Godot

Well, there are a few important differences in telescopes ... the most important is the diameter ... the thicker the tube, the more light it can collect (and, if you can collect more light you can not only see faint objevts better, but also use a higher magnification (i.e. thicker ocular lenses) before objects get too dim. Also it is of interest, whether you have an reclector telescope (i.e. with a miror on the backside) or a refractor (i.e. with lenses at the beginning and the end ... like standard spy glasses) Another important distinction is the telescope mount ... as your comments don´t indicate any measure of confusion or helplessness, I assume it is a standard azimutal mount (with other words, a fork between the telescope is mouned so that it can be swiveld sideways and up/down). More pofessional telescopes rather use an equatorial mount ... for which you first have to take some tim to align the main axis to Polaris, but which then allows you to easily follow the movement of a star or planet just by turning on one of the adjustment screws for one of the axis every now and then) to illustrate: Alt-Azimuthal mount: Equatorial mount: So, maybe you can shed some light into what telscope you have As for observing the sun ... if you want to get absolutely sure that your eyes don´t get hurt, better use a white sheet of paper at the right distance between your ocular, so that the image of the sun gets orojected upon the paper (you may have to vary the distance till you find the one that gets you a clear image of the sun) ... this also allows you to draw the sun and its sunspots on the paper

AFAIK Reputation affects the number of contracts offered to you and how good they are ... guess, with Rep = 0 you´ll only get offered 1 star contracts that, only rarely, give you a good pay ... and only few companies will think you trustworthy enough in order to assist them with their endeavors

Interesting idea

1. You must be insane if you try this ... the LV-1 has an Isp for Vac and Atm, that is far worse than that of most other engines ... and its low thrust mean that you would have to get a really really huge number in order to be able to get a TWR > 1 for all the fuel that you need to get into orbit, with a stage that uses purely LV-1s 2. Yes ... either attitude control for satellites, or to send ants flying around 3. Well, for one, s´SRBs have not the best Isp ... for the other, you need a dV of ~5-6 km/s to get to Mun (not included the trip back) ... for the third, you cannot control their thrust of SRBs while they are running ... so, nope, SRBs may be useful at the start, but they are not really a good solution to get to Mun (and hopefully back ) 4. That would be a solution if you already have scientific experiments (like Science jr., or the Goo container ... but remember to add antennas, in order to transit the scientific results back home. You would be missing out on EVA reports and surface samples that Kerbonauts could get you (and which give lots of science) but you could still do manned missions to Mun later

That´s my assumption as well, considering the fact that the stripes on the meter get larger (or rather, the reputation range is divided into subranges ... eaxch with a higher multiplication factor (whereas the numbers within the subrages follow a linear progression) ... for example: Range 1 = Multiplication factor 1 -> 10 stripes, with each stripe represenation a width of 1 (->- range = 1-10) ... Range 2 = Multiplication factor of 2 -> Range goes from 11-30 with each stripe representing a value of 2 ... and so on)

You are right, the error was on my side ... a typical US3R=1D10T error (to be more exactly ... it was unzipped into the main game folder and not into game data [to my excuse I might add that many plugins already have their mods in a game data folder within the zip file, so that it gets unpacked into game data when you choose the main folder ... guess therefore I automatically chose the main folder of KSP to unpack it in, without checking beforehand if the zip contains a Game Data Folder, or the Mod Folder on top]) Now everything is where it should be, thanks

I don´t know if zeke does it this way, but there is a mod out there named "DebRefund" that, before deletion of the part when leaving the 2.5 km radius, calculates the worth of the debris, checks whether it has enough parachutes to get it down safely and then calculates, how much money (if any) you get from the recovered debris. The mod also is currently featured in the "Modding Mondays" by Harvester

Before 0.24, I usually tried to standardize my rockets (i.e. a standard model for bringing payload of x tons to orbit, a standard ship/lander combo for Mun landings and so on. Now I usually integrate several test contracts into my missions, meaning that almost every rocket is different, even if it is meant for the same purpose I also now do things that I would have never done in former incarnations of KSP ... for example just flying up to a certain altitude and falling back on Kerbin ... or getting on escape trajectory and shortly afterwards initiating a return path to Kerbin, all in order to fulfill lucrative test contracts

More Biomes for the other Planets I hope

Not sure if this was given via the mod or via KSP itself ... but I somehow remember that in former versions of KSP, richtclicking on a part showed its temperature ... this seems to be missing now

Yes, it gets thrown out of the spaceship and hits the next Kerbal who is on EVA (well, actually no ... just gets thrown out of the spaceship)

Of course it is ... and my Bhut jolokia like it this way (well, at least I guess so ... we´ll see when the time of harvest comes )

But Mun has enough science to complete the whole tech tree (at least it has been this way in past versions ... I guess it is stil the case) ... if you are about filling the tech tree as quickly as possible then it is easier to do this on Mun ... with or without contracts (what would you care about contracts if your lander is reusable with no additional costs on the Mun station) ... much less time consuming than flying to other planets, even if it is just Duna or Eve. And according to what you said befoe that´s what it is all about for you, i.e. filling the tech tree as fast as posible ... You have faster completed your tech tree by milking all Biomes on Mun, than by doing even a single mission outside of the Kerbin-System. As for Mods ... yes, this may be different for us both ... I use, among others, Deadly Reentry, FAR and TAC Lifesupport to mmake it a little bit more realistic than stock game

