Empiro

You don't need very much. I play with FAR, but I find that the radial engine attachments that include the little bit of liquid fuel works quite well. At the end of the day, you just need to experiment. If you find yourself with more Oxidizer than Liquid Fuel, then you need more Liquid Fuel. If the other way around, then more Oxidizer.

I think the difference has to do with the Oberth effect. There's no gravity drag when you have an instant change in velocity. Arkle87's great post illustrates this: When accelerating vertically then horizontally, you're burning around 1300 m/s, waiting until your speed gets to 0, and then burning again. In the second case, you're burning more than 2500 m/s right away, giving yourself nearly 4 times the kinetic energy (since it's proportional to the square of the velocity) at just twice the delta-V. In addition, your second burn starts when you're still moving quickly giving you even more efficiency.

Put me firmly into the RAPIER camp. If you also use FAR and B9, then they're pretty much required. Reducing the number of engines you need make things far simpler when designing crafts. Their slim profile means that tail-strikes when lifting off are reduced. Plus, in the latest version, they have the same mass as a turbojet, so you'll almost always have a lighter design when using just RAPIERs.

That's basically correct -- for a given rocket, Delta-V remains the same whether you're moving fast or slow, but if you're moving fast, then changing your velocity by the same amount yields a much bigger change in kinetic energy because as you said -- kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared. As you stated in your original post -- you need to spend Delta-V to get fast to begin with. However, that's not all there is to it, since you can speed up and slow down without spending fuel due to gravity. If you spend fuel building up speed, and then travel away from Kerbin (or whatever other body), you'll slow down. If you start your engines again, then you're getting less out of the Oberth Effect since you let gravity slow you down. It would have been better if you were able to do your maneuver in a single burn (which isn't always possible, but it's something to keep in mind when planning your mission).

That's not quite correct -- any game that properly simulates Newtonian gravity (i.e. acceleration due to gravity decreases with the square of distance), and properly simulates the 3 laws of motion will automatically simulate the Oberth Effect "for free". In other words, the Oberth Effect is a natural consequence of Newtonian gravity and Newtonian motion, and as long as you get those things right, you don't need to specifically code it into the game. The easiest way to see the Oberth Effect work is to do the following: use Hyperedit to put yourself into a 100km orbit, and one into a 47,000km orbit (Minmus altitude). Create a maneuver node that ejects you from Kerbin prograde with relation to the sun and puts you at an AP of 100 million km (about Eeloo's AP). You'll find that you take more Delta-V in the second case, even not taking into account the fact that you would have needed to burn quite a bit of fuel just to get into a super high orbit around Kerbin.

Are you in FAR? In FAR, I generally don't pitch up so much that it says there's a large scale stall or large sideslip. I also turn on both SAS and RCS when switching to rocket engines to give myself greater stability and control.

If you're trying to build a craft that can lift 3 5m tanks into orbit, then I don't think any mods have parts that will be large and strong enough. You're better off trying to use procedural wings and tweak scale to try to get the parts larger, but it'll still be really hard. The wings are gong to have to be absolutely massive.

I'm not sure exactly what you're describing. However, you'll need to take into account your initial 100 m/s eastward velocity thanks to Kerbin's rotation. Also, you need to make sure that you are launching right when you are at the ascending or descending node for Minmus. You shouldn't have to do that. I've never had an issue with just putting the stabilizers near the bottom of my rockets, and I've launched quite a few different designs. Your CoM actually tends to move up as you use the fuel in the first stage, because the mass at the top of your rocket stays the same while you are burning away the fuel near the bottom.

I use FAR, and I almost always launch around 1.5, and my later ascent stages are around 1.5-2.0 (right when I stage). If your ascent is too steep, then you'll want to pitch over earlier -- say at 50 m/s and possibly at a larger angle. It's different for every rocket configuration and TWR. It's all about trial and error before building up an intuition about exactly how much and when you should pitch. I rarely have a "perfect" launch where I don't need to touch anything after the turn. Most of the time I need to use the trim settings to make minor adjustments.

