Greep

Pilot error would actually make it worse, not better. Edit nvm point B :/

From poll: mining Otherwise fix radial detached boosters floating inwards below 750 m/s in kerbin ascent. Seriously now, I can't even fix it with separatrons, and who wants that level of micro if I could.

Ever since the 90s X-com I've always name things and people in games in a super functional way xD So mine s r(rocket number)-PlanetSystem(#rockets to that system) - Mission type (or misc) e.g. r1-Kerbin1-Orbit.

Well personally I just never accept a new contract if I have anything in space. So I guess I've only taken advantage of the multiple satellite exploit, which honestly isn't that bad. I've had multiple sat contracts to the same planet system, but not to the same mun/planet yet, so it meant packing more dV. Anyways, I'm not sure if this is viable for ksp, but this is how I would solve most of the exploits: Add a timestamp to every taken contract when it is taken, and a timestamp to every ship component to when it was launched from kerbin, and a timestamp to every kerbal on their last launch from kerbin, and do not allow completion of contracts with kerbals or spacecraft with components that occur before the contract timestamp. Sort of like how the satellite contracts say they are handled (whether or not they actually are handled in that manner, which it seems not from the sounds of the OP). E.g., so you can dock with a space station for refueling, you just can't take anything else with you. Unfortunately, it seems like that could get counterintuitive and lead to "why is my mission failing" if they accidentally bring something from a space station. So I'm not sure that particular solution would work.

It probably needs to be even more restrictive really... If you're going on 10000x in a crash course from mun to kerbin, there's a pretty good chance you'll go right through kerbin and out the other side before hitting the 1000x mark.

So I skimmed the pdf, and I'm wondering how practical this research is given two of the assumptions: 1) no drag 2)Single stage These are pretty big assumptions. In a normal launch would these results have much benefit? After an even modest TWR you're going to hit terminal velocity anyways. This would be excellent research if you're talking about landers on tylo, though. Edit: But even then, you kind of need a high TWR to land efficiently anyways, right? Efficient landings require burning at the last possible moment, and that requires a relatively high TWR in the first place.

There's a few dozen lower on the page http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103878-18t-%28or-less%29-Returnable-Manned-Mun-Lander

So it's pretty easy to tell that admin strategies are pretty off by now. But I was pretty amused thinking just what it would take to make me choose something other than outsourced R&D at the beginning of the game. If I were trying to fund my space mission with funds and R&D, I would need anywhere between 4 and 10 launches and contracts to unlock the launchpad, tracking station and mission buildings, a reasonable starting goal. I think these contract missions give something like an average of 30k funds probably more and about 100 science from the strategy. Now, let's say I want 30k funds worth of science per launch in the beginning of the game doing a science approach. Let's assume for the moment that you can set commitment to 90%. My first launch I could probably get at most, oh , 20-50 science on hard due to only crew reports being allowed in space. So to get 30k funds from that I would need roughly 800-2000 funds per science. So over one hundred times the current rate. And I would lose the science. And it doesn't really get much better later in the game with the exception of maybe minmus once you get eva and samples, but you need like a million credits to even unlock sampling. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if any attempt were made to balance these strategies, which is probably pointless, they shouldn't be looking at doubling/halving so much as multiplying/dividing their benefits by dozens to hundreds of times, both for science and rep. The funny thing is, I think other strategies would probably still be worthless, since you can only commit 25%. So what do you guys think would be a good starting point to balance them? Or just better to right the building off as a fancy science cheat with some gui elements xD

Well as far as game balance it makes perfect sense, if you're having cost proportional to how much dV you get out of it. It's not just the dV you get from that stage, it's the fact that since the top stage is lighter, the launcher and orbit stage is also lighter. Really saves on credits! (if you don't plan on landing and returning anyways)

Well, I think the game isn't really grindy if you play at your level. There's always contracts that anyone can do at any difficulty level for profit, you're just not supposed to do the easy ones on hard. E.g. on my first play through on hard in .90 (and I've played about two hundred hours so I started with a bit of experience), hard was pretty grindy, I had like two dozen launches before I could get to duna. But on my second try, I was already interstellar by about 8 launches in, with one of them doing explore jool/bop/pol and temperature scans for over a million credits. So not grindy at all! Honestly, I think it's better to just completely ignore difficulty, and just do the hardest set of contracts you can do every launch with one ship. Choose a difficulty where there are contracts you can't do or ones you can only barely do, so you push yourself IMO, it would be better if they just completely did away with the reputation system so you always have a choice of difficult contracts.

Just mute and turn on closed captions, that's what I do if I can't have the sound turned on and don't have headphones It's generally horrible, but you get the vague idea of what they're saying.

They're definitely physicless in flight still. I put 8 O-10 monopropellent engines (.72 "fake" tons) on a .2 ton ship and it flew the same with them on.

Thanks You can still do it, you just can't thrust limit the boosters, that's all. I would've used a decoupler, but I'd never done a trip to the mun on batteries before so I was just saving every part I could :/ I'm really liking the new career mode and how it pushes you to the limit, my previous mun rockets were these giant skipper/s1-srb beasts, and this was quite small!

Hey, just registered because I did something crazy stupid and just had to share it. Admittedly, this isn't a returnable manned, but it is an odd way of getting the mun contract fulfilled with very little science. From top to bottom: Antenna 16 batteries thermometer fuel lv-909 decoupler reaction wheel fuel lv-30 engine (or whatever it's called) decoupler srb srb Kinda surprised it was possible without solar panels, but my flight had over 300 extra power Also, turns out stayputniks aren't all that bad at all, they just take a bit of getting used to. The trip to sub orbit requires a reaction wheel, and from there on out you can use a throttle limited lv-909 as a sort of makeshift rcs. Don't even try using a stayputnik's final stage with the reaction wheel still on.