FullMetalMachinist

I'm not certain that that Squad's goal with localization is to sell more copies. I mean, we all assumed that, but I don't remember them ever actually saying that was the reason. I honestly think that they just want to make it accessible to everyone that wants it. And this seems like a good point in the development of the game to do it. They've just released the best update yet (IMO), and there's nothing else major going on (except the super-secret stuff that may or may not be a new feature).

A trick that you can use to help with unbalanced RCS is to use fine controls. Press caps lock to toggle it (the little pitch/yaw/roll indicator in the bottom left corner will change color). It causes the RCS thrusters to fire less powerfully, which can make it easier for your reaction wheels to counter the thrusters being off balance.

Correct. More specifically, the maximum range for two antennas to connect is: sqrt(antenna1 * antenna2).

That's irrelevant. No one said that KSP had to achieve your personal definition of "build your own space program". By Squad's definition, that is what the current game does. Hate to be the one to tell you, but the early access days are long past. KSP is a fully released game. The fact that they are still updating it just shows how much Squad cares about the game and the community. I'm not saying that everyone should grovel at Squad's feet. If you don't like the game feel free to say so. But the notion that past the point of 'full release' they had an obligation to continue development is false. And the fact that they did anyway, I think, deserves some thanks.

If it pertains to things in development, absolutely. When was the last time you heard any big company (whether game developers or otherwise) give insight into new features? It's not a common thing, and Squad is under no obligation whatsoever to do so. Well now you're just using outlandish hyperbole to prove your point. I don't think that really moves the discussion forward in a meaningful way. My main issue is with the mindset that Squad owes us anything. Complaining that there isn't relevant information given implies that they are obligated to give us any information to begin with. This is not true.

This right here is the sentiment that baffles me the most. People paid for a game. That game was delivered. End of story. Everything after that is a bonus, that we get for free. The only response should be 'thank you.'

Are you using mods? That'd be why.

Would you all rather that Squad stops making updates, stops working on the game all together? IMO a little news is better than no news. Don't forget that they don't owe us anything more than what the game currently is.

Yes, and so does electric charge consumption with batteries.

I think this changed with 1.1 when they redid all the orbit line code. Careful, that shows the AN/DN nodes for the future orbit, after leaving and returning to Kerbin's SoI. It does not put the nodes back on your current orbit path.

Ah, you're talking about gravity losses. Strictly speaking, the tsiolkovsky rocket equation doesn't take that into account. A ship will have the same dV no matter what it's local gravity is. As a practical matter, if a ship has 1000 m/s dV but only 1.1 thrust-to-weight ratio, then no it's not going to get up to 1000 m/s. As for figuring that out purely by mathematical means, it's pretty non-trivial. But like you said, it only comes into play when you're climbing a celestial body's gravity well. This is why dV maps are extremely useful. You calculate your dV based on vacuum numbers, and the map tells you how much it takes to get to low orbit.

Not sure what you mean here. The dV equation is the same no matter what your current situation is. The only thing that might effect it is the presence of an atmosphere, which reduces the Isp of the engine. To get dV when you have multiple engines of the same kind is the same as when there's just one. If you have multiple different types of engines then it gets a little more complicated. You need to use the weighted average for thrust and Isp, then use those numbers for the dV equation. I'll admit I don't know the math well enough to quote it to you, but I know @Red Iron Crown does.

To expand on @Benjamin Kerman's answer, it also has to do with the rockets having lower efficiency in atmosphere. When you look at the engine stats in the VAB, there will be two numbers for Isp, one at sea level the other in vacuum. The oft-quoted 3400 m/s number is if you were to calculate the dV as if the whole flight took place in vacuum. This is just to make the math easier. In reality, when the first stage fires at sea level they are less effective, and it basically takes more than 1 m/s vac dV to actually give the craft 1 m/s atmo dV. That difference depends on the engine, but they are all worse in atmo. Combine that with gravity losses (if your rocket can accelerate at 20 m/s/s, gravity gobbles up 9.8 of that) and drag losses, and you get the roughly 1000 m/s difference that you see between the orbital speed and how much dV it took to get there. Also note that the magic 3400 number is an approximation that has been experimentally arrived at. There is no easy way to mathematically determine that number. Some rockets can get to orbit using less than that, some take more.

