Spricigo

I convert some o my funds to science while unlocking the tech tree and after it science to either reputation or funds. BTW vessel recovery most easily will make you lose funds than save.

Satellites missions are pretty "stackable" in the sense that you can launch several satellite at once or/and use the same satellite for several missions . After launching it takes maybe a minute or so of actual playtime for matching a orbit. A trick I use its to change the satellite name to include the remaining deltaV so I don't take a mission to reposition a satellite without propulsion. Also, as pointed out glue in a thermometer so it will be ready for the eventual "Science around X" missions. For me the problem with tourism its not that it is not lucrative but rather that I don't like it, and since there is other options that give enough funds (even with 60% turned into science or reputation) tourists are filler to give a reason to my rescue craft return early.

In the end it's not about funds/contract or even funds/minute. Is about finds/effort and how much one enjoy a given tasks, since one needs less effort to do something sometimes enjoyable. For me this means a big drop in the value of tourists contracts and a boost for rescues (wich it don't need).

Maybe this recent discussion it's of interest of the OP:

Most contracts can be easily done for less than a what you receive just for accepting then. And it's pretty simple to setup a mission that finishes several in a single launch to cut the cost even further. AND you get part of (in some cases all) the investment back by recovering your crafts. Also notice that declining an available contract makes a fresh one appear and just cost a negligible amount of reputation. Don't hesitate to get rid of a "bad" contract. As for which kind of contract is best it will depend a bit on your playstile and preferences. Some personal opinions: -Test parts depending on the conditions of the test will be almost effortless to complete, also can give you earlier access to parts you didn't unlocked yet. -launch satellites, easy to do, good reward and you will soon have a good communication network in operation. -rescue missions, as @GoSlash27 says like taking candy from a baby that don't like candy. -Tourists: simpler than satellite/rescue but less fun.

Did you changed the settings after the accident(s).? AFAIK it's the settings at the time you lose a kerbal that matters for if it will come back or no. Check the astronaut complex, Jeb and Val should be listed in the 'lost' tab. If they are Missing its supposed to come back eventually, if they are Killed you may edit to Available knowledge yoursavegame. Notice that you don't need to start over, scientists/engineers can't use SAS but can pilot. On the other hand you probably don't lose much progress that early in the game

Who don't know can learn, who knows can teach. Try the training scenarios, read the questions and tutorials in this forum or look for kerbal tutorial in YouTube. Ask yourself "what I'm doing wrong?" and if you don't find the answer ask others. But by all means don't just say "I'll never learn" because you will miss so much of the game if you do.

Looks like the game is using simmetry in a different angle then the desired. You want X axis, game uses Z axis. Probably along the way from the root part there is a attachment of the side something to the front of something else. Temporarily attach the part where you want wings (or whatever) so there is no side-front attachment along the branch, place the wings and attach back where you want it. Happy 2017

Tourists don't EVA. He uses a grab unit to 'dock' with other ships allowing crew transfer and refueling.

Also you will notice later intervals will add more deltaV than early ones

I actually setup this strategy at 60% once I get all buildings except SPH and runaway to lvl2. Since I like missions involving satellites, rescue with the eventual tourist or test in the mix, I really don't mind to keep doing those until I have enough funds to upgrade the R&D facility to lvl3 and open the entire tech tree. Some caveat : -I decline missions I don't like to make more desirable ones to appear. No «do science at X, Y, Z locations» or «test [part] at [conditions ] » if big adjustments in vessel or launch profile. -optimized for multiple contracts with a single launch and using Kerbal Alarm Clock to run multiple missions in parallel -Using a mod to automagically run every available experiment at every KSC biometric without a launch

Another option it's to use KAS to remove (or EL recycling) unwanted parts after you dock each module to use it later/in another vessel.

Agreed. I also see no point to crunch the numbers myself except maybe for a few times to get the idea of how each factor affects deltaV. But after playing as industrial/trader in EVE Online (a.k.a. Spreadsheets Online) for some years I have no right to talk against enjoying some game related maths.

