WuphonsReach

MJ -> Utilities -> Autostage It does

And the calculations change if you have a mining / refueling infrastructure built on Minmus (with MKS/OKS)

Best I've done in FAR + KW with a 140t launchpad limit is about 23-24t payload into LKO. That's about 17% fraction. SRBs with about 1.5k of DV (I use KW's SRBs) main stage of another 2k DV (Mainsail) orbit stage to push it the final bit into a circular orbit (Poodle)

When you recover a craft on the surface of Kerbin (or with Stage Recovery mod) the individual parts get added to the KCT inventory (visible in the SPH or VAB). It doesn't save you funds on future builds but it does save you construction time (a part from inventory adds 1/100th the build time as a fresh part). You can also adjust the multiplier (defaults to 100). ... Also, a question for the ninja... in the VAB inventory list, you still have "Prop" as a button which is including both engines and tanks. The "Engine" button seems to be missing. I'm not even sure if stock tanks can get recovered? I've not seen them show up in the list.

If it's the Stayputnik Mk 1 -- well, as of KSP 0.90, it no longer stays put properly due to lacking SAS. Some probe cores need external reaction wheels added (or RCS thrusters). They have no attitude control built-in. Things like the little QBE have no internal RW.

It also works a little better in 0.90. ... Suggestion for Krasimir -- add "ladder" to the subject line and on the Curse project page. When I was looking for a mod like this, I searched for "ladder" not "handrail".

Oooh, handrails would be useful as well (scurries off to install yet another part pack). Looks like they did it as 22.5 degree parts that work when used with 8-way radial symmetry. Some other use cases where I'd want a ladder and not a handrail... - Very tall landers, sliding down a pole would seem a bit silly and the animated extendable ladders can't be welded. - When 1.25, 2.5 tanks used as the basis for something on wheels. Because the tanks lie on their sides, the upper part of the tank's side needs curved ladders so that the kerbals can climb down to the extendable ladder that goes to the ground.

Assuming that the outer pods are mounted near their empty CoM on the radial decouplers, a single seperatron at the top with the nozzle pointed at the center stack should do the trick. If they tumble too fast outwards, then you need to adjust the outer pods slightly upwards on the radial decouplers. And SpaceY has the wonderful double-packed radial decouplers with integrated rockets for pushing the pod well away from the center stack.

More ladders please? There are times when I don't want to use the complicated extending ladder, but simply want to run a line of Pegasus I style ladders up the side. As can be seen from the pictures, this works okay but results in a rather high part count due to each of those being individual ladders. If a Pegasus I style (doesn't have to be identical) ladder was available in 2m, 4m, 5m and 6m lengths, that would cut my part count greatly. I'm also looking for a radial version that lets you circumnavigate. If ladders can't "bend", then a part which can be placed in 8-way symmetry (octagon shaped ladder) around a 2.5m tank would be good enough.

How about a .cfg file and .craft file? Tug-Core-II-1.cfg demonstrates the issue if you attempt to attach NERVAs to the outside struts. But the regular white RCS 4-way thruster gladly attaches to the end with 4-way symmetry. (These .craft/.cfg files use all stock parts.) https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8opBfkYYvf3T0Vnb25ENGg5UzA&usp=sharing In my particular case, I am guessing this is because the attachment points are on the radial and I always have to swing the engines into place? The engines work fine in the unwelded version and can be placed in 4-way symmetry on the trusses.

One useful bit would be some sort of radial ladder that works like the SY-RWR3 where you strap it on in 90 or 180 degree segments and it lets you spacewalk around the outside of a 2.5m or 3.75m tank. Nothing complex for a model, similar to the Pegasus I. Kerbals on the ladder should be able to circumnavigate the tank.

Are there mods that provide 2m, 4m, 5m and 6m ladder lengths, non-animated like the Pegasus I stock ladder? Something to make it easier to strap ladders up/down the side of the craft for times when the Telus-LV is overkill? Also in need of a radial mounted ladder designed for 2.5m tanks. It should work similar to the KW's TRQ or SY's external reaction wheels where it comes in a 180 degree arc segment (or 90 degree arcs). The goal is that the Kerbal should be able to use S/W keys to move around the perimeter.

List of things that I have welded so far: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8opBfkYYvf3YnZLMGxQdWZkNXM&usp=sharing Some of these require mods like MRS or MKS/OKS or TAC Life Support. MRS end-cap designs with integrated docking ports, both with and without RCS thrusters. Created a station "spine" with MKS/OKS mod along with some "end caps" that contain docking ports, lights and other useful goodies. This drastically reduces the part count on large stations (each end cap usually had 5-10 individual parts, now welded into a single part per end cap). I'm also testing out a "tug core" which holds LF/O fuel, RCS fuel, electricity and has mounting points on radial trusses for NERVA engines and RCS ports. Interestingly, the RCS thrusters can be radially attached on symmetry mode on the trusses, but not the NERFA engines (which have to be placed one by one and then rotated into position).

