Pecan

Tavert isn't very active in the forums any more but look at post #44 - you can get the optimizer in a spreadsheet :-)

Hmmm, I don't know how comprehensive/abstruse you want to make this :- 'overview' as in the title or 'reference dictionary'. This is my take on things (which may be completely wrong, so I'm glad you're putting this together!) Classic "Serial" (aka "Stack") staging, fine although "Con: Engines are not put to best usage" is probably not accurate. One of the advantages being that you can use lighter engines on higher stages but the big disadvantage being that you have to carry them around until their one brief "moment of f(l)ame". The train and twisted candle strategies you show when you add fuel lines to serial staging are fine (and I must use them more!). Note that you can mix those two so only 'some' of the twisted candle stages have extra engines, just when the TWR is getting low and needs a bit more thrust. Also, the engines don't have to be the same on every stage so you can add light engines for 'a bit' more thrust or heavy engines for a lot. "Radial" staging I usually use to describe 'side booster' staging where outer boosters fire first, then inner ones, then up the stack (if present). No fuel lines, as you say, but specifically not having all engines firing at once, which I leave for ... "Parallel" staging - without fuel lines. Inner engines will have to be more fuel-efficient or have more fuel in their stacks in order to keep buring longer. Once you add fuel lines to parallel you have "asparagus" at symmetry 2 or "onion" at 3+. Again, you can put lighter or heavier engines on different stages according to TWR need. Drop tanks in twisted candle/onion/asparagus (doesn't make sense in serial, radial or parallel, already there in train) are also known as 'slack tanks' and, just as mentioned above for twisted candle, mean you can have extra fuel for inner stages that already have enough thrust and only need the extra mass of more engines on stages where the TWR is getting low.

If you find lavatories essential then build somewhere for them and enclose it in fairings ;-0

I'm in the habit of setting an action group to toggle my engines off between manoeuvres after pressing shift way too many times when I didn't want to ^^

Which makes it impossible for anyone else to understand the first 3 replies ^^ Do they have to be ISA maps? That mod is outdated and no longer supported itself, as far as I know. Its successor, SCANSat, is up to date though.

What's clipped on it? I have no problem with the RCS tanks around the engine, they look quite neat there and aren't clipping 'into' it to any noticeable extent.

NecroBones says it for me, including quoting Red Iron Crown and Streetwind :-) Cubic octagonal struts feature quite a bit in my designs to allow engine-clustering, for instance, but those engines don't clip into each other. Similarly, I'll use the tail connector to cluster engines around a tank, justifying it as "this is adding a fairing to the outside of the tank, in the real world it wouldn't clip inside the tank so I'm not cheating on fuel capacity" (Kashua's point). Aesthetics yes, but as with what others have said, the point, challenge and interest of KSP for me is seeing what I can do within the spirit and, preferably, letter of the 'rules' so no clipping that doesn't make 'sense'. [ETA: to be clear - it's fine if you find a different "point, challenge and interest" in KSP but my personal preference is for the technical engineering]

Almost all my missions outside LKO are slower than real-time because once they've done their burn and are on their way I spend all my time on lots of other building/orbital messing around until KAC reminds me that I sent something off to Mun a couple of days ago ^^. There is a simple reason I haven't been to most planets - my games never last long enough for a transfer window!

Yes, as I've agreed with you/cantab before, some sort of (mass) penalty for high-throughput lines would make it more plausible. We don't disagree too much really but I'm getting bored with the knee-jerk 'BAIU' statements from so many people and I'm going to start calling it - until I get bored in about 2 days.

Lol. Has Whackjob seen that yet?

Ha! Another possible problem - make sure you remember to save the correct version of your ships too!

KAC's settings let you adjust the number of saves/backups it keeps

Very nice starwhip. Good to see someone writing a lengthy tutorial instead of videoing all the time.

Oddly enough, even though it's actually decked-out as rundown and abandoned the island still seems like a 'country airfield' to me whereas shiny new-looking KSC West feels much more creepy and silent somehow.

"BAIU" = "Because Asparagus Is Ugly". It almost seems to have become a truism for some people and is given out more frequently lately, usually without expansion, explanation or exception. All the ARM threads tend to an "SLS engines are overpowered"/"So what, asparagus is ugly" argument unfortunately. On the questionnaire: 50%, at least you have an open mind ;-0 Answer 1 is "No, what it 'should' be is whatever each person wants it to be. If we're restricted to 'real rockets' we might as well use Orbiter" Answer 2 is "Actually, there's already a prototype for that". (Saw it on the interweb so it must be true ^^. Can't find it now but honest, truely, cross my heart) And I think 'onion' is already a fact, it is only using WWII (earlier?) aircraft 'drop tank' technology, after all. Apart from anything else isn't the Falcon Heavy using it? Totally agree your edit by the way. Personally I'm only taking physics/logic complaints about "possible" seriously, assuming Kerbals have overcome (some) of the purely technical limitations that we still face. Clipping engines inside each other is also right out!

