Pecan

It always used to, for sure. Haven't tried it in 1.1.3 but they certainly used to use whichever hatch you clicked.

Given the limited part-choice at tech 1 you pretty much need the pod, parachute, decoupler and swivel; only the number of fuel-tanks is in question. The swivel, let alone the reliant, have enough thrust to SSTO the whole thing, given 11/12 T100 tanks (12 is better but you can just about squeeze it on 11). I assume mono tweaked out of the pod, 12 tanks plus swivel for the gimballing (3314m/s dV): 17 parts, 9.2t, 5160 funds. The question then is how many tanks can the hammer SRB replace, and the answer is 3 (maybe 4). 9 tanks, swivel, decoupler and hammer (3425m/s dV): 16 parts, 11.125t, 5510 funds. even if you replace 4 tanks (3281m/s dV) the SRB option is still more expensive at 5360 funds. Plus, of course, it's a lot easier if you don't have to think about staging for your first launches ^^.

But, but, many rocket-scientists play KSP because these very things make them cheer or laugh! The same reason programmers put games/Easter eggs in everything they write; we all live in a world where we sometimes think "If only I could ..."

Ha, the addiction bites! This is what most of us have found, and why PC Gamer said in KSP it's about the journey, or even the journey to the journey, rather than the destination. It is also, I think, the reason that you, personally, get a feeling of satisfaction from KSP when you achieve something. Everyone else might have done <whatever> before but no-one else has gone through the exact process you have to get there. And you know you've learnt something and made something when it works. No-one says it better than xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1356/

Why I keep stressing the point: You are, of course, correct in ridiculing my pedantry, trouble is, so many do say SSTO when they mean spaceplane - and will reject a perfectly workable verticle-launch 'rocket' for the same job. The more people who should know better misuse the acronym, the more important it is to make sure newbies don't fall into the same bad habit. And, again, you're right that I post in most topics that misuse the term; it's a tough job but someone's got to do it. [Alright, I try to rein myself in but gahhhh! haa! the demons! ...] What's really wrong though, and the reason this annoys me so much, is when people talk about building a 'SSTO' to go from Kerbin launch, land on some other planet/moon and then come back. What is 'to orbit' about that? See, it's as pointless building something that does a trip like as building a non-reusable SSTO... Why make a non-reusable SSTO that stages: Worse, in fact, since a non-reusable, vertical-launch SSTO is sometimes the most cost-effective, or only, way to do it. Career or science tech 1, for instance. Once you unlock Basic Rocketry and have the liquid-fuel tank you can SSTO, the swivel makes it easier (command pod with parachute, stack of fuel tanks, engine - simple]. It doesn't land too well though until you unlock the other tech 1 node, Engineering 101, for the decoupler. Then you can separate the pod+parachute from the rest of the vehicle after your de-orbit burn. Gentle touch-down and 100% survivability (if you don't burn up ^^). Oooh, but, it's two stages! Indeed - it is a Single Stage To Orbit and another back down again. A very good reason to build a non-reusable SSTO that separates after it has got to orbit (and started back down). Why 'SSTO to Mun', etc. makes no sense: The crux of the matter is that people who like spaceplanes can make spaceplanes, it's their game. It makes absolutely no sense to drag big, heavy wings and oxygen-atmosphere-only engines around the system, however. Saying "it's a SSTO" adds nothing to its value - by all means launch to orbit with a single stage, then stage and leave the atmospheric bit behind! I have no idea why anyone would insist on a single vehicle for such different operating environments as Kerbin launch-to-orbit and space-only vacuum. SSTOs, spaceplanes or rockets, are not good at space-work. They have too much thrust and too much structural mass. It makes sense to design re-usable SSTOs for launching things that then operate in and beyond orbit, so stage those things once you get to orbit. If you have some reason to bring those space-vehicles, as oppossed to the SSTO launch vehicles, back down - parachute them down. Does this configuration seem familiar? Oh yeah, it's just the way you built your first SSTOs in career/science (and probably sandbox). Now though, you've added the re-usable to SSTO. For tutorials and newbies it's important to make that distinction. For effective design it's also important; what do we need to recover, what do we intend to re-use, etc. etc. If it reaches orbit in a single stage and all it's stages can be reused it's a re-usable SSTO, I don't care how many pieces it comes down it. In fact, what is special about SSTO? If it goes up and all comes back down, in however many stages, and can be re-used, it's a reusable vehicle. KSP's physics makes it hard to make a reusable multi-stage to orbit vehicle but, in principle if not practice, they are a better approach for all the reasons that staging exists in the first place. Another reason to stop this mindset of "spaceplance is good" without thinking what it's good for. Once people get-over thinking that spaceplanes are automatically good they can start thinking about the missions again i) launch, in a purpose-designed recoverable vehicle, ii) stage a purpose-built vehicle to perform the mission in space, iii) repeat as needed (stage landers, rovers, etc.), iv) recover all the pieces that need to be recovered but v) leave the stages designed for vacuum up there so you don't have to make a whole round trip with them again next time. End of hijack: Re-usable SSTOs are good. Spaceplanes make good re-usable SSTOs. Specifically; jets make very efficient re-usable SSTOs, so don't forget the alternatives to spaceplanes. For missions beyond orbit re-usable SSTOs make good launch vehicles. Separate the stage(s) that are to perform missions in space. There's usually little reason to bring them back down, but if you do the whole thing's still re-usable, even if it isn't a single stage, so don't forget the advantages of staging. If you are taking stuff up just to bring in down again, you've probably misunderstood the mission requirements [statement by the chief medical officer: this does not apply to tourist or astronauts]