Note: I had an issue where some KW tanks got the "-1" bug. Leaving the flight scene (back to the space port or a different craft) and coming back resulted in them being properly set to zero fuel. My guess is that you have a check that compares for "= 0" instead of "<= 0" to determine whether a tank is empty. Since the fuel seems to be using floating point calculations, there might be -0.000000001 units of fuel in the tank due to a rounding error.

My personal rule of thumb for stopping at Moho is 4200-4500 DV... Alexmoon's calculator puts it at only 3200-3300. But that would require perfection on the ejection burn and a perfect low velocity intercept and I never manage to pull that off.

The workaround I now use is to weld the parts together (UbioWeldContinued), which ends up giving me something compatible with CLS. Plus it drops my part count. http://imgur.com/a/o1MfP#0

For the future, using the S.A.V.E. mod will backup your VAB/SPH craft files automatically. Windows 7 has the "previous versions" feature and OS X has Time Capsule, both of which can be used to dig out previous versions.

Realism mode now works for me on that problematic ship with KW tanks (I have a handful of the same design... so can't swear it was the exact same ship).

I've tried the scroll zoom and always end up the zoomed left edge as 20-50 days away from the current date, when I know that the left edge was originally only a few hours away. Hence my frustration with the porkchop plot showing me a much wider area then what I want. I'm not really interested in a transfer node that is 500+ days away - because if I do set a maneuver node that is so far in the future, it will be inaccurate by the time it rolls around. If I could use the arrow keys to pan the zoomed in area left - that would work. If I could use the mouse to drag the zoomed in area right - that would work. Or a configuration file setting or some other way to set the maximum future date in a porkchop plot.

Doesn't matter since the plan is to refuel using a second ship that hangs around that orbit (usually 100-500km below). Get the vessel up there for Moho/Eve, then refuel it before the transfer window opens. Another option is to park vessels out around Minimus, which is really close to edge of the Kerbin SoI. Refuel and send them on their way.

Ah, so PEBKAC on my part -- that's a good thing. I keep forgetting that in 0.90 you no longer have to start building with a command pod or probe core.

Any possible improvements to the porkchop plot? Specifically the ability to tell it to only show me departure plot for the next 30/60/120/240 days? I still haven't found a way to zoom in to the left edge reliably.

In general, stations and orbital parts should have minimal thrusters. For station parts of <= 20t, I use two or four LV-1R towards the bottom and shoot for a TWR of about 0.1-0.2 at most and maybe 500 m/s of DV. Which is just enough to make minor adjustments to the orbit. At the bottom of your station part, you should have a docking port. Use that to dock a "tug" with larger engines and fuel tanks to move station parts from orbit to orbit (or to another orbital body). That dockable tug vessel should be used for any case where you need to do anything more then a 50-100 m/s maneuver.

Note: If you are going to park your ship in orbit while waiting on a transfer window to open, I suggest a waiting orbit of 3000-6000km altitude above Kerbin instead of only 100km. It has a few advantages: #1 - Less DV needed to escape Kerbin's SoI, which means you can park your vessel there and refuel it (using either a docking port or a Klaw on a refueler vessel) before leaving. You'll end up with a fuller tank after you do your ejection burn from Kerbin orbit then if you started at a lower orbit. #2 - Less precision needed when setting up the ejection burn. At 100km orbit, 10 seconds +/- for the start of your burn causes huge variances in your ejection angle. At 5000km orbit, 10 seconds +/- is a much smaller possible error in your ejection angle. (4000 km orbit around Kerbin is about 12h while a 100km orbit is only 30-40 minutes long. The higher orbit gives a lot more wiggle room with minimal effects on the ejection trajectory.) Examples using the Alexmoon tool: Kerbal -> Eve (Ballistic) 100km to 100km = 2711 m/s (1084 m/s ejection burn) 3000km to 100km = 2276 m/s (708 m/s ejection burn) 6000km to 100km = 2214 m/s (663 m/s ejection burn) 30Mm to 100km = 2199 m/s (677 m/s ejection burn) 50Mm to 100km = 2219 m/s (697 m/s ejection burn) The big savings are in starting from a 3000km orbit vs a 100km orbit. It shaves 450-500 m/s off of the DV requirements, above that you get minimal returns. Something in the 4000-5000km orbital altitude is probably the sweet spot for a parking orbit around Kerbin.

The tanks are from KW Rocketry, that much I remember. Will do some more testing with the latest release later.