Pecan

Be fair, KSP only has the claw because of NASA in the first place! Hoorah for NASA and all the KSP players there, thanks for the collaboration :-)

1) If you have a parachute on the command pod it's (fairly) easy. If you haven't then wait until you can send a rescue mission. 2) Don't know how to come down? Turn the vehicle retrograde and fire rockets to slow it down - you will fall (no danger of burning-up with stock KSP so don't worry). 3) Out of fuel, periapsis (low point of orbit) in atmosphere? Wait. Each time the vehicle goes through the atmosphere drag will slow it down more and more until after several orbits it will fall. If your periapsis is above about 40km or you have a very high apoapsis (high point of orbit) this could take a LONG time! 4) Out of fuel, periapsis above atmosphere? Get Out And Push. * Really. * EVA the Kerbal, press space to let go of the pod if prompted, press R to activate RCS 'jet pack' (press L to activate helmet lights if dark). * See the wiki for RCS controls * Use the Kerbal to push the pod backwards, same as firing rockets retrograde, slowing it down. * Once periapsis is in atmosphere, re-board the pod and wait it out (situation 3) * Oh, did I mention you should quicksave (F5) first, since EVAs are untethered in KSP and the controls take some getting used to!

All the part test contracts I've seen specify whether you have to activate by staging or 'run test'.

Use action groups. If necessary install Action Groups Extended (AGX) for 250 different action groups. This is not (more of) a feature because Kerbal Space Program was never really designed for complex aircraft. It has been, and is, becoming more of a flight-simulator all the time, but not realistically or flexibly enough for most 'plane fans.

I must say, I think yours is the better vehicle for a newbie as it demonstrates staging, different TWR requirements and all sorts of good design things (and is probably easier to operate) :-) Mine's just a lot more 'bare minimum' *grin*.

In stock: 2) Launch SSTO rocket tanker, refuel interplanetary ship. 3) Land tanker at KSC for 98% recovery minus fuel. This IS easy.

Chapter 7 updated at last. Rather than the expected "almost no changes" I re-thought the whole end-tutorial scheme and you're now getting basically the ships I use all the time. The principle is the same but all ships except the tractor are re-designed and the text completely re-written (hopefully correctly). Chapter 8 will also be almost entirely re-written. Links in the OP, as always.

You do very complicated "bare minimum", don't you?! Mk1-2 pod, jumbo 64 (orange tube) and X200-8 fuel tanks, skipper engine = enough to SSTO, de-orbit and perform a powered landing. Not exactly easy to fly though so add an advanced reaction wheel, large, between the pod and orange tube. For reliability and easier landing add a Mk25 drogue parachute to the top of the pod, two radial parachutes, two OX-STAT solar panels and one Z-100 battery to its sides. Set staging as 0: radial parachutes, 1: drogue parachute, 2: engine. 48.32t, 11 parts, cost 25,230. Kerbin TWR 1.37, 4,965m/s vacuum deltaV.

No, KAS probably isn't to blame, just like it probably isn't "caused" by Outer Planets for the others. If you have more mods, especially mods that add parts, they'll use more memory so you have less left and will hit the wall earlier. The blame is still on the Unity/KSP memory leaks in the first place though. A 32-bit program will only ever get to the 32-bit limit as it can't count (literally) any more. If you only have four "One Gigabyte" labels, it doesn't matter how many are on offer. KSP starts with, say, 1.5GB of 8GB, then loses track of 500MB and requests 500MB more. KSP only sees 1.5GB, the OS says it has 2GB (and can't re-use that leaked memory either).

This is one of the symptoms of low memory and, yes, closing and re-starting should solve it. Rather than blame it on Outer Planets specifically it's just 'too many mods'. Or just playing a single session too long; KSP has a number of memory-leak problems and will get steadily worse as you play, particularly with many ship- or scene- changes. As a rule, I close after every 7(!) changes or every 30 minutes, whichever is sooner. Yeah, my machine's bad, and I hardly have any mods any more :-(

18Mm is between the orbits of Mun and Minmus, so a long way out for a direct launch. How best to do things depends somewhat on the parameters of the orbit you've got to get into - inclination and so on - but in general: Make sure you know which way around you're meant to go (follow the dots). A LOT of people don't. Get to orbit! You know it makes sense and once in LKO you've got lots of time to mess about and plan. Launch into the correct inclination if possible (ie; when KSC is under the required orbit). Match planes with the required orbit if you haven't already. Orbital-altitude changes (prograde and retrograde burns) affect the OPPOSITE side of the orbit so, just by eye, create a manoeuvre node opposite the target apoapsis. If you want more time to think, right-click the manoeuvre node then click the '+' button to advance it one whole orbit. Pull the yellow prograde marker out so your projected apoapsis reaches the required altitude. Now drag the centre circle of the manoeuvre node backwards/forwards along your orbit so the projected and required apoapsisisisis (plural??) meet. Move prograde in/out to adjust the project altitude as required. Tell MJ to execute the burn, then circularise at apoapsis.

Just thought of some further positive things to say. KSP is (in the past few years): * The cheapest game I've bought. * The most improved without new purchase required. * The one I've played most. * The one that's taught me (or lead me to learn) the most.

