Pecan

That really is very, very cheap; well done. My mission vehicle costs more than twice that, without the launch vehicle. Probably too busy to participate but I look forward to seeing other entries.

Yes, it's in the FAQ: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/294-Kerbal-Space-Program-First-Contract-The-FAQ

Please change the title to 'spaceplane', since VTOL SSTOs aren't eligible.

As it says in the hubmax part description "docking ports sold separately", but you've got that, as you have that a docking port is already a (reusable) decoupler, as it were. The reason I'm posting is that you may want to check http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83368-A-reusable-transfer-stage-a-good-idea for various views on interplanetary transfer-vehicle design.

You want KSP's sci-fi interplanetary ships to look like 50+ year old lunar technology from one particular Earth country? To be honest, function dictates form and apart from better electronics and, particularly computers, I doubt if China's highest-high-tech first-to-Mars stuff looks much different, even now. Still, I'd like to see something a little more futuristic and/or alien than obsolete.

And, of course, you have a very good point too. The way you teach is every way - different methods suit different people. My main point, however, is that streams rarely teach anything because they are not planned and scripted to do so. I'm sure a live lecture or seminar format could be very useful but it still needs to be tightly focussed, as yours was since it was specific to your friend.

Interesting. Questions, of course: "capable of long and short range communications" - defined how? What constitutes a "base part"? From your description it isn't part-count but how different do one hitch-hiker's accessories have to be to count as a different module? Soring favours many, unique launch, transfer, etc. vehicles rather than reusable core-set and heavily favours non-stock. On the one hand this will make for some good variety and pictures but is it what you really intend? And WHY more points for spaceplanes? What about my amazing and beautifully crafted SSTO rockets?

Exactly what I kept telling you all ;-)

@All (except Squad, obviously) Stop posting to this thread! Have you any idea what it's doing to me every time I think "is this the announcement" only to find it's just this! @~|

I hardly watch videos - I have better things to do (like play KSP). I rarely watch videos online - every Gb of broadband costs money. I barely watch videos of KSP - unless they are short, well-scripted and edited and either make a good point well (eg; Scott Manly, NecroBones*) or are just stunning (eg; Cupcakes) There's roughly zero chance of me watching someone mumble and bumble through long periods of not really knowing what they want to do/how to do it. That's just me though - I don't even own a TV and I just don't rate video much, especially when it's badly done. Give me something to read though, or some software, and I'm all over it. (Semi-seriously) As a community we should be more literate ^^. (Seriously) Apart from blizzy has anyone written any in-game tutorials? (I really must find out how to do that some time). [*Thought you might like being put in the same category there mate :-) ]

And as I noted, while it corrects for the TARGET, it doesn't correct for the CONTROLLED ship. ETA: for Master Tao below - ahh good. The NavballDockingAlignmentIndicator is derived from Navyfish's but doesn't make that adjustment. I may have to switch, which is a pity because I like the minimalism. Thanks for the information anyway.

The target indicator actually points at the CoM of the target vehicle, not the targetted docking-port. Navyfish's Docking Alignment mod and the lightweight NavballDockingAlignmentIndicator (which I use but wish would get an abbreviation ^^) correct this and not only show you which WAY to point but which ORIENTATION you need - eg; you might need to MOVE right but FACE up, or some such. HOWEVER:- While these correct for the position/rotation of the targetted docking port they do not correct for the offset of the controlled docking port from your CoM. IE; I have a tractor vehicle with docking-ports on outriggers some metres from the centreline - the indicator orientates me fine (facing) but tries to get me to dock the nose of the cockpit, instead of the docking port, into alignment. It is possible that this has been corrected in a later version than I'm using (hmm, doesn't seem to have a version number on it) - I'll be happy if someone knows if it has. ETA for Alshain's post just above. I find the navball indicator alone sufficient because you still have the target position from the pink circle.

