Pecan

I'm afraid I'm busy for the rest of the evening - coincidentally giving a talk about KSP ^^. Using 11t payload + structural (decoupler and probe-core) a mainsail and an orange tube of fuel gives a launch TWR of 3.6 and 4,943m/s vacuum deltaV.

Launch to orbit dV is generally taken as 4,500m/s stock, somewhat lower in FAR. Try 4,300m/s, 9t payload, size large and atmosphere true. I get 13 options using between 1 and 5 Mk55s, nothing else. One mistake I was making was putting in TWR rather than acceleration. Using 1m/s2, however, I still get the same 13 options.

Tools are always good. It doesn't seem to like mainsails though. I asked it for a 10t-payload Kerbin launch-vehlcle and all it wanted me to use was Mk55s. Increasing the dV requirement to 4,800m/s and it didn't give any recommendations at all, even after reducing the payload to 9t. A mainsail can SSTO that amount.

Re-root for sub-assemblies but, yes I was torn between that and offset too. Rotation less so, for the same reason as the OP.

Welcome. Go towards the bottom of the tech tree, because that's where the scientific equipment is. More equipment means more experiments, means more science points, means the rest is easier to unlock. After that the best options, I find, are batteries and solar-panels along with probe-cores so you can launch satellites and unmanned missions. Generally, what you don't need are big engines and lots of structural parts.

Almost impossible prior to 0.90 but the new editor gizmos make it not too bad: Put a cubic octagonal strut on the part you're attaching the hitch-hiker to Add the hitch-hiker by rotating it to attach at its top or bottom node Switch to the 'rotate' gizmo and orientate the hitch-hiker the way you really wanted it Switch to the 'offset' gizmo and position the hitch-hiker where you really wanted it Profit

I look forward to the single-engine, real-time Moho transfer video. (Well, it'll be more interesting and useful than most of them, if it works)

Build Henges, they look cool. True, they're useless and a waste of time, but then so is making a SSTO that misses "To Orbit" so much .... (ok, I know I'm my own joke. You want to fly planes around the system and that's fine and since it's "fun" that's what we get). Build Henges, they look cool.

My only real interest in the atmosphere is that it's a thing that I have to deal with before Kerbal SPACE Program. From that perspective - yes, at the risk of incompatibility, Squad should get it the way they want now, regardless of compatibility, rather than 'drag'-out a bad model that won't please anyone.

In 0.90 I've really had to cut back everything. In any case I'm more interested in instrumentation than pretty pictures usually, so EVE was bottom of the list. KAC is indispensable unless you do one mission at a time. One of KER/MJ/VOID are necessary information tools if you want to design rather than suck-it-and-see. I use MJ for repeatability as well, since my 40th launch of the day shouldn't be just messed up by my flying. Otherwise I indulge myself with NavballDockingAlignment and use KVV for development-vehicle pictures. RPM revolutionises things, flying from the cockpit. Chatterer is "totally useless, totally fun" but has had to go because of its memory usage but I really miss it. A fuel-pump, like Goodspeed makes everything a lot less fiddly, but isn't exactly a 'must have'. If you have the memory for Chatterer and prefer immersion to pretty but only just; Kerbquake and Probe Control Room are really fantastic for "being there".

What mass are you launching? What ascent-profile are you using? What staging strategy are you using? What are the Isps of the engines you are using during each stage of your ascent? How much dV does each stage have, and is that optimised for the the Isp of each stage? Are you optimising for mass, cost, part-count, reliability, ... ? There IS no single answer to the Goddard Problem. That said; the beginner advice is to try to follow the terminal-velocity curve. I've been moving more towards simpler builds with lower launch TWR and higher thrust at burn-out.

This is not a tutorial. It should probably be moved to Tools and Applications.

Ahhhh, the mists are clearing, the crystal ball shows information ... 1) CTD = Crash To Desktop? 2) Lots of mods 3) After several scene changes You have a memory problem - as in not enough of it or, to look at it the other way, KSP wants more. There are known memory leaks with scene-changes so all you can do is deliberately close and re-start the game after every two or three switches. I have the same problem and know that if I get to 7 changes a crash is guaranteed. Otherwise, delete some mods, or at least unused parts within mods. And/or install ATM aggressive or similar. Then hope 0.91 with the new Unity version behaves better.

In career mode you aren't allowed to launch anything too heavy anyway, so the only way to destroy the pad is by crashing into it. In science/career you can destroy it or the runway just by attempting to launch any old inert parts if they're heavy enough - but since money doesn't exist you can instantly repair them again by right-clicking on them in the Space Center screen.

