Pecan

Ha! Just cocked-up the second mission thanks to a basic mistake. Won't say anything as it might give something away. DOH! Relaunch.

It depends how long "a while" is but 0.23.5 certainly improved performance a lot - both raw performance and lots of operational tweaks. To be using 6.2Gb though you must have a Linux box, Unity on Windows is still 32-bit and, therefore, limited to 4Gb.

I'll play, this could get interesting :-)

Bit early to call it, I think - so far you've mostly got those of us that have an easy answer 'the chart works for me (+10%)'. The threads only been open since yesterday and what you're trying to do is useful, so leave it a few more days first.

If you want to try it though, the tutorial has reached Chapter 7 of 8 - Kerbin-system spacestations. The only chapter I still have to do is taking those stations everywhere else :-)

The plane-change for Moho listed on the deltaV map (I use the same as 5thHorseman linked) is 2,520m/s so I'd say you did well - why the sad face?

Mods - this isn't a tutorial, is it?

You are right that the craft in my tutorial series are merely examples to illustrate the design points and mission-structure as the campaign develops. I'm pretty relaxed about things and don't expect to appear on the leader-board much longer anyway :-) There are so many more deserving. I haven't a clue about the length award, to be honest - there will always be edge-cases and grey-areas. There are some fairly long and detailed single-post tutorials that I think should qualify, let alone those series like Tex_NL's which should definitely be in there. Lol, I abstain - it's your thread!

With the OP changes I'm confused as to whether I should have 'Precision Engineering' or 'Nice Guy' - for the thread in my signature. Of the two, I'd prefer the former, it sounds like I know what I'm doing! Since we have 'Screenshots are for wimps' for video-makers how about 'Videos are for the easily-distracted' for those of us who have written more than the usual 'post' length (kidding).

