to do the same job with a different engine. Best, -Slashy

Same as the others, I don't have to revert and tweak to get the thrust balanced. I do the math during the design stage so there's no guesswork. Best, -Slashy

Der Anfang, While I agree with this, I personally never have a need to launch 80-100 tonne payloads. I'm big into modular orbital assembly. The biggest thing I've ever needed to lift is my orbital fuel storage tank, but in this case the rocket *is* the tank. Being lazy, I simply design a disposable 2 stager for the payload and leave it at that. I know that I could save a little cash by utilizing asparagus staging and partial/ fully recoverable designs... but I never find myself strapped for cash and I don't like to waste a lot of time recovering parts. The exception is SSTO spaceplanes, which I use for crew and fuel. In this case, the long term cost savings on these "delivery truck" missions is so dramatic that I can't pass it up. Plus the advantages of improved safety for the crew and avoiding orbital clutter (why lift an entire tank to orbit when all I'm using is the fuel?)... YMMV, -Slashy

I absolutely love SSTO spaceplanes... for the missions they are most adept at handling. Shuttling crew between KSC and orbit, delivering fuel/ monoprop to a station in LKO, that sort of thing. They require a lot of time/ effort to perfect, but once that's done they don't need redesigned and those missions are my most common. I always use disposable vertical staged lifters for actual cargo. Tailoring the lifter to the payload is much simpler and the enginerding is a lot more straightforward. Of course... this all depends on how you play the game. I'm a big fan of modular designs and orbital assembly... so this approach works well for me. Best, -Slashy

HSP, The Reliant and Skipper are both cheap disposables and the Twin Boar is even better. In most cases, it's cheaper to dispose of SRBs. Best, -Slashy

Asparagus staging *can* be cheap if done right, even cheaper than most recoverable designs. Here's my entry for the "cheap and cheerful" challenge: http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/CnCRocketFactoryII/IIc2 135t to orbit at under $650 per tonne without bothering to recover any of the launch vehicle. It uses a scheme that I dubbed "quasi-asparagus" staging, where SRBs are used to impart boost thrust while lifting asparagus staged LF&O tanks. Now that I think about it, all of the top scoring entries in that competition used an asparagus staging scheme. Best, -Slashy

Archgeek, The reverse rocket equation is a hammer- simple tool for designing an optimal single expendable stage. It only answers the question "If I want to impart a certain DV to a known payload mass using a given engine, how much fuel tankage is required?" It can be expanded to comparison test different engines and different t/w requirements simultaneously, thus providing a shortcut to simple cheap launchers... but that's about as far as it goes. When you get into complicated staging schemes, all that goes out the window. When looking at drop tanks, the goal is to balance the penalty of dry tankage with the penalty of decouplers. The penalty will be in the form of mass, drag, and cost. Plus in the early career, total part count. Algebra can answer all of these questions simultaneously, but the optimal points would be different for each criteria. I haven't dug into the nuts 'n' bolts of this problem, so I'm keen to see what your exploration turns up. Best, -Slashy

DD_bwest, My response isn't an argument in favor of leaving the readouts out of the stock game. It's merely a correction to an false statement. Omitting the readouts, by itself, doesn't force players to go trial and error. It's only when the information is omitted *and* the player chooses to not learn/ do the math *and* the player can't/ won't use a mod. As for whether it *should* be included or not, I'm impartial. Doesn't matter to me either way. Best, -Slashy eberkain, Oh, it certainly does provide enough information to answer those questions and more. It just doesn't provide the information in a readily accessible form. In fact, the player could figure out not only how much t/w and DV their current design makes, but which engine is ideal for any stage in terms of mass and cost without even entering the VAB. It's possible to design entire missions without even firing up KSP. Just a matter of how crazy you want to go working around the limitation. I understand that most people don't go to such lengths and I'm not saying they should. I'm just saying that they *could*. Best, -Slashy

DD_bwest, I understand where you're coming from, but I need to reiterate that trial and error is not required without the readouts. The stock game *does* provide enough information to figure out DV and t/w. I understand that a lot of players don't want to go to the trouble, but they could if they wanted to. There are three options, not two: 1) Guess, 2) do the math, or 3) get a mod. Best, -Slashy

That's why I created a spreadsheet I've lost count of how many times I've actually done that. When designing launch vehicles away from KSP, there's no other choice. Best, -Slashy