JAFO

Very nice idea!

As @danielboro indicated, GT is designed to improve its guesses over half a dozen or more launches before settling on the optimal settings. My normal approach is to launch to crash or AP, then revert and launch again, rinse and repeat until GT no longer changes any settings when you click "Improve Guess". (It's important not to revert until you crash or get to AP, so that GT knows how things turned out.) I tend to think of the series of launches and reverts as the Kerbal engineers running a series of computer simulations before doing a launch "for real".

Meh.. as Meatloaf said, 'two out of three ain't bad'.

I was really dumbfounded that I'd missed spotting those.. (I have a special fondness for crewed Minmus landings for some reason) so I went back through all you guy's missions to see just what kind of craft you used for them.. And I found yours and @dvader's crewed Minmus landings, but none for @MinimalMinmus... (only crewed flybys and probe landings), Could you point me at the mission he did that in, please?

Oops.. dunno how I missed seeing them.. my apologies.

That's why I said "so few".. To my knowledge, there's only you, I and @The Dunatian that have done so. I did two crewed landings on Minmus as well.. (but both returned alive!) (For that matter, now I think back on it, your "Kill Me Not" was the inspiration for the Flying Sparkplug.)

I'm glad it helped.. Incidentally, I'm currently up to my 3rd variant of the Flying Sparkplug. You can find all of them at KerbalX.

Almost forgot.. congrats also on going for a crewed Minmus landing.. so few cavemen do that..

Congratulations! Interesting twin-engined version of the Flying Sparkplug you have there.. I like it..

Thanks to the magic of ModuleManager, you can make a part do pretty much whatever you want.. even shoe-horn an RA-100 comms antenna into a nose-cone.

If it's any help, from the immersion perspective, I think of the initial launch and the reverts as the engineers running launch simulations on the KSC's Kray SuperKomputer.

That's something that's been hotly debated for years, and probably will be for years to come. Also, as the link you provided itself says.. So thanks for making my point for me.. it's redundant and incorrect.

Rx for grammar.. there ain't no such word as "irregardless"; the 'ir' is redundant.

Thank you, Nertea!

Contract science most definitely counts.. so no worries on that score. Congratulations! (It's interesting to see how even after all this time, no two cavemen take quite the same approach to the challenge.. well done!)

Fair enough.. I stand corrected. Anyhow.. as I said, feel free to use them as a template to make a new set, and I'll include them.

Ok.. so I finally understand what you were getting at... It's common, you say? So people actually do that? Essentially, allowing stock experiments to be performed in atmosphere and space, above specific individual biomes that they normally couldn't? Thus making it so simple to gather enough science points that you may as well be playing in sandbox mode instead? Ok.. whatever floats their boat, I guess.. Tell you what.. you do the full set, and I'll be happy to add them to the original collection, and give you the credit for them.. both here and in the collection itself. Maybe add your name (and the explanatory note) at the top of the blank 'notes' sections.

To what @The Dunatian said, I would add that you should also include screenshots of your chosen difficulty settings before the challenge attempt was started.

That would be .ods (.odt. is a text document format, .ods is a spreadsheet format)

Honestly, this is extremely easy to do at the time of printing.. just set the print properties to grey-scale and hit 'print'. The alternative, to set each coloured background section individually to grey, would be extremely time-consuming.. (the spreadsheets aren't locked.. try it yourself and see!) I'm not really clear on what you're getting at here.. can you describe it more clearly, or provide some kind of sketch demonstrating what you are after? In general, I'm really not keen on including modded-in science experiments.. firstly, there are so many of them (none of which I use, and so will have to research them), and secondly, once I start down that path, someone else will want their favourite science mods added as well.. after which, people will start wanting mod-added planets included.. alternative solar systems, and so on... keeping them all updated could easily become something of a nightmare. If there's interest, I could maybe come up with some kind of a blank template set, which people could then fill out with whatever additional science they wanted..

Fair points..

No.. I use the Navball Changer. Texture Replacer I use for other things, like changing the skybox.. It may be redundant, but it works better organisation-wise, for me.

This brings up something I was wondering about after @Jacke's comment.. The intention of the mod rules basically was to prevent challengers using anything which might give them more information than normal, or make things easier in some way.. So would there necessarily be any objection to mods which made things even harder? I'm thinking, for instance of things like life-support, which was mentioned earlier. This would cut into the already limited payload restrictions, without doing anything to actually assist the player.

It's been a long time coming, but I finally got around to updating my old printable science checklists. The new ones are suitable for use with the 1.2.x, 1.3.x and 1.4.x stock versions of Kerbal Space Program. Since many experiments need to be performed twice to get 95% or so of the available science, those experiments that need it have space to check them off twice. Each planet/moon gets a sheet to itself (except Kerbin/KSC, which needs 4 all told, and Eve and Duna, which each need 2) and is designed to be printed on a single page for ease of use. Each sheet also has some space for notes, which comes in especially handy for planning science-mop-up missions. The zip contains 3 identical versions of the checklist, in .ods, .xls and .xlsx formats. If there are any errors or omissions, please let me know. The only thing I'm a little unsure of, is one of the Bop biomes. It used to be there was a "Mara" biome there (as well as one by the same name on Tylo). The KSP wiki currently does not list "Mara" for Bop.. only Tylo. This strikes me as a possible mistake, as while a lot of new biomes have been added, and several re-named, it seems unlikely to me that the devs would remove a biome altogether. So I've left "Mara" on the sheet for Bop. If anyone can confirm it is or isn't there, please do let me know. Download from here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1boxrIH8NZt8sarvIzCwnEo-2KX-PdlOC Edit: Update.. some minor formatting corrections have been made.. download link remains the same.

Just so long as it's clear it was said with tongue firmly in cheek! Frankly, I'm in awe of what you lot have achieved!