CHAPTER 7: PROJECT FORTITUDE Kerbin-System Spacestations SECTION 1: PROJECT BRIEFING Identity;Project Fortitude – A Permanent Presence Background;Rather than launch a complete ship for each mission the oversight committee have approved a proposal for permanent space-stations and space-based tractor/landers. This should provide a much more cost-effective way to continue our exploration of the system. Objectives;Build a space-station orbiting Kerbin and, optionally, one or both of the moons. Use it/them to complete exploration of all three bodies. Payloads;Station, Tractor Medium, Fuel Module. Vehicles;SSTO 40, Crew Shuttle Mk2. Execution;An orbital spacestation will provide a base for scientific experimentation, a refuelling point and transit accommodation for crews. Together with SSTO launch-vehicles and space-borne tractors ferrying them and any equipment between Kerbin orbit and the moons the infrastructure only consumes fuel. The big problem with the rockets that we've been launching is that everything is lost or destroyed after each mission. Refuelling our transfer/lander vehicles in space makes them reusable, as Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) vehicles are for launch-to-orbit. Some people never build spacestations, preferring to remain with single-mission launches and a lot adopt a 'mothership' approach (a 'station' designed to fly itself around the system). Even amongst stations there is a wide variety of intentions and designs – from minute to massive. Once again these vehicles are a big step up in size. From now on docking is also mandatory, so you'd better have been practising! You've had 3 chapters to get to grips with it. SECTION 2: STATION Station Payload i) Data Sheet Identity;Station – Spacestation Purpose;Orbital science, refuelling and crew-transfer Statistics;16.985t VAB/12.465 dry, 51 parts, cost 59,989 Design;A small station relying on separate modules for fuel. Construction;PPD-12 cupola, mobile processing lab, advanced reaction wheel, Z-4K battery, RC-L01 probe core, X200-8 fuel tank, senior docking port. 2X 25-77 engines and PB-NUK generators. Modular girder segment with Comms DTS-M1, Communotron 16 and 88-88. 4x small docking ports on cupola. 2x cubic octagonal struts, rocomax brand adapters and senior docking ports, with 2x OX-4W solar panels. 2X cubic octagonal struts, Mk2 crew cabins and standard docking ports, with small docking port, roundified monopropellant tank and 2x OX-4W solar panels. 2 rings of 4x RCS thrusters. Action Groups;abort:shutdown engines, 9:engines, 10:instruments Performance;(Vacuum) TWR 0.24, 790 m/s ii) Construction Build the central stack of this first, including the engines and nuclear generators. In case you haven't realised yet the cubic octagonal struts are the magic components of KSP – they attach just about anywhere and create a new connection node to which you can attach just about anything else. Place two of them, with symmetry, near the bottom of the lab and build the two large docking points, then two more and the crew compartments. Once everything is in place, add the two rings of RCS thrusters equidistant from the CoM, so their thrust is balanced. Whenever I have a station or other long-term ship I build with redundancy in mind, so they tend to have two of everything. In this case the two small ports under the crew cabins are intended for scooters (similar to last chapter) or other small personnel transports so the monopropellant tanks are kept out of the way, on top of the cabins. The four ports around the cupola are for other small ancillary vehicles such as RCS/Ion tugs, lander drones or satellites-in-transit. The large docking port at the bottom is for a tractor vehicle (next section) and the two at the sides for fuel modules (later in the chapter). The two standard ports on the crew cabins are for landers appropriate to wherever the station is placed. In the case of Kerbin, those will be SSTOs coming up from the surface, everywhere else they'll be re-usable vehicles that land then return. In contrast to the stations I used to use this is a more stripped-back, functional, design with only the 'comms tower' on top of the station being for aesthetics (and to give something to look at from the cupola's IVA). A tractor will usually be used to move the station around so engines are not strictly necessary but it is a good idea to provide some independent means of station-keeping, as with a satellite. iii) Staging And Action Groups There is no staging as the whole point is for the station to remain a single piece! Action groups are the ones from my standard assignments that haven't been used so far, because they were reserved for spacestations. Now, Custom09 (9) will toggle the station's engines and Custom10 (0) all its instruments and solar panels. The reason these are given their different groups to other vehicles is that when two or more ships are docked together they act as one. As such, it would be impossible to toggle the equipment on docked vehicles or the station independently if they shared the same groups. iv) Flight Space-stations more sort-of 'drift' than fly, to be honest. Use the engines and integral fuel-tank on this for orbital adjustments if the tractor is busy elsewhere, otherwise leave