Pecan

Exotic alternatives to asparagus on Kerbin: SSTOs. Rockets are easier to build and fly on the way up, 'planes are easier on the way down. Twisted candle staging. Even more efficient than asparagus but even more complicated/expensive to build.

The demo's free, although you have to enter your email address to get a(nother) copy from the KSP web-site these days: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/

It's still there and it's still good but apart from putting the fuel-lines the wrong way around you should be aware of a couple of other limitations: Solid Rocket Booster fuel can't be transferred this way - it's solid Monopropellant (RCS) and liquid-Fuel only engines (jets, LV-N) draw fuel equally from all tanks As always pictures of your ship would help, along with a description of what does happen, if anything.

I think they're pretty! They're a lot bigger than the ones I use though. I just never move so much stuff around in one go - I'm with Wolfos31

The most important mods are either informational or visual - depending on whether you want to build good ships or watch pretty explosions (both are allowed). Amongst informational mods are KER/MJ/VOID, in probable order of popularity, with MJ also being able to auto-pilot for you, if you want it to take over parts of flight you're finding tedious (the 7,000th refuelling flight with standard tanker) or too difficult (rendevous/docking being favourites). In a class of its own but equally important is KAC which is either i) just an in-game alarm clock, or ii) the only way to track 30-odd flights at the same time. EVE (not the planet) is favourite with those that like pretty. RPM is absolutely a must for IVA to be useful. Chatterer is audio rather than visual but adds immensely to immersion, and who can't love a mod that is proud to boast "totally useless, totally fun"? Beyond that ... well what sort of game are you looking for? There's a mod for just about everything.

The wiki, "currently based on version 0.18.3", is out of date (and so's your demo if you had those parts available). Have a look at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/128142-munshot-wdemo/ for more up-to-date details.

I completely fail to see how constaints are more challenging for being 'forced' than self-imposed. Much more importantly though I have, since my first post in this thread, been replying to your/tater's comments. If you think I'm insulting you or anyone else then I'm disappointed in you for several reasons.

Patched conics is an entirely different thing from manoeuvre nodes. Rendezvous/docking in low without the benefit of target tracking (really, I thought that was always there?) is something you can do in sandbox just by not using map mode. Or setting the target. Same with your flyby and Mun science - although actually getting science points would require science mode rather than sandbox. OR - there is a contradiction between wanting such a specific set of parameters, devised by the mission-generation system, and "the contracts are ... completely unnecessary". I think neither of us is hung up on this but that where we disagree is that you enjoy being forced into those constraints while I prefer to choose my constraints.

I said career was for players who don't have the imagination to devise their own missions. If you want to design a ship within a budget limit then just do it - if you need the game to tell you what you're budget limit is, that's fine too but doesn't take as much devising. I am not arguing that career is for people who lack imagination, quite a lot is needed to design the required ships if you do many of the missions. I am arguing with your suggestion that career-mode should be redesigned for new players. However ... Somehow or other I seem to have got your intention on that confused - or at least, I'm very confused about it now - and I can't see where you answered it. Are any of your posts missing or is this forum just freaking-out on me? Anyway; if you're not saying career-mode is/should be for newbies then all that discussion's over.

My previous posts in this thread were directed at tater, specifically referring to career for new players. It is that that I am arguing against, hence the cut in the quote. However, since you comment: Are ANY of these challenges ones you could not implement or constrain yourself to in sandbox? Is someone of your experience really likely to 'lose' except, as you say by 'failing to achieve your goals', exactly the same as in sandbox? Presumably then what you enjoy is the selection of missions career mode devises for you. Fine, there's no wrong way to have fun. You use a mission-generator and spreadsheets, I use MJ ^^. ETA for below: And yet I can choose to design for any combination of cost, part-count, mass, tech-level, dV, payload-fraction ease of building/flight and/or any other consideration even in sandbox. Amazing, isn't it. Cheapest/fastest/lightest/longest-range vehicles of all sorts have been created in 'challenges' long before career mode. The reason for choosing the latter is that it gives you the relevant missions. Oh yeah - and the profit.

None of my SSTO rockets will launch, despite "SSTO Takeoff" being in there.

The whole science/tech-tree thing is available in science mode. I can just about grant most of the building limitations (except exploding buildings). So: how do money, reputation and contracts not add complexity? In what way does an absence of manoeuvre nodes make KSP easier to learn? What, exactly, is it that career mode offers to new players? What, if not money, reputation, contracts and exploding buildings, does it offer anyone?

A new player already has far too many things to worry about learning to build and fly spacecraft, without giving themselves the additional worries of career mode. Career mode is not there for new players - everything about it should put them off - it's there for players who don't have the imagination to devise their own missions.

