Liudeius

That one is the only one I've found, and it's not visible from the launch pad. If the Mun arcs count, I've found those too, but they are so common, I just considered them environmental features. I want to find them, I just don't want to waste thousands of hours monotonously combing over every planet in the game. You're all so aggressively against this. If you never want to find any and just have them all spoiled, don't use it. You can't compare KSP to other games, even Gilly has greater surface area than the average sandbox game. Currently, easter eggs are useless from a discovery perspective since only 1 in 100000 people will actually organically discover the better, less common, ones. Everyone else has to use a guide. And if a built-in, multi-hour system to give an approximate location to spend another hour or more exploring counts as "ruining" easter eggs, a guide does that 50 times worse, so the entire KSP wiki needs to be shut down or it "ruins" the game. Currently the easter eggs are the only point to exploring a planet after you get there. Thank you, I prefer vanilla, but I'll check that out.

Oh yeah, I've seen that too, but I just considered that part of the strip (technically, I guess one could consider the whole thing an easter egg, but it's so easy to find, I wouldn't count it). Building an interplanetary satellite cluster, getting the right orbits for each planet, sending a lander vehicle, and exploring a rough area (~200km²) isn't exactly "doing the job for you." And the job it's doing is literal years of picking through every pebble on Duna. I get that they're supposed to be easter eggs, but how are easter eggs in other games? I know its vastly more exciting to find one myself without knowing what it is before hand than to see a picture of it before I find it. Since they're impossible to find myself, I've had all the good ones ruined by inconsiderate Youtubers, so even if I ever do find one, it will just be "oh, that boring old thing," not "WOW, what an easter egg!"

Well how many have you found? In easily 100 hours of KSP (probably more, I haven't been timing it), I have found 0, only the freebie near the space center (and then only when I saw it pointed out in a video). Even the KSP wiki says there are ones which remain undiscovered. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hours of play have not uncovered all the easter eggs. It's not realistically possible to find them organically. They are far less satisfying if the only way to find them is a 1:100000 accident, or a guide.

Probably a suggestion since I assume the answer to the question is no/unknown: Does anyone know if there are plans to add some sort of orbital scan to locate approximate easter egg locations? I would like to find them, but also avoid using a guide or spending literal years driving around each planet. (And it would give satellites a use, hooray!) Additionally, it could help with progression, maybe make them high-science resources, or require discovering certain easter eggs for certain parts (ex: Liquid lead geyser on Eve gives Kerbin scientists the idea of heating metal prior to shaping, allowing smaller metal parts). If there's some way to get a hint on their location that I'm missing, please mention it.

Yeah, unfortunately I didn't realize he batch recorded the KSP series and considering that freakout probably isn't revisting.

Keep in mind that Eve's highest point is around 6 km rather than the 11 km that it was before. Also aerospikes have had reduced TWR. Because of this, older designs probably won't work anymore. My own attempt at a return trip from Eve is currently about 130 tons with a TWR of about 2.4 and delta-v of just over 10k, but I'm still trying to reduce its mass and increase its delta-v.

You can physics warp, and ignore an hour long burn without mods? I can see a capture burn working, but if you're already in orbit, wouldn't you change trajectory too quickly to entirely ignore it? Perhaps once career comes out ion's will be better, but for now I'll stick to nuclear transit stages because cost doesn't matter. I can't believe they will leave ion's as they are for career though. I expect either a slight increase in power to put their burn times nearer to nuclear for small probes, or a way to set them to burn automatically. KSP may be a sort of simulator, but I doubt it is Squad's intention to simulate space travel as accurately as spending hours doing nothing/ignoring the game.

Nice, my preliminary tug design has about 8-9k delta-V fully loaded, I think it was 16k without the lander (much of which I won't be taking back), Saving 1-2k delta-v with Kerbin aerobreaking will be very nice too. Thanks for your help. Onward to Moho!

Since ions are only good for probes, you might as well use a nuclear engine to go to your location, and deploy the probe with a tenth the burn time. After the probe has been deployed, if you ever intend to adjust its orbit, ion engines are useful since they last for a long time without refueling. However, unless you are specifically trying to do something crazy (flying a single stage space plane from Kerbin to Eve), you should never use ion engines for interplanetary travel (or even to get to moons). Hours of your time is worth far more than putting a tiny satellite in orbit with fictional efficiency.

Oh, I didn't notice you before. Is that one way or two ways? And is it only the hardest planet to get to, or is it harder than moons too? (According to the chart, Pol looks like more delta-v.)

I save all my ships, but typically I start a new profile when the game is updated (I didn't for 0.21 because I found out you could update without fully reinstalling as the in game updater always says you need to do).

For Delta V you need the Isp of your engine, mass fully fueled, and mass empty. Then I've been using this http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/ to do the calculation. (though the formula is Delta-v = Isp * 9.81 * ln(mass full/mass empty). It is 9.8 no matter where you are going.) Delta V is basically "How efficient is your engine and what percentage of your ship is fuel." (Though if you know the shape of the graph of ln, you can see adding more fuel has diminishing returns.) You can find the mass of your ship by pressing "m" on the launch pad the mousing over the "I" icon on the right of the map.

I have one of those too (slightly less detailed though, thanks, I'll take that). But I am a bit confused on how to calculate from it. Firstly, is it the same both ways? And secondly, do I really have to put 2630 into a low Jool orbit if I'm headed to Pol, then another 2630 to get back? Can't I just go straight from Pol to interplanetary space to get back? And it seems to me any Jool orbit would be better to sit in until you could find a favorable intersect with Pol while you're headed there, rather than burning retrograde to Jool just to burn prograde again. (Though I'm not very knowledgable on optimizing orbital transfer.

If only. I'm planning to use it for a universal lander, so I'm expecting to haul at least 100 tons (ignoring its own mass and fuel). I meant the highest delta-v for starting from low Kerbin orbit, transferring to another planet or moon, establishing a parking orbit around it, then returning to Kerbin and reestablishing a low parking orbit. (So basically everything but going from ground to orbit.)

I'm trying to build an interplanetary tug which can make a round trip from low orbit around Kerbin (fully fueled), to low parking orbit around any other planet or moon, and back to Kerbin for refueling. How much delta-v should I aim for to do this? I know it's more complex than that, depending on gravity assists (which I don't expect to use much since they seem to require in-game years patience), but does anyone at least know the absolute most expensive delta-v round trip to achieve so I can use that as a goal? Answer: Moho, with 8-10k delta-v (round trip) in the interplanetary stage.