Blaarkies

Why don't you use the 3.75m parts? It will lead to less part count/complexity, and less atmospheric drag. Anyway if this design works, it works To optimize, you can shed any unnecessary mass (like the monopropellent in the capsule...or even not use a capsule at all). Look at each stage's ratio of fuel to payload, maybe you can squeeze out a bit of extra dv that way

No, you cannot have that. Not in stock KSP or in the reality of 2018. A thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.5 - 1 means a having constant acceleration of (4.91m/s^2) to (9.81m/s^2) That burn time is 3600 seconds long. By the end of that burn you would have gained (acceleration * time)m/s in speed, or 35316m/s DV. If you do not grasp how ridiculously big of a DV budget that is, I suggest to take it slow. learn orbital mechanics first by sending tiny capsule-size ships to other planets. From Kerbin orbit, you should be able to reach Duna low-orbit with less than 1700m/s DV. To get the insane DV and TWR figure you are after, you will need to use the Infinite Fuel cheat, or look for some mods that provide this functionality

You could roleplay Armageddon with it...

Of course it defeats the purpose of 4K . Playing KSP on a GTX1080 also defeats the purpose of a having a small supercomputer as a gaming rig, KSP won't make use of those extra resources like most AAA games do . Do you really see pixel edges on 1920 resolution with enough anti-ailaising?

In the meanwhile you can use this workaround: Use the 1920x1080 resolution. That will scale fullscreen, and you can then read everything again

Such first-world problems, most people struggle just getting into orbit Increase your payload mass...you will definitely need to add MOAR BOOSTERS! Jokes aside, use the ratio rule: - Payload is 1t > add a fuel tank + engine with a mass of (1x2)t = this stage(with everything above it) is now 3t in total > add a fuel tank + engine with a mass of (3x2)t = this stage(with everything above it) is now 9t in total > add a fuel tank + engine with a mass of (9x2)t = this stage(with everything above it) is now 27t in total ... That is a 3-stage rocket that will probably get into orbit twice. If you like more stages, just replace the multiplier "2" with something smaller, like "1" or even "0.5"

A new asteroid spawns, with the perfect orbital parameters to flyby Kerbin, maybe even touch the atmosphere or hit Kerbin itself! The end of Kerbalkind approaches, while the player on the other hand is trying to build a ridiculous tree swing on one of the Mun arches... I am looking for a mod which will add a contract for every asteroid that is on a near pass trajectory with Kerbin. These contracts get completed once the Asteroids trajectory is no longer a threat. It should be simple: - Default: If you don't want to do it, then just don't take these contracts. If you do take them, you get the usual penalty for canceling them etc. - Hard: These contracts are forced upon you, there is no backing out. Long term time-warping will be a real problem this way, but to each his own. Maybe you HAVE to leave a kerbal behind on each asteroid, their name changing to Bruce Willis for a moment

No Orbits with exactly the same shape will have exactly the same orbital period, orbital velocities at the same points of the orbit and...they are the same after all It sounds like you are ahead of the satellite? What you need to do is, thrust towards prograde(forward). This will increase your speed, which will stretch out your orbit on the other side(making it bigger). This will cause your orbital period to increase(you take longer to finish on lap). This way that satellite will catch up to you, just wait until the point where your orbital line intersects the satellite's orbital line. From there, re-evaluate whether or not you are ahead or behind the satellite.

A great example is Witcher 3. Startup the game, it stops at the main menu, from there you can continue your latest save with a single click. In game, you press escape and a single click exits back to desktop. It should be that simple

MK2 parts have excessive amounts of drag. Don't pick them for any prolonged use in atmospheres (rovers might be the exception here). They hold the same amount of fuel per unit of length compared to MK1, supply some extra lift, but at the cost of a disproportionate amount of extra drag. If you have the technology, i find MK3 parts easy, practical and useful due to the huge cargo payload bay.

no, they are far too expensive and give too little thrust at takeoff for an adequate TWR. Old updates did not limit the maximum speed at which jet engines produce thrust, neither the maximum altitude so one could spam air intakes to make engines run at 5% thrust at 60km altitude. Are you looking to save money with a simple design? Use the biggest parts that are practical for your lower stages(3.75m if you have to) and find how much you can supplement them with S1 kickback SRBs Save more money? You will need to look at recovering the rocket then. 1 stage rocket that goes into stable orbit, deploys payload, returns to kerbin and lands in the vicinity of KSC (a single parachute and some propulsive landing is surprisingly easy to pull off) This can lift payloads into orbit for the price of fuel, a fairing and maybe some kind off heatshield...but it takes longer per launch

I believe for the return, Kerbin should be behind Duna (not ahead as you suggest). Think about it: a Transfer** from Duna to Kerbin has a trajectory/orbit that is bigger(greater SMA) than a Kerbin Orbit, therefor it should take longer to reach the intersection point for the craft...and less time for Kerbin to reach it. So you need to be ahead of Kerbin to match this. ** Assuming Hohmann transfers

