Pecan

Added a second appendix to the PDF download - Summary Of Mission DeltaV - which puts the transfer, orbit and landing requirements together in a single table.

Welcome. I think the only way to change your name is to start a new account - but a moderator will be along soon and may be able to work their magic behind the scenes. For modding there are a number of options which require different skills; programming, 3d-modelling and/or texturing. The best place to get information in these forums in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/37-Add-on-Development. What was unsuccessful about your launches? If the ships blew-up/fell-apart during launch then 'more struts' may be the answer although, generally, 'start small' is better. If they fly OK but can't get to orbit the big thing to remember is that it's easy to get to space, harder to stay there. Getting into orbit so you stay in space depends on going sideways fast enough to keep missing the ground as you fall. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28352-The-Drawing-Board-A-library-of-tutorials-and-other-useful-information is a list of all of the tutorials that people have written for KSP, including mine. For general ship and mission design my tutorial (link in signature) presents 30-odd ships starting with a simple rover for driving around KSC to interplanetary transfer vehicles, landers and space-stations. Feel free to ask questions :-)

Be happy, SCANSat finds fun things as well as flat landing sites :-) I (almost) only ever play in sandbox mode and never play without SCANSat; it's one of my 'must have' mods because it adds so much information without asking anything in return.

LOL, no, I hadn't seen that. Next Friday - 19th September - is International Talk Like A Pirate Day ;-)

;-0 4 struts tying the bottom of the radial stacks together are probably not necessary, but they did 'flare' a little on first tests. 4 struts tying the core/payload to the top of the stacks are very necessary as its TWR is >4 by the time it gets to the circularisation burn and had a 100% habit of folding in half at that point ^^. (PS: If anyone looks at the picture and wonders how it's meant to deorbit with only 89m/s deltaV left - you're forgetting it's about to undock a 100t payload, leaving the launch vehicle itself with plenty to de-orbit, slow under (4) drogue parachutes and engine-brake for touchdown. Still an awful lot of fuel compared to jet-power though ... and if we're not being FAR-worthy that's 32 parts, taking off the adapters for the engines too, but leaving the probe core, SAS, solar panels and battery if you want to bring it back)

Exactly - most ships used sails as walls to block the wind and just waited until the wind was in the right direction. It's only because a fore-and-aft rigged sail IS a wing that it allows a boat to go upwind. While it's possible to fly relying on angle of attack if you have enough power that is not the principle that, for example, gliders rely on nor is it the 'secret' that allowed us to capitalise on powered flight. (And I should probably add - and that I used sailing yachts across the Atlantic 3 times, amongst other trips during 10 years as a boat bum [RYA Coastal Skipper, never bothered to take yachtmaster]).

3 full orange tubes (108t) do it for you? ETA: BTW the 52-part count does include the 4 fuel lines (base of core to radial stacks) and 8 struts tying the core/payload to the radial stacks so it's 40 parts if you like; 36 if you don't care about the aerodynamic adapters on top of the stacks. I didn't want the 'a rocket HAS to look like this' crowd to complain though.

No it doesn't. It works just fine as a wall that stops the wind and can deflect it but even with a good keel you ain't going to windward.

That would be the trend that parallels making kids feel good by winning prizes, regardless of their performance then. Basically, they don't. As opposed to the hundreds of previous generations that couldn't make a plane fly? To be very clear - there is a difference between a flat surface 'pushing air down' due to angle of attack and an aerofoil (wing, sail) that works by acceleration of the air over one side. True; many wings work best with a positive angle of attack but no - any flight simulator that told you it was pushing air down needs to be deleted. The classic example must be 'whisper' helicopters (stealth without the radar-hiding) - their rotors actually deflect air UP, taking a lot of the noise with it. Nevertheless, because of their shape they manage to generate lift, otherwise the thing would fall out of the sky!

