cybersol

You should first learn the new ascent profile for SSTOs because it has completely changed. Because of the way thrust decays with both altitude and speed, you can no longer linger to milk the air breathers for every last drop. Instead you have to get what you can get quickly and efficiently and then switch to rockets. I would recommend started out by piloting someone else's design so that you know it can make it to orbit if you just learn how. Also, GoSlash27 has a good tutorial in that section of the forums.

The location is pointed at by the pointy tip at the bottom of the marker. The mod waypoint manager will add the markers to the normal view, instead of just the map view.

It's not overpriced by a long shot. Squad should really be commended from their approach to pricing. I wish more games started out cheap in early access and got more expensive along the way as the game became more complete. Instead, you usually have the opposite where they want $90 for the privilege of using the buggy game early, then reduce it by $20 dollars a month later, etc. until they are 75% off $40 by actual launch (this was the real progression of a RTS game). Or they could charge $40 dollars for the initial game as KSP was around 0.20 and then $20 dollars for the science expansion, $20 for the careers, $20 for building expansions, and $10 for 3.5m parts. Plus despite being only $40 I've still spent many more hours in KSP than I have in those other games. Not to mention the fact value-per-entertainment-hour value I get out of games in general compared to what I spend on say 2 hour movies.

The thick Eve atmosphere does affect solar panel performance. I haven't confirmed it myself, but it was mentioned and then tested in a recent thread about an Eve probe at the pole.

I've seen the ISS a couple of times by chance while camping or meteor shower gazing, and it is truly distinct and awesome. I've also probably seen hundreds of Iridium satellite flares by now, which can be pretty cool as well.

Yep, I agree with your final thoughts. You are likely circumventing the code that applies the huge landed on Kerbin penalty by doing it from the right click menu on EVA. They should probably add the code to check that there as well.

The data change is above, for science also change the line: scienceCap = 500 Also, look through the config file as it will likely answer most of you other questions like data per, etc.

Now drag the node around your orbit until you get an intercept! You can then make smaller adjustments prograde/retrograde to fine tune your Mun periapsis. Edit: Ninja'd by a Fancy Mouse

Surely you mean retrograde here You are likely coming in too hot. An ideal Hohmann type transfer is an wide ellipse whose apoapsis just barely touches the sphere of influence of the body right as it arrives in that same spot. This saves you fuel both accelerating as you leave and decelerating as you arrive. Yeah, way too much. For the Mun you only need to wait in time to leave orbit at the right phase angle. For other bodies, you will usually need to also wait for the right time window due to the relative inclination change. Another way to judge when to leave for the Mun, is that the right time is just after Mun rise over Kerbin when you are in LKO.

From your description, which says more than that weird angled picture, you need more control or symmetry on your 4 LFO stage. As overkill, I would try 4x2=8 AV-R8 in a very symmetrical arrangement (i.e. each 45* off the axis from the central core). If you post the craft file somewhere and its stock, I would also check if I can help more.

Head heavy is actually good, but head draggy is bad. It's really hard to see what your rocket looks like after the SRBs leave from the pic you posted, plus you are not showing staging. Can you post one where they and the launch stabilizers are removed or dropped? Meanwhile, here are some general tips: Spinning out of control essentially comes down to a contest between drag and control. When the drag overcomes your control authority, you go for a spin. You can decrease drag by staying closer to prograde and building a more aerodynamic rocket. You can increase control using engine gimbals, stabilizer wheels, and control surfaces. Also note that drag increases significantly right around mach 1 (340 m/s). So you should stay pointed as prograde as possible at speeds around 290-400 m/s. On a rocket control fins should be as low and outside as possible. If you are using control fins on more than one stage, the CoL needs to stay below the CoM at all times, even as the tanks empty. Edit: some ninja action!

Yeah, and you can use them and aerobraking to get rid of almost all the 1070 (Laythe orbit), which is what the line above that says! Its the whole reason those values are on a separate line than the other ones for getting to Laythe.

The biggest KER default feature is the dV readout in the VAB/SPH. Note the atmospheric button, which matters more now for engine thrust. Past that the HUDs can be great if you find the right information you really want to know. Altitude (terrain) is how it should have been to begin with. Inclination is great and I put it next to Apo/Peri. For more ideas see... I saw your HUDs in another thread that had one of your screenshots and was instantly jealous. I've customized the HUDs some, but I definitely want to add some of your ideas to my displays.

