Pecan

There's lots of science to be had around Kerbin, Mun and Minmus; don't sweat it. Don't even bother with it once you've got the parts you need unlocked, unless you're getting paid for it.

Yes, Scott Manley is 'boss' of KSP - he's probably taught more of us more than anyone else. Although you can colonise other planets and moons there isn't really any reason to in stock KSP, although bases can look pretty cool. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/48876-The-art-of-modular-base-building. Get used to the game in stock first but you will soon realise, if you haven't already, that there are also loads of mods (free add-ons written by other players) for almost everything you might want to do. Amongst them is Karbonite (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89401-24-2-Karbonite-Mineable-Burnable-and-Community-Friendly-0-1-2-2014-08-05) which makes mining-colonies a practical thing. (You will also see lots of people talking about 'Kethane', which is an older version of more or less the same thing).

Ok, so that's something you don't often see. This isn't a zombie thread, it's a vampire. However many times it dies it always comes back! I look forward to seeing it dug up again in another year. NB: I'm not actually moaning because there seems to be some good data in here. Don't know how much of it is out of date now though.

Essentially, yes, but it's not so much the distance you have to cover as that you need to arrive at the target's orbital altitude AND when the planet's there! From Kerbin you can go to Mun/Minmus any time you like just by making your burn at the appropriate point around your orbit. Similarly, starting from a solar (Kerbol) orbit, you can go to any planet just by burning at the right place. Getting into a circular solar orbit in the first place takes a lot of deltaV though, if you make it low enough that your ship's 'year' is practical. Then you might have to wait a local year to get to the right part of the orbit, then you need to burn a lot more deltaV to get back 'up' to the target planet's orbit. So, all in all, not usually a great plan. Thoughts on the steps to interplanetary ... (you might find it useful to sketch these out or make dummy manoeuvre nodes to see how the orbits look) Hohmann transfer from 75km LKO to 100km LKO - nice and easy you burn prograde (go faster) any time you want to. Going faster raises the opposite point on your orbit and you burn until it forms a new apoapsis at 100km then cut engines. Drift around to this new apoapsis then circularise by burning prograde again, raising what was your 75km periapsis, until it too is roughly 100km. Similar retrograde burns to lower periapsis/apoapsis. Hohmann transfer from 100km LKO to Mun's altitude. Burn prograde whenever you feel like it until your apoapsis is 12Mm (according to the wiki, I thought it was 11.4 for some reason). Drift around to apoapsis and circularise. You're at "Mun orbital altitude", sharing the same orbit, but unless you did your burn in the appropriate, small, segment of your LKO the Mun won't be in the same place as you once you circularise. For the moment I'm assuming we stopped at this altitude to enjoy the view or something but didn't get an encounter with Mun. Hohmann transfer from Mun altitude to Minmus altitude (ignoring the plane-change but the point's the same). Burn prograde as before until your apoapsis reaches 47Mm, drift around then circularise. What are the chances that Minmus will just happen to be in the same part of its orbit as you are, so you get an encounter? Pretty slim ^^. Let's try this again ... Hohmann transfer from Mun altitude to Minmus encounter (still ignoring the plane-change - you know you need it but let's pretend we don't for now). Set up a manoeuvre node to increase your apoapsis as above. Now drag it around your orbit (shared with Mun) until it gives you a Minmus encounter. You may have to wait a number of orbits before you can GET an encounter - You're on a lower orbit around Kerbin than Minmus so going faster but if you start 'ahead' of Minmus you'll have to wait until you've both orbitted several times and you've caught-up with it again. The time it'll take to drift across to Minmus altitude is (more or less) a constant because you're just transferring from 12Mm to 47Mm but it won't do you any good if you go at the wrong time. This is exactly the same as performing an orbital rendezvous for docking, using a phasing orbit; it's just on a bigger, slower, scale. Hohmann