Decho

Zero, largely because there have only been two manned flights. Made sure Jeb was first Kerbal in space though.

^this - the space program is clearly a family project.

My experience with the new SAS is largely positive, certainly it hasn't made anything harder for me and I haven't experienced any random spinning or such which other people have reported.

I'd build it in low Munar orbit, because performing rendez-vous maneuvers are easier to perform, consuming less delta V, in the lower gravity environment. Certainly that's what I plan to do once .21 hits. Will also be constructing it entirely unmanned then moving crew over in a largeish purpose-built space bus, which will also be used for crew rotation if I can be bothered to do that.

I'm starting again from scratch, so new basic orbiter designs working up to a grand tour eventually (though .22 will probably be on the horizon by then so who knows). Will be doing unmanned missions to planets first this time too.

I have the KSP store and the steam version, and I mainly use the store version as I prefer having control over my updates, so I treat the steam version as little more than a backup.

With my most successful rover I was crusing around on the moon at 45-49 m/s, I doubt that will be possible with the new terrain in .21 though...

It is, we're only talking about in the distant future once it's been released and out for a while. At some point sales would inevitably drop off, and then they'd need to do paid expansions if they want to keep supporting it, or release a '2' version which would have to be significantly updated to make it worthwhile. If they do it at all I'd hope not until at least 6 years from now, and by then they'd be tech around to make that unigine demo look old hat

Yeah the main thing I'd want from a KSP2 would be an engine change, allowing them to build it for 64bit from the ground up, and multi-core usage. But it's a long way off, so it's moot. In any case, am considering buying a third copy of KSP just to support the devs, which I'll be happy to keep doing as long as everything remains DRM free.

Approximately half an hour I believe, enough time to successfully get a few rockets into orbit.

I beg to differ dear chap, there's generally nothing significantly wrong with my spelling or grammar, and I have a degree in astrophysics That said I still tend to ignore the maths while remaining in Kerbin's sphere of influence as on those scales I find it fairly intuitive, less so when going to other planets.

Currently it's Decho Industrial Concerns - DIC. I'll be starting a new save with a new space agency name and flag once 0.21 hits, largely to get away from the unfortunate acronym.

I always quick save before I use timewarp or if I'm not sure I have quite enough delta v to land/ascend properly.

I'll build the payload and test it on the ground to check action groups and whatnot, then I'll build the launcher for it. Sometimes I use a launcher I've already built but I tend to make very versatile craft so typically launchers will be bespoke. I use kerbal engineer to calculate delta-v, as I can't be bothered doing that myself.

I use mechjeb for any burns using ions, and for launching anything big if I've done it a few times already and can't be bothered. I use kerbal engineer redux because I hate having to go into map view and mouse over the apo or peri apsis to see what it is and time to. Other than that and occasionally allowing clipping in the VAB/SPH I don't cheat, and I do almost all 'flight' myself, certainly for things like correcting orbits, because mechjeb can't get them as precise as I like (mainly a concern for keosynchronous)

That was my first thought, though jets are very efficient so by flameout time on ascent the CoM likely won't have changed much. Alternatively could put primary jet fuel tank centred on the CoM, then as it empties the CoM wouldn't change (I don't think KSP currently models fuel distribution within a tank right? Looking at the design again the jet fuel is aranged symmetrically around the CoM which would have a very similar effect. @OP Those look very nice, may have to give one a go.

The stack seperators provide less force, but introduce more spacejunk, though as said docking ports are the way to go. My satellites almost always have a manoeuvring engine, if liquid with typically ~1k delta V, 4k if ion. Normally use liquid, ion only if it's going a long way.

I take centre of mass to be the density-weighted mid point of an object, ie. the point about which it rotates, whereas I would only use centre of gravity to describe the point about which two bodies interacting gravitationally rotate, eg. the point about which the moon and Earth rotate in their orbit (so close to but not quite the centre of mass of the Earth). Not sure I described that well but that's what my Physics background has led me to believe.

I generally write down my action groups, mainly because I often have detachments on them, and accidentally hitting the wrong one is irritating.

This wiki page goes through calculating the Hohmann transfer delta v requirement: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Advanced_Rocket_Design Calculating the delta v required for a launch is fairly tricky, as it also depends on your trajectory (ie. when you begin the gravity turn etc.) but a simple way to do a preliminary estimate is to calculate the delta v for a Hohmann transfer from a 0km altitude orbit up to wherever you wish - which will be fairly accurate on airless bodies. Then you need to account for gravitational and atmospheric drag, which would involve integration and factoring in the flight path. For a landing you could simply calculate the delta requirement for the relevant transfer and then calculate what the orbital velocity at that radius would be and add that much delta v to account for zeroing out landing velocity, which again for an airless body shouldn't be too far off. The requirement is much less if there's an atmosphere involved, to the point where you need hardly any fuel really with the current aerodynamics model.

If I were you I'd disable the gimble on your launch boosters, should help with the wobble. I just landed my first mission to Duna too, was a good moment. Mine was manned though, theyre a bit stranded now, but I'll probably get them later, hopefully.

On my main ~400 part mun lander launch vehicle I've gone from a solid 20fps on the pad, down to 5 or 6 fps, with the same settings. Also loading from the VAB/SPH or into a flight from the tracking station takes longer, though map view does load faster as does the initial game load. I'm running a 2.8GHz Phenom II X6 1055T with an HD5870 and 8GB of RAM. Additionally with that same ship I used to get a good 30fps in space, now it's around about 8 at best, at least until I've detached my rovers.

As many have also said I'd rather more detail on the current planets. The biggest thing for me would be more science instruments and applications, like seismometers, which would realistically necessitate a lot of work being done on the planets to make it rewarding ie. internal density distribution, possibly plates etc. which could then lead to earthquakes and if you wanted to be really ambitious even volcanoes and eruptions. I for one would be very excited by the possibility of being able to lay out a series of seismometers and try to predict eruptions.

My performance is definitely worse for 0.2, especially at launch due to the ocean, but also when loading anything, even in space, takes a lot longer than before. I'm running 64bit Win 7 on an AMD Phenom II X6 1055T and an HD5870. It was like that even starting totally fresh. Other than that I'm loving 0.2

This is what I'm looking forward to most about the update I plan on starting a fresh save and not losing a single Kerbal this time. On my current save none have been stranded, but many, many have died in catastrophic failures, mostly in spaceplanes.