them shutdown. As has so often been the case; we need another launch-vehicle to get this into orbit before discussing flights properly though. v) Notes A chapter about a permanent space-presence built around orbital stations better start with the station itself. With reference to the 'mission briefing', however, do remember that 'a station' can look, and be built, any way you want to. This is just an example I happen to think works well and that you may choose to follow or not. Even though stations are meant to stay put, as with satellites it's a good idea to provide propulsion for orbital-manoeuvres and corrections. Solar panels/RTGs are a must, as are docking ports all over the place but consider their placement carefully – make sure ships using the ports have enough clearance from each other, the station's deployed solar panels and instruments (or be prepared to retract them as required). It also helps avoid accidents if you use short or fixed solar panels. Designing, building and launching separate modules then assembling them in space, by docking, gives you great flexibility. For the first time it also lets you change your mind later – if you want more accommodation just launch and dock a habitation module. Want more fuel; just stick it on there. More docking ports; you know what to do. By the same token you can de-commission modules you find you don't like, by undocking then de-orbiting or terminating them. SECTION 3: TRACTOR MEDIUM Tractor Medium Transfer Vehicle i) Data Sheet Identity;Tractor Medium – transfer vehicle Purpose;System docking and rescue tug, lunar transfer with or without loads. Statistics;24.9t VAB/14.74 dry, 48 parts, cost 54,894 Design;4-outrigger push/pull. Construction;Mk2 lander can, senior docking port, advanced reaction wheel, X200-8 fuel tank, RC-L01 probe core, senior docking port. Telus-LV ladder, 2x illuminators Mk1 and Z-100 batteries. 4x outriggers with pocket I-beam, FL-T200 and 100 fuel tanks, LV-N engine, OX-STAT solar panels and fuel line from core. 2 standard and 2 small docking ports on top of the outriggers. Action Groups;Lights:standard, abort:shutdown engines, 4:toggle ladder, 5:toggle engines, 7:instrs Performance;(Mun) TWR 5.8, 4,034 m/s This is the workhorse vehicle for the campaign. It can assist with docking at the station, transfer to either moon by itself or hauling a payload. While spacestations just 'sit there', tractors like this will be busy nearly all the time. ii) Construction The reason for the outriggers is that long vehicles, held together by docking ports, can be very wobbly and unstable. As such, it is preferably to pull, rather than push them and this means the engines can't go beneath the core – whatever the tractor is pulling will go there. Using a pocket I-beam for each outrigger ensures any payload using 2.5m parts will be kept clear of the engine exhaust. The top docking port means we can have a tractor at each end of a load if we need to – one pushing and one pulling. The standard and small ports on the outriggers provide flexibility when carrying smaller loads. Make sure the fuel lines run from the core to the outriggers – the opposite of the way they are placed for onion/asparagus boosters. iii) Staging And Action Groups No staging again, we're building a permanent infrastructure. Action groups are all pretty normal. iv) Flight Like the station itself once this is launched (next section) it will stay in space indefinitely, landing at Mun and Minmus then returning to the space-station to refuel. On its own it has enough fuel for the round-trip, including landing and re-orbit but if carrying other equipment/ships it may be necessary to attach extra fuel as well – there are plenty of docking ports of all sizes. Primarily, it is intended for a heavy/long 2.5m payload attached under the central core. Light vehicles, satellites, etc. may be attached to the outrigger ports. For very heavy loads the forward core port allows one tractor to pull and another to push; there is a lot of flexibility. First we have to get these things into orbit though... v) Notes It is better to pull heavy/long loads than push them. If the exhaust hits any structure behind the engines (such as the payload) it may cause damage and the thrust will be blocked. Outriggers space the engines out to keep the exhaust clear. SECTION 4: SSTO 40 SSTO 40 + Tractor Medium + Station Launch i) Data Sheet Identity;SSTO 40 – reusable launch vehicle. Purpose;Kerbin launch, 40 tonnes. Statistics;(Ex payload) 386.3t VAB/66.3 dry, 42 parts, cost 163,348 Design;Core + 4, Single Stage To Orbit Construction;RC-L01 probe core, advanced reaction wheel, large docking port, 2x jumbo-64 fuel tanks. 2x stacks with 2 jumbo tanks, rocomax brand adapter, drogue parachute and OX-STAT solar panel. 