transfer from Mun orbit to Minmus encounter - when you're orbitting Mun you are also still orbiting Kerbin at 12Mm, on average. In fact, from the wider perspective you could say you're just orbiting Kerbin at 12Mm with some odd fluctations -the relatively tiny diameter of you Mun orbit - caused by the dirty great big rock you're next to. To get to Minmus altitude you still need to do a burn prograde to your Kerbin orbit, as in 3 and 4 above. There'll only be one segment of your Mun orbit where you're heading in that direction so you know the manoeuvre node will go there. You also still need to wait until you - and Mun - are in the right part of your Kerbin orbit relative to Minmus, as in 4. That could be LOTS of orbits around Mun! The situation is pretty much the same as 4, it's just that you can't move the manoeuvre node around your Kerbin orbit the way you could before, you can only move it around your Mun orbit. It's a pain, to say the least. That's why you need to calculate the transfer window (being the beginning and end of the 'right' segment your Kerbin orbit) or look it up. In 3 we didn't care about an encounter and in 4 we could just play directly with the Kerbin orbit so it wasn't so hard to find the window. Interplanetary transfers are similar except that instead of going between Mun and Minmus, orbiting Kerbin, you're going between (say) Kerbin and Duna, orbiting Kerbol. In Kerbin orbit you're orbiting Kerbol at roughly 13.5Gm, with some insignificant little fluctuations (the diameter of your orbit around Kerbin). You need to burn prograde to your Kerbol orbit to raise your apoapsis to 20.7Gm and there'll only be one point on your Kerbin orbit when you're heading that way. Nevertheless you have to make that burn when Kerbin and Duna are in the right relative positions so that in the time it takes for you to drift up to Duna's altitude (more than half a year!) Duna itself will also arrive in the same part of its orbit, so you get an encounter. Get it wrong and you could get to the right altitude but Duna could be half a year around its orbit - as in 3 above. So the transfer window is about getting to the same part of the target's orbit as it will be in, rather than making it a short distance to go. This tutorial may help more http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/27236-Tutorial-Step-by-step-Interplanetary-Hohmann-transfer-guide-and-tips but essentially it's all about much bigger phasing orbits for rendezvous. Practicing going backwards and forwards between Mun and Minmus is a good way to get the hang of things. ETA: I wouldn't worry about finishing this campaign/tutorial. I see it more as a reference in a logical order than a document to be followed precisely - having your own ideas once you've got the basics is much better :-) If anything I imagine people wanting to read as far as lunar landings just to see how it can be done then, with the basics of staging, TWR and deltaV, heading off to have their own fun. 'Project Lacuna' marks the end of the real tutorial part and the start of the 'here are some ideas for going further' section. It took me months with KSP before I bothered going interplanetary (except for one flying visit to Duna just to see if I realy could do it!), mostly because I was having so much fun 'running' Kerbin-system space-stations and visiting all the anomalies on Kerbin, Mun and Minmus. Then I spent a whole lot of time just finding a set of reusable vehicles I was happy with and once those were mostly away or in-place I started writing this ^^. I still haven't got an Eve transfer window doing this campaign, only in another save where I time-warpped loads specifically to go there! Currently on day 1 of a whole new game, working on low-cost, low-tech vehicles ... well you and others did ask :-)

According to the wiki they are the same size but Tylo is less dense, yes.

Some messing-around getting pictures to make it easy to compare the various ships. As you may have found it's difficult to get good shots of multiple ships because you can't easily get them out at the same time and it's difficult to make sure the camera is in the same position/lighting conditions for separate 'launches'. Here I've created a 'camera car' using RasterPropMonitor (RPM, mod for excellent IVA instrumentation. It includes a hull camera) and positioned it next to the launch pad, then launched each ship in turn, photographed it then reverted it to VAB. I think the result is interesting.

