Pecan

In the VAB/SPH the Isp stats are shown for atmosphere and vacuum - right-click the part's thumbnail to expand its description. The LV-N has a vacuum Isp of 800, being much better than any other 'normal' engine, which have a maximum of 390. The Ion's is 4,000 but its thrust is so low it's not usually considered for the same sort of vehicles where you'd use a heavy engine. But, yes, at full atmospheric pressure the LV-N's Isp is only 220; one of the worst ... it increases from that to 800 as you climb and the atmosphere gets thinner (indicated by the barometer beneath the altimeter). On Kerbin the LV-N's Isp already exceeds the other engines by an altitude of 2km or so. Unless you're planning extended flights in atmosphere you can generally ignore atmospheric Isp except for first-stage engines that will perform their whole burn, or most of it, immediately after launch. NB: How Isp works is one of the fundamental things that will be changed and in general there will be a re-balancing of parts it 1.0, so things may be very different in the next version.

MJ tells you the deltaV you have and you know what you need ... as eddiew said, it'd be a tight call but it might be doable. Best to aim for an Apollo-style free-return trajectory and settle for a fly-by rather than orbit, I'd say. For future missions: Much less low-altitude thrust - the white atmospheric effects show you're going way too fast (any faster and they'd become red plasma effects, as in re-entry). Lose the SRB second stage - they might be cheap but they're heavy and uncontrollable so only use for a first stage, if at all. Start and finish your gravity turn much earlier - be flat by the time you've got an apoapsis around 60km, using more thrust to get the horizontal speed you need for orbit. Read any tutorial on how to get to orbit - 'Induction To Construction' has the standard newbie-rules in Chapter 6, although it is intended as a guide to the screens and controls rather than flight. Look in the drawing board (link also in my signature) for tutorials that are intended to teach how to orbit, and orbital manoeuvres. On the other hand ... there's no wrong way to have fun. Congratulations on managing to get to orbit repeatedly and reliably. It's quite an achievement in itself, and doing it in a ship you designed is waaay better than using anyone else's :-)

I can pack a parachute and I've never been higher than an airliner. I can also make coffee, even though I've never seen the film 'Titanic'. As far as I know, watching Titanic has as much to do with making coffee, as Kerbal experience has with the specialisations; nothing at all.

(and the rest agreeing) That is already available - click the difficulty options button when starting a new game (PP 20 - 22 in 'Induction To Construction' if that's not clear).

Not a problem - just means "as accurate as it's possible to calculate"

32-bit allows up to 4GB for KSP, 64-bit removes that limit - but hey, you're asking about stability and suggesting a version of KSP that even Squad label as 'unstable' and don't recommend!

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say anyone was having fun the wrong way, or even that there's anything wrong with science/career mode per se, although I get no satisfaction from 'beating' them. Just that "can [sandbox] still be rewarding" is an entirely subjective question.

Apart from visual/audio ones, mods tend to make things harder, or at least more complex, so aren't generally good for a beginner but (see 'Induction To Construction' for relevant links) ... Get an information mod as soon as possible: KER, MJ and/or VOID all show important information that isn't otherwise available in the game. (MJ is also an autopilot in case you have trouble). Once you have several flights going to the moons or other planets get Kerbal Alarm Clock. It allows you to get on with one mission without forgetting the others. Navyfish's docking-alignment window or the minimalist navball docking alignment indicator help a lot with docking - which is one of the hardest skills in real-life as well as KSP. SCANSat is a great mod for making satellites useful and interesting. The parts it supplies will map a body from orbit around it, which can help with science or just picking a flat landing-site. ... and many, many, others deciding how you want to play. If you're happy with all the parts in sandbox mode and don't need an enforced structure of 'achievement' I'd recommend you start there and get used to building and flying different vehicles. Otherwise, have a go at science mode first for restricted parts and the tech-tree. THE game, in career mode, also requires you to manage your money, contracts and buildings, which can all be rather complicated for a beginner.

