Pecan

Welcome to 2015, would you like to achieve your objectives efficiently or stick with stufff that's SOOO last year? Spaceplanes look pretty. Spaceplanes can be efficient launch-vehicles. Spaceplanes are fun on Laythe. Now we've got that out of the way ... "Mk3 VTOLs" - ok, nothing to do with space, effficiency or ability = just do it. "Polar and Munar and maybe even Dunar bases" - ok, nothing to do with efficiency or (especially) spaceplaes = what's the problem that you really want to solve? Seriously; what is it that you want to achieve? If it's a good Mk3 spaceplane then do that - no-one else has yet. If it's a polar/munar base then do that - nothing to do with 'planes. If it's a Dunar base then do that - nothing to do with 'planes.

Make a combined lander/rover to keep it simple - just add I-beams with wheels (and lots of solar panels/batteries) to a lander-can. Don't forget an engine and fuel, of course ...

The best place to find out about mod-states is: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55401-Community-Mods-and-Plugins-Library (Give nismobg some rep while you're there - keeping this up to date must be a full-time job!)

FASA launch-towers allow that, IIRC. Never used it myself but I think the crew start in the command-pods so you have to EVA them onto the tower and then walk them back.

Have to say one of the best things I've watched was MJ docking two landers to one of my stations at the same time I was docking the tractor that had brought them there (MJ used too much monopropellant to let it do that one too).

Some of the probe cores don't have them any more, so are unable to control orientation on their own. (Add a specific SAS/reaction wheel unit, RCS or, in atmosphere, control surfaces). If a rocket that worked before is now uncontrollable, the chances are it doesn't have any/enough torque available.

'Precision' lander (and within 1km counts) is a neat skill to have aquired. Well done. Do you let your son play too, or is it entirely a case of he tells you what you're allowed to play?

Congratulations :-) Yes, there's a lot to master in KSP and an awful lot of fun to be had. Being able to rendezvous and use RCS leads naturally to docking and orbital refuelling... ...but I bet you can't wait for your first lunar landing (hint: Minmus is easier than Mun) Have fun.

Aerodynamics didn't change for 0.90 but they will for the next update so expect big changes. What did change this time around is the way SAS and reaction wheels work.

Yeah, RT does that; it's a common thing that takes people by surprise. As it says in the OP "Note that while this is installed you will NOT be able to control unmanned vehicles while they are out of communications." Re-formatted the links in the OP slightly. All the text in the thread and PDF refer to the existing 'stock ships download' so I don't want to change that link to point at the new ships and have everyone thinking "huh? This ship doesn't look like that!" Hopefully it is clear(er) now that the thread and downloads are for 0.25. The first-half update should be ready to publish by the weekend and, as I've said, the second half should be much easier. Did you have any problems apart from RemoteTech?

Alt-F5/F9 = multiple saves ;-) @ OP: Why? = because when you time-warp everything is approximated and small deviations, rounding errors, etc. multiply over the distances involved.

Essential - Kerbal Alarm Clock Completely useless, completely fun - Chatterer Best gameplay - SCANSat

