UmbralRaptor

The LV-N and aerospike gained alternators in 0.22. I still raced to solar panels, though.

I don't generally. It can be fairly easily improved on, though. Ditch the nosecones, replace the Poodle and LV-T45s with LV-T30s, stretch the tanks in the "boosters," add struts... That said, apparently Maltesh got one to Laythe.

Bielliptic transfers are slightly fancier (there's an intermediate high semi-major axis step), and will occasionally save ÃŽâ€V for bodies where the ratio of semi-major axes is very large.

Due to the current state of KSP, probes require greater design complexity, and have fewer options for failure recovery. Beyond that, KSP exists in a world somewhat like a Heinlein Juvenile novel; the kerbals have powerful rockets, but limited computers.

Intakes are very high drag, especially at speed. If they're generally in front of a craft's center of mass, they'll make it unstable. Try placing them farther back?

Fairly similar, except I start at ~5 km, with a ~5-10° turn. Beyond that, it's an aggressive pitch-over, often at the bottom of the prograde marker. Choosing a target orbit of 70-75 km also helps.

Looks right. Everything in the craft scales up by a factor of 2, so you get the same mass ratio, TWR, etc.Ignoring how design details can make ascents and maneuvers more/less efficient, ÃŽâ€V requirements for a given mission are always the same no matter what the craft or payload mass is. Design details (available TWR, staging options, control authority, lag, etc) are why you want to choose between one large payload and several small ones.

In terms of ÃŽâ€V (and therefore fuel), it's equally efficient, whether done as 1 40 tonne mission, or 40 1 tonne missions. The real reason to split up would be the practical problems (unwieldiness, parts breaking, etc) of large launchers being greater than docking.

An efficient stock ascent will be <4400 m/s, though this is not possible for all craft (It's more like 4600 m/s for a rocket SSTO maxing out payload per engine). Actual gravity and aerodynamic losses will vary throughout the flight, and it's worth remembering that your Isp is lower deep in the atmosphere. eg: from using MJ's ÃŽâ€V recorder, a rocket SSTO will have an average Isp ~= what you'd expect at 0.21 atm. Technically it's 11.5 km. Not a huge difference, but the sort of thing that can make someone look at you funny. I'm slightly concerned about how you're using the term "gravity turn." Please describe how you perform one. (And please don't be one of those 45° at 10 km monsters)

It's probably proportional to specific power production/consumption. Not really meaningful in KSP.

Nope; cube struts are massless. And even if they weren't, the nominal mass is so low as to have only a minor effect.

Good first pass, though it's missing the 24-77 and Mk 55. For gravity acceleration, you want 9.81 m/s² (Kerbin's surface gravity at sea level), despite the ingame Isp <--> Ve conversion using 9.82. Not that it matters at this chart's precision, but hey. The turbojet's TWR is... complicated. The thrust varies from 112.5 kN at 0 m/s to 225 kN at 1000 m/s, back to 112.5 kN at 2000 m/s, and 0 at 2400 m/s.

0.12: The Mün. But that's not an option... I'll go with 0.14: persistence and mods(!)

Not since 0.18.

Isp*9.82*ln(initial_mass/final_mass) The vacuum Isp of stock RCS is 260 s. edit for details: You'll want to sum up part masses in each case. Go with full tanks for initial mass and empty ones for final. If you have a kerbal in an external seat, make sure to include its mass (0.09375 t) also.

Looks like a classic case of too much thrust, not enough fuel. I'd look into giving some of those mainsails 2 orange tanks, or replacing them with skippers. Also, that's... a lot of boosters.

No idea (store version here), but lots. >>100, maybe >1000.

After you've pitched over, you're no longer directly fighting gravity, and gravity drag losses are much reduced if not entirely eliminated. Once in orbit, you're under much less pressure, and can afford burn times up to a significant fraction of your orbital period. Longer if you split the burn.

The Mainsail's heat production was reduced in 0.22 to specifically avoid the heat transfer bugs that large parts (eg: orange tanks) see.

Way back in 0.8.4? Something like "Cynosure," I think. In the current campaign? "TL0 flight 1."

I'm going to say Communotron 16 while you have limited resources (especially energy). Later on, it doesn't matter so much, but the Communotron 88-88 will send data back faster (at a much higher energy cost).

Easy. Sufficiently large explosions sufficiently close to Jeb.

1. Currently just in the persistence file AFAIK. This sounds like it should be a feature request. 2. Probably, given its semi-tutorial nature. TL0 gives you some basic parts to get an introduction to the game, and rocket construction (including vertical stacking and clustering). And then as soon as you're ready, multiple stages. 3. No idea.

The number is how many parts are on that node. Not sure about the grayed out ones.

There is an effect, but it doesn't matter. << 100 m/s for TMI, and costs all of 18 m/s for ascent.