Pecan

What is an 'AMA'?

It's an INTERPLANETARY calculator - if you're going from Kerbin to Mun/Minmus there is no Phase Angle, Ejection Angle, etc. That said, you may want to use http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ as it also tells you WHEN to go.

TL;DR (sorry, I got bored after the first few pages) Is it too late to answer the question? I agree.

Suggestions: 1. Ask questions in the Gameplay Questions and Tutorials section. 2. Use LV-N engines for fuel-efficient interplanetary transfer 3. Check alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ for WHEN to go - the planets must be aligned to do it efficiently. 4. Take absolutely everything you don't absolutely need off of absolutely every stage so that earlier ones don't have to push so much. 5. Make manoeuvres as early as possible in the flight for maximum effect at the cost of minimum deltaV. 6. Set your periapsis at 12-20km above Duna on approach to benefit from atmospheric aerobraking to supplement the fuel you burn. 7. Get captured into Duna's SOI then orbit - with aerobraking if possible - several times if that's what it takes. 8. Try to avoid hitting Ike.

It's not funny, but it is silly.

Not impossible but an awful lot of work. That's why I use rockets, such as: Haven't tested this yet in 0.24.2 but in 0.23.5 it goes up in less than 5 minutes on a normal rocket trajectory, it comes back to the pad on a powered+drogue landing and gives 97-100% recovery depending on how close you can be bothered to get it. Who needs the effort of spaceplanes? If you like flying them then they're great, otherwise just do it the easy way.

I only keep modded previous (main) release with saved game and two current release; stock and modded. I also keep the old zips in case there's a reason to resurrect them but they're only in archive. ETA: As to desktop ... why apparently I don't have any software of any sort installed at all! EG (old pic):

It is easier to build a SSTO than spaceplane for larger loads and a lot easier to fly them. Preferably capable of powered landing, assisted by parachutes works well for precision.

You are absolutely correct. Serves me right for not paying attention.

Bob says there's a room booked for you and they'll have the tea ready when you get there:

Here we go again everyone - 0.24.2 is up.

Have you tried using the custom window editor to display exactly the information you want, when you want it?

Err, it's because of heat-expansion, causing, ummm ... nope, can't do it, imagination failure. You're the novelist, you invent an excuse, lol :-) That really is strange - I shall have to test some time.

Ho hum, same argument, same response - Asparagus: The only difference between parallel and asparagus is the fuel lines and you can't really see them. Therefore, if parallel isn't necessarily ugly neither is asparagus. In contrast, if parallel IS ugly, then asparagus isn't what's making the vehicle ugly. Either way, the ugliness does not derive from asparagus staging. Hence, it is wrong to say, as have many other people who haven't thought about it, "asparagus is ugly". If you want to say "any rocket that isn't a single stack is ugly" then that's an entirely different matter - and still nothing to do with asparagus. Yes; I was talking about asparagus staging's mass ratio as 'efficiency' because that's what dictates how large or small the rocket has to be. Defining 'large' as short and wide is a novel usage which seems a bit Humpty-Dumpty but we'll let that go. This whole thread is about whether asparagus is cost-effective. Good luck with the dissertation - what's it on?

Yes, I have SCANSat (6.1) working on RPM (0.18). Hit the 'nav' button if everything's installed properly, and you have a map to display, of course.

Nice job (and I'm following your thread about the wierd nose-gear issue too.). Hope you are feeling better. Hodo, of course I haven't forgotten yours either :-)

Just to add that the Centre of Drag thing becomes really important when you start trying to add more intakes for better performance. Typically, for looks, they get added in front of engine nacelles/fuel tanks. Looks fine, adds a lot of drag in front of the CoM, plane stops flying!

And here's me getting distracted by bubbly things :-) My landlord made a load of homebrew then found his bottle-sealer was broken so he keeps sending me texts saying "There's another gallon that needs drinking". It's a tough job but someone's got to do it. Thank you for your comments, I'll have the PDF and this thread updated by the end of the weekend I hope but, as mentioned, all the ships work as intended.

That's very impressive Wanderfound - all the other spaceplanes I've seen with anything like that payload have had to rely on loads of mods and/or massive part-clipping, engines inside engines, 10 layers of wings, all that sort of thing. How have you managed that? However -@ you and Col_Jessep: Fun - yes, I said "take it if you are just a flight-simulator nut". Pin-point accurate landings on the runway - no, that's a really bad reason for taking them to Moho and back. Aesthetics - fair enough; most of the big stock planes I see are pretty awful though (unless they're using incredible amounts of clipping - as above). Style - well sort of, awkward and useless is a style too, I suppose. I'd rather go to Mun in a sportscar than a truck - so I don't load my sportscar lander with truck components.

Set of ship .craft files added to dropbox (see OP). Needs to be unzipped to your KSP\Saves\<Save game> folder - will merge into the Ships\SPH and Ships\VAB folders. For those using SCANSat and/or Procedural Fairings it should be straightforward to add the requisite parts. Final update of the PDF still on its way. I was most of the way through checking everything and have to start again for 0.24.1 *sigh*.

Krussians? I'm confused; they're our allies against the the Federal Plutocracy. Of course, I could just make a cheap, easy, racist remark based on the politics of that mythical 'Earth' place. Who cares how many of the worldwide audience I offend?

Why drag all those wings, jets and other useless, heavy parts around to other places where they will only get in the way? How will you land on all those vacuum places - horizontally or vertically? In an atmosphere will the wings help (lift) or hinder (awkward drag)? You guessed it - my opinion is leave it at home if you want to do missions, take it if you are just a flight-simulator nut who wants to do it for the screenshot. As a launch vehicle you'll find it has a miniscule to negative payload capability. If you need a SSTO use a rocket, if you don't need a SSTO, use a rocket. If you want to use a jet first stage drop all the wasted mass of wings. That's incredible mind-reading! You already know I'm going to say; spaceplanes are only useful for launching tiny loads from Kerbin to orbit. They're also fun for Laythe, of course, since it has an oxygen atmosphere. Everywhere else and for any payload over a tonne or two you're better off with a rocket (or a hoard of mods).

Action Groups Extended is another mod that will help. It lets you set and edit up to 250 action groups in the VAB/SPH and in flight - so you can correct rovers and other vehicles you've already launched as well. By default it'll include all parts placed with symmetry but you can tell it not to.

Asparagus: The only difference between parallel and asparagus is the fuel lines and you can't really see them. Therefore, if parallel isn't necessarily ugly neither is asparagus. In contrast, if parallel IS ugly, then asparagus isn't what's making the vehicle ugly. Either way, the ugliness does not derive from asparagus staging. Hence, it is wrong to say, as have many other people who haven't thought about it, "asparagus is ugly". If you want to say "any rocket that isn't a single stack is ugly" then that's an entirely different matter - and still nothing to do with asparagus.

"Low-orbit around Kerbol itself requires 33,680m/s deltaV according to the map and is outside the scope of this tutorial." (i.imgur.com/NKZhU57.png) You won't get there with that deltaV, especially if you're launching and flying the inefficient way.