Superfluous J

Yeah, but whomever could we get to do that?

I started playing after the new parts became available, but I believe the demo I played had the old parts. I don't remember them much but I do remember being very impressed with the new ones over them. So I'll have to go on the "no" side. I prefer the new ones.

I don't agree that the diagram needs to show all the time relations. What is the functional difference between the SSTO landing before or after the mothership leaves? All that matters is that it undocks and lands.

And another!

No, and I'm fearing their lack means something went wrong and we WON'T get the release on Tuesday like we thought.

You CAN, but they don't help much. And if you think you have to strut the crap out of your tiny pancake rockets, try landing a multiple-asparagus-SLS rocket on Eve.

Eve is like rolling a boulder up a hill. Jool 5 is like breaking that boulder up into chunks and wheelbarrowing them up the hill in multiple loads.

My first Eve lander/return was 22ish tons (slightly more full, slightly less empty) and you can see the meat of if starting in this video here: It had just enough dV to launch from the highest mountain, hence why I landed it going straight down to ensure it would be close to that mountain's peak. I've since designed a ship that is very similar to this one but can reach orbit from about a Km above sea level. I'm planning on landing it unmanned, then landing a glider with a rover nearby to get ocean science and then drive to the lifter.

If it's so obvious, then you don't need to see the biome maps. If it's not obvious to you, then why should it be obvious to your Kerbals? Short answer: You should be able to figure out about 90% of the biomes just by eyeballing the non-biome map of each world. The tough part is knowing the exact boundary between biomes and finding some hidden gems that aren't obvious from a casual glance, which would require some sort of mapping/scanning/exploration. I'd like to see integration with Fine Print. Add a specific contract per world, "Map Minmus' Biomes" where you have to take a probe with a specific part (they hinted at cameras) and put it in a specific orbit. And then when you do, you get no money or science or rep but you do get a biome map (available via a toggle button or checkbox) in map and tracking station mode.

Yeah this made me very happy. You can even roleplay it a bit, and only turn on the Biome map after you've had a "scanning probe" in polar orbit for a while.

You sound like you're stuck right about where we (Humans) are stuck. I say: Stop fretting that stuff. There will be plenty of time to roleplay out the needing extra space or food or whatnot. For now, just go out there and DO stuff. You've been to Mun and Minmus, go to Gilly. Or Ike. Then go to Duna. Etc. Just go! But if you simply cannot bring yourself to, then I suggest you look into mods because there isn't really anything between "land on Mun and Minmus" and "Land on Duna, Ike, or Gilly." There just isn't. I mean, you can land on different places on Mun. Find some easter eggs and whatnot, but eventually you're going to have to (as I said above) just go and land on another planet. Oh one thing: Probes. They don't need four-poster queen beds to be happy. Send them everywhere.

I'd have to do it, but my gut says you would save a little fuel but not very much. In the end, you'll essentially need an orbit the same as your targets', which means you will need to pull your periapsis up to your targets' periapsis and your apoapsis to your targets' apoapsis. The one thing I don't know for sure is if getting into a lower orbit, then raising your apoapsis up to touch the target's orbit, and then raising your periapsis up so the orbits match uses any more fuel than just launching up to get your apoapsis up to the target and then raise your periapsis. I am very sure that (if it *is* more efficient) compared to the fuel you just spent getting into orbit, the fuel you'd save from meeting this is a pittance. [EDIT] The more I think about it, the more I suspect that actually reaching orbit first could be better. My thinking goes like this: There is a single best way to reach orbit, and if you are trying to hit a certain point at a certain time you will deviate from that single best way by some amount. Any fuel you may have saved from doing the meeting with only 2 maneuvers (which I still don't know if it's actually any savings at all) could easily be eaten up in the fact that you are wasting some fuel overcoming your failure to do a really efficient launch-to-orbit.

I made a calendar with 12 screenshots from the game. I'm looking forward to when it arrives some time next week.

Eve is harder to plan for. Jool 5 is harder to execute, especially if you discover midway through that you forgot something, or something works differently than you expect. If that happens on Eve, you wasted an hour at most. Jool 5, you could have wasted several hardcore play hours. Also, once you get an Eve lander you can redo the mission over and over with few problems. A Jool-5 mission is not something you undertake on a whim, no matter how many times you've done it. So I voted "other"

Of course not. It's also more efficient to fire your RCS jets if you brought 100x the RCS fuel than you'll ever need in a regular mission, but it's even better to redesign your rocket to be more efficient.

My arrows were mostly due to the pack I chose in Dia and my laziness toward finding a better alternative. But I do like a lot of them. The extra one at the Jool Flyby was unneeded but it was the only arc I could find after literally SECONDS of searching.

