impyre

To answer the OP question... the reason is to simulate the effects of stoichiometry ratios. Anything that reacts has an ideal ratio of reactants, this ratio is called the stoichiometric ratio... and it's based on an understanding of the reacting molecules and the reaction istelf. For example, Hydrogen and Oxygen can combine and combust. The stable product is water, so each reaction would ideally require two hydrogens and one oxygen. So in terms of mols, it's a simple 1:2 ratio. Due to different masses, the mass ratio is much different. In terms of atomic mass it's approximately 88.89% by mass oxygen and about 11.12% by mass hydrogen. About a 1:8 ratio. There are tons of different ratios... one for every reaction that could possibly happen. HHO requires an oxidizer-to-fuel ratio of about 8:1, while RP-1 (kerosene-based rocket propellant) only requires a ratio of about 2.56:1. There's no innate benefit of any given ratio by itself. The real advantages of different types of fuels depends on energy density (how much energy is released by reacting a given mass of reactants) and exhaust velocity (which affects ISP). Also, toxicity is a commonly looked-at factor... RP-1 is quite safe compared to hydrazine. There's not much point in simulating any given ratio... the fact that they did it at all just adds some "flavor" to the game.

IIRC "Fuel plugs" basically allow you to assemble segments of solid boosters in such a way that the upper one ignites after the lower one has finished burning. It allows you to extend the burn time of SRBs without changing thrust output. Just making SRB's longer would increase thrust because of how they work, but a fuel plug allows you to "segment" them to maintain a more constant thrust rate while extending burn times. EDIT: ninja'd

Most answers hit near the truth here. There are two main considerations: A) Losses due to atmospheric drag. and Losses due to inefficiency. Concern A is pretty self-explanatory, the longer you spend in atmosphere (and the faster you try to go in atmosphere) the greater your losses due to drag. Concern B is less self-explanatory. The oberth effect exists because burning when you're physically moving faster is more efficient (which is why maneuvers have greater effect and require less dV when performed at points on an orbit that are lower in the gravity well). If you're launching and always accelerating... then you are *always* burning when you are moving the fastest that you can be moving. As soon as you cut the engines you begin to decelerate due to gravity, it is this deceleration that causes you to have to burn more dV to circularize. This means that going to orbit with one long continuous burn is more efficient... cut down on throttle if your apoapse gets too far ahead, but keep burning. Always control apoapse with throttle instead of pitch when possible, as burning in any direction other than prograde will create losses due to inefficiency. It's a common tactic to burn towards the ground a bit to keep apoapse low while still adding to orbital velocity, this works... but can cause excessive losses due to inefficiency and drag. The optimal flight path for a given rocket is a practice of minimizing the sum of both of these loss types, while still being able to attain orbit. The optimal path depends largely on the rocket's TWR profile during flight... which itself depends on types of engines used and staging sequences. This is a problem which cannot be solved with a closed formula, it must be solved analytically for each rocket... which makes it a real pain. The *best* way to go (in my opinion) is to experiment with rocket builds that you like to fly (given TWR, payload fraction, staging, etc) try to find what gets you to orbit with the most dV remaining... and follow that build-type and launch profile combo for all future launches. I personally like to use three-stage hybrid-staged rockets with the "core" being carried up to orbit and LFO booster stages which get shed around 25km. My rockets generally keep TWR around 2-3, and I keep throttle at around 2 (but it's not uncommon for me to have TWR of around 3-4 at launch)... I use max throttle until I start my gravity turn, I like to get out of the thicker air as soon as possible. I've found that for my rockets (which tend to rely on aero for attitude control below 25km) a slightly steeper launch profile works best. I go up to about 150m/s at around 4-5km before starting my turn, and then it's really quite slow. I hit around 70 degrees at 10km, and around 30 degrees at 30km. So it's a bit of a sharper turn than I used before 1.0. I've found that for most of my rocket builds, with the new aero, drag (even at 25-30km) can still pose significant losses... and all my shallower turns (FAR style) have produced less than desirable results. Once above 30km, I just point at horizon and throttle down, trying to add to orbital velocity without pushing apoapse too high. TL;DR, you have to play around with it to find what works best for you given the way you build and fly... trying to force a specific launch profile on a rocket can be wasteful and hazardous to your kerbals.

My Duna Expedition is being launched in parts. Sent off return modules, landers, probe-controlled pre-deployable science packages, and a couple orbital modules. Now to send off mining and kolony modules... and finally crew modules.

The fuss about stage recovery is that some of us prefer to play with increased difficulty settings: lower contract payouts, higher costs, etc... these things force you to be more economical about how you spend your funds (especially when building upgrades are expensive)... and no, a 60t launch stage is anything but cheap.... especially if you just toss it in the ocean when done.