Doh! You've even got it in your title. I can't find the console keybindings guide but you should have some sort of <moderator> button. On Windows it's alt and, of course, keyboard uses WASDQE for pitch/yaw/roll. Point is, you should be able to set and adjust trim (eg; slight pitch-up is typical) using <moderator>+<attitude control>. for atmospheric work it makes things an awful lot easier (just like in real life). Every few minutes you might have to adjust it slightly, as fuel burns, altitude and velocity change but the rest of the time your 'planes can fly 'hands-off'.

Try to fly using trim (alt-WASDQE) instead of SAS. Remember that SAS 'heading hold' keeps you going in a straight line, which a constant altitude *around* the world isn't. Apart from that, you don't tell us what altitude you were at, so we don't know what the sound barrier would have been (varies with atmospheric pressure). Mach effects are a thing! Mainly though; trim - it's just a much gentler way to fly an atmospheric vehicle.

There are several docking-camera mods available already, have you tried them? Overall I prefer Raster Prop Monitor (and dependencies including Hull Cam) because it brings so much life to the IVA view but there are other, more lightweight ones.

Do you mean SSTO, or do you want a reusable vehicle that can land again after it's been To Orbit? If the latter, does it have to stay in one piece after it's reached orbit? Did you specifically want a spaceplane or will any solution do? (See signature, I'm pedantic).

You're just lucky I was bored of explaining what the words Single Stage TO ORBIT mean (see my signature, there's no point arguing as I already know I'm being pedantic).

I run a lot of flights at the same time, I seem to have an awful lot of ships floating around anyway. As such I find it useful to stick to designated 'traffic control' orbits. For Kerbin: 70km re-entry 75km launch/return 150km low-orbit rendezvous 250km station 350km lunar/parking orbit 600km interplanetary/parking orbit Then anything launching is required to make at least a 75km orbit (pretty obviously, really). Ships being constructed in orbit or awaiting <whatever> from below sit at 150km (for easy rendezvous). Parked Kerbin-system vehicles, service vehicles (tugs, tankers, ferries) and day-trippers park at the station (that's what it's for). Vehicles shuttling backwards and forwards from the moons or just waiting to move further in hang around at 350km (not used much). Finally, long-term parking/waiting for interplanetary transfer windows is at 600km (to keep them out of the way as much as anything). Outbound: Launch to 75km. Transfer to 150km (deliver to construction/low-orbit re-supply), 250km (deliver to station) or 600km (wait for transfer) as required. Inbound: Brake to 75km orbit. Transfer to 70km (re-entry) orbit or re-cycle as outbound. Service: Normally operate across 75km - 600km as required but in Kerbin SOI are usually Mun/Minmus capable anyway, just in case. 350km tends to be the 'junkyard' orbit. Service vehicles that aren't needed at the moment but don't have a parking-spot at the station, stuff that needs a bit of help and is waiting for a service vehicle or - let's be honest - things that "seemed like a good idea at the time" but are now on the 'must think about that one some time' list.

Welcome to the forums. As you have noticed, there's nothing else out there that gives you the same feeling of accomplishment as KSP. Enjoy the addiction but try to remember the rest of your life as well *grin*.

Esc, revert, What mission?

Don't you realise we're now on a rescue mission? If you don't do something really special you might not be back at all (for six months). OK, keep calm, the baby isn't coming yet. BREATHE! Between contractions you have to install a planetary mod ... and make a new planet for your child. (and then plant a flag on it).

In order to work out what that much fuel, through those engines, can achieve we'd need to know the mass of vehicle (fully fuelled). From that we'd calculate the deltaV; the amount it can accelerate or decelerate (which is just accelerating backwards). As important as speed, however, is heat-management and - off the top of my head - I think you will almost certainly burn-up on entry to the atmosphere. Should you survive that, those engines are all super-efficient but very low-thrust so would not be able to stop the fall. Neither do you have enough parachutes or legs for Eve, it's the highest-gravity planet in KSP! It's not quite the hardest place to land but it is definitely the hardest to take off from again. ETA: It's a trap! Flee, flee for your life!

