Epicdreamer

Copycat maybe. But at least you're a bit closer to understanding how the SLS and Lunar Gateway came to be. In a (Kerbal) way you went through the same development proses yourself. Nice read, thanks!

Since Breaking Ground came out I started playing vanilla again (with both dlc's that is). First time vanilla since oh I don't know...version 1.1.2? And it's matured well!! I very very rarely have any real issues with mods. But then again, I have...[trying to remember how my "KSP main" folder looks like nowadays] about 30-35 installs of KSP. Nearly all ksp vanilla versions and a bunch of modded installs. I have never used more than about 25 mods in any install due to system performance (I'm happy with 15fps on mid-graphic settings flying a 200ish part craft) and because I like having a playthrough focussing on this or that particular mod...or mod coctail. So all of my installs are "isolated". One install = one save and all of them are very different. That way older modded versions work just as smooth as when I built that particular game. So no technical issues really. Once or twice a glitch or bug flung an orbital station out to an escape orbit from Kerbol, but it's not something that irritates me. I see them as unexpected challenges. Trying to save a bunch of kerbonauts from a Kerbol ejection orbit is quite a challenge. I don't try any mods that look unfinished (I use Youtubes Kottabos games channel looking for mods for example), or when I read lot's of troubles/workarounds in the add on release part of this forum. Yes it's an time investment. But that is what hobbys are for. A few of those installs work so well, are so rich and balanced because of a good mod-choise that I still play them. My last 'epic' playthrough took about a year and a half before I got bored I finished it. Then jumped from KSP 1.3.1 to 1.7. Ah well, I just like messing around with not only playing-the-game, but with the whole modding-the-game as well. Nothing you can do wrong, untill you think it's not right...and then just start over (and over and over etc) again.

And next to that now there is an 'altitude above ground' button instead of only above sea level. Makes judging when to burn for a landing easier. I've just started a new career without KER for the first time in years, and I find it very doable. Couldn't help myself sticking to pure stock though, I need KAC. And Ckan is still good to use, even has a version compatability option nowadays. It is indeed a very good time to return to KSP. It has grown up quite well!

We allready have the biggest manual any gamedev could come up with. This forum! I've learned more about KSP on this forum than any manual could teach me. And if something is not covered just pitch a question here. Usually within a day or 2 it will be answered. No it's not instant satisfaction...but hey, KSP isn't about instant satisfaction.

I have read this thread with great interest. As Garamel said I'm impressed by the generosity of forum users too, if only about the long explanations about anything which has to do with KSP. I agree that it's not a good idea to just give yeet_thedinosaur a copy...but I didn't see mentioned that he can show his parents this thread..and let them read a bit more on this forum. Maybe be impressed even by the way forum users (and moderators!) keep the KSP forum a great and friendly place. That way his parents might change their minds... can backfire though seeing the OP.

I think I'll build a huuuuge foldable solar array for a Jool mission. Why take the tiny radio-isotope-generator when you can have the same effect with a massive overcomplicated solar array?

I do agree with Zethaan, may it be in a bit of a different way. Yes you can find tons and tons of information on this forum, on youtube and internet in general about...well any aspect of the game really. The one thing that got me really going when I started playing KSP a few years ago was to read up about all the things/numbers/words I didn't understand in KSP. Or in real life rocketry for that matter. Having a good basic understanding of orbital mechanics and general rocket science gives you a deeper understanding of how KSP works. I'm not a wizkid, nor a scientist or someone who understands and uses difficult formulaes. But I like to think that by now I understand hów things work in spacetravel. For a while I spend as much time playing KSP as reading about spacetravel, twr, isp, orbital mechanics etc...the works really. (The history, development and design features of the Saturn V rocket for example...interesting stuff!) A normal calculator, you know to add, subtract, divide etc. Any calculator will do. You can calculate TWR for example, Dv even. Just do a search on google, or here on the forum to read on how to calculate several things. Mind that all real life rocket calculations work the same in KSP. It's a simulator after all. On the matter of spacestatons: there is no basic station design. Anything that is in orbit could be a station. The design often depends on the purpose of the station. And even with a certain goal in mind the designs of spacestations may vary wildly. There is no basic formulae for that. Mind that building spacestations is one of the harder things you can do in KSP. You need to be confident in orbiting, rendezvousing, docking etc. Have patiente and be curious! Rocketscience isn't easy...KSP is not an easy game...very rewarding yes, but not easy.

