Pecan

Tall, thin rockets are really ugly, hard to fly and inefficient. This must be true because I've seen one that is ugly, hard to fly and inefficient. Apart from the amazing number of ARM threads, I find "asparagus is ugly" annoying (I note you don't, credit to you) because I have to keep going back to the VAB and reassuring all my launch vehicles that it's not about them, people are just not thinking when they say hateful and hurtful things. Yes, I use asparagus and, yes, I make sure they are 'pleasant', except when a particular design is there to make the opposite point. [*Tongue in cheek*, please don't take this personally (or even terribly seriously)] I don't understand why some people can't build aesthetically pleasing asparagus-staged rockets. I think the solution is rather simple - don't use more than two or three stages of the same size. Back on topic: The performance improvements in 0.23.5 are outstanding. I'm hoping for a nerf on the parts but only for balance - they should still be the biggest, baddest, tools in the box (until the next ones come along). Having now spent some time re-designing with them in mind I've really started to **appreciate the reduction in building-time and part-count**, which is not what I originally said a week ago. OP as they are they have their place and it's not usually a place I go anyway (mainsails are too inefficient to have any place in my designs). Haven't nailed-down the numbers yet - grateful if someone does - but I'm finding they come into their own starting around 60t to LKO or 40t HKO. Since I almost never launch more than an orange tube with trimmings (c40t) in one chunk I'm only marginally affected by the new parts either way.

In the OP you say "this thread may be annoying for some" but the only time it annoys me is when I can't find it. Thanks for all your work in keeping this up to date :-)

Thank you - I'd never realised there more-or-less was a scale (apart from that dictated by physics, obviously). That map by at joshworth.com is pretty fascinating too (if you like looking at 'empty' a lot, lol).

Note that RT2 itself does not support 0.23.5

DeMatt: nice demonstration - you might like to post that in 'tutorials' as a stand-alone.

As fuel from the lower stages the centre of mass will move upwards because you have so much remaining fuel up there. Most of it you probably need/want but that seems like a very large nosecone on top, wouldn't a smaller nosecone or, especially, a parachute help more? As the centre of mass moves upwards, futher away from the engines, which are the only thing that can counter any rotation, you'll need more "command authority" from reaction wheels/SAS. Either add that or do a very gentle gravity turn until you're so far up that it doesn't flip.

*whispers* I am still completely confused by the time display

It's dead?!! It must have been all the "Mun shots" we've fired at it. Or perhaps all those flags stuck in its surface finally caused a puncture.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/37-Add-on-Development is the place to ask about how to make add-ons/custom parts like yours.

Orbit difficulty (how hard it is to get there and back without landing): Mun, Minmus, Ike, Duna, Eve, Gilly, Dres, Tylo, Vall, Pol, Laythe, Eeloo, Jool, Bop, Moho Landing difficulty (getting there, landing, taking-off and getting back): Minmus, Mun, Ike, Gilly, Duna, Pol, Dres, Vall, Eeloo, Tylo, Bop, Moho, Laythe, Eve Grab a deltaV chart and you can check for yourself the likely problems. Distance is, generally, the simplest to overcome (it just takes longer to get there). Inclined and eccentric orbits are harder to match with so need more deltaV in the burns and more, or more complex, burns. That's why Minmus is harder to get to but easier to land-on than Mun. There is an amazing amount of fun to be had just messing-about in Kerbin's system though; docking practice, space-stations around and bases on Kerbin, Mun and Minmus. Have fun.

There's no problem with mixing staging-strategies in a single vehicle but as far as I know 'hybrid' or '*******' (<-- ho, ho; only just noticed the forum doesn't like "illegitimate child") would be the only descriptions. Strictly though I would think you could describe the strategy just from one stage to the next, "onion-staged with parallel SRBs", for instance. Since onion/asparagus depends on fuel-lines SRBs must be stack, radial or parallel.

I suggest asking the in the support thread for "the amazing stubby shuttle", whatever that is.

Soranno's advice, right up there beneath your original, tells you how to put them in their own staging group. Everything in the same group goes-off at the same time when you stage to it (engines, decouplers, parachutes if included, etc.) - that's what they're for.

Practice. Either: a) use huge, over-powered parts from SLS and mods. learn about ISP, deltaV and TWR and how to maximise them.

Are you sure about that breakthrough? I only use the navball version and haven't had a problem. Can't check just at the moment but I will later, although I'm pretty sure that the port is targetted, not CoM.

No-brainer all-purpose Single Stage To Mun and heavy-lifter for all those that don't like designing rockets.

The heading indicator on the navball does indicate which way the docking port (that you're controlling from) is pointing. The prograde indicator does show which way you're moving. The target indicator does show where the target is. Sooo - when all three are aligned you're pointing at and moving towards the target. The bit you're missing is ... unless you're approaching from directly in front of the target docking port they aren't aligned for docking but for approach. What you need is a mod that shows you port-alignment, not just heading/movement alignment. The most popular is Navyfish's (see spaceport), which shows an alignment window. I prefer the minimal 'sequel' to it which adds a port alignment symbol on the navball - that way everything is in the same place. (Align to docking-port symbol, use RCS to translate to target, approach & dock.)

Met is now green most of the time, whereas it only was before if I avoided looking at the ground below 160km or whatever. I have no idea of my actual FPS though - is there a way to see that within KSP?

FUD. Read the announcements and dev notes every day, then you'll know as much as we do. At the moment that's "Squad haven't made any announcements about the next update yet", anything else you hear is just rumour and speculation is pointless.

The developer of MJ is on sabbatical so there is no new 'official' release. Use the dev builds, just like it says in the MJ thread.

We're missing docking-ports for the SLS parts so I'm sticking with orange as the biggest tank that can be docked (without using an adapter). When building though I usually think of capacity ("orange", "1,440", "720", "360", etc.) rather than sizes though.

The 'official' build of MJ isn't 0.23.5 compatible but the dev builds are - see the link in the add-ons forum. Also, often when you undock/separate MJ doesn't necessarily know which core/pod you're controlling from and it 'dithers' and does nothing. Right-click one and 'control from here'.

An hour's worth of video would kill my broadband budget. Any chance of a write-up of the salient points?

Building your own (super-computer) rig is cool and all that but if you want to you can buy one second-hand (link is just an example). Yes, it's amazing how much more powerful computers are these days. First one I worked on professionally was a 32KB water-cooled English Electric Company 'mainframe' (KDF9, possibly). The Apple IIe I switched to, with 128K expansion, took up a lot less room!

My vehicles always start with the payload (shuttle in this case), then either use one of my standard launch vehicles or have a new one built for them. I can't think of any reason I'd want to make anything that looked like the US space shuttle.