KER, MJ and VOID are excellent information mods if you just want something to display those figures for you. Otherwise you'll have to work them out by hand, slide-rule, calculator or spreadsheet every time you make any change to your vehicle. There are two numbers which you want to know: TWR (Thrust to Weight Ratio) and deltaV (potential velocity vector change). TWR is dead easy - all you need to know is the total thrust of your engine(s) in any stage (which KSP gives you in the VAB/SPH part descriptions) and the total mass of the rocket, including any payload (including 'higher' stages) it has to carry. TWR is simply Thrust/Mass; if it comes out under 1 your engines aren't powerful enough to THRUST up against the WEIGHT of gravity pulling you back down - you can't liftoff and won't be going to space today. Ideally you launch with a TWR of 1.2 - 1.5. deltaV is a bit trickier in that about the only word in "potential velocity vector change" that makes much sense is 'velocity'. That's a 'vector' though, in as much as if you're "going at 80mph" you must be going in some particular direction. You can burn fuel, using-up deltaV, to change that so you're going faster, slower and/or in a different direction - all depending on which way your engines are thrusting at the time. To calculate deltaV for a stage you need to know three things - engine Isp (which KSP tells you in the VAB/SPH part descriptions), the total mass of the rocket (including payload, etc) with all its fuel, wet_mass, and the total mass without fuel, dry_mass. The formula is: (Isp * 9.82) * LN(wet_mass / dry_mass) <- easy, isn't it ^^. It is actually ... Isp = how efficient the engines are; the higher the better. (9.82 is the gravity factor used in KSP). wet_mass / dry_mass = what proportion of the rocket's mass is available to power the engines; the higher the better. LN() = the natural logarithm function. Don't worry too much about it - you'll need logarithm tables or a calculator/spreadsheet to work it out anyway. What it means is that there are diminishing returns from adding more and more fuel, because that fuel itself has mass, which needs deltaV to push, so you use more and more of the fuel just to push the rest of the fuel. In Excel/LibreOffice Calc the function is written as "LN()" Soooo ... ... (Isp * 9.82) [the more efficient the engines] ... * LN( [times diminishing returns from] ... wet_mass / dry_mass) [the greater the proportion of fuel available] ...= deltaV [the more you can potentially change your velocity vector] (and it's all just 'potential' because you might not even use it!)

"Thread Tools", just above the first thread on a page. "Subscribe to this Thread" option. Belated welcome to the forums.

Thanks again Dida44 - glad you're enjoying it.

Next update will include aerodynamics overhaul so expect BIG changes.

I take it you've seen: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/105117-3x3-Video-Wall-5760-x-3240-60Hz ?

The thing is, people don't read stickies either - just look at the number of times we've had to tell people to press '['/']' within 2.5km to take control of a Kerbal targer in a rescue mission. In tutorials, active threads have a much longer lifetime - here it's likely to be driven down and off the first page very quickly (and the people who don't read tutorials or stickies are definitely not going to look on P2!).

I have no idea how '$' translates to KSP but if that's 150k funds per launch it's much too expensive! LV-40-P, Chapter 7 of my tutorial (link in signature) is an unoptimised, disposable rocket designed for a 40t (orange-tube + accessories) payload that 'only' costs 104k.

Have a look at the Chapter 3 satellite-launch missions in my tutorial (link in signature).

Broadly, I'd agree - especially that a spaceplane is the better choice IF you can build and fly it BUT can't land accurately without wings. I do not believe that spaceplanes need less fuel than jet tail-sitters - it's a matter of engines vs wings. Either certainly need a lot less than rockets. Given that you need TWR > 1 to lift-off in the first place with a tail-sitter the lack of aerodynamic lift is not a 'con' - you launch vertical so don't need wings, by the time you're at 2km+ you follow exactly the same flight profile as a spaceplane and during the most critical parts of the flight the atmosphere is so thin wings wouldn't generate much lift anyway. Although Hodo and Wanderfound assure me that TWR < 1 is useful for a spaceplane I've always just wondered how such low-thrust designs accelerate for horizontal speed at altitude. Changes to stock (parts and aerodynamics) may well change the balance of the argument considerably. Ultimately, I think if this were one of those things that had a single, clear winner none of us would be happy - because introducing huge wings, etc. to make large spaceplanes practical without huge laggy part-counts would make it 'too easy'. All the spaceplanes would look identical too - Helloo Mk2 cockpit - we know how the ARM engines argument went. ETA: My heavy-lift tail-sitters don't kill Kerbals by virtue of not carrying any! When the payload is only crew I use a spaceplane.

Very nice :-)

And you tell me off? Still winning by two achievements *grin*

Yes; I should perhaps have said 'stock' KSP. With mods, of course, the physics and economy can be anything. Apollo was/is a good Earth-design (if you believe in that mythical planet where people have different names and all those silly stories ^^).

It's only because of KSP that I'm at all impressed with the US shuttle as it happens. Until a similar thread came up several months ago I'd sort of written it off as a failure because of how long it took and how much it cost between flights. THEN I looked-up the mission-logs and wow! I didn't know just how many times each one of those things flew! That's cool :-) So's Apollo, of course, and that's a REALLY bad way to visit Mun, in KSP!