'Home' and 'end' will scroll the staging-list as well. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Controls

How I design depends on what I'm optimising: For mass/payload-ratio = asparagus, core + 2 to core + 6 or, if I'm really messing around, twisted candle. For low part-count, simple construction and quick flight = SSTO rocket. For cost = SSTO jet 'tail-sitter'. For crew, sometimes = spaceplane. If I really, really, get bored then I might make a cargo spaceplane every now and again, but I hardly ever bother to fly them. Assuming we're discussing things that go up then across, I've been using lower and lower launch TWRs, now preferring 1.2 - 1.4 over the 1.6 - 2 I used as a newbie. Mostly that's because I'm using fewer stages or just one though, so the TWR is as high or higher at burn-out and the average probably about the same. Most recently I'm only building SSTOs though and it's just a lot simpler to build launch vehicles to get the most from an engine (type) and pick the payload-capacity you need: In round figures a T30 will SSTO 1.5t (two will SSTO 3t, etc.) aiming for 4,900m/s deltaV to allow for de-orbit and 'chute assisted powered landing. Similarly, a skipper will SSTO 5t, a mainsail 11t and a KR-2L 26t. While a KR-1x2 will SSTO 14t you're better-off with two mainsails, even if you're wasting a lot of their 22t potential. A KS-25x4 costs 50% more per tonne than a KR-2L and can only do 27t anyway. 1-5 T30s, skippers, mainsails or KR-2L give reusable launch vehicles for 1.5, 3, 4.5, 5, 6, 7.5, 10, 11, 15, 20, 22, 25, 26, 33, 44, 52, 55, 78, 104 and 130 tonnes, even without starting to mix them. Since the heaviest single thing I usually launch is 40t and most of my payloads are in the 20t - 40t range that suits me fine. (@ Wanderfound, if he wanders by; see, I haven't forgotten, just really bogged-down in work)

Ahh, Duck Soup, "If you can't send help, send two more women!" I never really had much luck with this - use a mod; transfer window planner or MJ will both give you plots in-game or, if you want to keep your install clean, look up all the details on http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/

The tutorial in my signature explains 30-odd designs from a simple rover to interplanetary tugs, landers and space-stations.

Doh! Apparently casettes are cassettes, but it's been so long I've forgotten how to spell it ^^. Cassettes were what my ZX81 programs were recorded on to before all those fancy steam floppy disks came along, before (desktop) hard disks, before CDs, before DVDs, waayyy before SSDs ...

What is a spotify and does it play casettes? Can't get a casette player anywhere these days.

Where's the option for "How the hell can I waste time in career mode, I've got all these test flights to do!" ?

So do you think The Sims will ever make it as far as Alpha? It's so limited and buggy it's hardly even entered development yet. Oh wait, it's on version 4 and it's the best-selling computer game of all time. EA must be using the wrong development definitions, but there marketing is top-notch since the more they leave out the more they charge. I'm terrified of KSP actually being released though. Once it is I'll have to start paying for new versions!

For your first SSTO: Stayputnik probe core Inline Reaction Wheel FL-T200 fuel tank 48-7S engine For your first spaceplane - nick one of the ones from the tutorial in my signature and wait until you've got used to all the building tools and flight-characteristics of KSP before designing your own. (SSTO rockets are very easy to build and fly. Spaceplanes are hard to build and fly.)

And again, agreed 13-15% payload ratio is an entirely respectable range. For liquid-fuelled rockets 10% is just about acceptable, 15% starts to look efficient and anything over 17% good. Best I've seen, IIRC, was just over 20%. The four things that dictate payload ratio are structural and fuel mass, TWR and staging so the tips for improving it are: Structural mass - On a launch vehicle remove everything apart from the fuel and engines and, if you can't fly without it, a reaction wheel/SAS unit. Fuel mass - Use higher-Isp engines, provided they deliver enough thrust, so less fuel. (Some experiment required - heavy LV-Ns usually too low-thrust to be effective launch engines). TWR - Doesn't directly affect payload-ratio, but a high TWR means more engine mass. Beginner recommendations are for launch TWR 1.6 - 2 but good results can be had with a ratio as low as 1.2 or so. A final circularisation stage can also work well with a low TWR, possibly even below 1. Staging - More stages, with the appropriate engine(s) for the speeds/altitudes at which they'll be used, are roughly more efficient but the parts for decouplers, etc. add to structural mass so there are still diminishing returns. A launch vehicle with three (serial) or four (asparagus) stages is about as far as it's worth going. Checkout esoteric staging strategies like twisted candle too. You're doing well enough that you probably won't get much benefit from those though. Jets are probably the only way you'll get any significant improvement.

The liquid-fuelled LV-T30 is tech-level 0. Career mode is not intended for newbies as it is incredibly complex compared to sandbox; with money, science and reputation, contracts, tech-tree, admin strategies and astronaut specialisation to take into account.

It must be pretty difficult to fly an ascent so badly you need an extra 2km/s deltaV. While 4.5km/s is tight for stock (FAR requires less), it is much closer to what even newbies (10km, then turn) can achieve in practice, than the higher figure. When designing SSTO tail-sitters for powered-landing I only aim for 4,900m/s deltaV and usually still have 100-200m/s left after touchdown.

Apparently 50% throttle is an essential feature that was introduced because otherwise some newbies couldn't launch at all. Finding out there IS a throttle control was deemed too much of a learning-curve. Yeah, well, that's the story anyway ^^.