Progressm

You'd think that a 16.5% payload fraction on a scalable design, while ambitious, would be doable somehow - I've never gone that high, though. Interested to see what people come up with.

Hmm. My xkcd-inspired theory is; fire came out from the wrong place in the rocket and you are not going to space today. I think it's broadly speaking accurate.

Some testing of the long term habitat rovers as a teaser...launcher to be improved as well. I will post a schedule soon but ironing out some of the vessels first. I can get 2 rovers up within my 30t reusable launcher payload limit, each has long term stay capacity for 4 kerbals and supplies for 375 days. Feedback/thoughts welcome.

I suggest downloading an easy beginner plane design by someone else first, there are plenty around. Rather than practicing all the way to orbit, just take off, go around, line up, land. Repeat. As to landing speed... It's easier if you are going slow while remaining above stall speed, as you have more time to adjust, flare etc. Less energy involved as well. In stock KSP a simple plane has enough lift to behave well at 50m/s so that's the speed it is easiest to land. The space shuttle had the gliding ratio of a pig with wings, hence it had to land at high speed to retain enough lift for a flare. Sure you can land things at 300m/s in KSP if you like (and walk away intact) but that's not ideal or realistic, or the safest beginner method to learn on either.

Reading this with much interest and I have to say (in the absence of actual facts to add to the debate), this discussion and the fact that there is no single right answer revealed yet is a tribute to the game by itself.

This makes me happy. In fact, it reminds me to ask you guys about an idea I have about homebrewing a range of beers with an Apollo theme; IVB lager, Reentry Amber Ale etc. I better start a new thread for that, though.

My understanding is that the random contracts are random, so there is no max science per se...the amount of science you can get from pure location research (run science instrument x at location y, take sample etc.) is finite (albeit huge and undoubtedly more than required for tech tree), but even if you gathered all that you'd still get "205 science if you test Rockomax Bladiblah at altitude x" type contracts going forward.

The thing about a plane is, if you make a good SSTO capable of a quick suborbital / upper atmo hop to the pole, it's a very handy and cost effective way to haul a base over... and I would argue a plane is more pinpoint than a parachute, as you can just land where you like and taxi the last few meters if you miss. However, firstly you have to return the plane to KSC to make use of the reusability, which takes time...secondly, if you crash the plane you have lost a lot more money than if you crash a simple suborbital polar rocket (I.e. a couple of SRBs stacked). Also, as stated previously, it takes time to build/design... but if you don't mind the above, I would vouch for a plane, they are fun and feel more involved than just pressing space a few times to stage and open the chutes.

While refuelling with the claw could make sense, how about carrying a couple of SRB's with claws and probe bodies next to the stranded craft with a rover, attach them to each side with claws and fire up both...voila, your craft is on a high Munar suborbital trajectory and you can do a Scott manley scoop rescue to get the craft to a safe orbit and home. Clearly this is the simplest way to go about it all.

I'm in the early stages of planning this challenge...it's not a new thread, obviously, but I really like the idea, so going to go for it. I ran some early "simulation" tests of my mobile habitat / surface-to-orbit vehicle - it needs further work but I enjoy the concept so thought I'd share. The departure back to orbit is rather explosive and all activated with the push of one button. :-) Essentially the idea is for the vehicle to work as a 8-kerbal long term habitat; on departure, all the crew will hop into the 2 front cabins and detach the rear habitat / food truck so the next crew can take them into use as extra room...the trip to orbit is short so they can squeeze in. In orbit, they will discard the aerospike ascent engine block, connect to a NERVA transfer stage with 2 more cabins and food and return to Kerbin orbit; the nose of the vehicle acts as heatshield on Kerbin return.

All three are on a Minmus orbital science base until further notice. I think they will eventually go and manage some long-term Duna / Laythe bases but in the meantime they are in lockdown.

You can design a craft that sits under the failed lander on reentry to avoid tearing off. Check 'Sibylla' for reference ( use a docking port, of course). forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60694-Mutiny-in-orbit%21?p=822408 Easiest way to save crew is to just get then with another lander, though.

Is is possible to get to orbit with a couple of basic jets and an LV-T30 if you are really keen early on in the tech tree...and you do save a bit of money as you get all the parts back. It's quite painful, though (from memory you can nurse the jets up to 15-18kms or so) and with money making hardly being an issue in the current career game I wouldn't bother again.

You probably know this but ensure the landing gear is straight, not on a sideways angle (no camber angle & wheels straight to the direction you're going). The smallest camber angle in KSP causes some very funky landing gear behavior. That said, may just be that 150m/s is a bit much! If you don't have much of a gliding ratio, you may need to do an aggressive flare quite late to match a lower airspeed with a safe vertical velocity for touchdown.

Also, even if you did find optimal scenarios where you could save a drop or two of fuel by cruising at a low altitude, it is hard to justify the time expense when you can easily have all the range you need in a third of the time (say 500m/s at 17km vs 1500m/s a 27km). Interested to hear of exceptions but in general I would opt for fast and efficient rather than slow and maybe just slightly more efficient.