UmbralRaptor

I'd like to see a more detailed breakdown of the craft's design, but I think the superiority of LFO has been proven. For a dirty hack to get 10 (well, 11.2) tonnes into LKO with stock aerodynamics, I would use this: (Just over 100 tonnes and just under 40k funds) That's an SSTO using LV-T30s on the outside and an LV-T45 in the center for TVC. Taking advantage of advanced features like FAR or fuel lines would only improve its performance, giving it a mass efficiency advantage in addition to its cost efficiency.

SSTOs that use jet engines to get 99% of the way to orbit and land at the runway are about the cheapest launchers possible in KSP. But if it relies on rockets or has expendable parts, beating out This is literally the opposite of what happened. NASA's budget was dramatically reduced in the late 1960s and early 1970s, killing off most post-Apollo plans that weren't the shuttle. The shuttle itself made design compromises to reduce development costs (the SRBs and expendable nature of the external tank), though they increased (or at least were expected to increase) operational costs. And then there was the sizing issue from trying to get the air force involved. I'm not clear if NASA got money from them directly or if it was just to get more customers so that the projected flight rate of >50 / year could be pulled off.

Where were you launching this test rocket? If it's on the surface of Kerbin, drag can obscure things (hence the 4.4-4.7 km/s to get to orbit despite the required speed being 2.2-2.3 km/s). As for the rocket as shown, I get: Part Mass Mk 16 chute 0.1 Mk 1 pod 0.8 TR-18A 0.05 FL-T400 2.25 / 0.25 LV-T45* 1.5 Total 4.7 / 2.7 Assuming you're launching from the ground, average Isp with this craft will be closer to 320 s than 370 s, but let's look at both: 320*9.82*ln(4.7/2.7) == 1742 m/s 370*9.82*ln(4.7/2.7) == 2014 m/s The 2014 m/s is something that will only be clearly obvious if you say stick the rocket at rest well beyond Eeloo's orbit, and then fire the engines in a straight line. Otherwise, non-zero burn times will have a small effect. And from a place like the surface of Kerbin, aerodynamic and gravity drag... *I initially thought this was an LV-T30, which has a non-trivial effect

They're 1300 funds for a 3.4 tonne full / 0.4 tonne empty tank. The comparable LFO tanks are 850 funds for a 2.25 / 0.25 tonne tank and 1600 funds for a 4.5 / 0.5 tonne tank. (The LFO ones are cheaper in $/kg) What sort of payload were you getting with that 7500 (which I suspect is more like 13000) + engines (800 per, 94% the cost of an LV-T30) + decouplers (400 each?) launcher?

This is why we can't have nice things:

Depending on details, I could make arguments for anywhere from 4-7. But Scott Manly is just a person. There are lots of good KSPers on youtube. ...no.

Nope. Keep in mind that you're at your periapsis, so going notably faster than circular speed at that distance form kerbol. Arriving at Moho's periapsis minimizes the velocity difference if you're in the same plane.

Various exploration projects have theme names, usually based off of history or mythology. Moho missions are likely to be part of Project Discontinuity, Eve/Gilly will fall under Morning Star/Evening Star/Inanna, Duna/Ike Nergal, Eeloo Ereshkigal, etc. Generic launchers (and more rarely payloads) tend to pull names out of the Cthulhu Mythos, but this also gets converted into alphanumerics. So one built around 3 Mainsails will get called Shantak-3 (S3), and one built around a single LV-T30, uprated with extra fuel to squeeze out maximum payload will get called Lloiger-1U (L1U). But there are ones that break these rules (eg: Wanderer and Trapezohedron exploration craft, Snatlus II launcher, etc)

Oh, nice. When I last checked, no one had solved that.

I'm not sure how to get a landing/return under the 18 t / 30 part cap, but a flyby is perfectly doable. (The important part is 3x FL-T200 above the LV-909, and 9x above the LV-T30) I think this layout ends up being more like 25 tonnes.

Do you have the Mun exploration contract lying around? If so, take it. You can do a flyby fairly easily without maneuver nodes (which require also upgrading both the tracking station and mission control). The pre maneuver node way of doing a free return from the Mun: 1) Get into a low (70-~120 km) Kerbin orbit 2) Burn hard at Munrise 3) Aim for a ~14000 km apoapsis. Failing that, dismiss some contracts that don't do anything for you and see what respawns? Science returns from Kerbin orbit can be reasonably lucrative and are within your budget.

This is a bug with the Win64 version of KSP.

It means you can play in science mode with 10% rewards and actually unlock everything. Also, science/hard (60% rewards) should still be possible without leaving cis-minmus space. Maybe even 50% if you do a quick pop out to high Kerbol orbit.