2x stacks with 2 jumbo tanks, adapter, Mk16-XL parachute; one with illuminator Mk1, the other with a Z-100 battery. Fuel-lines from core to - and mainsail engine under - each side-stack. Action Groups;Brakes: parachutes, abort:shutdown engines, 3:toggle engines Performance;(Kerbin) TWR 1.58, 6,231 m/s We're trying not to throw anything away now, so this is a Single Stage To Orbit design. That's not efficient for a single launch but in career-mode, or for role-play purposes, it means all you have to pay for is the fuel (if you can land back at KSC). ii) Construction Start with the central stack then the side-stacks with symmetry. Apart from making sure the four side-stacks are connected by fuel-lines from the core there's nothing difficult about this build – it's intended to be low part-count, robust, reliable and easy to build and fly. iii) Staging And Action Groups Action groups are, as always, abort to shutdown and Custom03 to toggle the engines. Brakes seems a suitable group to use for the parachutes. Staging, from bottom should be set to engines, drogue parachutes and main parachutes. Note, however, that 'staging' only activates things here, nothing is jettisoned so it can all be recovered and reused. iv) Flight Use SSTO 40 to launch a tractor medium together with a station stacked on top, setting the tractor's engines to ignite straight from launch, at the same time as the launch vehicle's. Although they don't provide much thrust and this is using the payload's fuel the LV-Ns are very efficient so, overall, whatever contribution they make saves a little fuel. Once in orbit you can transfer fuel back from the launch vehicle to ensure the payload tractor is fully-stocked. NOTE: SSTO 40 connects to the payload with a docking-port, not the decoupler/separator used in the earlier launch vehicles. This is so it can, if required, be used to land a payload coming back from space (e.g.; an empty fuel module). Unlike decouplers, however, docking-ports enable fuel crossfeed. When you go to launch you must (right-click and) disable this on the launch-pad or the launch-vehicle engines will suck all the fuel out of your upper stages. Not only can this leave you with a useless payload, if you don't spot it, but it can even upset the balance of the rocket so much during launch that it will be unflyable. You have been warned. MISSION 34: Home port Tractor Medium + Station Position a spacestation and tractor in a 250km equatorial orbit around Kerbin. There is no escape system for the station or tractor during launch so send them up unmanned. Use SSTO 40 to put them into a low orbit, then undock and use the tractor to place the station properly. Note the docking-port connection between the tractor and station, with reference to above. MISSION 35: Recycling SSTO 40 Re-entry (with Deadly Re-Entry mod) You've parachuted command-pods down to Kerbin, done powered-landings on Mun and Minmus and landed jets on the runway. Now for a (parachute-assisted) powered-landing on Kerbin. Make sure SSTO 40 is in a low Kerbin orbit and proceed as for landing the Orbiter/Long Tom/Fat Sally recovery stages. After the de-orbit burn you should have 300 or 400m/s deltaV remaining. Deploy the drogue parachutes high, 7km if you wish, and their drag will slow your descent sufficiently to open the main chutes around 1-2km without them being torn off. Together they'll bring your descent down to about -20m/s but that's still too fast for the engines to absorb the impact … just before you touch-down, probably under 200-300m, you need to apply SAS to keep upright and some throttle so the engines reduce you descent to -5m/s or so. Too much and you'll start ascending again and KSP will cut the parachutes, too little and you'll crash. Start too early and you'll possibly burn all the fuel before landing and you'll crash, start too late and you'll crash. This is known as a 'suicide burn', because of the consequences of getting it wrong. Unless you've been using this technique on Mun/Minmus a lot of practice will probably be required. SSTO 40 Touchdown (in the car-park) Actually, it's not that bad as long as you don't waste too much fuel on your de-orbit burn. You're only reducing speed from ~-20m/s to -5m/s so you can start early and use low throttle. Just keep a close eye on your VSI and adjust throttle as required. (Or use MJ, like I do). v) Notes A nice, simple and robust, reusable launch vehicle for quite a heavy load. (40t is only 'quite' heavy in KSP, but at least you've left 'small' behind). Design SSTOs like this for 4,900m/s+ deltaV at launch, so they have fuel left for landing. Parachutes aren't essential but without them you'll need more fuel for the suicide burn (and more practice). The big question about orbital spacestations is where to put them. Low, 75km, orbits make them easy to reach for vehicles that are launching but leaves no room beneath them for a phasing orbit, if one is required for rendezvous. A higher, 600km, orbit provides an efficient departure-point for interplanetary trips but is harder to reach for launching vehicles and leaves, if anything, too much work to be done by those that are de-orbiting. My preferred 'traffic control' zones use the following orbital heights (which, as always, you should feel free to ignore): 75km – launch/de-orbit vehicles and low phasing orbit 150km – low rendezvous/parking orbit 250km – space-station orbit 350km – high rendezvous/phasing orbit 600km – interplanetary parking orbit SECTION 5: CREW SHUTTLE Mk2 Crew Shuttle Mk2 In SPH i) Data Sheet Identity;Crew Shuttle Mk2 – spaceplane. Purpose;Surface-Station crew transfers. Statistics;8.223t VAB/5.055 dry, 53 parts, cost 44,962 Design;A flat beetle with high performance Construction;Mk2 crew cabin with