Chequers

Alright, presenting the Leviticus I - the pioneer of interplanatary missions! The design is incredibly simple; according to my calculations, the first stage, powered by a RE-I5 Skipper should get me the majority of the way into a Kerbin orbit (rated @ 3,727m/s dV ASL), the second LV-909 'Terrier' stage will do the trans-Eve burn (rated @ 1,392m/s dV VAC), leaving the probe, powered by a Spark to carry out correction burns, and the trans-Kerbin burn after passing by Eve (rated @ 1,946m/s dV VAC). The probe core detaches from the main body, re-enters with heat-shield and parachute. In theory. On paper. Before I launch, is there anything I'm missing about interplanetary missions? Do I have enough antennas? Solar panels? Delta-V? Apologies if I'm a bit excited for what might be a really bread-and-butter mission for you... reaching milestones for the first time in KSP is the biggest buzz for me!!

Thanks for the solid advice @5thHorseman; I'm going to spend some time in the VAB to see what I can pull together for this mission. Might share my design to get your thoughts, and I'll definitely take your recommendations on board And phew.. skipping years is going to be interesting. So far, I've been maximising my use of time... rather than time-warping entire weeks, I'll spend the time it takes a ship to arrive at Minmus doing local missions, like surveys of Kerbin etc. Looks like I'll be getting really friendly with the time-warp hotkey. Also, I'm not using any mods at all for this playthrough, so I'll only be using the manoeuvre planning nodes that come with vanilla. They've not let me down yet! I have to return to Kerbin as part of the contract, otherwise that's exactly what I'd have done. This really feels like a dramatic step in difficulty; it went from 'dock two vessels in orbit of Minmus' to 'go interplanetary' really fast. Still, nothing like a challenge to rise to, hey? Unless I'm misunderstanding it? *crosses fingers*

Hi all, Thanks for all of your help so far in my career - I'm really coming along in my ability to 'do stuff' in the Kerbin system. I've made eight return trips to various Mun biomes, and a few to Minmus. But I've just received my first contract to visit another planet. Very exciting times. I'm to do a flyby of Eve, gather science, and return to Kerbin. I'm confident I can use a transfer planner to figure out how to get an encounter with Eve... but I'm not sure what to think about in regards to returning - do I fling myself back into an orbit of Kerbol and work it out from there? This will be a tiny unmanned probe - I have no quicksave or reverts enabled, so I can't trial and error. What is the general process of planning this mission? The contract requires the probe to return, so I can't just beam back the science data - although if all goes wrong, that will be the alternative.

For Test missions, you must right click on the part (the LV-T 45 Swivel engine) and click on 'Run Test' when the requirements have been met. So get between 150,000 and 160,000, then right click on the part click 'Run Test'. So you're doing everything right, but you need to manually run the test. Alternatively, you can activate the part as part of the staging sequence - you mention you've tried doing this with a second Swivel engine, and it's not completed the contract which is certainly odd. Have all the requirements been met - all green ticks on the contract?

These 'below a certain km' have become my bread and butter income generator. As you seem to be in early career (haven't unlocked the Aviation parts), then I imagine the target site is fairly close to the KSC, so is reachable by rocket. A few tips: Just before you launch, go to the Map screen, click on the target area (it will be a little thermometer icon) and select 'Activate Navigation' - this will place it on your navball, which makes aiming in the right direction easier. Go slow with a small craft: A command pod with a thermometer attached to the side, a fuel tank and a swivel engine, with some basic fins. Lift off slowly, get pointed in the right direction, and try and keep your speed down to limit the aerodynamic forces causing your craft to flip out. As you enter the target area, you'll get a message on screen. Be ready to quickly run a temperature reading. Bring a parachute!

I believe what you are observing here, are the mechanics that are involved during a free-return trajectory; which when observed in relation to the the SOI currently affecting your craft, can look a little skewed: This might help: This is where your confusion is coming from. Yes, relative to the Mun, when you catch it 'under it', its gravitational pull takes you retrograde around it... but relative to Kerbin, you are still orbiting prograde. You would have to leave the Mun's SOI retrogrde, but with enough velocity to have cancelled out the prograde trajectory around Kerbin.

Couple of options to try: Have the 'Hammer' as a second stage. Then select 'Run Test' from the context menu. Launch from the Runway instead - it still counts as the launchpad - and see if that works.

Welcome aboard! Looking forward to hearing about some of your adventures!

Man - I'm reading through some of these amazing things you guys get up to... and here I am, proud as punch that I just landed on Minmus for the first time. Significantly easier than the Mun! I was able to get the full science package to the surface. Probably didn't need to leave it there either (top of the lander detaches for direct return to Kerbin), but didn't want to risk it (not playing with quicksaves/reverts). Thanks for your help, KSP community - your advice has been paramount in keeping Kerbals alive.

This, combined with a little axial rotation can help get a top-heavy lander to swivel upright. Plus it has the added benefit of looking like your lander has been taken breakdance lessons.

