Norcalplanner

The SSMEs were run at greater than 100% power because the engines were upgraded over time. 100% power represented full power of the original, unupgraded engine. It allowed for constant calculations over time by saying that the new engine at full power was 106% (or whatever it was) of the original engine. So how about it, Squad? After some period of game time, or some number of times launching a particular part, we can spend science points to upgrade parts? Make the upgraded KS-25 x 4 engine put out 3300 kN instead of 3200 kN, or increase the Isp to 325/365?

In general, NO. NO NO NO NO NO. Squad, if you must include this, make it toggleable so I can turn it off. If you want to implement experience for something that affects something other than reputation, funds, or science, then it needs to be done as a penalty. It should never be a bonus. Example - You can put me behind the wheel of a Formula 1 car and I am not going to be able to get nearly the performance out of it that a professional driver can. Why? Because I'm not experienced. The overall physics of the car remains unchanged - what changes is the driver's ability to make use of it all. In the same way, if a particular engine has an ISP of 360, then that's what it has. An inexperienced pilot not using it at the exact right time or in the exact orientation could be abstracted by assigning a penalty to an inexperienced pilot, but it should never go beyond what the physics sets. The only way logically I can see around this is to say "oh by the way, every single part stat only represents 90% of the actual physics and game capacity of that part" which will annoy a lot of people, but we'll get over it. The most important thing in my mind is to keep some sort of log, a la Final Frontier (which I'm currently using and enjoying very much). That way you have an idea of who has done what, with a record kept in the game. It can be used for everything from contract generation "take three kerbals who have each performed at least five missions and land them on Duna" to a bigger reputation hit for losing an experienced kerbal, to perhaps unlocking minor special abilities in the game. An example of this last one would be that someone would have to have the engineer trait to do something like attaching a part via KAS. The only gameplay mechanic I can think of that would really work is reaction time. Experienced pilot equals instant response, while inexperienced pilot means that there's a slight delay when doing what the player tells the kerbal to do. Of course, it would be annoying, but probably realistic - the inexperienced guy panics and has to consult the manual when the rocket is disintegrating around him.

I'm really liking the thermal rockets and turbojets. They're not so overpowered as to feel ridiculous, but still have a decent Isp (866 with a microwave thermal receiver, 2400+ with an upgraded fission reactor). If you compare them to the old-school technique of LV-N clusters for large interplanetary ships... well, there's really no comparison. :-)

It all depends on the size of the craft. My Kethane Jool-5 challenge ship used 5 stages to reach orbit, using a combination of boosters and asparagus staging. Of course, that was a 335 ton ship when it left LKO. More recently, using interstellar, it can be a single stage to orbit, using a hybrid thermal jet engine / rocket mounted to a microwave thermal receiver pushing a big liquid fuel tank. It uses just air for the first 11,000 meters or so, then switches over to the thermal rocket with an ISP that tops out at 866 in vacuum.

Is there a reason you're not using the MechJeb utility tab to limit acceleration? It looks like you're wasting a lot of delta V on aero drag by going so fast so low. I don't know how well the current version of MechJeb works with FAR, but you should at least be able to set a cap of 40 or 50 m/s acceleration and avoid the worst of the aero losses.

The mun has inspired generations of kerbals, being the most prominent celestial object in the sky. First mission greater than suborbital hops and basic orbits should be a mun flyby, preferably using a free return trajectory. Be sure to do an EVA on the far side of the mun to take some pictures.

Even though the relay shows that it isn't connected to the network, it most likely is. Put something with a receiver on the launchpad, right click on the activated receiver, and it should tell you how many satellites and relays you're connected to.

I've captured both D and E size asteroids. The trick is giving your ship a ridiculous amount of fuel, and tons of attitude authority. I seem to recall that my ship had six LVNs feeding off a central 82 ton 3.75m tank with some drop tanks, plus four of the 2.5m SAS wheels. Don't be afraid to use partial throttle for a long time if you're having wobble problems. Also remember to strut things so that your ship's connection to the claw is rock solid.

Does anyone have any resources you can point me to for all my questions on the previous page?