The tutorial linked in my signature gives 30-odd ship designs that can go to every planet and moon in the system. THAT's barely scratching the surface of the game! Apart from crazy stuff you can build rovers, aircraft, orbital, lunar and interplanetary spaceships and spacestations. You can then fly them, even to other planets. They can rendezvous and dock in space, transferring crew, fuel and other resources. Science mode adds a (really nonsensical) tech-tree that you have to research by conducting scienctific experiments on/over different bodies. Career mode adds costs, money, reputation and contracts so you need to perform certain missions in order to pay for the rest. Then you're allowed to get bored. Seems to take some people 1,000 hours or so which makes it exceptional value for money. Especially as you'll have learnt all about rocket-science by then too ^^. Of course, some people who can't cope with the real physics, maths, etc. get bored very quickly because they can't recreate star wars. If that's what you are looking for KSP probably isn't for you. Similarly, people looking for an Earth-historic simulator without wanting to design and build their own vehicles might prefer Orbiter.

Size is not important - Tylo is not as dense as Kerbin so, although they are the same size they are not the same mass. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbin http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tylo The wiki just says "It is unknown why Tylo hasn't formed an atmosphere." but just making stuff up you could perhaps say somewhere in that different density is the reason. Different rocks that don't out-gass the same way? Hit by one more asteroid that stripped what atmosphere had formed?

Exactly :-) The current fashion for reusability doesn't make designing for separate mission stages obsolete. Dedicated lander/mission vehicles, dedicated transfer vehicles, SSTO to get them into space in the first place.

From top to bottom; small docking port, okto2, FL-T200 fuel tank, 48-7S engine. Gets to orbit and space-station. Alternatively, this will SSTO 40t, which can then undock and go anywhere: I mean - once you've SSTO'd, what's the point of carrying all those tanks the rest of the way? It's as daft as carry wings in space. Reusability isn't an issue as you can dock back into the launch-vehicle when you come back and use it for your descent.

Yep - so make it a rocket. Much easier to balance a tail-sitter than something that has to fly to a horizontal landing. I have no problem doing SSTO with a 40t payload and returning with 15 (payload after mission complete, fuel expended). Gah! I'm post-pub and it's late. I'm trying not to give to many hints because you said "however, I would rather use a craft, I construsct.". I realise that might mean I'm just not making sense ^^. Goodnight all.

SSTOs are only one way to look at it: SSTO planes will need a lot of parts and mass to get up so they can bring back the resources (plus all the time messing-around flying them). SSTO rockets will need a lot of fuel to get up so they can bring back ... some fuel? The alternative way to think of things is ... refuel with the material you've harvested. Launch transfer/lander stages empty of fuel - huge launch-to-orbit mass reduction, therefore launch-vehicle size & complexity. Refuel with your new resources you haven't had to drop into the gravity well just to launch it again. Keep vehicles in space, instead of using them for a single mission then recovering them. ETA: Oh yeah, and if you do want to SSTO, a KR-2x1 (or whatever it's called) will lift 10t to orbit and be able to perform a powered landing afterwards. If you want to lift 20 tons use two of them, etc. Who cares what it costs to build' you'll be getting all that back when you recover it.

This is so much the right attitude, well done. Small ships that are relatively easy to dock are the way to go and practicing with RCS and docking ports will pay off. Don't make it hard on yourself when you're starting; use the RCS, get the techniques nailed and, yes again, once you've got it you'll wonder why you ever found it so hard for so long. And that's just one of the reasons KSP is so great - we choose to do these things ... not because they are easy but because they are hard.

Excellent information. Thank you.

This is not required. Docking ports don't need activating - they will magnetise and lock whenever they are in range and aligned. The only time you can't come straight on in is when you've just undocked and want to immediately re-dock. Then you need to back of a short distance (10m?) before the ports will work again.

The best place to look for mod information is in that mod's forum thread. If the author says it works on 0.24.2 then the author has tested it, even if the dependencies haven't been specifically updated.