Thanks @jimmymcgoochie for that detailed advice - really appreciate you taking the time to come up with a few suggestions. This playthrough, as it's my first, I want to at least complete the tech tree before exploring mods; but I'm making a list of ones that look interesting, and quite a few of those you've listed look great. It'll take a while though; without quicksaves/reverts, and having cash-cost to unlock tech-nodes, I'm still very much in the Kerbin system; haven't landed on Minmus yet, but currently have my first manned mission en-route to orbit it. It's within a day of arriving, which is exciting. I absolutely agree with the satisfaction of completing a mission for low cost; there's just something so rewarding about maxisming every Kerbal-buck. I think that's why I like missions with the smaller parts, and micro-sattelites and probes. Just feels right. My main challenge currently is refining my Mun landing missions. I've completed 5 landings and returns so far, but have never gotten it quite right. With 1.25m parts, if taking a full science payload down to the surface with the Kerbal, I don't quite have enough fuel to get them home, and have had to make a couple of subsequent rescues from Mun orbit. Proabably perfect for Minmus though, from what you've said. I've gotten it pretty spot on by delivering a science payload to the surface of the Mun before hand, and then sending a very simple direct return lander with a Kerbal to retrieve the science data. But that's two launches. But with 2.5m parts, it feels very inefficient. It costs almost double (~35-40k) with my 'Apollo-style' setup, and each stage feels like overkill - meaning I have too much power and fuel. I think I can refine things down, I've just unlocked the Mainsail, which can comfortably lift the entire stack on its own. It's just very expensive to keep testing each stage to get the Delta-V calcs spot on.

Sheesh! Very impressive! I can only imagine getting to that stage in my KSP career. The 2.5m parts certainly make some of the more difficult calculations easier, but at an increased cost. I still enjoy the challenge of finding a more cost-effective solution to my Mun missions with the 1.25m parts. There's just something about each stage getting to exactly where it needs to, without wasting any fuel. It's just satisfying! But it might just be me - I really don't enjoy the whole 'asparagus staging' concept. It doesn't feel very realistic, nor very elegant. I'm confident I'm just handicapping myself though!

As a new player, docking was certainly a challenge to figure out. But rest assured, once you've done it a few times, it actually becomes fairly straight-forward... and is immensely fun! From what you've described, it sounds like you might be trying to dock visually, like using a kerbal on EVA with a jetpack. You can't really eyeball a docking procedure - there's too many things that have to line up perfectly. There's two parts to it that it helps to break the procedure into two stages. The first is setting up a good rendezvous with the target, which involves matching orbits, at the correct inclination, at the correct time. For me, I found the easiest method is a Hohmann transfer, as seen in this illustrated tutorial. The second stage is actually docking. A few tips that made things easier for me: Learn how RCS thrusters work, and what the controls are. There a few methods, but I found the control scheme that uses I, J, K and L as direction, and H and N as forward and aft, to be the simplest - and allows me to still change the direction your docking port is pointing at with W, A, S and D. When changing the direction your docking port is pointing using the above control scheme, turn RCS off first. Position 4 x RCS thrusters around the centre of gravity of your ship. The in-game tutorial actually does a bad job of this, and makes it much harder. Having CAPS Lock on allows you to make fine inputs. Set 'control from here' on your docking port. And also select the target docking port as your target (when you get close enough tor right click it). Go slow! Then it's a case of lining everything up. Drag the prograde marker over the 'target' indicator on your nav-ball, and, and proceed slowly. Make fine adjustments as you get close with CAPS lock on, and make sure your prograde marker stays over that target indicator! Then, make sure your docking port is pointing towards the port you're trying to dock to, move in at about 0.2m/s, and it'll pull you the final metre or so and dock.

Thanks — that does look like a good mod! For my first playthrough, I'm keeping it stock just to keep it simpler, but I'm making a list of mods that might enhance things once I feel like I've gone as far as I can in vanilla.

I've had a crack at designing a 2.5m lifting stage. It essentially costs the same (it's actually a few thousand cheaper), but radically simplifies the design of the lifting stage, and enables me to tuck the lander and command module within a nice streamlined fairing. I'll be interested to see how it performs on my next Mun mission. Thanks for all your tips - what a great community! Exodus I Exodus II

...Parts get even bigger!? I too seriously enjoy making tiny probes. This little science probe on its merry away around Minmus uses the 'Spark' engine and a single Oscar-B tank, and it's adorable. I think the 'Propulsion Systems' and 'Miniaturisation' tech nodes are my favourite unlocks so far.

Thanks for your detailed response @HvP! I’m glad that newer parts don’t make older ones obsolete, but essentially enable more complexity and options for completing missions. I have learned that bigger doesn’t mean better - and very much enjoy the challenge of creating the most elegant solution to a problem - for as optimised a budget as I can. From your explanation, I see now the fallacy of trying to compare Skippers to Swivels. It’s not about whether one is more efficient, it’s more about the right tool for the job. Like using a ride on lawn mower vs a hand mower to cut a small square of grass. I’ll evaluate whether the greater power of a larger engine as a lower stage offsets the cost and ISP profile of current 1.25 engines for my Mun CM and lander payload, and go from there.