Nicely done, I laughed :-) The only error is in your premise that anyone might fly their 'rocket' - which is, in any case a jet - on a horizontal flight at low speed. Analysis would follow, but it's pointless anyway since aerodynamics will all be changing in 1.0 and the engines will be rebalanced anyway. We have no idea what will work and what won't in 1.0.

The thing is, 0.90's stability is practically irrelevant to how 1.0 will perform because soooo much is changing or being newly-introduced. Aerodynamics, cargo-bays & fairings, engine nerfs and general parts rebalancing, level-0 buildings, etc. etc.

What do you mean "still"? It's more a case of; can Science/Career mode be rewarding once anyone's "won" by unlocking the insane tech-tree? Or even; is grinding (experiments and/or silly contracts) through an insane tech-tree rewarding in the first place? ETA: woot! I seem to have echoed the post above.

Chapter 7, Section 4 of 'Exploring The System' (link in signature) illustrates a 40t-payload SSTO rocket that I often use. Section 5, a pasenger SSTO spaceplane (there are others in earlier chapters). Although I don't illustrate a vertical-launch wingless jet SSTO as in your illustration they are the most cost-efficient if you can land them close enough to KSC. My designs use turbojets all the way to space (tiny rockets for tiny circularisation burn) rather than basic jets and a heavy rocket engine though. I air-hog, typically 8 intakes per jet (as in the Crew Shuttle Mk2 mentioned above). To be honest, I nearly always play in sandbox mode so don't care about cost. Given the time it takes to fly jets to space properly, and the part-count limit of my old machine, I generally stick with pure rocket designs, SSTO or not. As to why I bother to SSTO if it isn't for recovery value ... quite often my payloads need to land again, so the 'launch vehicle' actually becomes a shuttle.

Yes. Welcome.

Well, I volunteered and now 'Induction To Construction' is finished I'm getting started on it. Just starting three weeks of double-shifts at work, so don't expect a lot of early progress, but at least there will be progress :-)

This is the one I meant: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76069-How-are-flags-oriented-when-planting-them

Indeed. There was a long(ish) discussion about this last year ... which I shall now try to find ...

Stationary, on the ground, jets do not deliver their maximum thrust, even after 'spooling up'. Test A jet engine to see what you can launch (at all) with it, then you'll know how many engines you'll need for your target mass. They aren't high-powered, but they are very fuel-efficient. Until version 1.0, possibly.

How much more you would have learnt by reading the first page of responses ^^. That said, yes, you're right in your main point, "satellites and probes unfortunately are completely useless". Rovers and bases are useless too, of course. Oh, and space-stations. Spaceplanes, naturally. Planes of any sort, now I come to think of it. Actually, I can't think of a single useful vehicle in KSP. It's a game, and people play it because it's interesting, challenging and fun! My point being that if you choose to play in a way that makes satellites and probes useless ("you build a bigger rocket") then of course they're useless!

You don't sound completely new to KSP but, you know, March forum-join date and one post; sorry if this is teaching you to suck eggs. Spaceplanes in KSP are hard, big spaceplanes are very hard, spaceplanes with MK3 parts are pointlessly hard (as in, there is no point in using them as there's always an easier way to do whatever you're trying to do). Start with rockets, start small and achieve success by progressing in small steps. It's a lot less frustrating than just failing in a big way.

I'm surprised you say that Starwhip. True, you can have 10 each science jrs and goo for the mass of a lab but a) that'll cost you 4 times as much, it's limited to 10 biomes/situations. c) it's 19 more parts, d) stations look cool with labs! It's probably one of those things that's a matter of preferred play-style but I find it much better to put a lab-equipped station/mothership in orbit around a body while landers ferry the instruments up and down.

Finished 'Induction To Construction' :-)

Anything that lets jets work above 30km, which I do all the time as a matter of course.

And even worse, there are some people who think SSTO = spaceplane to Eeloo, or somewhere. The concepts of "single stage" and "to orbit" must be more difficult than they look ^^.

Conveniently enough, I've just finished that last chapter in the 'Induction To Construction' complete-beginners' guide. For lots more information about vehicle and mission design you may also like 'Exploring The System'. Both linked in the signature; Click on the banners.

Here's my entry at last, also linked in the signature.