Pecan

Are they facing the sun? Are they eclipsed by another planet/moon? Are they capable of keeping the whole ship charged - is there something draining all the power? Mods?

I've finally finished reformatting my LibreOffice originals for BBCode and started updating the text in this thread. There are no major changes but if in doubt the PDF version will always be the most up to date.

Post 10 of that thread does indeed suggest that the optimal lift is from a wing AoA of 25ish degrees. That's in Kerbin's atmosphere but I won't quibble about whether it's true for Eve or not. The thing is that however much lift your wings are producing you won't be climbing very fast and you'll run out of fuel long before you get anywhere useful. You need your engines to be lifting you, not your wings. That's why wings are just wasted mass and a steep rocket ascent is better.

@ Vector and Laie - Yes, what we haven't seen yet are any jet-based solutions actually posted as entries, planes or not. They should use much less fuel for a given payload and, since with recovery payments that's the only thing that really costs anything, they should be very efficient.

25 degrees AoA, which'll probably give you a climb-angle of 20 degrees or less, sounds incredibly low for Eve. That'll keep you low in the thick atmosphere and high gravity for a long time - exactly what you don't want. Do yoiu have a link to that thread?

Now that's kicking arse! Proves bigger is better in this challenge, where's Whackjob? Oh well, I've just been up all night playing with some other stuff (in KSP, of course!) and then had a play with this again. Made a fully-recoverable vehicle to put three orange tubes (also recoverable) in orbit, but it only works out at a score of 4,615 (19,200 / (79,872 / 19,200)). I was disappointed to only improve the (cost / payload) efficiency from 4.26 to 4.16.

Both the threads I and Kasuha referenced (posts 5 and 8 respectively) have the actual workings in them and more recent posts. Since the only answers in this one are to read those two you're probably better off posting in one of those. However, since real-life and FAR both recommend starting the gravity turn immediately, or very shortly, after liftoff I think you'll find the 'rapid turn at 10km' is very sub-optimal because it's too high not too low.

Yep, you win; knowing your total deltaV is not absolutely essential, therefore not vital. And, for the record, I too think the OP was originally asking about aircraft and certainly went on to do so. That doesn't alter the fact that it's wrong to equate Single Stage To Orbit with 'spaceplane' and I was, specifically, talking about SSTO rockets. People also mistakenly talk about 'SSTO to xxx planet/moon', which is just senseless (as is lugging wings across the system to anywhere except Laythe). The more that people incorrectly conflate terms, the more reason there is to correct them ;-0 To wit: i) spaceplanes do not have to go to orbit in a single stage even though most do, ii) rockets can SSTO quite easily even though most don't, iii) if you want to 'SSTO' to another planet or moon the most sensible thing to do is stage all that useless jet and wing mass once you've got to orbit.

No need to be technical, it's all very simple: Without jets you want to get up and out of the thick atmosphere and crushing gravity as soon as possible. Going up as soon as possible means keeping an EVE TWR of 2+. Wings are just extra mass and drag that'll keep prevent you getting TWR, velocity and height up. So ... build a spaceplane without jets or wings. It's called a rocket and a rocket ascent profile is the one to use. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/85196-Eve-SSTO-is-impossible%21

Weeeelllll; there are lots and lots of mods for all sorts of things. Trying to categorise them would keep a team of taxonomists arguing for years! To get them started: First there are many facts and figures you really need in KSP but Squad think would spoil the game: KER, MJ and VOID are the leaders at display these. Loads of instruments, internal views and displays so you can see what's going on: RPM (+probe control room), Nav Utilities, Steam Gauges. Then if you want your rockets and, especially, aircraft to fly properly in atmosphere you'd want the more realistic aerodynamics of: FAR (or NEAR), DRE, etc. If you also want them to fly at a mythical 'Earth' or other system start with: RSS, Interstellar, Planet Factory. And if you want to make the experience more immersive: Chatterer, KebrQuake, EVE, DOE. Or maybe you want your vehicles to look completely different: Bargain Rockets, B9, KW Rocketry, Spaceplane+ and many, many more. Probes? SCANSat or RT2. So that'll get you as far as building, possibly. Don't forget life support, robotics, more science, resource mining, accidents, breakages and even the time it'll take to build the design (yes, there are lots of mods for those). http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/35-Add-on-Releases-and-Projects-Showcase is the place to look. You'll have to read at least the first 16 pages of thread titles, just to cover the mods with forum activity (so probably being used) in the past two weeks!

Welcome to the forums. 64-bit KSP is known to have issues, so try 32-bit if you aren't. Make sure you've updated all your mods. Make sure you've updated all your mods to 0.24.2 x32 or x64 compatible versions and applied any patches. I'm always having fun.

This should be bigger to be competitive but it happily SSTOs an orange tube. I might strap a few of them together just for more points later. Payload: Orange tube = 2,880 + 3,520 = 6,400 VL-40 A: 133,618 - 109,839 = 23,779 Fuel Module: 25,840 - 22,350 = 3,490 Total: 159,458 - 132,189 = 27,269 Cost / Payload = 4.26 Payload / (Cost / Payload) = 1,502 <== score

THIS - but without the "if you're totally stuck". There is no point to involving all the trouble of funds and the insane tech-tree until you know how to design, build and fly vehicles.