OK, it seems like you didn´t read the postings in the thread, so I might have to reiterate this once again: Noone says anything about a large lander with a MPL. What we are talking about is a spacestation, for example orbiting Mun. This spacestation has Resources (like Fuel and Monoprop, maybe with Lifesupport, if you use mods like TAC Lifesupport) This spacestation also has an MPL and several docking ports You fly spacestation and resources into lower munar orbit and then a spaceship (i.e. with crew) which has a reusable lander coupled to it. Now, all you have to do is fly the lander to a Biome, do your experiments, return to the spacestation, store the experiment results in the spaceships capsule, reset the experiments (and refill the lander with fuel), then return to munar surface (in another Biome) and so on ... finally (when you think you have enough science stored in the spaceship) you fly the spaceship back to Kerbin and get hundreds of sciencepoints for everything you collected. All this mostly with just flying between Munar Surface and the orbiting munar space station (aside from the 3-4 flights between Kerbin and Mun in order to get the spacestation there, the spaceship + lander and finally return the spaceship to Kerbin after you have collected masses of data from multiple Biomes on Mun Whereas with single missions you would have to, for every munar Biome: first fly from KSC to Orbit, then from KSC orbit to Mun, Land on Mun, get back to munar Orbit and then return to Kerbin orbit (and land on Kerbin)

I disagree with 2 ... you have no running costs, therefore, aside from your own greedyness, there is no reason to have all science as fast as possible. With regards to 3 ... using a space station with an MPL is more cost efficient if you have enough Biomes which your Lander can visit (don´t think this has changed between 0.23/23.5 and 0.24) ... it may not be as time efficient (considering the building and shipping of station and fuel) as single missions ... but not everyone wants things as quickly as possible ... and there is no reason to have things as fast as possible, see my comment to 2. With regards to 4 ... seems like there is an abundance of money for us veterans ... but according to several threads here and on Steam (where players complain about bankruptcy) , not everyone seems to get to money as easy as we do (nonetheless, the rewards for contracts may be something which could be tweaked, so that e veterans don´t get such an abundance of money as we do now ) With regards to 5 ... I disagree ... it seems to me that the contracts system rather is guided by reputation ... more reputation -> more and better contracts All in all your rants seem to indicate rather, that there is nothing wrong with the MPL ... it just doesn´t fit your playstyle ... just as for me, for example, the Jet Engines are of no big use, as I only rarely build atmospheric planes. And that´s IMHO nothing bad ... we have an abundance of parts, so everyone can select among these parts those, that fit best to his/her playstyle ... not every part has to be useful for everyone

Well, as it was said multiple times ... the main reason to have a processing lab isn´t its bonus to transmitting, but rather its capacity to refill scientific experiments It isn´t meant to be installed on single ships, but rather on larger bases / space stations

When something happens on the way to orbit, I revert (and assume it was just a simulation) If there is something in later stages of the flight I usually don´t (and usually can´t as, for flight durations of multiple hours, I normally return to KSC and start shorter mission to fill the time in-between, so that the longer missions become irrevertible from this point on)

Just a small comment with regards to TAC LS and rescue missions in 0.24: Didn´t have expected that it would work so well together with this type of mission. Thanks to the fact that resource usage of the stranded Kerbals only begins when they get into physics range of your spaceship, you have enough time to get them on board.

Kerbal Engineer Redux (in order to know whether I have the right dV) ... Raster Prop Monitor (the MFDs are of great help, I often run 70-80% of a mission in IVA with them) and http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ in order to find the right launch window (and know how much dV I need)

This one ... in the last version I used one in a station around Mun ... MPL + Tanks for Monoprop + Fuel + Oxidizer that would be delivered by Tankers and enough Lifesupport for 3 Kerbals for more than a year (playing with TAC Lifesupport) + 2 Habitats ... Reusable Lander that would go between surface and station (wiht all available experiments), to deliver science to the return ship (which also delivered crew and lander first time) and the return ship would finally return to Kerbin in order to deliver the science. Will do it in 0.24 again ... especially in 0.24, now with budget ... according to my calculations in the past versions (0.23/0.23.5) this concept already paid out after 4 Mun Landings (i.e. in form of less costs per mission). I wouldn´t do it for other planets/moons due to the scarcity of Biomes on them ... although, an exploration station on Jool would be thinkable (due to the masses of Moons there) or a science base in Orbit around Kerbin (so that interplanetary missions could put their science there, refill and reset their instruments and go on another mission ... and I would have less trips down Kerbins Gravity well in order to deliver the science)

For german keyboards it is `or ß

I for my part use 2 pods connected by a modular girder segment, which gets 1 radial chute on each of its 4 sides ... this way both Kerbals can land together

Actually there are 2 versions of recovery in the official KSP version: If the landed part has any science points in it (for example due to experiments) it will get an end flight screen togethjer with science and parts listing If the landed part doesn´t have any science in it, it will silently add the funds (and you will only find out the amount via noting the difference between your funds before and after the recovery) Funny enough, the official silent recovery has the same bug in it, that DebRefund had in 1.0.5. (and which is now fixed) and that was mentioned last time a page ago (i.e. that the calculations use the value for full fuel tanks instead of empty ones) whereas the official messaged Recovery works correctly. See here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86638-Recovered-landed-debris-bringing-more-money-than-it-is-worth (which also means that DebRefund at the moment is more correct than the official silent recovery )

As long as they don´t explode or fall beyond a radius of 2.5 km of the active ship, before landing, they can be recovered without problems and yes, they give funds as well as science

I for my part use it for interplanetary distances only ... not for getting to Mun or Minmus. Th emopst important thing to remember for the LV-N is its low thrust ... so it is not a bad idea to use 3-4 ... and to always be prepared to have really long burn times