And the notation is Mission Overview Notation, or MON. "Eh, ow you notate your missions?" "Eh, MON!" I like this lots and lots. Then arrows can be used for when direction is ambiguous. I am by no means a guru on design but perhaps an agreement that everything happens either (1) clockwise around the circle (my preferred), (2) counter-clockwise around the circle (to match orbits), (3) whichever direction arrows around the circle go (see above), or (4) something weird like both ways around the circle, but distance from entry (or exit) vector dentoes how far. So take my pic for example, and from Tylo: (1) We visit Vall first, then do the Pol/Bop mission, then the Laythe mission, then the Jool Flyby mission returns (he got lost). (2) Jool Flyby Mission returns, we do the Laythe Mission, the Pol/Bop mission, then the Vall Mission. (3) I didn't include arrows, but presumably they'd specifically note one of the above. (4) Jool Flyby Misison returns, then we do the Laythe and Vall missions at the same time (though we could have shifted one of them right or left to indicate it went first or last), then the Pol/Bop mission goes last. 4 is the most confusing but has a great benefit that it naturally encourages you to continue moving on to the next planet in the series in at least roughly the same direction you came in. Another option would be to number each sub-mission, like Thunderous Echo did a few pages back.

Not really. Every rocket controls differently. Unless you go straight up of course But generally speaking you find the point where you tap it to the right and then barely control it anymore. Usually you're going 50-100m/s when that happens, assuming you don't have a crazy high TWR. That's fair, though I'd suggest you could have made better decisions in your unlocking

I did misunderstand you, but you did say you could have landed one on the mun and the other not. And in a Mun craft it's important to not overshoot your target I limited the thrust to 54 in the orbiter, and set it to 100 for the straight up craft. I was going to try it limited in the straight up craft but never did. It's also important because you can essentially go as fast as you want in the atmosphere and not experience the severe drag you get in stock. I've found that one LV-T45 can turn just fine in stock. And the basic non-controlling fins hold a (real) gravity turn in FAR just fine if you do it just right. It may take a few tries but once you know how the rocket climbs it's pretty easy. I don't understand why you're allowing the largest SRB but not the simplest controlling fins, but if I can use the non-controlling ones sure, I can do that.

Escaping Kerbin's SOI is *NOT* landing on the Mun. Landing on Mun takes roughly 800 more dV than escaping Kerbin's SOI. You need to do the same thing to have a valid test. Also, you're using FAR right? I'm using Stock right now. I made a craft that cost 7782 kerbucks and has 6162 dV, and can just match orbits with Mun (I didn't bother getting an encounter) before running out of fuel. Launching that rocket straight up, it ran out of fuel before its apoapsis reached Mun's orbit. And both of these are with the more restrictive stock aerodynamics. And as a bonus, you almost can't make a simpler rocket

It is very possible to build a ship that can get to Mun straight up with about the same dV as getting to orbit first. It is also very possible to build a ship that can get to Mun via getting into orbit first with significant savings over going the straight-up method. It is NOT possible for the first ship to be cheaper, smaller, or use less fuel than the second ship (for the same payload). Also, as the payload increases, the savings tilts towards the orbit-first craft.

(1) Yes it is. 20% more fuel is not marginal. It's not as bad as some poor methods of flying, sure, but it's still significantly suboptimal. (2) If you don't care how much fuel you waste and/or extra engines you carry, they go for it (3) I have never, ever had trouble turning a rocket in the early career, unless I literally forgot to think about it in the design phase. And then it's usually just while the engines aren't running. I'm on a poor connection right now so can't watch the video. Is that a mainsail on the bottom of that orange tank? I'll build the same rocket and see how it goes.

Set up an Imgur account, upload them all there, make a nice album, and then enclose the album's code in [noparse][imgur][/imgur][/noparse] tags in your forum post.

Super-high TWR craft spend a lot of money on engines (and the fuel to carry them), and you can't effectively use those engines doing a proper gravity turn because you will lose so much to drag. It'd been so long since I'd done this that I forgot that wrinkle originally in this thread. Yes. It is possible to construct a horrid behemoth that is capable of getting to Mun going straight up "more efficiently" than doing a gravity turn. However, if you want to get a payload to Mun orbit and want to do it with the least money spent on both the rocket and the fuel then getting to LKO first is the best way. That isn't as flashy and simple to see as "less dV always!" which is sad but it's still a fact: Straight up is not and never will be the best method.

I suppose you need to define "Iron Man." To me it simply means no save reverting, so I think it'd be possible to succeed in Stock Easy mode with all reverts turned off. I agree that not using KER would handicap that sort of endeavor, but I don't know by how much because I can't bear to play the game without it long enough to see what would happen