Awesome, congratulations! I've found that few games give me the sense of accomplishment that KSP does, mostly because you really have to earn those big moments. A bit of general advice for you going forward: less is more. In space flight, mass is everything. Best practice is generally to specifically design what you want each craft/mission to do. Then design a final stage that accomplishes that goal with as little mass as possible. Then stick that on a stage that pushes it where it needs to go with as little mass as possible. Rinse and repeat until you're sitting on the launch pad with the smallest rocket that can get the job done.

On those second two examples you are using the nuclear engine. I would seriously suggest against that for two reasons. First, you're using fuel tanks that have both liquid fuel and oxidizer (LFO), but that engine only uses liquid fuel. That means you're carrying around a bunch of oxidizer that you don't need. And even if you drain the oxidizer out before you launch, it is still not very efficient because now you start with a half-empty tank. Better to use the LF only airplane fuel tanks. The second reason is the mass of the the nuke engine. It's really heavy, which means that it's better efficiency only counters that heavy mass when your ship is really heavy. For a craft that small the heavier engine is hurting you more than the better fuel efficiency it gives you. You'd be better off with the small Terrier engine.

Don't forget that you also have to bring the RCS thrusters. So it's like bringing moonshine and a 300lb guy named Bubba who drinks the moonshine and pushes the car.

You've almost got it. You just don't need the second 860 and 3400. The reason is that you can use Kerbin's atmosphere to do that part of the work for you (called aerocapture or aerobraking). And yes, adding some extra is usually a good idea. I usually add 20-40% more.

This is all too true. So, as a person who has nothing to complain about, allow me to even the scale a little. I enjoy KSP, and I like what Squad is doing with it. So thanks to the devs, to QA, to the community managers, and everyone else for working hard on my favorite game. Oh, and a HUGE thanks for still giving us new stuff for free.

Since the SRBs and the LF-O engine have different exhaust velocities, do you not have to use the weighted average for figuring out the dV of the portion when they're firing together?

It is most certainly possible to get a low flyby and also have a re-entry trajectory into Kerbin. It just takes loads of fiddling with the maneuver node. Here's a good and quick tutorial.

Just FYI, you don't need the HG-5 direct antenna. The relay antenna will take care of both talking to Kerbin and to other ships.

Fixed that for you. While I agree with your general sentiment, there is absolutely nothing that says Squad HAS to keep developing the game if they keep bringing in money. They could very well just sit back and let the profits roll in.

Ever since 1.2.2 (or 1.2.1, can't remember now) the default key was changed to back quote (~ key to the left of the 1 key). They did that to avoid a conflict with the default abort action group, which is also backspace.

This is getting slightly off topic, but oh well. My original 'silly' comment was directed at this quote: Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but it seems to me that he has stopped playing specifically because there are no exciting things development wise going on. He doesn't mention being burned out or bored, just that there's no new stuff going on. I'm obviously not saying that if someone buys a game they MUST keep playing it until the end of time. But going on the assumption that he still enjoys playing the game, and the only reason that he isn't is because Squad isn't still developing it like he would like, is silly. Now it's entirely possible that my assumption is wrong. That's why my original comment was stated as a question asking "is this really why you're not playing? If so, that seems silly."

I hate to break it to you, but heavy development of the game has passed. We're now in 'polish and bugfix' stage. And as @regex has said, I seriously doubt that Squad is going to re-visit career mode at this point. FWIW, I agree with you. I'm just saying that refusing to play a game that is completely playable just because the developers aren't giving you juicy new things is silly.