Time for a deltaV map. From the one I have handy: On the way there: 3700 (LKO) + 950 (Kerbin ejection) + 980 (Jool intercept) + 930 (Laythe Intercept) The below can be mitigated down to almost nothing by the right timing and aerobraking: 270 (inclination) + 160 (Jool capture) + 1070 (Laythe orbit) + 2900 (Laythe landing) On the way back: 2900 (Laythe launch) + 1070 (Laythe ejection) + 930+160 (Jool ejection) + 980 (Kerbin intercept) Can be mitigated by timing and aerobraking: 270 (inclination) + 950 (Kerbin insertion) Plus you should take 20% extra dV because stuff happens and things are not always perfect. Maybe more if its your first time. Total for full landing and return with some wiggle room is much closer to 15k dV than the 7k dV you listed. Gravity assists could significantly reduce a few of these, at the expense of flight time and planning.

There is a build up now that tentatively works with stock 1.0.2. Ignore the thread title that says otherwise if they still have not changed it.

The skipper is definitely not right here. To use the calculator with a spaceplane is a little tricky, as the "payload" is the weight of everything minus the rocket engines and all the LFO supplies and tanks to get from the end of airbreathing to orbit. The calculator will then give number and type of engines and the total weight of the plane you will need to build to have enough LFO and thrust. GoSlashy has good advice, as I also found a Poodle to be perfect for a similar plane.

SSTO are definitely not easy, and you can add too much fuel and not be able to make it to space when less would do. At this point its time to either play around with the design until it works or start to apply some calculations. For the latter you want 1700-1900 m/s dV at a TWR of 0.7-0.9. Using Methian's engine calculator you want a Poodle, or 2x aerospikes, or 5 terriers for around your current weight.

Welcome to the Coriolis effect of Kerbin rotating under you with its eastward sidereal velocity of 175 m/s. However, if the force is stronger than about 10-15 degrees deflection, then there might also be something about your rocket causing it. Have you tried a roll maneuver so the boosters are symmetric in respect to the northern direction? From your ASCII art a 90* roll either way should make it symmetric while headed north.

Yeah, the Mk3 joints are made out of silly putty. Struts are always more of an art than science, but there seem to be a few weak points on every large plane. The back landing gears need to transmit the load through to the main body of the plane. Plus the cargo needs to be secure to both ends of the cargo bay. My strut plan on planes is currently: 1) Stitch together the outer edges of the wings if using the component wings 2) Struts to transfer load from the back gears to the body 3) Struts to secure the cargo 4) A couple of 2x symmetric struts may still be needed in key places to hold the body together. Only put them there if they are needed though, because they will add stress to other joints. Hammer Orange SSTO Album (with an ascent guide)

Looks good and sounds eerily similar to my ascent profile for efficient spaceplanes. Cheers!

Just use orbital speed at the top of the navball. As the jets lose thrust the speed there will stop accelerating rapidly and then quickly slow down. Right as it stops increasing is when I punch the rockets.

Precoolers are like engine nacelles (0.005 intake area and 40 liquid fuel), but they have "emissiveConstant = 0.95" instead of "emissiveConstant = 0.6". That is the same emissive constant as other good radiator parts like wings and solar panels. Reading why the heat model works the way it does is like reading tea leaves. However, I think the precoolers are best near the intakes because they are getting small overall of amounts of heat but the intakes still tend to explode, so the nearby heat emission helps them not explode so much. Meanwhile, the engines generate much more heat internally and seem to be better when in closer contact with a larger fuel tank to act as a thermal sink. It wanting to come in forward but you leaning into the wind is what makes the cobra entry bleed off speed.

Rank 1 engineers can repack a chute by right-clicking during EVA. Action groups to re-open the chutes also help.

I have no experience with the demo on Linux. One question though, if you own KSP in steam why not just install steam and use the full version? Once you've installed the game you won't even need steam anymore except for updates.

The first one is doing more and the merge would look like it. However, after further reading this part is not needed by either, as KSP is already linked against these: LD_PRELOAD="libpthread.so.0 libGL.so.1" It won't hurt anything to leave it there though.