Pecan

Truth in advertising: Chatterer has always listed itself as "totally useless, totally fun" :-) Totally with you (and others) who have said that these background things make everything so much more immersive. Thanks to all for the listed mod recommendations, I've never tried Final Frontier so must give it a go.

'Fraid in 5 years I've never played a science or career game through. The tech-tree always was so ridiculous - crewed-first, 5th-tier ladder, etc. - that I just couldn't face it. In any case, that becomes, 'now you have everything, do what you wanted in the first place' very quickly. Had I managed to face science mode I'd still have been put off career by the endless (?) test-pilot missions, "Deploy a launch stabiliser between 10-12,000m and 150-200m/s". Who needs it! On the other hand, a lot of people would be bored to death by what is my repeated playthrough of what is, in effect, the same sequence: get to space, get to orbit, get to the moons, get everywhere.

Sort of. What I meant was that a reusable launch/lander is always a good idea whichever planet/moon you're talking about. (Space)plane really just means it's intended for atmospheric flight. As such, you shouldn't design it for lunar/interplanetary flight as well - unless that's what you wanted in the first place, in which case it isn't a SSTO anymore, in any meaningful sense. Note that the efficiency of jets is only relevant to Kerbin and Laythe, where they totally make sense. Everything can be done with a disposable rocket. Much better can be done by launching indefinitely-reusable transfer (space) vehicles that shuttle between the planets/moons carrying <whatever>. At each end you have similar, infinitely-reusable, "landers" that just do the ascent/descent bit. Any trip from anywhere to anywhere 'should', in this scheme, be - launch vehicle => transfer vehicle => lander. Since "launch vehicle" and "lander" are meant to be the same, infinitely re-usable, thing (dedicated to locality - no point in an Eve ascent vehicle at Gilly!) that becomes SSTO => Infinite-Spacecraft => SSTO, although apart from Kerbin and Laythe the SSTOs would almost certainly not be spaceplanes (where their great benefit is jets). For a planet/moon that has an atmosphere but does not provide the oxygen for jets a 'straight' SSTO-rocket-with-parachutes is likely to be more efficient (*depends on a where/mass/design/flight*) and is almost always a lot quicker and easier. That's may be alright for the vehicles themselves but what about the fuel and crews they need? Well, as I said before, the fuel can come from Minmus or elsewhere at no cost at all, once you've sent a mining unit there. You use free electricity to mine it, so it's free apart fom time. Launch from Minmus back to Kerbin (if that's where you want your 'fuel dump') requires 1,430m/s dV, or less. That's almost 2km/s less than launching from Kerbin itself, where you would have to pay for that fuel plus the (admittedly inconsequential) launch-fuel. Crew are different and, for me, a source of fun. Yeahh! Instead of those mining drones and hibernating-transfer-vehicles it's a chance to spend a little effort transporting your most valuable resource in style and comfort. Orient Express to everywhere ^^.

SSTO: Single Stage To Orbit (as has been said) but I'm willing to add 'reusable' as the only potential benefit. Cost Effective: At any planet/moon you intend to revisit it's a good idea to have one or more dedicated landers that simple shuttle between the ground and local orbit. It is absolutely worth it to make them reusable. Spaceflight: No, SSTOs are terrible at that. Landers are best dedicated to the task of launch and landing, especially if through an atmosphere. Quite simply, atmospheric flight needs too many massy aerodynamic considerations that you don't need in space. In addition to dedicated landers have dedicated space tugs/stations without so much as a landing leg. (Whether stations are 'worth it' is an entirely different thread ^^) Fuel-to-space: Cheaper to mine it on Minmus, costs almost nothing to launch and transfer using dedicated, reusable, landers and tugs. Construction-to-space: Your ships all have to start on Kerbin. It is worth it to launch them using reusable SSTOs, especially if you build your largest vehicles in space, by docking easily-launched modules together. Modularity is good and this helps keep your cargo SSTOs smaller and easier. Crew-to-space: Your ONLY source of Kerbals is Kerbin. No. 1 reason for a Kerbin SSTO is to give them a ride to the nearest spacestation. And tourists, of course.