So I've installed this mod for the first time with 0.25, and I'm having a blast. My tech tree is messed up, but I think I can fix it with the information provided earlier in this thread. However, I have some questions about the tech I've already unlocked (particularly beamed power), and if anyone can provide answers or get me pointed in the right direction I'd appreciate it. Please note that I've already read the entire KSPI wiki. How many MW can each size of microwave thermal receiver practically make use of? Is there a curve or a hard cutoff? Is there any information regarding the amount of thrust that the different sizes of thermal rockets and thermal turbojets put out based on how many GW or how much thermal power is available? I haven't been able to put multiple 1.25m engines on a 2.5m thermal receiver, but are there any problems with having multiple 1.25m receivers? Or is it just a wash compared to a single 2.5m receiver and engine? How much power is realistically useful for various engines? I saw that the 1.25m ATTILA will use up to 15 GW of beamed power - what about the others? I currently have between 5 and 6 GW of power available on the launch pad, depending on the angle of relay satellites and whatnot. Is it worth increasing this further? What sort of increased performance am I looking at with a medium transceiver for receiving power at interplanetary distance vs. a small receive only dish? Thanks in advance for any help.

It's fine print. Check out today's devnotes.

Yep, once you have an orbital fuel depot that can be topped off cheaply, a lot of options open up. Upper stages can be launched with nearly empty tanks, so rocket lifter stages can be smaller and cheaper.

Agreed. My SSTO tanker plane was able to deliver 1.5 OTEs (orange tank equivalents) to orbit for a cost of less than 0.6 funds per unit (5514 funds for 9600 units of fuel and oxidizer). http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90337-Economic-Fuel-to-Oribit?p=1428382&viewfull=1#post1428382

I don't have the game in front of me at the moment, but I've had some cost effective lifters that use a full size 3.75m tank and a mainsail, ringed by either 6 or 8 of the big S1 SRBs. I don't bother recovering the SRBs, but it's fairly time and cost effective to recover the central core. By having the mainsail going at the same time as the SRBs, you have the ability to stay in the sweet spot in terms of terminal velocity.

The Kerbal Administration for Big Overpowered Orbital Machines, or KABOOM. My budding artist daughter created the flag.

Hmmm, I may have jumped the gun and let enthusiasm carry me away a bit. Let's see how they implement it...

After watching the videos, I can say that I'm really looking forward to having to pay to unlock individual parts. Why, you may ask? Because if you don't use a particular part, you won't buy it... and it won't show up on the parts list in the VAB or SPH. Finally, a way in Stock KSP to declutter the parts list!

9.2 here. And I agree that forum regulars are likely to be more experienced, and therefore more skilled, than a more casual gamer. There's also the whole self-selection bias factor to consider.

30 bucks at the moment. 50 bucks once it's done.

Forgive me if someone else brought this up already... Doesn't a destructible KSC spell the end of massively asparagus-staged rockets? I don't know how tough they made the launch pad, but I know that some of my older designs drop stages straight down on the launch pad early in the launch. Is this a roundabout way of encouraging more realistic rocket designs and/or ascent profiles?

The fact that the runway blew up in sections makes me hope that we'll be able to construct and upgrade ksc as we see fit. I'm sure at least a few players besides myself would appreciate the ability to construct a north/south runway for polar orbits.

Very impressive entry. I don't think I'd have the patience to let it run that long.

I built a rocket that will put itself into a 300 x 705 km orbit with no control inputs for the hands-free challenge. If you push the space bar a second time when it's facing retrograde, Bob Kerman comes back down to Kerba Firma.

They're ballast. To keep the CoM in the dead center of the tank, it was necessary to put engines on both ends of the angled side tanks. The six engines on the right hand side are all turned off. I moved them up to the top stage to keep them out of the way and prevent them from accidentally getting turned on.

Was able to get over 300 km periapsis, this time with a rocket. It used a refined version of the principle on the spaceplane, only with multiple thrusters at different angles. Fuel line routing makes the thrusters cut out one at a time, thereby changing the net side thrust angle. Bob was recovered this time, so I think my score is 450,000 or thereabouts. As before, MechJeb is present only for informational purposes.