Pecan

You can tweak the thrust in the VAB so you don't (necessarily) need a mod for that, otherwise I think you've covered all the options.

Example practice docking drone (you need two of them!). Once launched these have enough fuel and RCS to change orbits, rendezvous and dock several times. Obviously, this depends on how good you are at it though :-( Note that RCS is initially on the CoM-line but will move depending on relative use of RCS/rocket fuel (above and below the CoM respectively). Make sure you keep the battery charged by orienting the solar panel to face the sun. 1.573t, (Kerbin) TWR 1.14, (vacuum) deltaV 1,314m/s.

Radio 4Xtra. KSP and a good laugh go well together. (Classic radio comedy mainly - The Goons, Round The Horn, ITMA, etc.)

[i have just re-read what I've written below. Treat it as pondering-aloud, I don't think there's anything of material interest in it. Comments are welcome though]. The tutorial I am still re-writing progresses in 5 chapters: 1) first rover, plane, rocket, 2) Kerbin oribital satellites, 3) Manned orbital (rocket & spaceplane) and lunar/low-deltaV-interplanetary satellites, 4) Manned lunar landings and high-deltaV-interplanetary satellites, 5) 'permanent' infrastructure, stations, tankers, crew shuttles, tractors and landers. I've redesigned the heavier vehicles in chapter 5 to use the ARM parts because there doesn't seem to be any reason to use anything else (yes, I've abandoned asparagus for parallel or even stack staging) and am unsure whether to do the same in chapter 4, where appropriate; chapter 1 stuff is too simple to be affected. That leaves me stuck a bit in the middle (writer's thing, not a technical issue) because over the course of the chapter 2/3 missions I want to illustrate and explain the differences in staging strategies. Apart from getting plausible designs in the right places I've then more or less got to say "but forget all that, using a few ARM parts and simple stack staging you can go anywhere with just about anything". While it's possible to stick a mainsail under an orange tube everyone who has tried it knows that actually flying the thing as a beginner is trickier than (say) 1.5m parts with a 48-7s. That at least meant there were different reasons for different designs across missions as payloads become heavier and destinations required higher deltaV. KSP and, I like to think, the tutorial were more interesting because of that. Now it's no harder to single-stage a lander to mun than to orbit. [Although we all have to remember how hard it was to get to orbit when we started!] Bah! What's really got me stuck is only that where I want to do radial-staging for the first time the mission doesn't need it ^^. For the 'story' progession to make sense the mission has to happen at that point so I'll probably just have to think of somewhere else to use radial (if anywhere).

Very nice, I think I'm inspired. Rovers are a pain so I usually use a lander for multiple descents rather than surface-hopping but this would provide a happy alternative to wheels :-)

I like the idea of the challenge because I like to build a 'permanent' presence in the system. Why only spaceplanes though? SSTO is perfectly understandable but vertical-launch can do that too.

Wut? Wut? Did the OP delete his question? Edit: Forum being odd, or just my browser. Claw's was the first post here when I looked earlier.

If you would like to look there are already about 10 threads about the new parts

Busy too, but I was thinking of porting to another language - lua - because, well, it means 'moon'! (Pretty good scripting language like python too).

Someone nudge Levelord, I love that floating Laythe base.

It's easier to make a rocket that can make a return trip to Mun - as long as you don't land! DeltaV sequence is Mun orbit, Minmus landing, Mun landing. Minmus has the disadvantage of plane-change but advantage of much lower gravity and big flat areas.

You make a good point vger but I beg to differ, mainly because KSP isn't intended to be a game you 'win' by unlocking the tech tree. Since it's after 1.30am here though and I need to go to work in a few hours I won't look-up the dev's comments on it. Will you accept the caveat 'with science as it stands'? Amyway, all things are subject to change before 1.0 :-)

Excellent post, thank you for the effort. You mention several things that other people have not although I've asked for comments as I'm doing a write-up on design and specifically why people prefer particular staging strategies.

