UmbralRaptor

Not exactly. I was able to reproduce it with 32bit windows.

Despite the throttle setting, the xenon consumption is consistent with the ion engine running at full. Testing with the save file shows that the engine is still burning fuel regardless of throttle setting, which I suspect is why there's the lack of power. The spinning out is caused by the center of mass and center of thrust not lining up, requiring active corrections from the reaction wheels. This is seeming like an engine/control bug. edit: try continuing to press throttle down while it's already at a minimum from x?

If the craft primarily flies low and slow (most likely using basic jets): structural (but not very many) If the craft primarily flies high and fast (long suborbital hops or goes into orbit): ram intakes, with radials if there are issues using lots of them.

I would expect so, but given that both represent a tiny part of the craft's overall mass (barring excessive intake spam), the advantage seems minor. Point taken. At what speeds does it max out its Cd?

If you can fit them, ram intakes or shock cones. (As best I'm aware, the extra intake area of the shock cone usually offsets the disproportionately greater mass) If you're adverse to the design choices (eg: cubic octagonal struts) necessary for large numbers of them, radial intakes. (Worse area, but easier to mount, and the mass penalty is mostly gone) Avoid the structural intakes (terrible area) and nacelles. This is an important point, though you'll get significantly more payload if you add an FL-T100. And with a bit of playing, you can get useful SSTOs out of most of the engines. (eg: LV-T30 with 1600-2400 L of LFO, aerospike with 1600 L, Skipper with 6400 L...)

Career: choice 2. While safety measures exist, it's a fundamentally dangerous job. Sandbox: choice 3. They are fully expendable.

Not again... It doesn't work in KSP because of the n-body requirement. If it did, you might well be disappointed at the actual performance. The paper is rather accessible, if you don't believe me.

I'm not sure we can help you with that. Have you tried replacing your legislature?

But they're on the left side.

The whole picture is confusing. As hard as it is to see, the launch stage appears to have a Skipper, so any probes would have been fully charged and easy to recharge (note that there's lots of fuel left). Unless they've been leaning hard on the reactionwheels during the coast phase, (Which might explain why the craft is pointing retrograde for some reason) 4:25 isn't long enough to run down a probe with only internal batteries. That 4:25 also clearly is well past apoapsis, given the craft's relatively rapid descent, implying that the craft ran out long before. And given that passing behind planets is inevitable, why it wouldn't a station have at least one battery so it can last half an orbit in the shade is unclear

Versions of science/campaign mode from before difficulty settings used 100%. But this version also saw science multipliers for some situations changed and biomes added for lots of bodies, so the exact rewards are different.

The easiest way with question 1 would probably be to look for the craft's specific orbital energy (or perhaps more generally find its orbital elements). Questions 2 and 3 are more vector than scalar, but look related to interplanetary intercepts. Also, what Bill Phil said.

Looks to be, but the part about "as high as possible" confused me and made it seem like you were going radially out from Kerbin. I'm not sure if the extra altitude is worthwhile, depending on your velocity vector on SOI exit.

Well, I'm fairly certain that exiting the Mun's SOI against its orbital motion, rather than radially is the lowest ÃŽâ€V way of getting back to Kerbin.

Disagree -- the 4.5 km/s comes out of the pre-0.16 days when engines had constant Isp. Looking at actual expended ÃŽâ€V also seems reasonable given that varying target orbits (eg 70 vs 100 vs 600 km), on-pad TWRs, and craft layouts (boosters are draggy in stock, some cockpits much less) will affect required ÃŽâ€V by several hundred m/s. This costs ~18 m/s compared with launching east, at least at the equator. Not very significant, but unless you're doing a rendezvous with an existing craft, you may as well launch east.

Random thought: is there any damping force in the oscillation? That said, pictures and equations are likely to help immensely.

1. My rule of thumb is 0.2 atm for an SSTO, 0.5 atm and then vacuum for a 2STO. 2. 9.82 is a unit conversion factor, and should be used in all cases. 3. Ignoring TWR considerations, ÃŽâ€V for a stage in a multistage rocket should be vaguely proportional to Isp. In practice you can't ignore TWR, though. 4. A 1.3 TWR is adequate, and deviations should probably be upwards if anything (to 1.8ish) 5. As low as possible. An ideal suicide burn is entirely horizontal. In practice, it needs a small vertical component due to finite TWR and planets/moons having mountains. 6. Reverse the horizontal suicide burn to exit the Mun's SOI on the trailing side. Losses from entering a low (say 7-15 km) parking orbit or suborbital trajectory to actually line up for the exit burn are ignorable.

From the space center view, right click on a building to bring up the upgrade dialog.

Yep. 100 in the cfg, 100 in the VAB when full, 50 in the VAB when empty.

Part costs are subtractive for... reasons. You'll have decide on a base cost for a part, add up all the costs for the resources it will carry, and then put the total in the .cfg. (Yeah, this confuses me also)

To confirm, this is with the TR-38 D only and if you use a smaller decouper there are no crashes? If so, I suspect that it's related to some weirdness in the TR-38 D's part.cfg file.

arKiv There's probably also an NTRS equivalent, but I can't think of a clever name for it.

It's much wackier (or was when I last looked): The surface gravity is 9.81 m/s² at datum, but the Isp to Ve conversion is 9.82 m/s². g != g

The problem is that our interactions with the kerbals over the past 3 years have been entirely over their space program (and by extension aerospace industry). If the barn came as part of adding a bunch of farms, then sure. Suddenly they have a context where it's completely reasonable. (And the corn, cane, or whatever could be processed into fuels!)

The barn would make for something nice in a random location on Kerbin, but as a space center, it was poorly presented. It was not shown as a clever way to save funds for a space program that is a minor part of kerbal life, or as repurposed from a planet of farmers. Rather, a "lel, so kerbal" thing full of ramshackle parts that wall break down if not burn down and/or explode as soon as any testing was done. And then there was that similarly ramshackle (and clearly cartoonish) observatory...