Oh yes of course. I just always build mine sideways, keep an eye on the radial/symmetry settings, and when i am done just shift-click the craft, flip it upright and launch(on load the game will figure out how to not put it underground) Prefer it since it is a lot easier to get into tight spaces, like adding payload inside fairings or cargo bays, building a quick rover that will serve a 10 seconds purpose after landing. It is also a lot more spacious(great for planning the majority of a moon base before sending up the pieces), and then building pieces to land on the Mun horizontally is much easier in SPH. I see you make some cool youtube videos, so i have to admit maybe SPH isn't the solution. Your viewers probably want something familiar like the VAB they are used to. I didnt like the SPH at first, only after "finishing" my first career did i start experimenting in the SPH...and after the pay-to-upgrade ksc buildings update, i quickly realized that i could save money by only upgrading the SPH/runway. This way i can launch rockets and planes for the price of one building

Build in the SPH, but use an alternative launch site mod(to override the Runway launch site).

No, not at all. Only the highest ranking engineer counts. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Engineer Level Effects provided Harvesting/Conversion Multiplier G Tolerance ☆☆☆☆☆ None 25% 1x ★☆☆☆☆ Repack parachutes 45% 1.1x ★★☆☆☆ Repair lander legs 65% 1.2x ★★★☆☆ Repair wheels 85% 1.3x ★★★★☆ None 105% 1.4x ★★★★★ None 125% 1.5x

OP was not sure if a one-launch design to the farthest planets were possible. I suspect they are not comfortable with massive many stage ships, and that is fine. But the cost due to using a refuel ship method will definitely cost more fuel, time, and money...at least is a solution well withing their grasp to achieve, and maybe even master.

Start by sending fuel tankers to all the major destination(major, as in the vicinity of where your biggest burns will happen). Going to Moho, leave a tanker in low kerbin orbit and one at Moho(for fuel to get back to kerbin). If you use Eve as a stepping stone, then don't stop(into orbit) around Eve...that defeats the Oberth effects. For simplicity, go straight to Moho. Make the fuel tankers have lots of fuel(biggest fuels drum that is reasonable), and the smallest amount of batteries and dry mass parts For Eeloo, same thing. You could use Jool as a stepping stone, but don't stop/capture into a circular orbit at jool(that makes the planning more complex)

"What is updog?" Nothing much, and you? ...

There you go. Some updogs in return?

@KerBlitz Kerman Change navball to "Surface mode", set SAS to hold radial-out...it wont actually aim at radial, but will aim at "Up"/"vertical". This is really useful for powered landing as well: -Having almost zero vertical speed, makes the retrograde marker jump around the horizon, and a ship following that marker becomes a disaster. -Switching to surface mode, and to hold radial-out will keep the ship upright. You can then just slightly tilt away from the direction of your horizontal speed

Maybe you are on to something...what if it locks to the navball, but does not get affected by the yaw action as you pass over the poles? As in, it actually locks to a vector relative to the stars, but this vector gets continually updated by the "pitch curve" of the planet(so that airplanes do not end up pointing upwards) The navball heading will definitely rotate as you change latitude, but we aren't concerned with that. Come to think about it, it sounds like using the surface velocity vector, rotating the vector reference to the "up" vector(away from gravity), and then replacing the pitch scalar with the locked value

1ton of Ore becomes 1ton of fuel(with the big ISRU). So if you know which type of fuel you want while still on the surface, fuel tanks are the way to go. A lander with a built-in ISRU(drill and all mining stuff), tiny Ore tank and oversized fuel tanks. The bigger this lander is, the less appreciable it's mass becomes. A fueled 50ton lander is very useful, since the small ISRU doesn't decrease it's dv anymore. If you go big enough, you can make the orbital fuel depot be the lander...it would occasionally go down to mine,refuel and back to orbit. Mun has some gravity, meaning you get less fuel to orbit. Minmus is much easier in this regard.

Current angle relative to the stars? -Then a plane will start pitching up towards space after it has traveled a quarter way around the planet Current angle relative to the horizon/marking on navball? -Then a plan flying over the poles will pull into a death spiral

Remember the tips from the tutorial: -Increase Pe height by burning towards pro-grade exactly at the Ap marker -Decrease Pe height by burning towards retro-grade exactly at the Ap marker -Increase Ap height by burning towards pro-grade exactly at the Pe marker -Decrease Ap height by burning towards retro-grade exactly at the Pe marker -Change inclination by burning towards normal/anti-normal exactly at the An/Dn marker(you have to click on the Mun, then "set as target" to see these) These 5 are all the tricks you need to fix your orbits. Each one of them will only change a single variable at a time, meaning you will easily match the trick to the result. Once you master these, you will get a better feel about what happens when you burn far away from any markers, and how mixing these directions into a single burn will affect your orbit. P.S. I did not say anything about radial-in/radial-out ? Because you don't need them...i am serious, ignore them until you are comfortable with these 5 above.

If it is just an honest mistake, just edit the KIS config file for the time being. You can make a single kerbal carry 100's of tons, be able to re-attach it. then just reset the config files. Trying to fix this legitimately is just going to be bad gameplay...you are playing ksp for fun, right?