Remember career mode is just meant to be an interesting and playable tutorial, to introduce you to the things you'll be using in sandbox. Grinding science so you can complete the tech tree so you can ... what? ... isn't necessary or much fun once you understand how KSP works. That said, I spend most of my time on missions around Kerbin or its moons because I'm usually testing new ships over and over. Knowing they have sufficient TWR and deltaV still leaves me to make sure solar panels aren't blocked, docked ships/modules have enough room, I've remembered a ladder (!), etc., etc. Plus, it's just quick fun shuttling ships around :-)

From the KSC launch pad the "island runway" is 118 degrees, KSC West is 292.

Don't forget though that the only other place jets work is Laythe, so you'll have to use rockets elsewhere.

NB: RT2 doesn't support 0.23.5

I prefer to create a complete 'programme structure' in sandbox that follows a particular story-path. Career-mode 'Science' would be one of those, 'Kethane exploitation' would be another. My current is an easter-egg hunt built around SCANSat and starting with a rover (around KSC), trainer-aircraft and sub-orbital rocket. Progression is then orbital mapping satellites, manned orbital and lunar/low-deltaV-planetary satellites, manned lunar landings, high-deltaV-planetary satellites. Finale is manned interplanetary and 'permanent' stations. Spaceplanes really only get a look-in for LKO. So probes go first (BTSM although I don't use it or career mode), starting from the lowest deltaV requirements and building-up. Manned only happens once probes are in place. I have loads of information/management mods which are not a requirement for the missions (SCANSat can be faked just by looking at Kerbalmaps) but the only part-specific mod I use is Procedural Fairings, just because I want things to look plausible (and I definitely use asparagus staging). Just now I'm re-visiting the later, heavier launches and redesigning for the ARM parts, although they're so over-powered they make separate designs for low- and high- deltaV requirements look a bit redundant. Incidentally, as I have commented elsewhere, one of the things that stops me completing is that I lose patience waiting for transfer windows and am more likely to start again for a new version/programme structure!

Zero; I'm not chasing rocks at the moment (and certainly don't want to encourage one to gatecrash!)

@Starwhip - are you still getting bad ocean lag in 0.23.5? It was terrible for me in 0.23 but has all but disappeared now and, like others, the performance I'm getting is better all around. @Clockwork - take a break. You're a rocket scientist so everything else should be easy, lol :-0 Nothing is going to keep anyone's interest all the time. TES, Total War and others call to me but KSP is still the newest to me and I'm still hooked.

Thank you for your comments. Would you indulge me further and make it clear that an asparagus-staged rocket does not necessarily have to be a monstrosity or even look unrealistic. Monstrosities are therefore not a consequence of asparagus but of (aesthetically) bad design. Apart from the obvious payload-ration advantage of asparagus I use it for increased control a lot of the time as it happens, as it stops my rockets getting too long and unwieldy. Drag is identical to any other staging strategy that has 2 - 6 boosters around the core; and certainly isn't a problem in FAR. [Or just feel free to ignore this, I'm campaigning against knee-jerk 'because asparagus is ugly' comments but it's off-topic].

Can't say "permanently" or anything but I do know that I stuck a flag on KSC West's pad so I could target it for the next landing ... then wasn't allowed to launch from KSC itself because "there's a flag on the pad". In other words somehow they're linked!

I am on a campaign to spot all the people who post BAIU (Because Asparagus Is Ugly) without any context or justification. It's a lazy and self-evidently false cliche that is unfortunately common. My point being that if you can make ugly rockets other ways and not all asparagus rockets are ugly then people should find another excuse for bad design.

BAIU. The only things it would seem worth asking are: 2. Is asparagus the only way to make a monstrosity of a rocket? 3. Have you really never seen an asparagus-staged rocket that looks good?

Yes, the place to get help with a mod is in that mod's http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/12384-PART-0-23-5-Anatid-Robotics-MuMech-MechJeb-Autopilot-v2-2 thread. Make sure you use 'control from here' on a pod/core that is facing the horizon in the forward direction. NB: MOST point up, which is no use whatsoever as MJ has no other way to know which way it's going.