Hmm, if you're keeping SAS on after you start your turn, then that's something you shouldn't be doing. I always keep my SAS on until 50-70 m/s, start my turn (when exactly and how much depends on TWR and size of rocket), and then turn SAS off. Then I make minor adjustments using trim settings and aim for 45 degrees at 10km. I've found that I only need reaction wheels in the upper stage if I'm using a probe core (with very little torque) or if I have a very large upper stage. During the ascent, stabilizers and engine gimbals generally seem to be enough. In FAR, I've noticed that if you don't have fins, then your rocket's coefficient of drag is through the roof in the analysis screens. I don't know if that's just a quirk of FAR and you don't really need them, but I've never had any issues using stabilizers at the bottom of my rocket.

The B9 pack has dedicated Air Brakes in the control section. I've definitely landed without them, but they make things much easier (almost to the point where it feels like its a bit cheating).

You can definitely have issues launching rockets that are really top heavy (in the form of rockets snapping in half), but in this case, it looks like you're turning too much too early. There's always a sweet spot for when you turn and how much, but it greatly depends on the design. For small rockets with a low TWR, as you have here, you'll want to turn a smaller amount and later. Once piece of advice -- if you find yourself too shallow or too steep, I like to use trim settings to correct the trajectory. It lets you push things slightly in one direction or the other without lots of tapping, and greatly lowers the risk of structural failure.

Come in at a shallower angle. I usually aim my PE at 28km. Pitch up and down to maintain a fairly constant temperature across your craft (I usually go for 900-1000 degrees). If you have B9, air brakes are quite effective (maybe too effective), and can make descents much easier and faster.

Yeah definitely more cool scientific instruments, but as I've stated in another thread, I'd love to see scientific instruments that present their own unique challenges. The Science Jr and Mystery Goo are kind of interesting because both have mass and are kinda oddly shaped. Particularly in FAR, it really affects the way you design your ship. Stuff like thermometers and gravioli sensors are kinda boring because they're physicsless, and you just stick them on your craft. It just results in more clicking. The only reason I can stand it is because I have the crowd sourced science logs, and reading the amusing messages gives me something to look forward to. For instance, you could have a drill that's heavy and needs to touch the ground, and then it digs up a fairly heavy piece of rock that you have to return all the way back to Kerbin to get science rewarded. I'm not the most creative person around, but I'm sure that many folks can come up with other interesting instruments and experiments that present different challenges, and requires the player to do things that they normally don't do.

I think in general, the warp restrictions should be able to be relaxed, but at the same time, you should never run into situations where running high warp makes you do things like smash into a planet without warning, or warp past entering an atmosphere. It's really a bug that those things happen (and one that ought to be fixable in the future). It would be good if the game automatically slows down at certain points (for example if you're close to smashing into a planet), but it should let you warp to almost any speed if you're in a safe stable orbit.

The delta-V map as presented in many places (http://i.imgur.com/UUU8yCk.png) are essentially correct. If your numbers are close to that map, then you just need to carry more fuel. You might be able to squeeze out a bit more savings if your orbit around the Mun is less than 10km (you can even skim the surface and land all in one burn), but it probably won't save that much.

I usually handle this by almost exclusively using trim settings to pitch up and down when taking a space plane into orbit. It lets you have much finer control and you don't have to keep tapping keys.

In .24, I had problems using separatrons and SRBs under FAR. It turns out that the structural failure was actually occurring between the radial decoupler and the booster. I placed struts just connecting the decoupler to the booster, and that seems to have fixed the issue.

I've been experimenting with lifter spaceplanes quite a bit lately. I've found that you can get away with a fairly low TWR for jet engines as long as you're patient. Unless you're in a stall, if you have trouble pulling your nose up, that's more to do with the CoM to CoL relation, and having enough control surfaces. In FAR, you should also try to shift your CoM back as your get above Mach 1 since it models mach tuck. For the rocket stage, I think having a TWR about 1.2-1.5 is nice, but you can probably get away with lower. My general rule in FAR is to switch to rocket engines no sooner than 1500 m/s at 25km. I find that it takes about 1500 m/s at that point to get into orbit. If you need significantly more than that, you probably aren't getting fast enough before you switch.