It's a feature that's been around for ages.

Does this include how the multipliers were changed for at least some bodies? Low/high atmosphere/space are no longer equal in all cases.

It's weird just how different things are depending on what difficulty you choose. I've been messing around with a maximally punishing career (minimum resources and rewards, maximum penalties), and 23 "launches" in... I'm probably going to get stuck in a grind dozens contracts until I can upgrade buildings situation soon. The interlocking limitations mean that small steps are possible, but the giant leaps that one can (and probably should) do at lower difficulties are out. Money: I currently have 28k banked, and the cheapest upgrades costs >300k. Getting everything up to level 2 will run ~8.5 million. Without a solar panel unlock, returning science from orbit requires a launch every time. This runs at least 1660 funds (more in cases where science equipment is bolted on), and at least 670 of it is lost from exploding boosters and recovery limitations. At least the typical advance is 500, and completion is 3k. It's also possible to sneak in for some other projects, which nicely reduces their effective costs. And yes, I was very careful to get all of the altitude contracts while starting out. Working out the cheapest rocket designs to accomplish those missions and reach 69.1 or 250 km for science collection/contract completion has been immensely valuable. Science: I haven't completely exhausted Kerbin, but most of the easy spots are gone. The most obvious remaining targets would be desert, tundra, ice caps, and landing craft on various KSC buildings. Given the unimpressive returns on my Mun flyby (2x goo pods and a crew report from high altitude yielded a mere 3.2 science, was the multiplier was dropped from 3 to 2?), I'm unsure that attempting a Minmus flyby or a low altitude Mun mission (perhaps even entering orbit) would be a good idea. But with only Start, Basic Rocketry, and Survivability unlocked, there is a yawning need for more research. Let's see if my Kerbol flyby is successful. General limitations: Post-hard difficulty settings take away a lot of things. The outsourced research (and funding campaign) strategies require at least -438 rep to run at the 5% level (and more for higher commitment). You don't see any exploration contracts after the starting run (launch, 5 km, 11 km, 22 km, 56 km, leave atmosphere, orbit), part testing in orbit or splashed, or rescue contracts with deeply negative rep. The reduced rewards mean that many contracts that "should" provide token amounts of science don't. Any "test while flying" contract is to be avoided, unless you're certain you can accomplish it as part of a "normal" launch/landing. Test while landed varies quite a bit in usability (from the laughable 5+5 funds on the RT-10 to a few parts that give a point or 3 of science). Just make sure you empty out those SRBs before you activate them.

1024x768, despite having a 1920x1200 monitor. Same as it's been for a few years now. More seriously, try to get some serious progression with a campaign mode. Though that might end up with me restarting in science?

Career: Fired the orange suits and have been using custom names for the recruited ones. (My rep is still deeply negative so no rescue contracts) Sandbox: Kerbals are fully expendable. New ones will be procured on an as-needed basis.

The RT-10 and BACC have gone back and forth in utility. Currently the BACC is somewhat lacking, though.

Funds, or less formally roots (because of the shape of the symbol). Sometimes √ is used.

More of these threads. Also hype threads.

A quick hack would be to up the advance on the altitude and/or starting contracts, though I'm unsure if that's the best way. [table=width: 500", class: grid] [tr] [td]Funds[/td] [td]Parts[/td] [td]Mission (including a safe return)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]1099[/td] [td]Mk16 chute, Mk1 pod without monoprop, 10% fueled RT-10[/td] [td]Get off the ground (maybe 500 m)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]1335[/td] [td]As before but fully fueled.[/td] [td]~20-25 km. Maybe more with careful thrust limiter setting. (5 km would be doable with 1/3 fuel, maybe less)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]1660[/td] [td]A second RT-10 is included.[/td] [td]>70 km (space)[/td] [/tr] [/table] Once you're able to complete any of the initial 4 missions, randomly generated ones start showing up, so you get somewhat more options.

Style? I need a style? If it flies good, it looks good.

Fail states are fine. This is unwinnable (if more by insanity than mistake), so if possible it would be nice for the game to alert you.

1) Start a new career mode game with 0 funds and 10% funding rewards. 2) Take the two lowest paying contracts (launch a craft and reach 5000 m). 3) Notice how you can't actually afford a control or science collection system (that is, the Mk1 pod). You also can't fail any the 4 starting contracts, dismiss them, or let them expire. Fortunately, this is something of a corner case, and playing on 10% of any rewards means you were messing with settings and should know what you're doing. Also, this happens very early on, so it's not like losing 30 s of setup is a big deal.