Congratulations and welcome to the Society of Spacetravellers ^^. Remember your failure, frustration, persistence and ultimate success. Remember how good it feels to know you have learnt a real thing, not just pressing the "take me to orbit" button. If you wish to do more with KSP these things will become very familiar. Expect re-entry, rendezvous, docking, powered landings and interplanetary transfers to be challenging and rewarding in a similar way. KSP makes you work (and learn) for your successes but having done so you know you have truly earnt them. Being able to recite the Tsiolkovsky equation on demand is just an additional benefit ^^.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree. A lander with wheels is a rover and should be both a lot more fuel-efficient and more stable than a tricycle carrying around excess sticky-out bits it doesn't need. That said, if you aren't building a 'permanent' infrastructure and only want to go somewhere once or twice it's not worth making and hauling the station/lander stuff and a one-off SSTO is better.

I'm new to this topic so might be missing something. "Open the bay doors HAL" "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" = Put a door in that you can normally keep closed (as Raptor9's "plug"). When a ship approaches the hanger you remove the plug and immediately park the approaching ship. As long as you never go beyond the physics bubble the collider mesh shouldn't be recalculated, I'd have thought, or does it happen as soon as you change vessel?

SSTOs beyond LKO are pointless except for Laythe, where they can jet again. Also, of course, except just for the fun of it. Beyond LKO use and re-use transfer spacecraft - tugs and shuttles that never ever land - and specific landers for the planets/moons in which you're interested. That way the only things that have to come up or down at Kerbin, by SSTO, are fuel and crew. With ISRU that becomes only crew. Passenger SSTOs are relatively easy and don't have to be particularly big (career tourist missions likely being the biggest demand). Tanker SSTOs can just have over-large tanks as part of their design and transfer the excess when you dock - either with a station or with your reusable shuttles/tugs. That way you don't need cargo bays as such. Actual cargo SSTOs are best just for things you want to construct in orbit but can't get there themselves - which would be parts of stations and, probably, tugs. What's left is one-off mission 'specials' and, since they're for one-off missions, there's not much point in making them reusable. Now, I haven't built a single SSTO since the game's been in full release. I really should ...

Anecdotally at least Ike is (in)famous for interfering with most trips to/from Duna. Usually it's a mild deflection but by the same token it's very easy to intercept Ike instead of the planet itself*. That gives you an easy way to wait in the SOI until you have an easy transfer to the Duna orbit you really want. (*Unless you're trying to get to Ike, in which case it always hides behind Duna. Life's like that *sigh*).

Hey yeah, it was 2d and all at the start, from the pictures I've seen. Before my time but you're right. All hail Orbiter (as another thread discusses). HarvesteR played Orbiter (freeware) but wanted a, 'build a rocket' and 'build a space company' game with physics but less 'mechanics' of simulation. Thus was born Kerbal Space Program (indie), which grew to be a 3d stellar-system with NASA tie-in (asteroids), etc. and the team going to dinner with the US president. But it was too much to run on a phone so along came SimpleRockets (one-man's sole creation), in 2d and not so much recognition although some additional systems (Life Support IIRC?). That in turn worked rather well, which is why he made SimplePlanes and whatnot. Seems like the space-sim market is a good one to be in but not recognised by mainstream because business execs can't tell the difference between Rocket Science and Space Invaders. The only thing that would wake them up is if a space-science game became a best-seller and then they'd just buy it. Oh, hi there Take-Two.

I second that emotion. The tech-tree is ridiculous but when I'm designing a vehicle with an eye on tech-level it would be so much easier if I could at least see the levels, instead of 'this facility is closed' on R&D. Similar for contracts and strategies (?). I might have no need of science, funds and reputation but it would help to know what they're about if someone asks. Can't think of a reason I'd go to Mission Control (ever) but in sandbox it can still be useful to check science-point requirements per level, which level things are, what their prerequisites, etc. Otherwise I might do crazy things like a make a tech-4 ship with *gasp* something like a ladder on it; the sort of tech which is beyond magic ^^. We can see prices and total ship cost in the VAB/SPH, so what's the problem with seeing tech, etc?