Haha don't push the throttle button? Or look at the Mun encounter node, see how much time it still takes to reach the encounter, set an alarm in your mobile phone and make yourself a cup of tea? @The Doodling Astronaut mind that EE (xbox/ps4) players, as the op-er is, do not have TWR and Dv readouts. It's like playing the pc 1.5 version. Hopefully Squad will add these in a future EE update. And a TWR of 2.4 - 3.4 for a Mun lander means you can go bigger even! As long as the TWR is above 1 you'll be able to lift off the surface. This in turn means you can pack more mass (fuel) and go Munhopping!

@Mikenike A Little recipe for an EE and pc-vanilla sandbox game: Mass of the lander I used: 3.790 t Below the lander in building order: TD- 12 Decoupler, FL-T800 tank, Terrier engine, TD- 12 Decoupler, 2x FL-T800 tank and a Swivel engine, TT-38K Radial decoupler attached to the side in 2x symmetry, SRB Kickback on the decouplers, tail fin in 4x symmetry just above the Swivel engine. Its a basic formula that gets you to the Mun with a good attitude control and a little extra Dv for some correctional burns if neccesary. When built in this order, the staging sequence is in the right order as well, you might want to cut down the srb's power limit to 75-80%. No need to autostrut this system, it's stable enough without. I just flew this one to the Mun, landed and returned to Kerbin. The lander/return vehicle was a simple Mk1 command pod, FL-T400 tank with landing legs, (another) Terrier engine and some solar panels. If I add a FL-T100 tank to the lander a Mun return mission can be done quite casually with Dv to spare. I didn't cover any other stuff in this design (science, comms etc), just a functional Mun capable craft. Adding stuff will lessen twr and Dv, but that's up to you. Good luck!

Enough to see KSP as a hobby instead of a game.

My thoughts about... I think of twr when delt with celestial bodies. As long as twr is above 1 at the surface, I'm good to go. I think of Dv to reach places. Farther away places need more Dv. Unless gravity assists, didn't really get the hang of multiple ones yet. I think of needing quite a lot more Dv to land on atmospheric bodies than twice the groundspeed on a low(est) orbit, compared to vacuum bodies. Think of clicking the speedometer to switch to (relative to) ground/orbital/target speed I think of isp when traversing the Kerbol system. Higher isp in the same formfactor gives more Dv, mostly less thrust. So burns take longer. I think of mass ass a value that influences all. Less mass means higher twr, so high isp/low thrust engines take less time to burn Dv. But mass consists mainly of fuel, which essentially is Dv. Aah the trade off... But i do agree, the lightest engines can often give more overall efficienty, even with lower isp. I use the sparks mainly on lowG landers, but that's more because I dont like 10 min burns on high mass vessels with a low mass, less thrust engine. I think of balancing those 4 values all the time when designing. Best Kerbal rocket? Ehm, depends on the purpose, but bottom up: a multistaged asparagus first stage, think of engines with (enough) gimbal, srb's for higher twr. Moar boosters! Launching at 1.10-1.40 twr. As few high isp engines as possible for outside the atmosphere. And from there the payload, which depends on the mission at hand.

@adsii1970I don't think it matters if you play the EE version or pc version, as long as the pc version is vanilla.

@Mikenike I didn't realise that you are playing the xbox version. I think that version (incl patch 6 update) doesn't have the calculator (yet). Hopefully Squad will add this in a future update. Maybe I'm wrong. If it's there, it should be at the lower right corner. One of the grey-ish buttons where also you can find craft info, mission info etc. I could give you a description of a 1.25m rocket that's able to get to the Mun or minmus as in "get this or that tank, add this or that engine, add decoupler etc...to get you on your way. But I'm not running KSP right now. Need that for a good description. So if you're interested I'll write up a little recipe for a Mun/minmus capable lifter-system at my next KSP session. Unless someone beats me to it ;). And to be more helpfull, i'd like to know what nodes within the techtree you have unlocked, and what the mass of you lander is. Main thing is try to get a grip on the meaning of Thrust and ISP (specific impuls) of engines. Good luck!

I find doing probe missions a little bit more challenging than Kerballed missions. Doing probed missions opens up another level of the game, since to keep control over a unkerballed craft you need a relay network, or, if you haven't you need to plan your manouevres very well so that they can be executed when there is a signal (meaning a lign of sight to Kerbin). Setting up a relay network is well worth the effort I'd say. It's a challenge on its own. It made me puzzle a lot to get a good network configuration so that all places in a planetary system allways have a signal to control your probes. There are many way's to set up a good network. If you don't like to spend time without gaining science(points) then yes, go for just kerballed missions. On the other hand I think that then you are missing one of the greater features KSP has to offer. And relay networks can look very pretty .

Yep, solar panels. They work well out to Duna, much less at Dres. Going to Jool, you'll need either huge (huuuge) solar arrays, a fuel cell or the PB-NUK, a small nuclear generator. Those last 2 are further up in the tech tree.