Some ideas to deal with the tumble&explode problem: -set up some bumpers (e. g. girder segments around the cabins) -put parachutes in both sides of the rocket but deploy only the chutes in one side (or cut some after they did the job and before you land) -use a tiny engine with just enough power and propellant so you can use it to help you turn to horizontal position just before landing. Keep in mind those are rather crude solutions, so use it only if you really need your craft working NOW and don't stop to look for better engineering.

WHAT?!!! There's a "beat the excrements out of [tourist]" type of contract?! Seems I need to change my settings.

I think we are making complementar arguments sound like counterpoints. Let's try to summarize: StahnAileron, Paul23 and I pointed :putting thrust and average mass in F=m*a will not give the average acceleration to be used to find total deltaV. Also that starting from Newton's 2nd Law one need some calculus to get correct deltaV GoSlash27 and wumpus pointed that, given the fact there is a algebraic equation for deltaV and also mods/addons that simple show deltaV, there is no need to dwell in calculus. FancyMouse poundered about using principle of energy and momentum conservation to solve relativistic rocket equation. (//sound like an interesting discussion to me but maybe for another thread) IMO there is 2 confusing moments in the discussion: 1) GoSlash27 said "Isp is not derived from calculus" ; my nitpick "TRE is derived from N2L" GoSlash27 clarification "that's it. Nothing to do with my point." (no response from me since he made clear both points are valid and independent) 2)wumpus said "you can bypass the calculus considering deltaV=a.t with a=F/m and very small t so we can sum up all those small intervals while the rocket burn fuel" ; StahnAileron answered " what you described is calculus" IMHO we need to clarify (2). Wumpus was just pointing we can use F=m*a and avoid symbolic calculus since we also have a computer to do the tedious number crunching . StahnAileron may be correct, this is numeric calculus but wumpus point was "let the computer do the hard work" and "ISP is a shortcut that you will probably take" Excuse me if I misinterpreted something. Felt like those considerations were needed to settle the question (to me at least).

Actually calculus is needed to derive Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation from Newton's 2nd Law. Apart from this nice reply.

Seems to me it's not the case since he uses the mass of the tank to obtain the average mass (full, empty) the fuel amount(with fuel consumption) is only used to obtain the burn time. But the equation for the average of full and empty mass is wrong. Considering the correct dry fraction, would be ((C14/9)+C14) /2 or even C14*5/9 instead of the actual formula the OP used.

F=m*a is a simplification for when mass don't change. That's not the case for rocket propulsion.

What 5thHorseman said. (thanks for all your videos btw) You may also keep the images from This guide around for quick reference.

Test it. First launch with only SRBs in first stage, main engine secound stage. Then launch the same rocket with SRBs + main engine in the first stage. If the later make the rocket overheat or wobble trust down your main engine or tweak SRBs in VA. See wich one works better for you. Personally I usually design my rockets with a single LFO engine or 1 main LFO + 2 auxiliare SRBs in the first stage but I'm not that worried if they are super-optimized.

Thanks for the answers, however I noticed the need to clarify a few points: 1. No problem in staging as long as most of my craft is recoverable . I'm using FMRS here and experimenting with the concept of a rocket plane launched from a jet, both recoverable. 2. Since my plan it's to use it in a career game I would like to consider panther and whiplash also since they are available earlier. (in fact most of my experiments were with whiplash and none with rapier) 3. Going further away than LKO with a spaceplanes is not in my plans at the moment, maybe when I get experience I try it. Anyway, advice for SSTO is still welcome since, I suspect, there are other players interested. And I will try it at some point also.

Ok, know that is very craft-dependent but I'm interested more on general advice to help figure out the rest by myself than a in deep guide. (BTW, also know there is lots of usefull info around but kinda overwhelming for a spaceplane newbie like me) Question is: what kind of flight profile get more from the airbreathers engines in spaceplanes? And what kind of kind of common mistakes is expected from inexperienced spaceplanes pilot? Thanks in advance for all the good input I'm sure will come.

I can't resist.. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=1m%2Fs+to+mph

My suggestion is to try to complete it with a rocketplane. Also is particularly important to check the parameters of this kind of contracts, some combinations of heigh and speed are way more trouble than the contract is worth.