I would just like to assure everyone that I'm still here and that qcan0312 is not a reincarnation.

Plant a special flag.

Hmmm, I haven't been to either lunar pole recently. My experience of North is that it is, indeed, savagely hilly. There's not so much problem around the South and ... ... Easter Eggs.

Woohoo! Nice one

Yes, for modded versions and an ongoing career or other save it's good to have a separate install. Steam is good, in that it will keep its copy updated automatically but that can break things that go out of date. It is common - and explicitly allowed by Squad - for people to have several different installs with different versions and combinations of mods. I have every version zipped-up from when I started; it can help if someone asks a question about something old. You're addicted now anyway, Lots to do!

I got my game direct from Squad rather than on Steam so I'm not sure but it's possible that Steam runs the 32-bit version by default. Both versions are in my folder anyway - KSP.exe (32-bit) and KSP_x64.exe (work it out yourself ^^). There are probably answers on this forum or the Steam discussion site ... I also have no experience with CKAN so can't add to the comments above about that. ... Oh, and I'm UK ex-Army too, long time ago.

Video Wednesday AND Twitch Thursday, as well as featuring in fanworks *sigh* (mods and Sharpy - sorry I just can't get rid of that quote-box at the top of this post)

Welcome. Being able to get to orbit reliably is the first major hurdle. Well done. With all the guides, tutorials and videos around make sure they are for version 1.1.3, or at least versions 1.x.x. The aerodynamics were changed a lot just before release and earlier ... anything ... is unlikely to work. Be warned - mods are as addictive as the game itself. Do you have a 64-bit system? If not then you might find you have out-of-memory problems with more than a few mods so try to keep the list down ^^. On 64-bit you can go mad and install just about as many as you want. Make sure you read the OP of each mod thread for details of its dependencies, as several of them depend on other mods being installed as well. As above, make sure the mods you install are designed for 1.1.3. Stock Visual Enhancements (and it's dependencies) is the 'standard' visual enhancement. Chatterer is 'Totally useless', like you should see on its thread. Second part of that is 'Totally fun', so get it! MechJeb (MJ), Kerbal Engineer Redux (KER) and/or VOID for additional design and flight statistics. MJ is also an autopilot, if you want it to be. For instrumentation, including cameras you might like to try Raster Prop Monitor (and dependencies). That brings all the cockpit-controls to life and allows up to 8 hull-cameras per vehicle. External camera-control for launches, etc. are a bit rarer - I think Camera Controls is what you'll want. Once you get to rendezvous and docking, the most difficult of manoeuvres, a mod like Docking Port Alignment Indicator (DPAI) is extremely useful and unless you want to restrict yourself to one flight at a time Kerbal Alarm Clock (KAC) is pretty much a must (it just sets alarms so, for instance, you can launch something to Minmus and do something else while it drifts through space. KAC will tell you when it's time to pay attention to your Minmus flight again).

Mostly, everything is given a <destination> <name> <serial> designation. Destination first so I can find all the things around or heading towards a particular body easily in the tracking station. Pre-launch they don't usually have a destination but the <name> <serial> still works. '<Serial>' is just, 1, 2, 3, etc, if it's needed, so that's easy. For the names themselves I have: one-shot missions which will have their own whimsical reason for whatever they happen to be called 'permanent' vehicles like stations (called 'station'), mapping and communications satellites ('SCANsat <scanner>', 'COMSat <whatever>') 'tractor' reusable transfer vehicles, nearly all of a standard design but with <model-letter> if I care (eg; Kerbin Tractor B2, for the second tractor in the Kerbin system, which happens to be model B) Launch vehicles - either disposable 'LV-<max payload mass>', reusable SSTO rockets 'SS-<max payload mass>' or spaceplanes 'SP-<max payload mass>-<max payload size>'. The extra size information is needed for spaceplanes as their payload is usually carried inside a cargo-bay as opposed to the rockets' payloads being under fairings.

@KSK and @ZooNamedGames On the other hand, if you make a VIDEO ... Squad will be all for you. They love the publicity from youtube, just hate the written word. Their 'media' team was (is?) solely for video-makers, despite being the plural of 'medium'. Hehe, they didn't like my suggestion that it be renamed 'the medium team' either. Anyway, that wraps up this conversation, until it comes up again. As Vanamonde and Kerbart have said, inter alia, get proper legal advice, IANAL, check what's copyright and what's trademarked (it's much harder to get away with any use of the latter and it includes the word 'Kerbal') and - since you can't know in what jurisdiction Squad will attempt to sue you - keep your fingers crossed.