RC-001S and shielded docking-port in front. Nose-wheel under cabin, advanced canards on the sides. Mk2 liquid fuel fuselage and liquid fuel + oxidiser fuselage (both short), advanced inline stabiliser and turbojet behind cabin with delta wings. Twin Rocomax 48-7S engines beside turbojet, RAM intakes above and below wings and rear fuselage, small gear bays on wingtips; all attached with cubic octagonal struts. Tailfin, control surfaces, Z-100 battery, communotron 16 and solar panels. Stratus-V roundified monopropellant tank under stabiliser and thrusters around CoM. Action Groups;Gear, lights, brakes:standard, abort:shutdown engines, deploy parachutes, 1:jets, 2:intakes, 3:rockets, 4:toggle port, 5:cabin lights, 7:instrs Performance;(Kerbin) Takeoff/Landing 40m/s, Ceiling ~69km, max speed >2,200m/s This spaceplane uses “intake-spamming†and moderate part-clipping to achieve high-performance but some people might consider it cheating. ii) Construction The Mk2 crew cabin is the lightest way to carry multiple crew to the space-station. Fit a short liquid fuel (only) fuselage behind this and then a short liquid fuel + oxidiser fuselage. With this arrangement fuel is first taken from the forward tank, making the CoM move back slightly. Once you ignite the rockets, however, the oxidiser has to come from the rear tank so the CoM moves forward again. If you burn all the fuel the CoM comes back to only just in front of the CoL at worst but never moves very far. There is no Mk2-shaped decoupler but the mk16 parachutes are enough to save the crew cabin, if not the rest of the vehicle. Monopropellant is provided by a roundified tank tucked under the stabiliser (use WASD so it doesn't hit the ground on take-off and landing) and thrusters around the CoM. Otherwise, wings, tailfin and control-surfaces as normal for any plane. There are eight ram air-intakes on this design; four around the fuselage near the tailfin and four on the wings (two each side). This gives a huge amount of air for the jet engine, enabling it to be run right to the edge of space (69km) and leaving only 30-50m/s deltaV from the rockets to circularise a 75-80km orbit. This is abusing KSP physics somewhat and it is a little bit 'cheaty' to use so many intakes, especially as you have to fake attachment-points for them. For this, first position a cubic octagonal strut – they'll affix anywhere – then attach a ram intake to its free node. You can now use WASDQE to position and align the intake as you wish. iii) Staging And Action Groups The set for spaceplanes. Gear, light, brakes and abort as you'd expect. 1 to toggle the jets, 2 the intakes and 3 the rockets. 4 is just used to open/close the docking port and 7 to toggle the antenna/sensor. I'm not really sure if it's worth mentioning 5 – the lights option was there so I thought I'd go for it. iv) Flight Crew Shuttle Mk2 Circularising Orbit Standard start for spaceplanes: fine controls, SAS enabled, activate jets and throttle to max. Review the instructions for flying the Orbiter Mk2 (chapter 4) to orbit – spaceplane ascent is in three phases and, with the separate jet and rockets of this design you'll have to be more careful of the middle stage. Rotate to 50-degrees at 60m/s and climb-out to 10km for the first phase. Reduce pitch to 30-degrees and start to build horizontal speed while climbing to 20km, then reduce pitch further; to 10-degrees. Up to 30km, and especially above 25km, try to adjust your climb-rate so that your horizontal speed is at least 1,000m/s plus 100m/s for every km above 20km – so 1,100m/s at 21km, 1,200m/s at 22km, etc. Unlike the rapier the jet is entirely dependent on intake air, so you must go fast enough to feed it. Using this approach, or something close to it, you should be able to exceed 2km/s at or around 30km. Above approximately 33km there will be insufficient air for the jet and it will 'flame-out', but don't switch to rockets yet. Instead reduce throttle a little until the jet re-ignites. Although providing less thrust there is so little drag at this altitude that it will still be able to accelerate you, or at least assist your speed, as long as you keep throttling-back as you get higher. Pitch flat (0-degrees) or even down so your apoapsis climbs to 75km+ while the rest of the thrust increases your periapsis. You should be able to get a horizontal speed over 2,100m/s with an apoapsis at orbital altitude and periapsis already above 30km – my best being 58km – by running just the jet all the way to the edge of the atmosphere (69km) where it will finally give up. Close the throttle (X), deactivate the jet (1), close the intakes (2) and switch to rockets (3) while cruising to apoapsis, where you can circularise as normal, probably requiring less than 50m/s deltaV from the tiny 48-7S engines. MISSION 36: Home From Home Use the Crew Shuttle Mk2 to ferry the crew to the space-station. At Kerbin, I usually have a pilot station commander, engineer and two scientists for the lab. If you like to role-play 'reality' you might want to make a note to yourself to replace the station crew every month (or whatever tour of duty you think is suitable). v) Notes Intake-spamming and part-clipping can provide very high-performance vehicles and improve appearance by hiding