Yeah, our direction of travel is the same but LethalDose is working with FAR, so he has a harder time getting such awkward-shaped ships into orbit in the first place. There are a lot of different ways and reasons to play KSP, of course, but my preferred approach is to develop reusable infrastructure. Launching single-missions - for me - is harder, since you have to launch or space-assemble so much every time, but at the same time you have less to show for it afterwards, just one mission achieved, no resuable vehicle parts. The structure of my tutorial takes single-missions everywhere for satellite placement (it's not worth bringing the transfer vehicle back, although 0.24 may change that) but only as far as Mun/Minmus manned. After that I concentrate on reusability, space-stations and tractors. Incidentally, since I'm still in the fan club, I point to that same thread in the final chapter with the quote "these [design criteria] lead to a 'mini-station' or 'mothership' design which Red Iron Crown, particularly, illustrates well in the thread mentioned above." The tutorial's for beginners/intermediate though, of course. As I mentioned above I try to build an infrastructure using SSTOs ('plane and rocket) for crew and fuel transfer to/from Kerbin station, tractors between Kerbin and 'wherever destination' station and dedicated landers around each system, possibly moon. A lander for Eve would probably be larger than Gilly (!!!) so Gilly gets its own lander (but not station) whereas Ike can make do with Duna's lander. Jool, of course, is a whole set of different issues all in one package, and not one for which I've got a satisfactory set of vehicles. That'll be target 1 for 0.24 sandbox then :-) Anyway; all that together means all I have to launch, once the infrastructure's in place, is fuel and additional/rotation crews. The only thing that is consumed (barring accidents) is the fuel and, in the tutorial, the fuel's launch-vehicle.

^^ This. All of it, especially the last sentence.

Have you read the release notes? No; why not? Because they're not out yet; so how would we know?

Yeah, they have a SCANSat sensor on them in those pics. Just leave them off if not installed, they aren't needed.

Yeah, and this is one of the things we know has been changed for 0.24, but we don't know what's been done yet.

Long Tom, pictures 4 - 9, and LV-6-S launch vehicle, picture 5 Stats, background, construction instructions, flight hints (and another 34 or so ship designs).

Thanks for that. The only thing I'd disagree with, as a general point of design, is "too many RCS ports" - more adds control authority when pushing something heavy.

Hmmm, I'll have to check my build and maybe follow it up on the PF thread. I also read this from the 2.2 (still old) update "Auto-struts are now created between the top inline base and side fairings as well: wobbly payloads might still wobble." (my underlining). Whatever the outcome, thanks for bringing this up. I shall check ...

First find out what 0.24 actually contains and how parts, costs, etc. has been rebalanced Then decide what additional rules, mods, etc. will be wanted No silly constraints based on 40 year old technology from some mythical planet called 'Earth'; KSP is its own universe Enjoy career mode until it gets boring Update my tutorial for 0.24 with low-techtree parts for those who need career-mode Build a probe-led, low-cost infrastructure in sandbox (probably) Keep reminding LethalDose that "SSTO" does not mean 'Spaceplane', because I don't think he really minds being nudged* Keep reminding everyone that there's nothing ugly or impossible about asparagus more than any other technique [*And if you do mind I apologise in advance; I'm only kidding around]

This is known as the texture bug. It's caught me twice so far, map mode didn't help and quicksave/load lost me my parachutes. It happens when KSP's getting really low on memory so if you have a save from not too much earlier the best you can do is exit and restart the game.

Well, yeah - 0.24 should be out by then, with a complete re-make of career mode. Preparing anything for career-mode as it is at the moment could be pointless. When I said "what difference will it make" I didn't mean "it won't make any difference" but "we don't know what difference it'll make". Lol, main point is I have no idea what tech-level things are anyway because I don't grind for science.

Slighly off-topic, I'm messing-around with a reusable launch-vehicle for a 40t load at the moment. This can perform a powered landing (drogue assisted) after delivering the centrally-mounted payload to 100km orbit: "]

LOL. I'd agree; I'm getting good results with powered-landing rockets which are an awful lot less hassle to fly. Cost-effective too since they're much simpler builds than spaceplanes. Still, those that want them can play KSP flight-simulator; there's no wrong way to have fun :-) ETA: Just uploaded this pic of what I'm playing with for another thread. Powered-landing after delivering 40t to 100km orbit: @ below - I don't see how any patch has made things more ridiculous for planes. In the real world adding nosecones does cost money and add weight :-) Since 0.23 at least they change the drag characteristics somewhat so they aren't completely useless. Yes, I agree your main point but do we really want KSP to become an atmospheric flight-simulator instead of a space-based one? Granted, I think a lot of people do but I also think an awful lot of people want an awful lot of other things more.