Pecan

Awww, go on, you're just being modest. I bet you have them on the 'phone all the time now :-)

Mostly it can prevent the exhaust from hitting something, such as a wider payload (asteroid?) behind them. On attempts to create space-shuttle type vehicles it is generally to ensure the axis of thrust passes through the centre of mass so the vehicle does not rotate (much) under thrust.

In post #6 UmbralRaptor gave you the deltaV formula. The '9.82' in that is the 'g' to use on Kerbin. IIRC the LV-N becomes the most efficient engine as low as 2,000m on Kerbin. Lol, still not a good choice for a launch engine, of course, because of its low thrust.

This thread is lots of fun for those of us in software development ;-0 When developing new software, rather than making another clone of someone else's idea, you are spending 60%+ of your time working out what you really want to do, ~20% how you can do it and very little actually doing it - a bit like *** (relations with the opposite gender). The important thing about this is that early design decisions can turn out to be mistakes much later on and you only really know what you should have done once version 1 is finished. If ever.

Wikipedia explains Specific Impulse pretty nicely.

Three legs and a small carpenter strapped on the outside?

Absolutely Alshain - I wrote my tutorial campaign for sandbox simply so the structure could follow the more logical sequence of driving, flying, unmanned-space, manned-space. First thing should be rover wheels for getting around on Kerbin, let alone Mun! I'm really looking forward to seeing what Squad have done with career mode for 0.24 though.

*Sigh* it's going to be one of those days. Ignore this post, these are not the 'droids you are looking for.

Someone should have told them 3-legged stools don't wobble! They must have had too few carpenters on the team, it's not rocket science ^^

Tavert wrote the ultimate guide to mass-optimal engine choices. Specifically, if you can get where you're going in a short burn (low deltaV requirement) the low mass of the 909 will beat the fuel efficiency of the LV-N. Note, however, that the 909 is almost never the 'right' choice - a better light engine is the 48-7S.

A Whackjob vacuum cleaner! Wait, it is a vacuum! Turn it round - Whackjob leaf blower!

Oops, you're right - should have been "Shift-WASD + space", ie; it's 'look this way and jump!'

The Drawing Board: A library of tutorials and other useful information - Blogs - Kerbal Space Program Forum is the best place to start (and the link in my signature). TWR (Thrust to Weight Ratio) is an easy concept and not really explained anywhere in particular - it's how much your Thrust can push you up compared to how much your Weight is pulling you down. It's just total-engine-thrust / total-vehicle-mass. If the figure is less than 1 gravity wins and you won't go to space today. At exactly 1 you can hover or maintain any upward velocity but can't accelerate upwards. Above 1 you can fly! Recommended launch TWR on Kerbin is usually 1.2+ so you can get through the dense lower atmosphere quickly. It's also below 2(ish) because otherwise you'll be wasting energy going too fast too soon. deltaV is a tricky concept but comes down to something like (engine-efficiency * total-fuel) / total-mass. That is, quite sensibly, the more fuel you have and the more efficient your engines are the more energy you have but the heavier the whole ship is the harder it will be to move. (The real equation is Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation) EXACTLY calculating deltaV required to "get to a circular 100k orbit" is very difficult (read impossible in practice) because it depends so much on each individual rocket and precisely how you fly it through the atmosphere. It's fairly easy for vacuum-bodies, but not from Kerbin. Just accept the generally-accepted "about 4,500m/s" or look for numerous threads from people trying to work it out from first principles. "TV" is not a phrase I recognise. You should only use tailfins a) when you want to, when you need to. Have a look at the tutorials section for everything else.

Ah yes, EPL is a good reason. I hadn't even thought of that one.

Hehe, I thought you might *grin* I'll be back.

Would you all comment on the reasons for building your bases - if there is any apart from being super-cool :-) I left them out of my tutorial because the only practical purpose I could think of was Kethane mining and for simplicity I didn't want to include the mod. Give me some ideas and I'll add chapter 9!

Nope, never seen wings save fuel on the way to orbit. Single. Stage. To. Orbit. What may happen later is a whole different game. @Alshain - yes, I think that's the way it'll go too, eventually at least. Point is, I think recoverable stages will become more practical and therefore more common.

Or females, so it seems. PS: Spamalot is a great stage-show.

Yes, everything the others have said (rotate the pod or other parts to fit, don't change the pod) plus Shift-WASD enables you to move between ladders in different directions. If you're having problems add slightly-angled ladders or ladder segments to 'guide' the Kerbals. Or just EVA, you aren't going far. (What I'd rather see is something like Connected Living Spaces and Ship Manifest (alternatives are available) direct-movement of Kerbals through internal parts of the ship without having to EVA at all.)

That is very, very clever, well done :-)

Ok, how does 2 parts grab you? 5 parts if you count both vehicles being docked. Or 8 parts at launch/in VAB. From top to bottom:- parachute, okto core, small docking port, small docking port, okto core, decoupler, fuel tank and engine. MJ used to launch towards a 150km orbit but it runs out of fuel with a 118 - 119km apoapsis anyway. SAS engaged once engine burns out. Once out of atmosphere parachute deployed as there isn't enough electricity to do it at re-entry. Docking ports uncoupled - forward vehicle advances slowly. Separator, er, separated - rear vehicle accelerates quickly, catching-up to and docking with forward vehicle. Together they fall back into the atmosphere and land under the parachute. Incidentally - I tried it with no core on the rear vehicle but, as 'debris' it wouldn't dock with the forward vehicle, even though it appeared to (they fell apart again on re-entry). Someone may like to try this with no core on the forward vehicle to see if it works with one less part.

Which is why you stage in such a way that they are recoverable ^^. Exo-atmospheric, pre-circularisation being favourite, obviously. NeverUnload or equivalent for low-staging if you like it, etc. Huh? Why choose SSTO or rocket? SSTO rocket and don't waste mass on silly wings.

SSTOs have several advantages over multi-stage designs: lower part-count, simpler build, usually cheaper because of those two and, possibly, easier reusability.

Only thing to add is that some people use extensive 'part clipping', as putting one object inside another is known, for aesthetics or to make artificially small vehicles. Most consider going as far as putting an engine inside another to be 'cheating', but will use clipping 'allowed by the editor' and some don't use it at all. There is no right way to have fun. Much as I tried to resist it I couldn't help myself when it came to the intakes on the spaceplane in chapter 7 of my tutorial. Other than that I use clipping for octagonal struts to attach parts where they otherwise wouldn't (eg; radially).

Although it's harder to get to Minmus than Mun it is so much easier to land on and take off from that overall it is the simpler mission and beginners are recommended to start there, then Mun.