Check the tutorials listed in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28352-The-Drawing-Board-A-library-of-tutorials-and-other-useful-information. Broadly: Circularise the target vehicle's orbit as much as possible (makes it easier to get an intercept later), then switch to the docking ship. Establish a phasing orbit at a higher or lower alitude (this is so the two ships have different orbital periods and the lower one will eventually 'catch up' with the higher) Match planes (orbital inclination) with the target Create a manoeuvre node to raise your apoapsis (or lower your periapsis) to the target's altitude (but don't execute the burn yet!) Drag the node around your orbit and/or increase the orbit number (+ button) until you get an intercept as close as possible to the target (within a couple of kilometres) Make the burn Circularise at the new apoapsis/periapsis Switch to RCS and make short, low-power manoeuvres to approach, align and dock with the target (keeping the relative velocity low and docking at ~0.1m/s)

If you're following tutorials you almost certainly don't want the added problems of money and tech-tree limits. Create a new save in sandbox mode and use that for playing-along with tutorials. @Specialist290: Thank you for your kind words about my tutorial. (Which is in sandbox mode, by the way, Mikehahn78).

Well yes, "It can help a lot with designs for rockets", which is exactly what I said. The OP didn't say anything about spaceplanes, he asked about SSTOs.

I wouldn't say mods do everything, or ever could, but there are an awful lot of them in the relevant forum section: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/35-Add-on-Releases-and-Projects-Showcase. If what you want isn't there you can always check out http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/13-Add-on-Requests-and-Support or ask for it there. Keep in mind you're asking for a skilled computer-programmer, 3-modeller or texture artist to put in a lot of their time for free, so they're unlikely to do something unless it seems interesting and they think there'll be a lot of demand for it. Specifically: Clouds - Environmental Visual Enhancements (EVE). The one in your picture. Weather - none that I know of, beyond what EVE does. Atmospheres - well it depends on whether you mean what it looks like (EVE again) or how it acts: Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR) is the classic mod for better aerodynamics, NEAR, by the same author, is a simpler model but still more realistic than stock KSP. Mining - Karbonite is the new boy on the block while Kethane is an older one that you'll hear a lot of people talking about. Planet Surface - Not sure what you want 'better' about it. Check the mods forum for different planets or different buildings on the planets. Bases - oooh, there are LOTS of mods for adding parts to bases. Karbonite/Kethane will probably give you the best reason for building a base in the first place but you'll have to go through the others to see which style of architecture and functionality you prefer. IVA - I don't know any mods that let you just walk-around inside a ship. RasterPropMonitor (RPM) makes beautiful instrument displays for cockpits.

Well the main reason Squad leaves things like that to mods is that they are already working on the things they want to add to make KSP more of a "game" and less of a sandbox "simulator". That's why we've had science and career mode. There are LOTS more people writing LOTS more mods to do LOTS more things than Squad can do on their own so there'll always be mods doing things that KSP itself can't. Mods are optional - if you don't like the functionality of a particular mod you don't install it, so Squad don't get any blame for more features that some people don't like. My main install has as many mods as my machine can cope with at the moment and EVE - that made that dust-storm possible - had to be deleted to make way for others. If that had been part of stock KSP I'd be moaning about it. Some mods do make it into the game and there are areas of stock KSP Squad have said aren't finished yet but in general mods will always add a lot to the game, without Squad having to get involved, for those that want it.

This. SSTO rockets are easier and cheaper to build (fewer parts) and quicker to fly to space (rocket ascent profile) while being able to carry a wider range of payloads (available earlier in the tech-tree, scales-up better than wings). Practice landing back at KSP for almost all the money back.

Mun is easier to reach and return from if you're just orbiting, Minmus is easier if you're also landing. See Chapter 4 of the tutorial in my signature for placing satellites in orbit around Mun and Minmus, Chapter 5 for crewed landings on Minmus and Mun. Have fun.

Yes, you can build good-looking stock craft to lift 10t. Well, maybe you can't and I certainly can't but Hodo, WanderFound and others will be along soon. Why go to all this trouble for a horizontal landing though? You can build a powered-landing SSTO rocket to lift 10t with 20 parts or fewer and it's a lot quicker and easier to fly.

Apart from the parachutes that lander in my post above has a Duna TWR of 3.87 and 2,895m/s vacuum deltaV. Technically, it has 200-odd m/s more than needed to burn all the way down and back up again, but I've never had to because the parachutes cut the requirement so much anyway.

Open the parachutes high so they have a bit more time to slow you down. A lot depends on your lander, of course - this is somewhat over-engineered, but reliable and reusable:

Yes it does, although as the RPM display also includes a quite thick crosshair heading indicator and the other symbols from enhanced navball it can all get a bit 'busy'. I find I want to pop to map view to check the docking alignment indicator on a 'cleaner' display every now and again.

"Oh ok I wished this feature to be added" <- It has been, by a mod (EVE and a patch). Squad LIKE mods, that's why they show them off. "but I'm sure it will be added in next updates" <- You shouldn't be, because it's already provided by the mod. "we are in 24 update there is 76 Major Update to come :)" <- No, release numbers are not decimal numbers. "Also how I change title to unanswered ?" <- Change it to answered by following the instructions in this stickied thread