Hi Kerbanauts. New player here, playing through a career mode without quicksaves or reverts, so it's fairly slow going through the tech-tree. I've really enjoyed the vast variety of parts so far, and have tried to create craft that utilise all of the different engines, rockets, and utility parts as I unlock them. Sometimes, this looks like upgrading or improving current designs for ships, to help them do their jobs better. For example, I have a tourist vessel that was enhanced by replacing the Swivel engine with a Reliant engine, and using a stablility enhancer for attitude control on ascent. But I just unlocked a couple of nodes that give me access to bigger radius parts, such as the Skipper and Poodle engine, which will involve completely redesigning some ships. It's a tantalising prospect, but I'm wondering whether my planned missions warrant these new parts, of I should wait for more ambitious pursuits to interplanetary space. At the moment, I've made two succesfull landings and returns from the Mun to Kerbin; the first by delivering a science package to the surface, and then landing a Kerbal to retrieve the data and return. The second (to avoid having to launch two missions) was done 'apollo style', with a seperate lander and command module. I've also sent a science probe which is currently making a high pass of Minmus, and won't return for another week of in game time (I tend to do more local missions to pass the time, rather than time-warp entire weeks). I want to continue exploring the Mun, and make a polar landing. I think this can be achieved with my current 1.25m ship designs with some tweaking to account for a less efficient polar orbit... but would utilising some of these 2.5m new parts save me some valuable cash? I've had a quick play around with building a ship that seemed to be more cost for the same delta-v result. But I've not tested enough to make that conclusion. tl;dr - when is a good time to transition from 1.25m parts to 2.5m parts? What sort of missions warrant these larger parts?

Thanks! Next will be trying to get the whole Science and Kerbal package onto the Mun in a single launch, rather than splitting it. The brass don't like double launches - they're expensive. I'm developing an Apollo style setup as a solution. Love your base! One day I'm sure I'll get to interplanetary missions - very inspiring. It's not too bad. The main cost is testing craft - the lifting stage, the orbiter, the lander; each component has to be tested before bringing it all together to make sure that it works. Then there's finding a good landing site with probes: You can't just 'give it a go' and revert to a quicksave if its not a good location. And every single test carries its cost, so each flight has to be weighed up. What I do like though, is that it extends missions into entire programs. Contracts to do temperature readings and surveys aren't just ad-hoc for a bit of cash, they're vital to support the main program that you've got going on. The entire payment from a contract can be blown on a single test flight of a rocket that serves no purpose — except to show you that it didn't work. But that makes the final result really satisfying - and the final vehicle a really carefully honed piece of kit, that you're immensely proud of. I don't think I could play KSP any other way now. That buzz from a succesful mission - and everything that went into it - is so intoxicating.

It was more the size of the materials bay, rather than just the weight, that meant I was having to build a more complicated lander to make sure it was stable. A more complicated lander meant a more complicated lifting stage. My breakthrough was simplifying the lander to simply having to get a Kerbal down safely and back again. I didn't have to do too many correction burns — the landing site was pretty equitorial. Thanks for the tip on the life support mod - I'm playing completely stock vanilla for now, but I'll keep it in mind once I've finished this playthrough! Thanks! It sure was — sweaty palms for sure. Huge relief after re-entry on Kerbin! So true! There's so many things that can go wrong. So many steps from launch to landing and back again. Some can be corrected, but more often than that, timings and calculations are so meticulous that one wrong move ends the mission in disaster. It's a great feeling when it all comes together.

I know it's elementary for most of you guys, but today, I finally managed a manned Mun landing and return, without quicksaves or reverts (I'm playing with those options switched off). In the end, I did the mission in two parts, the first to send a science probe to establish an ideal landing site, and get the scientific equipment on the surface. Then a second manned mission successfully saw Jebediah land on the surface, collect the science data from the probe, and launch. It really helped not having to lug the science equipment on the manned lander. It's made me realise that even slightly increasing the weight of a craft can add up to pretty major impact on delta-v. By focusing on creating a lander that just needed to carry Jeb, I could maximise efficiency.

I'm a fairly new player... but learning quickly by removing Reverts and Quicksaves, meaning I have to fix mistakes and figure out solutions, or live with the consequences. But sometimes, there's no fix... and when that happens, I delete any record of the mission. The craft. The Kerbal. Any record of their achievement like flags planted, etc as though it never happened. I still have 'crew respawn' on, so the Kerbal comes back after a few days with zero experience, like I've erased their memory. It's like some shady cover up... and I feel dirty everytime. Feels good to let it out, man.

Good to know! Though I'm not sure how well it would have worked. The latest flight was a little too ambitious I think. But lessons learned!

I've updated the Wayfarer Program with the latest flight. An attempt to reach Kerbin's pole with an ambitious space plane launched while on a suborbital flight.

I've posted an update! The Wayfarer II mission used a longer range version of the Peregrine S1. Thanks @fulgur for the advice.