parts but a lot of people would consider some uses of it (eg; clipping an engine inside another or inside a fuel tank) as cheating. Yes – the jet/rockets combination is more complex to fly than a rocket or rapier, but it is much more efficient. My flights to orbit with the Crew Shuttle Mk2 usually only need 50-100 units of liquid fuel and 5-10 of oxidiser; most of the flight burning just liquid fuel and the oxidiser only being used for circularisation. This and throttling-back the jet to keep it burning as long as possible is the key to practical spaceplane operations, although the rapier is a good place to start. Read spaceplane tutorials before using multiple jets/rapiers – 'asymmetric' flame-out or mode-switching can make you crash. SECTION 6: FUEL MODULE Fuel Module Payload i) Data Sheet Identity;Fuel module – payload Purpose;Dockable, reusable, fuel pod for space-stations and tractors. Statistics;38.4t VAB/5.2 dry, 18 parts, cost 23,940. Design;Rather than 'just' a can of fuel this is a complete, if limited, drone vehicle. Construction;RC-L01 RGU, docking port sr, jumbo-64 fuel tank, sr. docking port below. Z100 battery, communotron 16, 2x OX-STAT solar panels and Stratus-V cylindrical RCS tanks. 8 x RCS thrusters. Action Groups;7:antenna Performance;N/A but 81m/s RCS Now that we have a station in orbit, a shuttle to take crews to the station and back and a tractor to transfer them onwards to the moons, the only thing missing is more fuel. This module is intended to dock with the space-station, enabling it to refuel the tractor and any other vehicles that visit. The large docking ports at either end maintain the station's flexibility while the solar-panels and battery mean it can also be left in space as an independent vehicle, if you wish – presumably waiting for something to come and use its fuel. ii) Construction SSTO 40 + Fuel Module Launch A simple stack, look at the pictures. Make sure the RCS thrusters are balanced around the CoM. iii) Staging And Action Groups No staging, it's reusable. iv) Flight Without an engine this won't be doing much flying (although it can dock, as noted above). Launch with SSTO 40, use Tractor Medium to move it around. Recover empties with SSTO 40 or add parachutes for self-landing. A typical cycle would be; launch to orbit with SSTO 40 when the station exhausts one it already has, Tractor Medium brings empty tank to rendezvous with SSTO 40, exchanges fuel then returns full tank to station, SSTO 40 lands with now-empty tank. v) Notes At, roughly, 40t this is the heaviest single thing I usually launch, anything bigger can be assembled in space, by docking. MISSION 37: Kerbin Complete Tractor Medium Delivering Fuel Module To Mun Station Launch two fuel modules into orbit. Rendezvous and dock with them using the tractor medium transfer vehicle. Use the tractor to carry them back to the station and dock them to the two clear central docking-ports – as in the illustrations. Visit any remaining anomalies or 'sites of interest' on Kerbin using a spaceplane or orbiter. MISSION 38: Minmus Mapped We have, all along, been using the SCANSat satellites to map the moons. The intention then being to visit and identify any anomalies with manned missions. Check your Minmus map – found any yet, or other sites you'd like to land at? If there are only one or two sites you want to visit on Minmus it isn't worth placing a space-station there. Just use the tractor to transfer to, land on and return from Minmus. After each trip it can refuel at the space-station and is immediately ready for another mission – profit! You might think the pilot needs a rest/replacement though so you can send up new crew with the shuttle which, being a spaceplane only needs refuelling between missions too (automatically, on the ground) – profit! MISSION 39: Mun Maximised Now check the SCANSat map for Mun – there are probably quite a few places you want to visit there. Instead of sending the tractor all the way to Mun, landing and coming all the way back just to visit one location at a time, it's time for another station. Placing a second space-station around Mun (50km orbit is fine) means the tractor can land, re-orbit, refuel and land again as required. You will probably want to use a second tractor as well – to bring another fuel module across from LKO if the Mun station starts to run low. This is the complete infrastructure make-up – crew and fuel launch from Kerbin surface to Kerbin station, tractors shuttle between Kerbin station and the station nearest the objective, e.g.; Mun, refuelling as required. At the destination station the only remaining task is to land and re-orbit/dock. As to how to get the station to Mun in the first place – there are two main approaches. Dock station and fuel modules in LKO then use the tractor to tow the whole thing to Mun in one go. This works, but it's a bit of a load for the tractor so you'll have long burn-times. Alternatively, tow one or both fuel-modules first, come back and take the station to them, docking it all together in LMuO. From now on, HOW you perform missions is up to you to work out! Crew Shuttle Mk2 Approaching Kerbin Station The final chapter details specific landers so the tractors don't have to do all the work. Nearly Finished!

