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.

Made for a Youtuber desperately in need of help getting to Mun. (On a side note, Minmus is easier. It has lower gravity and as of 0.21.1, Mun is a bumpy hell-scape where the concept of a "flat landing surface" does not exist. I have added an SAS unit to the lander though, I’ve landed it on surfaces so steep that it slides down them, but remains upright.) This is a "Space Butterfly" ship (for version 0.21.1) capable of a round trip to either Kerbin moon, or one way interplanetary trip (Duna and Eve confirmed, though I assume with patience and gravity assist it can get anywhere). Space Butterfly (Short-Range): http://pastebin.com/9L0q6T7E Space Butterfly (Long-Range): http://pastebin.com/qYvE6epN (Copy into text document, change the suffix to .craft, then place the file in KSP>Saves>*player name*>Ships>VAB.) Warning: Do not orbit this like a normal rocket. It uses jet engines and has unstable aerodynamic surfaces, see below for launch instructions. Differences between Short-Range (S) and Long-Range (L): - (S) transit stage uses a T45, while (L) transit stage uses a nuclear engine. This makes (S) faster and easier for a trip to Mun or Minmus, but (L) has better range. - (L) has more parachutes for safe landings on planets with a thinner atmosphere. - "0" key on (S) is mapped the same as the abort sequence, "0" key on (L) activates the parachutes, but doesn't separate the command capsule. - Slightly different wing structures. Key Mapping: - "1," Solar panels (do not open in atmosphere) - "2," Ladder - "3," Science Equiment (opposite to the Ladder) - "4" or "u," Lights. - Abort, activate parachute and decouple command pod. Orbit instructions: 1) Pre-launch Note that the ship has already been rotated, north is to the left, 90 degrees is straight forward. Immediately enable SAS, this should not be turned off during ascent and can be left on the entire trip. Turn thrust to max and fire the engines, but do not release the support struts, jet engines require time to power up. Open resources in the top right corner and look at the "Liquid Fuel" measurement. Once the number in parentheses hits 2.50, you can launch. 2) First Stage - Atmospheric Ascent Leave thrust at 100%, do not steer, and do not time accelerate. The space craft will go straight up and any attempt to change its course could result in the wings catching air, sending you into a spin. Watch the Resources menu again, this time pay attention to the number before the / for "Intake Air." Around 0.60, activate RCS (but do not turn). Once it drops to 0.20-0.30, press the stage button to decouple the jet engines. If the number drops much lower, you risk the engines blowing out, sending you into a spin, if the number is much higher, you risk being hit by the jet engines when they decouple. 3) Second Stage - Reaching Space Give the debris of the first stage a moment to clear, then stage again to activate the next set of engines, don't wait long, just enough that you can confirm it hasn't hit you. Once clear of the debris, begin a slow turn to a 45 degree angle of ascent (slow meaning 5-10 seconds). Once you have maneuvered to 45, stage again to activate the solid boosters. (Do all the following while paying attention to your solid boosters. Once they have burnt out, you should stage again to decouple them so you are not dragging around dead weight. To stage you must switch out of the map.) At this point, you will maintain your heading using the map. Press "m" then click the grey arrow in the middle of the bottom of the screen. Look at the apoapsis on your map, and try to keep the time to apoapsis between 40 and 50 second by pitching down from 45 degrees towards the horizon on your nav-ball (Do not cross the blue-orange boundary on the nav-ball). Once the number goes above 50 seconds, and you have already angled to the horizon (below), continue thrusting along this trajectory until your apoapsis is above 80,000 m but below 100,000 m (over estimate slightly, you will lose about 1000 m from upper atmosphere air resistance). Once your apoapsis is high enough, press "x" to cut your power, you will not thrust again until near the apoapsis. 4) Third Stage - Establishing an Orbit Note: Depending on how efficiently you have burned, you may have enough fuel left in the second stage for a full burn into orbit. You will only need a few seconds of fuel. If you only have a little fuel remaining, and don't think it's enough, go ahead and stage to the one-thruster stage, this will ensure you are given an accurate burn time prediction by the maneuver node. Set a maneuver node at the apoapsis (left click) and drag the prograde vector (the empty yellow circle) until a periaphsis appears on the opposite side of Kerbin. Adjust the node until the periapsis is about the same altitude as the apoapsis (minimum 80,000 m). (This example is a bit high, it's not extremely important, but unnecessarily high orbits waste fuel.) Turn to the blue indicator on your nav-ball, and begin burning once the node timer reaches the appropriate number (you should burn evenly on each side of the node, so if you need a 6 second burn, start at T - 3, if you need a 40 second burn, start at T - 20). As your actual orbit nears your planned orbit, lower your thrust power to ensure an accurate burn (ideally your orbit should be a perfect circle between 80,000 m and 100,000 m after this). 5) If you aren't already in the one-thruster stage, stage so only the core thruster and the lander remain. And press "1" From here on, the Space Butterfly flies like any other rocket. If you are using the short range version, you should have plenty of fuel for a Munar or Minmus landing (I returned to Kerbin with nearly half a lander tank left). If you are using the long range version, remember that most inter-planetary burns will be longer than 4 minutes, so plan your burns accordingly (ex: for a 4 minute burn, start 2 minutes before the node). You can use physical time acceleration to shorten the burn (alt+"," or ".") The long range version is only designed to work for the return trip from Mun and Minmus, interplanetary travel should be assumed to be one way. Remember to use the transit stage to do as much of the landing deceleration as possible, the lander has spare fuel, but it's better to be safe.

Everyone else has said what you need to make it, but I'm just going to add DON'T use shortcuts to adjust symmetry. There was a glitch in 0.20.2 (and probably still in 0.21.0) where if you pressed x to adjust symmetry rather than clicking to change it, your ship could be irreversibly glitched. A thread on the bug. It's probably fine to do it for small ships, but anything complex like what you want would likely run into trouble. But it's totally doable, I have one which I sent to Duna, and I had enough spare fuel that I figure it's good for anywhere.

That man is a legend. Well it seems no, there is no use for them unless you're patient enough for an hour+ burn. (They're pixels, an hour of my time is worth more than fictional efficiency.) Perhaps you really hardcore people can take that, and yes KSP is a light simulator, but it kind of stands out in how long it takes compared to other thrusters.

Only if you're willing to sit at your computer for a day to even break orbit. But yeah, I use nuclear engines too for long flights (though for me that works out to be a 5 minute burn, not a five hour - five day burn).

Has anyone found a useful purpose for ion propulsion? I've tried using an ion drive on the smallest possible probe, and the burn time for interplanetary travel was hours or days. I can't imagine more engines would help much either due to their tiny thrust not outweighing the significant increase in mass which the required structural changes would cause. I know about the solar glider, but there's not much purpose to exploring Kerbin, and normal jet fuel lasts a long time, so I don't really see that as a "useful" purpose. Answer: Only use them if you are crazy hardcore or value fictional efficiency over your time.

I prefer linear, but block are better for rotating since they can provide thrust in four different directions. (How would you use RCS to rotate a perfect cylinder along the vertical axis with only linear.)