Using a pre-generated file is kindof what I had in mind. I have an idea on how to generate a much more useful slope map. I need a high-res altimetry export to test on though.

Does the problem with slope map have anything to do with trying to solve for slopes on a whole 3d surface given that slope is dependent on the direction in which the slope is taken. Yeah, that'd be a pain.

Are there any plans to integrate SCANsat-produced maps of altimetry, slope, and biome into the stock surface display alongside resources? Slope could be handy... and biome definitely could be handy. I know stock supports displaying biomes on the surface already... but it feels "cheaty" to me, I'd like to be able to use in-game mechanics through SCANsat to map this data out before being able to see it.

You're awesome KospY, thanks for KAS and KIS. And a big thanks to those who help you with it too. Please don't feel like we are trying to rush you or demand your work... we're just hooked on KAS. ;p

@Tea: mix up our rights and lefts again?

I use SSTO rockets with probes on them. Decouple payload in low orbit, and self-deorbit. No debris, no mess.... just recovered funds.

Owen5595 is correct, that is indeed minmus.

@Starwaster: I'm familiar with shock heating. That wasn't what the confusion was about, my confusion stemmed from underestimating heating that occurs much higher up which is due primarily to causes other than shock heating.

As said before, it's simply to distinguish them from a game design perspective. If you want to logic it into submission, you could reason that the un-shielded panels were never designed to reenter... and thus have no need of being retracted. Or perhaps you could reason that in order to save weight and cost on the un-shielded panels... in addition to ditching the case... they also only provided hardware to extend (simpler mechanical design if it only goes one way... unfolding is much easier than folding) thus saving weight and cost.

@1greywind: I tested your theory with a simple craft using two structural fuselage pieces. One was attached to the node and then rotated, while the other was radially attached and then oriented as best I could to even them up. In-flight aero forces showed balance between both parts, so they were treated the same in terms of drag. Though the image suggests slight imbalance, this is due mostly to angle... as it was a bit wobbly. At points where it was perfectly aligned with air-flow, it appeared to be perfectly balanced.

Well... the reason I was deploying that high was to avoid heating altogether. I want to try to build ungainly contraptions and bring them down in one piece without burning them up. But I appreciate your answer. I did more research into real-life reentry deceleration recently, and I got the feeling that my problem was exactly what you suggest... I was underestimating the effect of aero-kinetic heating. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this where air molecules striking surfaces directly creates heat due to speed, even though the air is really thin? So this isn't the same as shock-heating... which you begin to get when the air gets thick enough to create shock cones?

I kinda like how the fragmentation looks... but I've had pieces get stuck in my payload stages several times with nearly disastrous effects. No clipping, so I'm not sure what was causing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I'm not saying.... I'm just sayin'... The reason people are talking about bias is because it's evident in the way it's worded. When you put the poll options right beside your OP, it's painfully obvious that you feel that "Ruining the spirit of the game" is a far greater offense than "Why shouldn't I have an autopilot?". Just posting in all bolded super-caps for people not to call you biased doesn't make the question any less a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question. I personally don't think it's cheating... it's a game, play how you want... the devs included a sandbox mode didn't they? If people calling you biased *really* bothers you *that much*... just change the text on the options. If you can... hey, can we do that after we post a poll? change it later? maybe? -shrugs- I dunno... lol. EDIT: Dead horses aside... why do we care what others think of how we choose to enjoy our games again?

In response to both above posts... use his mod. I use it and it's flippin awesome. There were a couple bugs in first release, but nothing major and it seems to be working flawlessly now. It's listed in CKAN as CapCom. It goes really well with contract window+. The best part of contract window+ is that it allows me to group contracts based on mission (So I've got all my duna and ike contracts grouped together). EDIT: Oh, I almost forgot... contract window+ also has a *way* better scrolling mechanism than stock... that thing always gives me headaches. EDIT2: You know what... just download all his mods... they're awesome... all of them... seriously.

I've always wanted to break into modding... maybe this will be my thing. I know C#, C, and some C++ (and a tiny bit of java) but I'll need help and guidance though to figure out how to access KSP's APIs.

@3Dave: Try several thousand launches... it gets old once you feel like you've mastered it. But yeah, I still like to launch crazy things myself. And I agree, docking/building is fun. Just last night I was doing a rendezvous with my station, and I was on final approach... had several kilometers to go, and figured that was a good time to get something to drink. I was walking back to me seat to see my new station module careening toward my station at somewhere around 150m/s relative velocity... it's easy to forget exactly how fast that is in the vast emptiness of space... until an approaching station reminds you. I didn't get to my seat in time, I had to watch as a hitchhiker container flew off into space. That was a fun rescue mission. @Kerbart: Dude... that's a *fantastic* idea! I don't know why it didn't occur to me. Perhaps I haven't been toying with hyperedit long enough yet.