I hardly ever launch anything over 40t but I've got this fully-recoverable 100t-payload rocket for a forthcoming SSTO tutorial. 740.925t wet / 196.925t dry. Launch TWR 1.38, 52 parts, cost 320866. I make that a 15.6% payload ratio, but then it delivers just over 4,900m/s deltaV to allow for deorbit and landing. Incidentally, I consider a payload ratio of 15% or more 'efficient' for a rocket and would normally aim for 17-18%. Although over 20% can be done (see challenges), it apparently can't be done by me ^^.

Fully-recoverable 100t SSTO: Rockets are SO much easier but need a lot more fuel!

Use the tug to get the lander into the right plane - uses efficienct LV-Ns, maintains full fuel in the lander. On the way back use it again to bring the lander home. I know it doesn't answer your 'how much' question but I'm rushing off to work ...

lammatt made the logarithmic diminishing-returns point. Essentially, a bigger rocket (with staging) will be able to do more. A rocket that is twice as big won't do twice as much. Two rockets, each half the size, will be able to do better. The major problem though is "absolutely no downside" - a bigger rocket costs more and is less robust so you soon get to the point where instead of getting bigger it's better in almost every sense to launch two separate modules and assemble them in space.

Don't forget to tell us where you'll be starting from and whether you want to get back too! A 'lander' usually only implies landing from and returning to orbit around a body (ie; Mun). If you're starting from Low Kerbin Orbit (LKO) you'll obviously need the fuel to get to Mun in the first place, so it's best to be clear on everything you expect the ship to achieve.

Edit persistent.sfs SCENARIO { name = Funding scene = 7, 8, 5, 6, 9 funds = <================ Any value you like here } Huh, cheating? No - I only use career mode to check the tech and cost requirements for things.

That would be standard-sized docking ports on a tri-coupler. Trying to arrange a triangle of large ones will require a fair bit of structural construction, which is likely to introduce its own problems, as well as being very wide.

This is a huge rocket, bigger than anything I've launched for sure. If you aren't comfortable with the construction and controls you should really practice with something a lot smaller.

All performance problems apparently resolved. Previously unusable (win 7 x86), now no noticeable slowdown.

I have a simple pair of simultaneous equations for powered landings on Kerbin: Drogue Parachutes = 2 deltaV = 100m/s (seriously; if I've got an engine with 100m/s deltaV, and >1 TWR, I've only ever found a need for two drogues. They slow the ship to 20-40m/s, leaving very little for the engine to do).

Yes, the three things that have been suggested already: Large docking port Pull, don't push Moar struts, possibly applied in-flight with KAS/Quantum This design doesn't use more struts but can pull a whole station at once (final chapter of the tutorial in my signature): Tractor Light Towing a Complete Station

Thank you for a detailed and well-explained post, I shall bear your points in mind next time I'm arguing against the tech-tree.

I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying but can you honestly claim there is anything at all good about the existing tech-tree? Starting manned with a big engine, small fuel tank and no decoupler? Ladder as tier-5 technology? It doesn't teach anyone anything that's useful and leads a lot of people, such as the OP, to think that "the" tech-tree is "the" game, or at least that parts later in the tree are better. There are two things that make it hard for people to learn how to design rockets in KSP; i) lack of information - mass, TWR, deltaV - in the VAB/SPH (but at least a spreadsheet sorts that out), ii) the tech-tree, which can only be fixed by essentially abandoning careeer/science mode.

And another huge performance hit - I didn't get out of the VAB without uninstalling :-( (Aged x86 CPU and Windows 7.something)

Welcome to the forums, it's always nice to see someone who can appreciate the 'serious' side of KSP while still having fun :-)

URGENT: SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY! There are several possible causes: You have lost your fingers - cauterisation required before gangrene sets in You have lost feeling in your fingers - numerous potential causes; hypothermia indicated You have installed mods but forgotten - severe dementia suggested You have installed mods you don't want to tell us about - paranoia may be an symptom of several conditions Otherwise, no, there aren't any standard settings that can affect vehicles like that. @ Umbral - glad you liked the other post ;-) OOps, yes I do apologise to anyone who may be offended by this. Contact me and I'll delete it. Sorry - I was just trying to say "what are we meant to diagnose?" in a more light-hearted way than usual.