UmbralRaptor

Not exactly. Air being "free" multiplies their effective Isp by 16x. Sure, the thrust loss at the high end of the velocity curve would suggest a 600 s Isp at 2000 m/s, but it's more like 9600 s. I think this also means that as long as you're getting more than ~2% thrust out of the velocity curve, you should be running jets. (Maybe. At point point do drag losses matter?) I haven't done enough with RAPIERs to fully judge their performance, but can you get into a stable orbit on ~30 m/s in rocket mode? (turbojets can get you into that situation, and even bring usefully large payloads)

The high in-atmo Isp occasionally lets it give your craft a payload fraction advantage, and the high impact tolerance can be of use in landing. Before 0.24, it was arguably the highest performance lander engine, but with the extreme costs, meh Isp as a launcher engine, and Poodle buffed to almost the same TWR...

There's a scaling factor that ultimately caps you at ±1000. At a certain point, you may as well use a strategy to convert it to funds.

I like the idea. I'd lean towards just an upper/lower stage break, given how fast you get through Kerbin's atmosphere. Also, dropping thrust at reduced pressure seems like a bad idea. (It's unrealistic unless we want to start introducing air-augmented engines) That said, the big hole would be the KR-2L. The current Isp values make it an upper stage engine (and it's apparently a J-2 expy, despite the very high TWR).

Given the craft's limited mass, I would be tempted to go with a single engine on the centerline (fed by fuel lines if needed) instead of 2. This would shift the CoM forward a bit.

Depends on how you pick a coordinate system. (0 to 360 or -180 to 180) 360 - 285 = 75

Aerobic SSTOs are easier now. The new Mk2 fuselages provide lift, flameouts have been tweaked to be less of an issue, and you now get roll control out of the RAPIER's TVC. (And of course, if you go far enough back, you are dealing with turbojets rather than RAPIERs, which are less forgiving...)

You do know that there's a complete changelog in the readme file in your KSP install directory, right? Ditto the wiki

10000 pm is >1000 lightyears. I'd recommend mods or sfs editing. edit: I suppose I should have capitalized that correctly (Pm instead of pm).

Contracts and/or mods. As best I'm aware, the science taken directly from biomes is not convertible in stock.

0.8.4 (Probably since before the first time this sort of question was asked.)

It's possible to achieve a Mun landing with nothing unlocked. It becomes surprisingly easy if you've managed to scrape together 20 science and unlocked Basic Rocketry and Survival.This is what I used in a previous career mode. It's not the most efficient approach, but it's quite capable of landing on the Mun or Minmus and returning safely. For the nearterm, what techs are you focusing on? The science ones tend to pay for themselves.

The readme file in your KSP folder has a changelog.

Work around, try running the KSP exe directly, rather than the launcher?

Yes it is. Use them for small craft with high ÃŽâ€V and low TWR requirements. Or possibly moderate TWR requirements now, assuming one doesn't go overboard with solar panels and payload mass.

Custom with: Allow Revert Flights: Yes Allow Quick Load: Yes Missing Crews Respawn: No (Though I edited in 3 new crew members) Auto-Hire Crewmembers before Flight: No No Entry Purchase Required on Research: No Indestructible Facilities: No Allow Stock Vessels: No (Why use them?) Starting Funds: 0 Starting Science: 0 Starting Reputation: -1000 (Complete 3 of the first 4 contracts, and you still get missions. Maybe even if you do less...) Science Rewards: 10% Funds Rewards: 10% (I think this is hurting more than the science at the moment) Reputation Rewards: 10% Funds Penalties: 1000% Reputation Penalties: 1000% Also, I started a sandbox save. Let's see if I get bored...

If not under GameData, they are legacy folders for installing old (pre partmodule) mods. They are empty by default. edit: for future reference, it's probably worthwhile to keep multiple questions to a single thread initially.

Just some additional navball information: The symbol type corresponds with the ones you pull on for maneuver nodes.

*sigh* Well, at least I broke 50. Should be less than 2 years away from getting a second bubble.

If the videos are any indication: Reputation -> Funds Science -> Funds Reputation -> Science Funds -> Science Funds -> Reputation Science -> Reputation Higher launch costs -> Reputation Reputation -> Lower launch costs (yay, misread) Higher launch costs -> Higher recovery factor Exact values are subject to change.

Less is more. Boosters are actually useful now. So are space stations and bases. As always, early trips to Mun/Minmus and focusing on the lower branches of the tree will give lots of science (with a bonus of electrical supplies). The upper branches have useful things, but don't go overboard with them, given that somewhat small rockets can get you to most places. The middle branches have little of value until you get jets. What are your craft like? This is the one I did for a first Mun trip. Not the most efficient, but not especially expensive, and it only needed basic rocketry and survivability (20 science in total) unlocked.

If the thrust is pointed at another part of the "same" (stuff grabbed with the claw counts), craft, there is 0 net thrust. Check the in-game log (alt+F2) for any mention of damage from engine exhaust?

Pics? That said, I'd try hitting alt+x on the chance that it's a trim issue.

The decimal point slipped; ln(0.71) is -0.34249

Marginally higher than the 1717 m of aerospike parity.390 = 800 - P*580 P = 41/58 (~0.707 atm) altitude = -scale_height * ln(P) ~= 1734 m For engines with somewhat interesting heights for Isp parity, compare the quad KS-25 vs KR-2L, or LV-T30 vs Poodle