I can say they don't make sense in KSP because this is over-engineered even for Duna: It would be needlessly harder, more expensive and less reliable to make it 2-stage. It lands, parachutes are repacked, returns to CM/space-station, refuels and is ready to go again or be brought back to Kerbin, where it can also land, for part-recovery - no expensive components left behind. This IS a two-stage design, but that's from LKO to Mun and back to land on the pad - only small fuel tanks and legs left behind: Laythe - use a spaceplane Tylo - possibly two stage Eve - I don't think anyone's got away with ONLY two stages. So - apart from, possibly, Tylo - a two-stage lander doesn't make sense in KSP.

SSTO rockets are far less efficient than staged ones - that being the reason for staging! As with all rockets it's vital to know your total deltaV - in addition to the 4500m/s generally necessary for launch-to-orbit you'll need to budget at least 200m/s for returning. A parachute-assisted powered landing appears to be most efficient; provide at least 200-400m/s deltaV and a couple of drogue parachutes. More deltaV may be required if you will be using the engines for controlling your landing more under power. The KR-1x2, with enough fuel, solar panel, battery, etc. is capable of SSTOing a 10-tonne payload, de-orbiting, and powered landing.

I applaud your desire to concentrate on design efficiency so switch to sandbox and save your sanity! Instead of grinding for science to get through the non-sensical tech-tree get to know the different parts, what they're for and how they compare to each other. Start with small, simple ships and make them more complex as you go further and need to do more. Follow a logical sequence of missions (e.g.; not starting with big, heavy, manned rockets) and the different capabilities and stats of similar parts start to make sense. Tutorial in the signature. *Grin* NecroBones' videos will help too. Meanwhile - having got to Mun and Minmus, you're obviously doing well :-)

Practice with the in-game tutorials as well - they'll walk you through manoeuvres as you do them.

'Space' start at 70km above Kerbin but to be on the safe side you should have a periapsis >=75km. Even if you were dipping into the atmosphere at ~69km though the atmospheric drag should be so little (thin air) and for such a short time (climbing back to apoapsis) that your orbit shouldn't degrade very quickly. Size of the vessel shouldn't matter at all. Are you using any mods? RSS, for instance, would give you an Earth-sized atmosphere and you'd have to be a lot higher.

Docked ships act as a single one, so you can right-click on one tank then alt-right-click on another to open both their resource windows and use the in/out/stop buttons to transfer them.

SSSssssshhh. Anomalies are secret! No, you won't get science or any other game benefit from them but they are cool 'Easter Eggs' that the devs have put into the game from time to time. There are plenty on Kerbin itself so you can visit them fairly quickly and easily - I particularly recommend the two on the continent West of KSC and the one near the North pole. Discover the mystery. Bring a camera :-)

That's the second time you've blamed KSP for your failure. Which might be because you're not taking it carefully enough. Because you see the rest of us aren't using 'other means' in general. We can dock quite nicely, thank you. Third time, there is nothing to fix. It works perfectly well as is and as intended. Fourth time - there is no bug with the docking system (undocking has had its issues). I don't know of anyone who has quit KSP because they don't like the way docking works but it does certainly work. I can understand that many people might not have the patience or ability to learn how to dock and might leave in frustration. It's a difficult system that you need to put practice into learning, but there's no bug in it, as such, and so it doesn't need fixing.

It depends how it's built LordFerret. Yours was a matter of them not being constructed in the right sequence in the VAB/SPH - if they are attached to their parent craft properly in the first place then they will work in practice and make for stronger connections. For the problem in hand - that they don't align properly anyway - there's nothing that can be done in flight. NoClass's advice to use a template-piece is about the best. Otherwise built subsidiary craft on the original in the VAB/SPH then save them as sub-assemblies. For the immediate issue I'd suggest that taking two landers using one docking port each may work. If you connect just one then you may get balance issues but if it works then that will be lighter. If none of those options is viable then it's time to scrub the mission and de-orbit those ships.