I really like the idea of being able to spend science this way, but instead of doing it on a part-by-part basis (which seems a bit tedious), I think it'd be better to implement a separate tree that contains nodes which can be researched multiple times. For example, one node might be "LFO Efficiency" which would represent your increasing ISP you mentioned above, except it would affect all LFO-based engines equally. Successive researches would increase in cost nonlinearly while benefits would be diminishing. The same approach could be applied to anything: "Energy Dense Electrics" could increase electric charge storage capacity of anything that can store EC. "High Temperature Aerodynamics" could increase max temps of wings/tanks... and so forth.

Admittedly, I didn't read 15 pages of responses... but here's my opinion for what it's worth. I saw a few bugs... but it was largely a vast improvement over .90. I don't believe that crying, whining, or being aggressive helps anything. I seriously doubt moderators or Squad reps can come into our community, one that's built up around this game... sure... but still made up mostly of fans, and with a few words cause people to stop being the way they are. You cannot control others, and I doubt that being whiny or angry is against forum rules (nor should it be in my opinion) it's just people sharing how they feel. If someone gets nasty and posts things that violate the rules, that's one thing... but it seems silly to come in here and essentially say "Stop being so mean!". If what you mean to say is "Hey, we have feelings too... we don't get paid for this... we do it because we think you guys are awesome... and we're doing the best we can, so stop being so mean"... well, that's a different story... but you have to accept the fact that people will still be who they are (for better *and* for worse). Lastly, there are probably some people that it's best to just ignore... I'll leave it to you to figure out who they are. I haven't had any problems with what squad has done so far, but trying to control free discussion seems a bit... much. It'll blow over, just do the best you can... I think that's all most of us ask. Oh, and the percentage of people who have complaints that post them is far higher than the percentage of people who don't have complaints post just to say "no problems here".

I'm one of those hard-nosed do-it-your-selfers... or at least that's what I thought. I couldn't bear the idea of Mechjeb or hyperedit. Once upon a time I calculated my dV by hand with my trusty TI-30xs. But eventually I discovered KER, and learned that it did that for me. Cool, no more browsing for part mass, fuel mass, blah blah... jus gimme my dV already... moar building and flying, less calculating! Throughout the versions, I continually improved my skills. I mean... I really play KSP like a boss... I can land/RV from IVA without any issues, eyeball most of my intercept/encounter burns, know most of the dV requirements by heart. I've done wonderful things, and insane things. This brings us to today. I've been playing a new career mode playthrough, and I've been using sandbox as my "simulator"... testing ideas before fielding them in the "real" Kerbin... where consequences can be tragic. I found that constantly having to launch things into orbit just so I can test out new reentry profiles, deceleration methods, shielding methods, etc... got old fast. I didn't care about the launch, it was mundane now... just something I had to do before I could get to the interesting part. Enter Hyperedit... I figured it might be helpful while testing in sandbox mode. I'd never taint my main career save with such a... cheaty abomination. Eventually I went back into career mode, and began working on building my station... which will fulfill a contract and also act as a staging area for my upcoming Duna expedition that is leaving in about 40 days (got a lotta work to do). I've painstakingly constructed several fully recoverable launch platforms... a matching set if you will. I have a 2t, 5t, 10t, 15t, 20t, 30t, and 40t so far. Each has been tested and certified. Guaranteed to get rated payload to maximum orbit of 300km x 300km, then deorbit itself for recovery. I've been using 20t modules exclusively for my station, and after launching about 3 20t station modules in succession without incident (quite boring launches honestly)... I started to wonder... why not use hyperedit? I mean, anything I put up fits within one of my launchers... they are fully recoverable (aside from fuel obviously... but at several million funds, who cares about a bit of fuel... amirite?... plus, mining!). The first time I put up a module with hyperedit, it felt so wrong... and yet, somehow felt right. I got to skip straight to the fun part... building my station and playing around with new parts in space. Meanwhile, Jeb and Bob are careening toward minmus with a satellite escort (launched separately... b/c, you know, contracts require that) that RV'd with them on the far side of the Mun (after a gravity assist). They're gonna bring back some of that sweet sweet data for my new station. I'll still launch things manually if I'm testing new designs, or doing something else different or unique... but the mundane routine launch has lost its appeal. Don't you judge me! On a more serious note... play the game how you want to and let others play how they want to. Just have fun. Thanks, and goodnight!