IncongruousGoat

The blunt answer to your question is: No. Definitely not. 3.75m parts are not necessary. Neither are 2.5 meter parts. How to build and fly efficiently is something really complicated, with a lot of depth that involves a lot of not entirely intuitive physics, but here's an intro to delta-V, as a start. I don't know how much you know, so I'm going to assume nothing. Delta-V is the way one measures capacity to go places in orbital mechanics. Basically, it measures your vessel's ability to change its own velocity by performing burns. If you have more delta-V, you can perform more/bigger burns and therefore can go farther. In practice it's more complicated than this because of things like gravity assists and the Oberth Effect, but for our purposes this explanation will do. Delta-V is computed using the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation: Specific Impulse (Isp) * 9.81 * ln(wet mass/dry mass). Specific impulse is a measure of an engine's efficiency, and is measure in seconds. The specific impulses for every engine can be found in their right-click menus in the VAB. Why seconds, you ask? The 9.81 is there to deal with the particulars of what specific impulse is, and should just be treated as a constant, with no other meaning. The ln stands for the natural logarithm (log base e). The wet mass is the mass full of fuel, and the dry mass is the mass empty of fuel. Delta-V should be computed separately for each stage. To go to Minmus, you need 3600 m/s to reach orbit, 900 for the transfer, 100 for plane change burn, say, 200 for the capture burn, 175 to 200 for landing, another 175 for re-orbit, and 200 for the return. That adds up to a total of 5350, but let's call it 5500 to be safe. For good efficiency, design from the top down. Build the lander first, then a transfer stage, then a launch vehicle. Or some other configuration. Whatever makes sense. Oh, also-use a small command pod. The Mk1 (the black Mercury-looking 1-crew one) is good. Using the Mk 1-2 instead will, assuming efficient design, more than quadruple the mass of your rocket, since the Mk 1-2 weighs more than 4 times what the Mk1 does (4.12 t as compared to .84 t). And, of course, practice makes perfect. Really good efficiency takes time and experience.

Will CLS function properly on a vessel built before it was installed, assuming the vessel was built with the intention of supporting a cohesive living space? I've got a 1.2 modded career going, and I would like to use CLS, but I'd also like to be able to do some things while I wait for it to update.

@skipsinclair I would give you the DLL, or a package with the entire compiled project (having seen the same problem and sought the same solution), but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do that. Intellectual property law is confusing, and I'm not intimately familiar with the KSP modding scene, or sufficiently trained in law to interpret the specifics of the GPL. Sorry.

Ah, now I see the problem. That's a bicoupler there, not a tricoupler. Whoops. This is what I get for rushing things. Yeah, in its current configuration the Mk. 2 should not have enough dV.

That's odd. I calculated the dV for the Mk. 2 and got 6,532 on the launchpad, even accounting for atmospheric efficiency loss. I even went as far as to build it and test it, and was able to successfully complete the mission, albeit with a fuel margin of around 6 units LF. The real problem with the Mk2 is the first stage. I had to change the fin arrangement to make it flyable in the first place, and even then loss of control authority in the upper atmosphere led to a steep, inefficient, and unpleasant launch.

So, I recently installed Galileo's planet pack, as well as a number of other mods (none of which should, to my knowledge, touch contracts), with the intention of doing a grand colonization career thing. Anyways, I've been trying to complete one of the Explore Iota contracts, specifically the one that asks you to rendezvous two vessels and then return to Gael from the surface, as a sequel to the manned landing one. For some reason, the game refuses to acknowledge the rendezvous, even though I parked my lander 50m from the command module and cancelled out velocity to 0.0 m/s. My full mod list is: Kopernicus Galileo's Planet Pack KER KAC Scatterer TACLS Texture Replacer Near Future Spacecraft, Solar, Electrical, Propulsion, Construction SXT, Kerbal Konstructs & KSC++ Kerbal Atomics, Firespitter, Cryo Engines Community Tech Tree B9 Part Switch Final Frontier Transfer Window Planner Research Bodies USI Kolonization, USI Karbonite, USI Sounding Rockets, USI Konstruction, USI FTT Modular Flight Integrator If there's any more information anyone wants I'll readily provide it.

From what I remember, the Vector actually has the same sea level ISP as the aerospike (290 seconds). In my experience, the aerospike is not the ideal choice of engine. Its TWR is too low to be functional on a high-gravity planet like Eve, and of course there's the gimballing issue. Although, of course, this all depends on where you're lander is landing. If you're starting from the surface, the Vector is probably the best choice. If, on the other hand, you're choosing to precision land on a tall mountain, the aerospike would be the better choice, simply due to being lighter. If your heart is still set on aerospikes, though, my advice to keep from flipping is A: lots of reaction wheels and B: fins on the bottom, to make the vehicle aerodynamically stable. On the subject of the debug menu, no, there isn't a way to cheat your vehicle to the surface, not as far as I know. Although, it might be a better idea to start from orbit in the first place. Eve re-entry (as I'm sure you already know) is fiery death unless you prepare for it. Your lander has to be able to reach the surface in one piece, even before you start testing launching.

Granted, but it blows his (and your) eardrums out from excessive sonic booms. I wish space weren't so hard to get to.

How many mods do you have installed, and on what sort of machine? A good first step would be removing any graphical mods-these tend to have the highest overhead for the least solid effect upon gameplay. Also, if possible, screenshots, please.

Ah, jeez. Now I kind of feel bad. Still, given time, you'll (in all likelihood) gain access to a better machine, or, better yet, have enough stuff of your own to acquire a better machine. And KSP will still be there. So just remain patient and hopeful. Things may look grim right now, but the future is bright.