You can't really add speeds like that, because you're not taking into account things like the direction of travel (imagine the asteroid going 9284 m/s retrograde) and the Oberth effect (which will reduce your cost by a bit, though in this case very little at all). You'll need to establish orbit first (~4500 m/s in stock aerodynamics), then you need about 1000 m/s to escape Kerbin and head toward the asteroid. However, it'll take more than 126 m/s to match up with the asteroid. Assuming that you want to intercept it a good ways before it reaches Kerbin's SOI, you'll be heading toward it with a decent amount of speed. Plus, you'll need some delta-V to correct your course along the way. You shouldn't need too much d-V to get it around the Mun (I would guess <500 m/s assuming you do it reasonably efficiently). You might even be able to use very little if you manage to get a good gravity assist from the Mun to slow you down. I'm not sure how much a class C asteroid masses, however, so I think that part will have some guesswork involved.

After takeoff, I don't use SAS until I switch to rocket motors and pitch up to burn out of the atmosphere. I like using the FAR flight assist for Level and Yaw. For controlling pitch, after takeoff I almost completely rely on trim settings. I find that this gives me much more precise control and lets me control my ascent very carefully to maximize both altitude and forward velocity before switching to rocket motors. For small heading corrections, I lightly tap the Q/E keys to roll slightly and let the auto-level level itself out. I do pretty much the same during landing. Using trim lets me maintain a nice even glide slope without too much effort.

One thing that has really let me be more precise is to remember to target the ship you want to land close to. You use the target and velocity retrograde markers you determine how your approach looks (I usually do my deorbit burn 1/3 of an orbit away from my target, and put myself a bit past my target). You'll want to keep the navball in surface mode, however. The retrograde markers tell you very accurately where you burn to "push" the velocity retrograde so that you don't have any lateral deviation. Then, you keep the velocity retrograde marker slightly under the target retrograde marker (since as gravity pulls you down, your velocity retrograde will start pointing getting higher and higher toward the sky. Burn toward the sky to push the velocity marker down (basically killing your vertical velocity but not your horizontal), burn toward the horizon to kill your horizontal velocity. Burn somewhere in between to do one or the other while also slowing yourself down overall. With experience, you should be able to land within 1km of your target on the Mun.

If you use B9, which I'm sure many folks who design spaceplanes do, turbojets get even more nerfed and cap out at about 1100 m/s. It's a real shame too because there's really no jet engine that fills the gap and lets you get to 1500 m/s, so you're basically stuck with RAPIER engines for spaceplanes. Speaking of air intake closing and opening, I usually have one action group that toggles everything (jet engines + rocket + intakes) or (RAPIER switch + intakes), but I wonder if anyone has done analysis to see how much dV that actually saves you. I can't imagine it being more than a handful.

The problem is that having a simple fund system will always have this issue. No matter how you adjust the prices and make things harder, one of two things will happen: you gain money with each launch because your rocket designs are good, and after a while you have effectively unlimited money. Or, you lose money with every launch, and soon you will be bankrupt. To balance the game right in the middle is extremely difficult without an external source to add or remove money based on how much you have (e.g. dynamic difficulty). One great example I have in mind is the game Papers, Please. If you do poorly in that game, your family will starve, but if some of them die, it makes the game easier (fewer mouths to feed). It punishes the player with guilt, but adjusts to their skill level so that the game goes on. For KSP, you essentially need other ways to spend or receive money that's not related to launching spaceships and doing contracts. The administration building is a good step to doing that, but I wonder what else can be done (basically more sources of income, and more places to spend your money). You want to reward players for making money (but not reward them with even more money), and punish players for being inefficient (but not by further reducing the money they get), and then push both types of players toward the middle of the spectrum.

So in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/95121-What-really-affects-the-total-delta-v-of-a-rocket/page2 I reported an issue about calculating multi-stage dV when you have seperatrons on your boosters. In this shot: I've reduced one of the pairs of boosters to 50% thrust and have the ones at 100% decouple first. It correctly shows that the dV for this set up and the burn time for each stage. In this second shot: I've placed a seperatron on the booster that will decouple first (note the window for the 50% thrust setting is for the booster attached to the other decoupler, not the one that is highlighted), but now the dV is doesn't take into account the fact that I will be decoupling the empty boosters at 30 seconds. If I reduce the propellant in the seperatron to 0, then the numbers are correct again.