Norcalplanner

In sandbox, 60% VAB and 40% flying. In career, it varies over time, but probably averages 50/50. I rarely use standardized lifters for different payloads, generally building a custom rocket for each one; however, once I've dialed in a particular design (such as a ground-to-LKO taxi) I'll use it over and over.

It would only be about double the thrust of a Terrier, or half of a Poodle. I've found it to be a really handy size when playing with Strategia and ScanSat when deploying multiple probes at once to an atmospheric target. You stick a 2.5m to 1.25m adapter upside down (either 3x or 4x depending on the number of probes) on top of the rocket, then mount the probes to the adapter with decouplers. The whole mass is pushed by the large-ish Terrier (although I suppose I could use two standard Terriers) for a decent amount of high Isp thrust for the "mother" probe. Can also be used for a 2.5m lander where a single Terrier isn't quite enough and a Poodle is just a bit too much. I recall that Randazzo used to have a 120kN 2.5m engine in his Vanguard parts pack, and there's probably some other 2.5m mod engine out there that would be a good fit. I guess I just have unique desires, sort of like those who also want a 2.5m engine between the Skipper and the Mainsail (which I personally don't have much use for).

Would need to be 2.5m to avoid aerodynamic weirdness, or the expense and weight of inline fairings.

Something like that. I'm not a big dog expert, so anything in size between a smallish terrier breed and a standard poodle would work fine for me as a name.

I'd like a 2.5m orbital engine in the 100-120kN zone. Because sometimes a Terrier is too small, and a Poodle is too large. Maybe an Irish Terrier instead of a Yorkie.

Nevermind - just saw he's on Xbox.

Maybe I'm just old school, but I don't bring a science lab down to the surface unless it's going to be part of a large surface base. I like to keep them in my orbital stations - sort of helps to give the station a reason for existing. I sort of like the drill of sending a crewed biome hopper down to a few biomes, grab all the science it can, then head back to the station to drop off the nuggets of knowledge and have the crew take a breather. It just feels right to me. Now that I think about it, it also makes managing power easier. As long as you have enough batteries to keep the lab running as it traverses the shadow of the body it's orbiting, you can keep it running with "free" solar power. One of the things that turned me off of RSS was the need for my Moon base to power itself in the dark for two weeks at a stretch. It got old pretty fast, and makes me understand why some have proposed to put a RL Moon base at one of the poles.

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is a mod which can also help a lot. There are also mods like KIS/KAS which allow you to add struts after everything is docked together. As said above, a picture would help. What's the ship's TWR?

Then again, OhioBob has spoken. Two degrees is the magic number.

I was thinking no more than 10 degrees of normal/anti-normal added to the pro-grade burn, since that will only cost around 1.5% of your prograde delta V while still creating a 17% inclination change vector. I know just enough about math to be dangerous... :-)

For a simple station, think Skylab without the solar telescope, but keep an engine on the bottom to allow repositioning the station. One hitchhiker, one science lab, fuel tank and vacuum rocket engine on the bottom, probe core and reaction wheel, batteries and antenna, handful of docking ports on top, two or three deployable solar panels down near the engine, and you're good to go.

There's actually three burns using the preferred technique, which would be: burn 1 - mostly raising Ap (far beyond R2) with a little bit of plane change; burn 2 - at Ap, conduct nearly all of the remaining plane change while raising Pe to R2; burn 3, at R2 Pe, lower Ap and conduct last little bit of plane change. Unfortunately I'm not well versed in the math, so I'm afraid I can't give you precise numbers. My gut says the split would be no more than 7 or 8 degrees of inclination change each on burns 1 and 3, with the majority of the change (74 to 76 degrees) taking place in burn 2.

@Catbus Gave you a like for the tone of this whole thread. Slashy and OhioBob are two of the best math guys on the forums; many other folks like yourself who are new to the forums aren't nearly so inquisitive and respectful.

Seconded. Fuel Tanks Plus adds a lot of flexibility to gameplay and solves so many structural / balance / part count problems that at this point, I can't imagine playing without it.

Found this on an old "cosmoquest" forum to answer this question: Two main reasons are usually given for this: (1) It optimally orients the vehicle in case of an RTLS (Return To Launch Site) abort.Oriented "heads down", a simple powered pitch around maneuver is needed to return. Oriented "heads up", a more complicated roll plus pitch maneuver would be required.(2) It decreases structural loading on the wings vs a "heads up" orientation. Heads down, the vehicle pitch is oriented to a slight negative angle of attack (wind flow relative to wings). Wings generate lift -- the higher speed the more lift. A slight negative angle of attack nulls this out thus lowering wing stress.There are also less important reasons: it helps with comm coverage (antennas are on top of the orbiter), it provides the crew with a better horizon view, etc.The vehicle is physically capable of flying a "heads up" profile and in fact that helps payload slightly. However because of the RTLS abort and wing loading issues I doubt they'll ever do that.

I started a new game a while ago with Kerbal R&D, historical tech tree and contract pack, and a custom 3.2x scale using Sigma Dimensions. I figure this gives me a really good reason to improve the stats on certain parts, since 3.2x can be a bit of a challenge without SMURFF or RealFuels.

Civ V, Fallout 4, Europa Universalis IV, and when I'm feeling nostalgic, Medieval II: Total War

I didn't learn about this until after I had completed my first Jool 5. To add something new, I just learned recently that an open shielded docking port acts like a mini air brake. When it's on top of a capsule or other craft coming in retrograde, it will help slow you down faster and keep your craft oriented correctly.

KW's balance has nothing on the "balance" in Real Scale Boosters. Behold! 408.269 tons of payload at 436.45 funds/ton. Full album can be found here.

Looks intriguing - I'll have to give this a try.

Well, I've created another rocket using SpaceY parts that's beaten my previous record of 699 funds/ton in the old challenge, but it will seem weird if I post two or three entries in a row. We need more participants! Paging @maccollo, @Nefrums, @GoSlash27, @numerobis, @Nich, and @Meithan - your rocketry skills are needed.

Kudos to linuxgurugamer for reviving this challenge for 1.1.3. I thought I would kick things off with an entry. This is markedly different from most of the entries in the previous challenge. It uses only SRBs, uses SpaceY parts, and has a 2.5m payload. The lifter portion of the rocket is 23,735 funds, and puts 31.965 tons into orbit, for a score of 742.53 funds/ton. Full album of images can be found here.

Looks like RSB?

I ran into the same problem. Still works for Mercury - although completing that strategy was one of the hardest things I've ever done in KSP.

Typically it's vacuum delta V. In this specific case, there's a parameter you can have MechJeb display, which is where I'm getting that bit of data (along with the losses) from. In the screen shots, it's the second window in the upper left corner.