zarakon

If you right click it shows a number for drag. I don't remember which intake I was testing, but when closed it was always 0.3. When opened it ranged from 0.0 to I think 2.0 depending on speed. However, it seems to all be a lie. With a simple straight-up SRB test with an intake at the top, it reached the same altitude and top speed regardless of whether the intake was opened or closed. Fun fact: Shock cone intakes make great nosecones for rockets - better than most of the actual nosecones!

Can you add materials and goo to it though? If I'm cloning yours correctly that puts it barely over the limit on both parts and mass, and drops the delta-v to only 3449 (according to KER)

It's even got science! Now show me your SRB equivalent

Here's a challenge to see if anyone can prove that solids are still worth using: 1. Build an all-liquid rocket of any size which can bring a payload to orbit without any blatant inefficiencies. 2. Build a similar rocket which can lift the same payload with the same delta-V but cheaper by utilizing solid boosters or a solid stage.

Just had to do it again... 3762 (3009.6) this time after cutting out a sepratron and downgrading the 2nd stage engine http://imgur.com/a/WPtuk

Well, the 3948 attempt just barely came up short. Here's one at 4023 (3218.4) http://imgur.com/a/YMEBd

I just did a return run for 4335 (3468), buuuut I didn't actually use Jeb, aaaaand it was really sloppy so I can do better! I'm aiming for 3948 (3158)!

I've got several crazy ideas in mind. Hopefully at least one of them will actually work. Should have some results tonight!

waterlubber, did you try using the smallest decoupler between your 909 and the solid booster?

There are a number of issues with orbital paths, maneuver nodes, and intercepts that I really hoped would be ironed out by now - When your intercept status flickers between no intercept and crashing into the planet. - When you're warping toward your intercept and it suddenly disappears, even without changing SOI, but then you still get there anyway. - When you're adjusting your periapsis, but there's a region where your intercept disappears for no apparent reason. - It's often hard to actually click on paths to create maneuver nodes, particularly on either end of an escape trajectory. - Escape trajectories still aren't displayed properly. Instead of being hyperbolic, the path appears to first curve in toward the planet, then slightly away before curving back inward.

I had a materials experiment inside a 2.5m bay. It seems to fit just perfectly in there, though I can't tell whether it's attaching to the top node or the bottom one. I had a heat shield right under the service bay, but for some reason the materials experiment still exploded to overheating during re-entry while nothing else other than the shield even got warm

I lower the fuel in my sepratrons to minimum. They still kick enough to do their job, they won't fire long enough to roast anything, and they're slightly lighter.

Yes, I think they got hit too hard. In my 0.90 career I used solids all the time for first stages. Now in 1.0.x they just don't seem worth it. I think they nerfed too many things about them: - Much lower ISP. While the liquid engines got hit by around 15%, the solid boosters lost around 30%. - Worse mass fraction (more dead weight per unit of fuel) - Less fuel and less thrust on the RT-10 and BACC - More expensive The changes total out to about a 40% loss in the delta-V that you can get out of a solid stage, while the prices have increased. In 0.90 I could make a simple orbital rocket with a solid first stage and liquid second stage. Now if I try to do that, my second stage has to be much larger to make up for the weaker solids, which then means my solid stage has to be much much larger, and it's just not worth using over an all-liquid rocket. Pre-1.0, there were two main (practical) purposes for solid boosters: 1. Cost-efficienct first stage with a tradeoff of being heavier and harder to control. Weight is significant in career mode before the launch pad is fully upgraded. 2. As a band-aid when you've designed a rocket with enough delta-V but not enough launch thrust. They still fill role #2, although obviously not quite as well. But #1 is pretty much gone. In addition to still being hard to control and even heavier than before, they are no longer significantly (or at all?) cost-effective compared to using all liquid.

I think it was 0.12, first version where the Mun existed. There were no landing legs yet and I hadn't thought to use fins, so I was trying to just land on the bell of an LV-T30. Touched down softly enough, but of course it tipped over and the command pod rolled off. There was also no EVA yet, so there wasn't much to do after that but roll around with the pod. longcat - you don't need ladders on the Mun! Kerbal jetpacks are strong enough for them to fly anywhere with Duna's gravity or less.

Well, maybe if you absolutely suck Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus dry for every little bit of science that they have to offer. Even then I have a hard time imagining finishing the tech tree without going interplanetary I'm using stock, abused polar orbits to get EVA reports above all the Mun/Minmus biomes, and got surface data from a bunch of them too. I just did a Duna+Ike return mission for a boatload of science, but I STILL need 8500 more to finish the tree

Back then you also couldn't radial mount liquid fuel tanks to anything else (not even radial decouplers), so the tri-coupler was the best way to get a bigger liquid core. Now it's mostly just an aesthetic choice

Is that true for the scientist bonus? My level 4 scientist skipped level 3, so I don't know if it changed since then, but her science bonus is now 120%

Early game: Solar panels for sure, since they enable the lucrative satellite contracts Mid game: Fuel lines, 2.5m tanks, mainsail, and the gravioli detector Late: LV-N engine

DynamicWarp Editor Extensions KAS (at least the ability for engineers on EVA to place struts)

Everything I'd need to get a MK3 shuttle into orbit (including the cargo bay itself) is pretty far beyond my current tech level I guess I'll experiment with bringing things down without a heat shield. After losing one early mission when the command pod flipped backward on re-entry from a simple low orbit, I didn't even consider that it would be possible to come back from even higher without a heat shield.

Yes - Recover Johnory Kerman on Kerbin: Incomplete - Recover Johnory's Debris on Kerbin: Incomplete

I got a contract to recover a stranded kerbal AND the debris/remains of his ship from around Minmus. After sending out a scout probe, I found that the debris the contract was talking about is a 3-man Mk1-2 Command Pod that he's in. The tricky part is that it has no docking ports, no heatshield, nothing. I have the claw grabber, so I think I can get it back to Kerbin without too much trouble, but getting it down to the ground in one piece is another matter. Anyone have any luck doing these missions? Any neat tricks?

I'm pretty sure they actually are massless when placed on other "no physics" parts based on my tests. Make a vessel that just barely lifts off with one cubic strut attached. Easy enough to do using the thrust limiter. Then add a bunch more cubic struts and a bunch of regular struts between those. The listed mass (both in the VAB and the map info panel) will show the mass go up, but it won't actually affect the craft's ability to fly. If you put the roots of those struts on the main body of the craft instead, then it won't be able to move.

Yep, struts placed on cubic octagonal struts add no mass, and the cubics only have 0.001