Pecan

et al...Travert's worked all this out so we don't have to in his mass-optimal engine charts. Apart from part-count considerations there's never a time when poodle is the right choice IIRC. TL;DR - 48-7Ss (light loads), aerospikes (medium/heavy launch) and LV-Ns (space) are almost always the engines to choose - if efficiency is your only concern.

It's not a problem, just different. (This forum led me to Orbiter when I want 'real world')

Get well soon.

I love these things everyone :-) I was going to make an amphibious punt but after installing IR I realised I had no idea how to use it and couldn't find a decent explanation of what each part does. Any recommendations?

The Kerbol's system isn't the same as Sol's system. Things aren't all to the same scale and aren't just 'scaled down' versions of the real thing. Specifically; the liquid fuel + oxidiser to rendezvous in LMO + monopropellant to dock + two docking ports outweighs the fuel to orbit and escape from the Mun. Therefore a Mun lander that just has the fuel and none of the other things beats an Apollo CM/Lander pair that do have them. @ Brotoro: instead of re-entering with a lander can I usually land with a capsule ^^ anyway. If not my crew are probably only coming back to a space-station and there'll be a taxi ready when they want to re-enter :-)

More chat about these parts is in: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69428-Spin-Stabilization-Question. TL;DR - use the IRW as it masses less.

Looks totally as if it belongs. In fact I think I've stayed at some floating docks like that. Nice one.

You will probably find http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/70426-What-movie-maker-program-do-you-use helpful,

To put it so simply that even I can understand it (although probably incorrectly ^^)... Your ship and its fuel-load fall from apoapsis to periapsis, gaining speed all the time. At periapsis they are at their fastest = (Fastest + Burn) m/s. Your ship and its fuel-load climb from periapsis to apoapsis, losing speed all the time. At apoapsis they are at their slowest = (Slowest + Burn) m/s. (Fastest + Burn) is more than (Slowest + Burn).

1. It is always easier to launch into an anti-clockwise orbit from Kerbin because you gain momentum (300m/s ?) from the existing rotation of the world. 2. To go to Mun/Minmus you need to raise your apoapsis until it reaches their orbit. IE; burn prograde at the opposite point in your Kerbin orbit - whichever way around it is. 3. When you get to the target you'll probably want to circularise your orbit around it. This is easier if you're 'catching up a bit' rather than 'whizzing past in the opposite direction'. So - always* orbit Kerbin anti-clockwise. [*Unless you don't want to] PS: waves from the coast further East of you :-)

My favourite real world photo is the day the earth smiled (follow links from that article).

Remember travert's already worked all this out so we don't have to ... mass-optimal engines

So I take it you're not just looking for a couple of EVA'd Kerbals kicking around an octhagonal strut?

Oh dear, you've done it now. All the phone-fans who think their toys are proper computers will be on you!

They sound identical to me - first step with any game install is turning the music off. So far Tropico Gold is still the only game whose music I will listen to.

Think of it like this: people who think more (moar) boosters are the answer probably have difficulty with spelling. ... and not because English isn't their first language. Think of it like this: people who use it in these forums (usually) know that. ... so it's irony - they could spell it properly but use the incorrect form to indicate that it's incorrect advice. But fun.

Ah thanks for that warning. I have been lifting and landing <40tonnes (payload) per vehicle so far and haven't noticed any trouble. Or, to put it another way, my manual flying is sufficiently erratic that if it has occurred I thought it was just me ^^. In the middle of re-designing my fleet for symmetry-3 because my one-piece -4 bases always seemed to end-up on a hillock of some sort where they wobbled like mad. Yesterday I downloaded KAS ... [in other words there are different solutions to the problem I had and I'll reverse and stop making a new one for myself]

(*whisper* build with symmetry-3. 3-legged stools (bases, landers) don't wobble, 3-engined tugs deliver them better, onion-3 is only marginally worse than asparagus for launchers)

Oh dear, I just thought that Whackjob might be our Howard Hughes - brilliant vehicles, massively over-engineered Spruce Goose, tin shack (give or take a few billion $). Then again I'd fly Whack's TKS (Trans Kerbol Spaceways ~TWA) whenever it offers a regular service :-)

The key to good rocket efficiency is how you build in stages. If you are trying to build a rocket that goes from ground to docked without jettisoning fuel tanks and/or engines you'll almost certainly never get much payload ratio (how much payload is lifted per tonne of fuel/engines for launch). With proper parallel or even stack (classic) staging you should be able to get at least 10% however. 'Asparagus' (only known by that name in KSP, not the real world) staging is the ultimate in fuel efficiency but expensive in engines and leads to pig-ugly designs (wide pancakes) sometimes. Using asparagus it is quite normal to get 15% and possible to get 20% payload ratio. Temstar's explanation of how and why he built his Zenith rocket family is one of the best places to start in designing your own rockets, once you understand the basics of staging and using fuel lines. Just downloading his .craft files and looking at how they're built may well give you a better understanding of those basics.

That 'Kerbspeak' is the Chatterer mod - it adds radio traffic for atmosphere.

Trying to make things as efficient as possible - which means I almost always use asparagus. Sometimes though even my aesthetics are offended by how ugly the 'best' design is so I will compromise. One set of radial asparagus stages, with nosecones if you like, doesn't look any worse than boosters and I rarely go as far as a complete second ring of asparagus stages so they're not, usually, that bad. My biggest restraint is not using clipping at all if I can help it, even when allowed in the stock editor. Sometimes I will use procedural fairings but on a payload with an ugly asparagus launch it usually looks out of place. There are also times when I build rockets that 'look' right, but usually only as examples of how other staging techniques work. Mods are good I think but I usually stick with the information/management (KER, KAC, etc.) and a few other non-part ones. I have just installed KAS & Infernal Robotics for the parts and ScanSat for the interest. Oh - and thanks to Real Life all my craft have to have navigation lights (aviation lights mod). Not desperately interested in (space)planes but trying to make a single set of launch and transfer vehicles, probes, stations, bases and rovers (or surface hoppers) that will work well together.

One of my (400 or so) computer games came from steam. Can't see the point of it myself.

One SAS should be enough for this sort of sized vehicle. Better ways to reduce (can be impossible to remove) roll are to add struts so nothing is wobbling around - look at SRV Ron's - and, possibly, aerodynamic surfaces/fins. Personally I've never used those and haven't needed to, struts have always been enough.

If the 6 sets of tanks + T30s are all connected to the core stage then that's not asparagus and will be fairly inefficient. With 7 asparagus stacks the first two to be jettisoned feed fuel to the next two, which feed to the next (penultimate drop) two, which feed to the core. Thus the fuel runs through all of them to the core and the outside ones are emptied and jettisoned quickly. There is no point in carrying multiple communitrons as they are resusable. Similarly, if you have large batteries than the z-100 they will mass the same for a given capacity but incur lower drag. On the other hand, if you have solar panels just one fixed one and a battery will be all you need. I'm just going to build what I think you mean to see how it goes ... ETA: Yes, it's a pig isn't it! It behaved well during the ascent but once it was drifting engine-off to the cicularisation burn I couldn't get it lined-up at all, despite leaning on the key for nearly 30 seconds^^. Adding an ASAS unit between (I assume) the SC-9001 and FL-T400 sorts it out nicely. Your design is otherwise sound, a standard ascent using a 10km gravity turn puts it in orbit with over 5km/s deltaV left. It might be a bit over-powered but that's better than the alternative.