Pecan

Rule 1: Everything is reusable. Rule 2: All the things that aren't reusable are recoverable. Rule 3: Or they have probe-cores to de-orbit and destroy themselves. Rule 4: Er, since we've already broken rules 1 and 2, all the things that aren't reusable/recoverable and don't destroy themselves must be dropped while sub-orbital so they are automatically deleted. Rule 5: Ummm, and any other debris gets deleted in the tracking centre. Rule 6: .Rule 7: Except that some things marked as 'debris' are actually monuments to earlier missions - like an Apollo-style landing-stage left on Mun.

About 120t when I was interested in building bases, in three 40t-modules though.

Chapter 7 of the tutorial in the signature. Get the PDF download for the updated version.

Starwhip's right - you really don't want to start with RSS, et al. Get used to the base game first. If you are interested in realistic spaceflight in the Earth solar system you might like to try Orbiter, but that doesn't let you build your own vehicles or explore in quite the same way as KSP (which is why we're all here). Steam will have installed KSP to a folder (something like) C:\Program Files\Steam\SteamApps\Common\KSP_Win. Just copy that whole folder to make a backup - it's not protected and Squad do give us permission for that. To run this copy just double-click (or create a shortcut for) the file KSP.exe in the new folder you created.

I am not a noob but I've still never tried to launch from Eve. There are a lot of other things I want to do first, but it is doable. Regardless of whether you decide to try or not, here are the things you need to know: deltaV - a deltaV map tells you how much velocity-change (think 'fuel') is required to land on or orbit from a planet or moon and how much to go from there to somewhere else. As has been said, you need around 12,000m/s (12km/s) to get to orbit from Eve 'sea'-level. A normal launch from Kerbin needs around 4,500m/s, so you can see how challenging Eve is. TWR - None of that helps if your engines don't have enough thrust (think 'power') to lift the vehicle off the ground in the first place. Thrust to Weight Ratio (weight of ship / power of engines) recommended for Kerbin launch is usually 1.6 - 1.8, for Eve it's 2. Isp - Specific Impulse (think 'fuel-efficiency') is shown for each engine in the VAB/SPH. The higher the Isp of an engine the less mass of fuel it will need for a given deltaV. Generally that means the higher Isp the better but really good ones tend to be heavy and have low thrust, so you need to balance engine-mass versus fuel-mass. To put it simply; That means you need a huge amount of fuel (deltaV) And a lot of thrust against that hard gravity. So the most efficient engines you can get. These things are important to know for rocket design anyway, so remember: It's pretty easy to work-out TWR and the Isp just comes from VAB/SPH stats. For deltaV you either need the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation or, a lot easier, install the Kerbal Engineer Redux, VOID or MechJeb mod.

Well since my bare minimum is 4 parts and the 'executive' model still only has 11 you can see how easy SSTO rockets are to build. Ascent and landing are normal for a rocket so they're familiar, if not easy. With the gimbal on the skipper and the advanced reaction wheel the thing's pretty agile. The only things are it has basically no deltaV spare in orbit and you have to use a bit of power before touchdown as the 'chutes will only get your descent down to ~-20m/s - but that only leaves you 15m/s to scrub off at low throttle for a safe landing. Here's SSTO 40 (I don't go for imaginative names, it can SSTO a 40t payload, a skipper can SSTO 5t) parking at the office: Parachutes aren't strictly necessary at all but without them you need more fuel and you have to be good at timing a suicide burn, which I'm not.

These all going in the tips mod too?

Have you installed it? Properly? There should be a folder called <your KSP installation>\Gamedata\MechJeb2 If that's not the problem then we rather need a clue or two beyond "doesn't work".

No, it doesn't matter, and nor does whether they appear as a single consolidated icon or a list of them. This has no effect on your ability to control or select anything. Perhaps if you tell us what you're actually trying to achieve we could help more.

I used to get pad-landings most of the time, but often enough it would be 20m out - just enough to fall off the edge, making the rocket fall over, crash and burn. 30m is fine, then it misses the pad, half-on, half-off is not good ^^. Now I land in the field North of the pad instead (98% recovery is good enough). ETA: It's just occurred to me - are you using Mk2 'plane parts or similar in your vehicles? They have 'lifting bodies' which can throw-off the ballistic calculations quite a bit.

See posts 802 - 809 on the previous page, we were just talking about it :-)

Congratulations

You're welcome, I have a copy of it too - note that you'll need to update those part stats in the spreadsheet.

Make it on Eve, then launch it to orbit! @SignalCorps - You've probably built a Mun-return vehicle. Bet I've made a lighter one ;-) Bet quite a few people have made more efficient spaceplanes than me. Only when you beat everyone else in KSP in all the challenges have you 'beaten' the game :-)

Just copy the KSP install folder to another location, it isn't protected and you are allowed to. Steam will install KSP to (something like) C:\Program Files\Steam\SteamApps\common\KSP_Win

Yes, it's this I can't understand. Why do you care, as long as you minimise the fuel + engine mass required?

Thank you for that crazy message. Certainly told me how thick I must be. Still, I managed to find 4 Kerbal computers, having never seen any evidence of one before, so now I know. Pity they have no game effect though.

That's my problem too. The famous mass-optimal engine charts should be useful though, they always are.

Slightly off-topic, but I have started testing with DRE, just in case that becomes a thing in the new model. FAR/NEAR seem too specific though, since we know we aren't getting either.

What does this example show? deltaV does not depend on gravity (except as a constant to convert the units used for Isp).

Oh yeah, you make a good point. I haven't looked at that thread for ages so had no answer for you; just a quick recap for those that don't know what you're talking about (and smjjames won't be the only one or the last one).

Every time for me, stock or stock + DRE. You keep complaining about this but I haven't seen you say that you've installed the optional FAR mod for MJ (see Sarbian's signature for link). You've changed the rules by changing the aerodynamics so it's no wonder MJ can't land accurately for you, unless you explain the new rules to it by installing the compatability mod as well. If you have got that optional mod I apologise, but your problem is still with the compatability, not MJ itself. (Still Sarbian's baby though ^^).

"Best" orbits are those that scan the whole surface as quickly as possible. Thought 1: Low orbits are better because the orbital period is shorter (more laps per hour). Thought 2: High orbits are better because the FOV (Field Of View) covers a wider strip on each orbit. Thought 3: If the orbital-period matches the rotational period of the body (eg; Kerbin-stationary orbit altitude) you'll go over the same strip every time. Thought 4: If the orbital-period is a twice, or or three-times, (or half or a third) etc. of the body's rotation you have a 'resonant' orbit, which will only ever cover the same two, or three, etc. strips. So it isn't quite as simple as always using the same altitudes (but it generally isn't too bad either, as DMagic said).

At 93 voters I'm surprised how many more (space)plane fans are using stock aerodynamics. I do, with rockets, but I was under the impression almost all air-breathers replaced stock. Looking forward to the replacement when it comes (dreading having to redesign all the vehicles in my tutorial yet again).

Congratulations, I hope they were impressed.