Have you checked your avionics? The avionics package you put on your rocket might not be powerful enough to handle it. Probe core avionics can typically only handle 1 ton, at most.

Aw, don't be so pessimistic! Every KSP player was in that phase at some point in their career. Heck, I still remember the days when I was struggling to make orbit. Given time and dedication, it will all begin to make more sense. People can slap together crazy things not because of some innate rocket-ness, but because of knowledge and experience. So just keep trying, improve your designs, and stay optimistic. You'll get there.

Well... This isn't strictly true. I can speak from experience that command pods can, in fact, safely directly drop from the Mun to Kerbin and survive all the way to the surface. It just requires that your vessel be very blunt and aerodynamically stable in the blunt direction (like a command pod).

I pronounce Laythe like lathe (the tool) -except the "th" is unvoiced, unlike the "th" in lathe (the tool). I know. Another pronunciation to throw onto the ever growing pile.

Also, with respect to the old aero model: It used to not decrease engine thrust in atmosphere (what it did instead was decrease the specific impulse and increase fuel flow to maintain thrust). This meant you could build ion engine powered aircraft on Kerbin fairly easily. Not super important, but worth mentioning. In the same category: Nuclear engines used to (pre 1.0) consume both LF and Oxidizer. So don't trust any old vessel designs that use nukes, because the wet mass-dry mass ratio and thus delta-V will definitely be off. The hydrodynamics changed in 1.0.5, anything water-related from before then is definitely out of date. For example, radial intakes used to be really bouncy, leading to whole schools of boat design based on plating the bottom of your vessel with intakes.

Mostly the trick lies in landing on the Mun and science farming from here till judgement day. Unless memory fails me, I'm pretty sure I managed to put together an unmanned lander that could get goo, temperature, materials bay, and pressure from the surface of the Mun and return it all using the trusty science canister at some point (though I don't know if I still have the save I did it in). Although, reading the thread, it looks like I'm a little late to the whole landing-on-the-Mun party. When I get back from vacation, I'll see if I can pull off a hard mode submission that doesn't involve going to Minmus, ever. I'm certain it's possible using landers, rovers, and science return (and possibly an assembled mission).

Sure! It doesn't involve upgrading facilities, ergo it isn't against the rules. Although, you don't have to visit Minmus to complete the challenge. It's just much easier to (once you get the relays figured out).

Well... I heard a rumor that mysterious, flappy creatures are planning an invasion of the digestive systems of Kerbals in and around the KSC as part of a nefarious yearly secret ritual involving cranberries & *shudder* stuffing.

For Jool, plan a really big delta-v budget. Because of the high relative velocity at encounter, and Jool's deep gravity well, capture burns consume an almost inordinate amount of delta-v. And then you need to encounter a moon (I presume), and that costs more, and then capture again, and then return, and... Either that, or use it as an opportunity to practice gravity assists. Jool is the optimal place to do it, due to the tight packing of its moons. Using Tylo and Laythe assists for capture can significantly decrease delta-v requirements. Oh, and for transfer windows & delta-v's I've found this tool useful: https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ Because porkchop plots.

Nope! You need a relay antenna AND either the 1.25m or 2.5m probe core on your mothership to control a probe from a manned vessel alone. I was planning a mission to Duna a while back that used an unmanned lander controlled by a manned ship in orbit... and ran headlong into this exact problem.

4.88 t, using a rapier first stage, twitch second stage, & a chair inside a service bay *ahem* budget command pod (mass not including deorbit stage). However, I'm completely sure someone better at aerodynamics & atmospheric flight than I could come up with something significantly lighter. Jet engines are tricky, I tell you. As for landing... heating is negligible, so don't worry about that. For picking a site, trial, error, and blind luck are fairly effective, if tedious. Parachutes are always good as a means of not turning your lander into an explosion. If you can build spaceplanes, one of those is a pretty good bet, due to the oxygen atmosphere and all. Just, whatever you do, remember to make your vehicle aerodynamically stable. Seems a lot of people (including myself) underestimate the thickness of Laythe's atmosphere on ascent.

If you're considering ion engines, remember that solar power generation follows an inverse-squared law, meaning that any ion spacecraft in the outer solar system will be limited by their battery capacity-there's just no way to pack enough solar panels to provide continuous burn. They are good for low-mass Moho missions, though. If you're patient. Also, for Laythe (and Eve too, I suppose, if you want to go down that route), remember-your lander has to be aerodynamically stable. You can't build the typical low-profile low-CoM lander; it needs to look more like a launch vehicle. Which doesn't make the already difficult task of landing on Laythe any easier. Also, with all this talk of mods for calculating delta-V, let's not forget to mention how to do it by hand: The Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation: Where Ve is exhaust velocity (equal to specific impulse multiplied by 9.81 m/s^2). m0 is the wet mass (the vessel mass when full of fuel) and mf is the dry mass (the vessel mass when empty of fuel).

No, but here's a map with a red dot on the approximate location of the mountain in question: Also, I'm going to have to throw together an Eve lander for this. Haven't been to Eve since 1.0.5, and for reasons beyond me I miss the purple rock.

So, I've decided to take a crack at Corundum (HardS with 30% science rewards) and oh boy does 1.2 make it... interesting. For starters, all unmanned missions are 100% completely impossible, because the DSN's range is 0, and you need connection to the DSN to establish control over probe. Furthermore, manned missions are... tricky. With tolerable G-forces at minimum, I got Jeb halfway to unconsciousness during a standard orbital launch in a test save. I'm fairly sure it's still possible, albeit much more difficult than it already was.

Could you provide screenshots?