Yes, again. Except at first launch the bottom stage is the active one and staging again will activate the next one up (from 1 to 0 in the first picture).

Good points, well made :-) I don't think I'd ever play KSP without KAC any more, especially.

Congratulations, nice mission-report. It's "Minmus" though ^^. Start gravity-turn at 10km, not 100! You're only aiming to get to 70-75km anyway, turning then is waaaayyy too late! (standard advice - straight up to 10km altitude, 45-degrees until apoapsis (not altitude - use map view) hits 50km, 20-degrees until apoapsis hits 75km, cut engine, create manoeuvre node to circularise at apoapsis, etc.) You can do it much lower and slower but that'll do for basic newbie method.

cantab is a forum member. I'm MA (Oxon), Phd from OU :-) My computer can hardly cope any more and it's old, poor thing. Attention everyone! I live on < £7,000/year, including rent, heating, food, and everything else. I'm not complaining, but I need a new computer and since I'm in the UK I get ripped-off by US and Japanese manufacturers (although NO ONE is as bad as Adobe - they need to learn that "conversion rate" does not mean changing the "$" sign to "£"). One of the ways I'm going to raise the money is by publishing and charging-for KSP guides after this. Nope, I still really don't know how I'm going to organise them

A cluster of 5 KR-2Ls as an upper-stage! How much are you trying to launch and what the hell is your lower-stage like?! More struts and launch clamps would be the first steps if you really need that monster.

No, and this is the point:= MJ knows about stock aerodynamics, by installing FAR you've changed all the rules of atmospheric flight and all MJ's calculations are thrown-off. ETA for below: including me

For me at least 'inexplicable things' usually come down to memory issues (oldish 32-bit machine). Nearly all mods have had to go, my campaign crawls with 30-odd flights in progress and I'm worrying that soon I won't be able to play at all. Have to hope there'll be another memory-optimisation pass pretty soon during beta.

Chapter 6, Project Lacuna, updated. Completely changed this is now "The Joy Of The Small" and the vehicles in it are, er, small ... (Ships and pictures download files also updated). All the links remain in the OP.

Well done, like I said before with practice you get to the point where it just 'clicks' and you can put something together pretty quickly. The number of air intakes you provide per jet/rapier has a big affect on how high and fast you can get before switching to rockets/closed-cycle. I usually put lots but the trick is to place them behind the CoM, otherwise their drag will make the vehicle want to flip.

I've always agreed that a disposable SSTO is pointlessly inefficient versus staging, except where a single tiny engine and fuel tank are all that's required (ie; just putting up a Stayputnik or similar) and there's nothing to sub-divide. You are right, however, that I don't consider pin-point landing important. 'Within a kilometer' is fairly easy by hand, if I need 'within a few metres' I use MJ. Treat yourself to a mainsail, probe-core, battery, solar panel, 2 drogues and 10t payload some time. Enough fuel for 4,900m/s dV or so and you'll be surprised how easy it is to do a drogue-assisted powered landing at KSC :-) A KR-2L can SSTO 25t to the same spec. The only point here really is that while all types of SSTO have their uses for different people, 'Space-Shuttle' designs aren't SSTOs but are hard to make/fly and inefficient in KSP.

Okey dokey. Launch vehicle for the above: Stack under the LV-909: * TR-18A decoupler * 2x FL-T800 fuel tanks * LV-T30 engine Attach 2x TT38K radial decouplers to one of the FL-T800 fuel tanks. Put these 'fore and aft' so they aren't under the fuel tanks on the mission vehicle. 2x boosters attached to the radial decouplers: * 2x FL-T800 fuel tanks * 1x FL-T400 fuel tank * LV-T30 engine * Fuel lines to core stack (So you end up with; three stacks of 2 FL-T800s and a T30 each, with the outer, booster, stacks having an extra FL-T400 each). If you build the booster stacks 'up' so the engines are level you might want to strut their tops to the top lander can for stability. If you build them 'down' so their engines are much lower than the centre one then strut their lower fuel tanks together. Use symmetry for all the multiple-parts, it's a lot easier than trying to get them aligned by eye. Kerbin Launch TWR 1.59, 4,883m/s dV vacuum. Like this: Arrange staging as: 0: Parachutes 1: LV-909 and TR-18A decoupler 2: Radial decouplers 3: All three T30s I usually recommend three legs too, because 3-legged stools don't wobble. 4 are so much easier on the octagonal lander-cans though. If it was me I probably wouldn't use any legs, just rest on the two side-tanks, but that requires a bit of confidence in your landing. Talking of saving mass though - I right clicked on the lander cans and tweaked all the monopropellant out of them, since the vehicle won't be docking.