To add to Draalo's post: not only the runway is a different biome. All the buildings of the KSC have their own biome. SPH, VAB, tracking centre, kerbonaut complex etc. You can do all experiments near every building of the KSC. I usually do a 'KSC science mission' as soon as I've got the first airplane part node. The one with the fixed landing gears (=wheels!). After such a mission, happily driving around the KSC, and after spending the spoils (sciencepoints) to new technodes I can usually go for a first (small) Duna mission...

I'm not really sure what you are asking. Is it about how to reach a stable Mun or Minmus orbit? About how to design your craft? About a design you have you need help with? I do like your phrase '[...]small lander that may be able to make it back home[...]'. Maybe it works, maybe not. That's a bit the essence of KSP. It's a question I ask myself a lot when designing a vessel/mission, even after years of playing. Some general punters: - Mun is easy to reach, harder to land on. Minmus is harder to reach, easier to land on. When you are able to reach Minmus, you are veryvery short of being able to reach Duna. - Have a look at: This map was made a while ago, but even if the numbers are a bit different now due to possible changes in the last few updates, it gives you a good general idea of how much Dv (i.e. fuel) you need to pack to reach places. - When designing your vessel, keep an eye on the ISP of the engines. Use high thrust engines for your launch systems and high (vacuum) isp engines for transfers between bodies. Mind that the TWR (thrust to weight ratio) does not really matter when you're out of the atmosphere. Lower TWR, even below zero only means that the change in velocity (Dv) is going to take longer. With very very low TWR you might need to do several burns before reaching the desired orbit/transfer...which in turn means you have to think ahead when and were to do those burns. - In designing a complete system think backwards. What do you want to bring back from Kerbin orbit to the surface of Kerbin, how much Dv do you need to get from Mun/Minmus back to Kerbin, how much Dv to get from Mun/Minmus orbit to a landingspot and return to orbit, how much Dv does it take to get from Kerbin orbit to a Mun/Minmus orbit and finally how much Dv do you need to get from the surface to Kerbin Orbit. Use the in-game Dv calculator. - Have a look at: With this alarmclock you can set up alarms for ideal transferwindows from a celestial body to another. Thus taking away the hassle of eyeballing or calculating the ideal tranfer window. Offcourse if you like to eyeball transfers, like I did for a while, then you're free to not use it. - experiment! Just go and try...anything really. Prepare for some frustration, and a great sense of achievement when all works out! Mun and Minmus aren't that far away when things go wrong. I remember the tension of going to Duna for the first time, let alone Dres or Jool. If something goes wrong in such a mission it takes a lot of time to recover, even with max timewarp (unless you use the 'revert to...' option offcourse) Have fun and good luck on your endeavours! (Ps: I think this topic belongs to the gameplay section of the forum.)

I just don't get most of the discussion here. Since 'Breaking ground' hasn't been released yet, we just don't really know what it will behold. I'm looking forward to the dev-news. So to me sharing an opinion about the Breaking Ground DLC at this moment in time is just for opinions sake, based on a lot of assumptions, well mostly assumptions if you'd ask me. By the way I know all of the mods presumably being added in this DLC in one or another form, but I'm still very curious about Squads take on these gameplay features. And making a point as if it would count for everyone looks like generalising to me. There are as many opinions as there are players (or humans for that matter). If you don't like the DLC when it is released, if you don't like what it presumably beholds or if you don't like your personal idea about why a DLC is released, then just don't buy it. No need to discuss it really. I'm going to wait and see what it brings, but it has to be really dissapointing (after release) for me not to buy it.

Very nice and a very welcome post Klapausius. Thanks for that. I very much agree about looking at KSP the same way. For the playtime I got out of KSP allready (and not planning to put it away) 'worth the money' is an understatement. KSP is probably the cheapest hobby I ever had!

Looks like you can easily fly that payload to Eeloo with a rocket that size. Go for it I'd say!

Indeed! I cannot remember playing any game (or having any hobby for that matter) that costs less per minute than KSP, even with the dlc's. No, the beauty that is KSP is very very cheap indeed for the playtime (and replay time...and again...and again...etc) you get.

Wow, giving moar meaning to go to places (and stay there) with a revised science system, and doing this with stock robotic parts? Is it the 30th allready? I'm in!

Ah, so thát's it! I was missing those boxes in the past few sessions. More like I lost them by accident. Could'nt figure out how to get them back. Even after years of playing I still learn new things...Thanks!!

There are no stupid questions. If it helps you progress all questions are valid!

Haha what a nutcase of a plane that is. Congrats, you have found the essence of Kerbal design!