I'm with diomedia - from orbit around Kerbin, first match planes, then perform the transfer burn. It isn't as efficient but it is easier. (Chapters 4 & 5 of the tutorial in my signature if you want to try with different vehicles).

Pictures would be very useful, yes.

LOL, yes, I do understand that, it's a good and worthy thread, well done. I'm just saying, as 5thHorseman has too now, that +10% on those figures seems pretty accurate for me.

I tend to go with what the deltaV maps say +10% contingency, which I almost invariably end-up using. So far so good (or at least, adequate).

Enable SAS before you begin your takeoff run, it'll help to hold you on-course down the runway.

THAT is exactly where my uncertainty came from. Thanks again.

Thanks LethalDose, I'm actually hunting for a word that relies just on thrust without aerodynamic lift, but isn't necessarily using a rocket-engine. Something like a vertical-lift jet-powered stage, for instance. I think the term is simply 'ballistic' but I'm not sure.

Oooh, I didn't know Kerbals could transfer RCS fuel. Same way as transferring between tanks, I assume? Right-click one then alt-right-click the other?

First let me compliment you on the exactitude of your terminology :-) I think one of the problems of vertical-launch rocket SSTOs is that the wings can make them difficult to control during atmospheric flight. Have you had that problem and have you had to adopt a 'non-conventional' ascent path?

Enjoy your opinions. I just wonder why people are posting anything that goes beyond orbit. Perhaps it's that they don't read?

You are right that most people don't read much and, unfortunately, even fewer think about what they have read. There is nothing ambiguous about 'Single Stage To Orbit' - it's something that goes To Orbit, in a Single Stage. There is nothing ambiguous about 'Spaceplane'- it's something that uses aerodynamic lift to fly and can reach Orbit. If the OP wanted to ask about ambitious 'Spaceplanes' then limiting them to 'SSTO' - Kerbin Orbit - seems a bit redundant. "Your most ambitious Spaceplane mission" would seem to be simple and precise. Anyway, I seem to be in danger of being 'the forum ****' here so I'll withdraw and return to writing about a reusable infrastructure.

But hey, there's one point per post and you've made two posts since you first worked it out, so ... +2 points back again, lol.

You are right that it doesn't and I'm not trying to 'find some obnoxious technicality' for any reason. I'm trying to define - for agreement - specific terminology. It is not too clever to try to shoot someone else down for trying to be accurate either. The fact that a term is typically mis-used is not enough to make that usage correct. I shall leave it to you to decide by what trolls might best be deterred, but saying 'SSTO' after 'reusable' would seem tautological to me, in that to be reusable a vehicle would necessarily need to be SSTO, but not vice-versa. We are agreed to start from "'SSTO' and 'spaceplane' are not synonymous". Good. You introduced the term 'reusable' to this particular thread, I I know you didn't 'just make it up' or anything and never intended to suggest you did. To quote your quote though, "The term usually, but not exclusively, refers to reusable vehicles." So, if SSTO and resuable are not the same things, can we agree "'SSTO' is a sub-set of 'reusable'"? If so we have six different things*: Disposable rockets Disposable planes (I think these are the ones that I can't fly!) SSTO rockets SSTO planes (these must be the ones I can fly but not land) Reusable rockets Reusable planes (*I also need a decent word for vehicles that don't use wing/shape for aerodynamic lift! I'm using 'rocket' but that's a type of engine (like 'jet'), not vehicle. Anyone got a word for a flying-not-aeroplane vehicle?) Now I'm pretty sure we'd agree that the typical rocket is disposable and the typical spaceplane is reusable. So if someone talks about 'a rocket' I'd expect not to get much back after the mission, whereas I'd expect to get everything except the fuel back from 'a (space)plane'. If that's the case I have no problem with 'rocket' vs 'plane'. 'Reusable' or 'SSTO' does not limit form however, only function and I think it's as important as anything in a sandbox game to be clear if you mean one rather than the other. It is true that my history includes a fair bit of pedantry but I'm trying to find out what terminology is acceptable - I want to write about this stuff; accurately! You may call 'snark', I call 'vague'. [The rocket in that picture has a probe core (between the fuel tanks, next to the SAS unit) and sufficient fuel to de-orbit after delivering its rated payload to a 100km orbit. In that particular picture it doesn't have parachutes so is not resuable - a requirement you introduced after I posted it, as SSTO - but 6 radials don't stop it from achieving its designed mission and do stop it from catastrophic lithobrakng].

Glad it's sorted-out, even in a bad way. It was 'possible' to lift off from Minmus in that position as long as your engine could gimbal to get you pointing up very quickly. If you had dragged along the ground for very long, with any sort of speed, it would have been, to use the technical term, a 'crash'.

Lovely looking ship. Feel like writing more about it, especially placing the SCANSats in polar orbit? That's a perfect early task for a spaceplanes and I'd love to add/attach a detailed account to my tutorial (Chapter 4). ETA: And chapters 7/8 where I do resuable stuff instead of 'one shot' (not yet published). While we're at it though - I can't understand "Why fly up massive amounts of fuel and extra pieces to attach in orbit when I can just modify the craft on the ground and send it on its way with a top off at a fueling station?" Are you saying that launching and carrying all that structural-but-useless mass around the system is worth it instead of just leaving it in space? Probably best to discuss in PM if you're interested.