Nice start Foxster :-) [Proof-reading: Payload "This is the unpowered bit" conflicts with " return engines+fuel ... electrical power generation". Might want to re-word that a bit. Isp typos " miles-per-gallon", "iof an engine", "range iof Isp" TWR typo "Thrust to Weight Ration"]

When you have an issue with a mod: Find the mod's thread in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/34-add-on-releases/ If it hasn't got a thread there, chances are it's too old or unpopular to be supported; delete it Otherwise ask your question there, where people who use, support and probably created the mod will be looking

"Difficult" isn't important, "felt really cool" is :-) That personal sense of achievement is what's kept us all keen on KSP. Of course, you'll have no time for any other life during 2016 now. [There is no "Earth", it's a silly myth put about by people who don't spend enough time on Dres]

Ohhh, you and those silly stories about that mythical 'Earth' place with people that have different surnames and all that funny stuff! That's a prize for google-fu, not KSP engineering. Besides, the Galaxy Song is surprisingly unenlightening about several answers ^^

If you want a part from an earlier install just copy it from that version, give it a new name and paste it into the appropriate Gamedate/Squad/,,,,, folder. It'll then be available next time you load KSP. There was a similar thread about someone wanting, I think, the old Mk1 cockpit. It might help to search for that - or Necrobones might come along and repeat his detailed instructions.

It's fun for us too, and hopefully for anyone else interested in thinking about building. The best test of whether something is 'worth it' in KSP is if you're having fun because there's no other prizes on offer! With luck that also means learning some things about real rockets/spaceflight since that's what brought most of us to the game in the first place but, yeah, most of it is understanding what can be done :-) Experiment and explore, in either order.

That should indeed be the first think people are thinking for expendable vehicles; what can I jettison and how soon can I jettison it. The key to staging is getting rid of dead mass as soon as possible :-) [Note the design I showed above uses basic fins which are in starter tech whereas the swivels and radial parachutes are tech-3. Ha - I didn't check but probably the highest-tech on that ship is the fuel tanks!]

Why can't it be both? Keep your 1.0.4 install, or at least the craft files. Re-build everything for 1.0.5. Next year (which is 4 days away) you can do it for 1.1 too.

Despite the number of times people have said that, it's not strictly true, nor do you need drogues. What you need is to re-think, re-design and re-build your re-entry stage. Retrograde is all you need. A payload behind the capsule: i) shields the capsule but hits all the heat itself ii) is draggier than the capsule With the result that either the payload explodes or the vehicle flips or both. Well if the problem is a draggy, low-temperature, payload reverse the vehicle and turn those problems to advantages. With the payload on the nose of the capsule: i) The capsule shields the more sensitive parts ii) The drag keeps the vehicle facing retrograde With the result that this slows down faster than a capsule on its own, staying cooler. Depending on your exact re-entry profile the parachutes should be ready for deployment before you reach 10km altitude.

See, I think it's in tier 8 at the moment, so perhaps we first need a poll on whether starter-tech is tier 0 or tier 1. To the question though - move them to as low a tech-level as possible; clearly everything must be done to make aeroplanes fly to and through space as easily and early as possible. No doubt those of us who can do better than "mildly effective" pure-rocket SSTOs will continue to build them instead.

Not as much fun - next thing you'd want it to do something useful. I was going for 'useless but interesting illustration of ideas" :-)

What a lot of fun you're having with rovers. Just to join in, I thought I'd make a fun 'axial' rover that was easy to launch. Recovery stage Transfer, lander, rover, return Launch stage; swivels, asparagus Launch as normal, stage boosters when depleted, circularisation with core stage is gentle - TWR only 1.1 when it starts to burn alone, so most is complete before your Ap has reached 75km. The 'rover' has enough fuel to transfer to Mun, land,re-orbit (see below) and transfer back to Kerbin 51km Pe. It's only that big because I wanted something with a long wheelbase and, well, fuel tanks are as good as anything else. Mun TWR is still very high with a single terrier engine. The legs are quite useful. Land tail-first, then extend the legs and pitch-down (W) to fall forward onto the legs, without any risk of breaking the wheels. Retract the legs to drive around and use one/both for self-righting as needed. They are also important for re-launching, as in 'drive' position you might have trouble pointing back at the sky. No problem with this design! Shoot for a 50-ish km periapsis on return to Kerbin and dump all remaining fuel retrograde when you get there. Hold retrograde all the way down, staging the 'rover' part when it looks like blowing up or when you're ready to land with the capsule and parachute. I don't think this has enough fuel to re-establish orbit around Kerbin before de-orbiting but I haven't tried.