It is cool and it's well known - we all fly past it nearly every time we launch, after all. Being well known doesn't stop it being cool though, or you being cool for having visited it for the first time :-) There are a few 'left-overs' in the hangers as well, by the way. There are lots of other cool things out there - on Kerbin and elsewhere. See the 'Easter Egg' thread and/or KerbalMaps site if you want to know what/where they are, avoid those like the plague if you want to find them for yourself (and extra cool points for doing it the hard way). If you want a hint in finding them but want to 'play' it rather than 'cheat' then get the SCANSat mod (successor to ISA Mapsat) and launch mapping satellites which, optionally, will highlight "anomalies" but not tell you what they are.

Oddly enough I've just been reading the same thing on wikipedia's article on multi-staged rockets; payload/launch vehicle is a fine and easy distinction right up until someone uses part of the 'payload' as final stage. When designing a general-purpose launch vehicle I think you'd have to say 250t, because it's what "else" the vehicle can lift. If you're just seeing how much 'stuff' you can get into orbit then I agree your 575t though, especially as getting the thing into space so it can be refuelled and used for something else (eg; massive interplanetary tug) might be the point. Ahh, the joys of taxonomy.

I was agreeing with you and Seret

BAIU 1. Is 'how a real rocket looks' the way it 'should' be in KSP? 2. If/when a 'real rocket' uses asparagus will it suddenly become ok in KSP? 3. Is asparagus the only way to make a mess of a rocket? 4. Have you really never seen an asparagus-staged rocket in KSP that looks good?

This. And Red Iron Crown. Who would say 'no' to NASA if they got a chance to work with them on their not-even-released-yet game?

Nice post, nicely thought out. Travert's mass-optimal engne charts indicate though that far from being 'lacklustre' the aerospike is often the launch engine of choice (for mass optimisation).

Er, hello. My name's Pecan and I'm a mod-aholic. It started out because I wanted to see TWR and deltaV figures, or even just mass, while I was building and I thought MJ's displays would be fine. Of course pretty soon I was using it for launches too; you know, I started on the repetitive stuff where I needed its consistency in flight and then it just seemed to be a habit. So then I thought KER's reference bodies would make me feel better in the VAB and while I was at it Crew Manifest so I didn't have to do manual EVAs all the time. Before I knew where I was I couldn't leave the building without a Chatterer and navigation lights fix. Like everyone, I told myself it made everything 'more real' and I could handle it but, like everyone, I soon grabbed KAC simply because I couldn't handle everything any more. I finally realised how bad it was getting when I got the texture reduction mod. I mean, it's a mod you only need if you have lots of mods! (17, with another 5 waiting to be installed - they're only out at the moment because RT2 doesn't support 0.23.5 ... hmmm, I might go back to 0.23 so I can use them)

The main reason I use stations is to provide a single focus for all the launches, fuel tanks, in-bound/out-bound flights, etc. Rather than cluttering-up orbit around each body everything is in one place and 'only' the station needs re-supply so I don't have to worry about many different, smaller tanks and accoutrements. My 'programme structure' also entails crew-shuttle space-plane & refuelling launch from Kerbin, dedicated transfer tractors that never re-enter and dedicated landers for other bodies. Stations are the nexus for launch-transfer-lander rendezvous, crew go back down to Kerbin in the shuttle, residual fuel is collected and re-allocated at the stations and empty tanks are de-orbited and parachute-landed. Ideally this would cover the entire system with only 4 or 5 standard designs (launch vehicle/plane, station, tractor, (same station, different place,) lander) but my landers, particularly, tend to be more specialised and varied.

Then don't touch any control! Seriously - I had the same thing and, since you don't get to try re-entry until you've practiced getting into orbit in the first place it's almost the final lesson you learn. Drag, as has been mentioned, is the issue. As you're re-entering you have almost orbital velocity and, as you're coming down, the air and drag is increasing, all of which is slamming the brakes on for your plane. Don't even try to 'fly' it until you're below 10km and ~300m/s horizontal speed. Until then just keep it close to prograde so it doesn't flip/spin on its own. Once it's back in thick air add a little throttle and slowly bring the nose up, again not moving too far from prograde. You should be able to level-out above 5-6km so you've still got lots of height and are now back flying normally.

[i always wanted a concrete boat, but have never sailed one. Yes, they do exist, do work, are very strong, cheap and easy to repair in 'low tech' parts of the world and, no, they aren't great performers]