My 'phone was at hand so I thought to check. "Stuff" section at the bottom of the main menu - Kerbal Space Program is the first entry, followed by a couple of links to his other games, settings, community and about. Tapping Kerbal Space Program gets you: "Homage must be paid to the ultimate rocket science game, Kerbal Space Program (developed by Squad). If you have not already played it, I highly recommend checking it out It's available on Mac and PC, and it is truly an amazing game." plus a few KSP screenshots. Steam blurb " I am excited to release my first game on Steam! SimpleRockets was released in 2013 for mobile and I've put a ton of work into it to get it ready for PC and Mac. It was inspired by KSP, and it offers a simpler 2D experience for building rockets and exploring space with realistic orbital mechanics." Safe to say he's one of us *grin*

Ike makes 'corrections' at Duna. Very active moon that, can't keep out of anything. Usually that's an annoyance but it can also be used to advantage.

Simple Rockets was *designed* to be like KSP - the author specifically said he wanted to play KSP on his phone and made the best he could. Look at the credits in the game, KSP is thanked and recommended. Good luck to him, I have it but touch is such an awkward way of using a screen that, like everything else on my phone, I don't use it.

*Grin* In my book about KSP I gave a design which I not only flew to space on jet but also got a periapsis over 58km doing it. Hey, it only had 8 intakes! (And 2 tiny 'sparks' before they were called that for the <100m/s required to complete circularisation).

IIRC Originally KSP changed fuel consumption rate with pressure rather than isp but it was changed years ago.

Playstyle A: Without dV indicator = put some stuff together, throw it at Mun, watch explosion. Put some more stuff together, throw it at Mun, watch explosion. (Get really good, put some stuff you know well together, show everyone how it's done). With dV indicator = do exactly the same thing, there's no need to look at the dV indicator (just as I ignore the 'engineer report' in the VAB) Playstyle B: Without dV indicator = use a calculator/spreadsheet to work out exactly what to put together, throw it at Mun, watch explosion. Calculate what went wrong/slap forehead for staging parachutes with engines *again*, tune vehicle to pitch-perfect* capability. throw it at Mun, watch explosion. (Get really good, put some stuff you know well together, show everyone how it's done). With dV indicator = make it apparent to anyone who watches that it's your lousy flying that causes explosions but, hey, it's a really good ship in theory. Point is - you can either learn what vehicles are capable of by trial-and-error or by calculation but the nature of KSP, flight and space mean most of us/our designs mostly fail first time and need practice to build and practice to fly. (*roll- and yaw- perfect also recommended)

There are some excellent online tools for calculating transfer windows (eg; https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ , http://ksp.olex.biz/ ). The main thing is that it's going to take a long time to get there, so it's important to work out where the target planet will actually be in its orbit; it's easy to go the distance but miss the planet completely. MJ's plotter is similar to the alexmoon one but the online tool offers more options.

"A mod" and "an engine" don't really tell anyone enough to offer anything but very general help (such as; how high/fast does this happen?). Problems/Questions about a specific mod are usually best addressed in that mod's own thread, because its author and users will most likely be active there. If you are *writing* this mod and don't know how to deal with intake air then Add-On Development is the best place to look.

And as Vanamonde said, we are glad to see you here too. There are many good things in KSP. Keep it quiet but since the game's not for the casual player that also means this community is possibly one of the nicest you'll meet in gaming. It's not personal, it's rocket science *grin*.

Three year old thread, no problem :-) Applause - and waves.

You reminded me; I wanted a picture of landers (plural) docking with a spacestation. MJ on both while I controlled a fourth vehicle to compose the shot. Very repeatable, thankfully, because it took a few goes. Defintely not the sort of thing that comes up in normal gameplay but has its uses.

That T2 didn't charge for it.

@xemina, Powered landings along with rendezvous and docking are the hardest things to learn. For a lot of stuff - like dV - it's enough to do the maths and follow the numbers but when it comes to metal meeting rock you've actually got to be able to *do* it there and then, every time. Theory meets practice, hard *grin*. You're nearly there now :-) Oops, my bad, you're right.

Yes, Minmus is just generally more forgiving on lander design, location and flying ability but it isn't simpler than any other non-parachute landing. Even a bumpy Minmus landing is going to be more survivable than a rough Mun one. This is a thread for first ever alien landings so ... Minmus is more forgiving. To put it another way - Can you think of anything that could land on Mun but couldn't land on Minmus?