Superfluous J

This matches my guesstimates (I thought the 909 started beating the other low-tier engines at roughly 10km). My Mun rocket uses 4 Reliants as boosters up to about 20km, and at about 10km I kick on a central 909 (at the same time I lose 2 of the Reliants) that eventually gets me all the way to Mun. Are you going to do the same with the smaller engines? I'd be curious to see how the 48-7s stacks up.

I did. I work nights and it's usually on Friday. As there's no summary up yet, what did they say relating to fairings?

Agreed. This current leak is a great example of something that shouldn't be in a released game. However it's not the same leak anymore, because flying with terrain scatter on doesn't cause it. The only current leak I know about is with the heat gauges up. I've crashed because of it. It's the only time the game has crashed on me since 1.0 came out.

Squad has been essentially completely silent. I think they went on a bender after release. I also think that's totally reasonable considering how much they worked in the days up to release. Maybe someone can ask in the Squadcast, if they can get through the "OMG make it flip again" comments. And if there is one. Is there one?

Funny. You have a problem with the "land on Gilly" part where my issue is more with the "get the stuff off Eve" part.

I do not think the old dV maps were calculated. I think they were done experimentally. That's why they varied a bit.

They start off disabled. You have to enable them with F10. I'm not sure how persistent they are. Like if you hit F10, then exit the game and come back in, if they're still enabled. Or if you jump to a new ship. Or go to the space center and back.

Nope that's the way it's been for several major updates. I've been using it long enough that I don't remember learning it.

Oh yeah I'll be doing it myself, but figured I'd toss it out there as a suggestion for inclusion in the mod

I'm trying to keep my mod count as low as is possible reasonable, so am skipping MKS this time around

On every ascent, put a little * next to the number. At the bottom of the chart, put *YdVMV. Numbers are based on community consensus and optimal ascent trajectories. It's not my fault if you lack the skillz, bro. ...or something slightly less cheeky.

I like this idea. It kinda takes the idea that others have proposed for a sort of "Picture in Picture" display and distills out the stuff you don't need PiP for. +1 would read again.

I went to my Junior prom but my girlfriend and I both agreed it was a huge waste of time and money. We skipped Senior prom.

Thought (and I'll probably do this with a modulemanager config anyway so if you don't like it, ignore it): Conversion of ore to mulch, perhaps with a pretty poor rate. The idea is that you can pull organics out of the ground to supply your base.

Alt-F5 will drop a named save that you can go back to at any time.

If you are used to building rockets powerful enough to do that kind of gravity turn in KSP 0.90 and before, my guess is that your rockets are going WAY too fast for 1.0.x How quickly do you get to 100m/s? If you're going 100m/s before you hit 1km altitude, lose some boosters (in the VAB ) and try again. Also, as some have said in this thread, fins and aerodynamic rockets will help lots. EDIT: The space shuttle did NOT turn 45 degrees less than a kilometer from the ground. https://www.google.com/search?q=space+shuttle+ascent+trajectory

If you want it, add it. If you don't know how, learn.

Any chance you have the heat thing enabled (f10) but the gauges aren't up so you don't know it? Maybe that leaks a little even when the gauges aren't up.

Those are not bugs. They're differences of opinion.

If you're getting vastly different amounts of fuel (thus dV) in orbit with the same vessel on multiple launches, all I can say is keep launching until you've got a consistent profile. No amount of math will get you past that. And once you have a consistent (and moderately efficient) profile, screw the math. Just note your dV on launch and in orbit (and your TWR at launch, and also how your TWR changes during launch), and you can expect roughly the same for vessels with similar dV and TWR.

The one I know for sure works (because I use it) is NavHud. It gives you a couple readouts, one of which is your velocity. You can't change the mode though so it may be in target, surface, or orbit mode and you just have to live with what it gives you.

Stupid Kerbals using jpgs to store their mulch!

No, but I tried it in FAR and learned enough to know not to bother.

Am I mistaken in thinking that a Kerbal + a greenhouse + some food = infinite loop? I haven't tried it yet and see no documentation but that's what "one greenhouse can keep up with one mulching Kerbal" means to me.

While I understand your reasoning, it's not going to fly in a discussion about whether or not fairings are useful or useless in the stock game. Sure, you can balance everything to reality (as much as is possible), but I hope you're starting with RSS to make Kerbin 10x its current size. I prefer it the size it is for those exact 'game balance' reasons you don't think are important. And the size Kerbin is affects everything in the game, including what mass is proper for fairings. I've done a lot more testing and I've concluded that - as long as your TWR is higher than about 1.2 atmospheric at launch, then fairings are a good idea for an otherwise non-aerodynamic craft. It doesn't seem to save much (if any) dV, but it does save a lot of rocket flips and it doesn't LOSE any dV. As my launch TWR is usually 1.4 or so, I'll keep using fairings. I'm going to - for the time being - keep them the stock mass so my ships fly like everybody else's. That's currently more important to me than being 'realistic.' EDIT: However, let me be clear. I don't think the current mass is fine, or reasonable, or correct, or anything like that. They should weigh less, period.