Pecan

...but seriously - rocket engines are dead simple and were the first mankind invented, long before steam. Guidance problems alone were sufficient that no-one seriously wanted to strap themselves to one though. Glider aircraft had more controllability but it wasn't until the power-to-mass ratio of internal combustion engines that it was possible to make powered flight. "Probe-core" gyroscopes, etc. were developed to test and control rockets before any practical man-carrying one was possible.

Oh right - yeah, I agree; it's an inefficient thing to do in the first place, so any 'benefit' is only comparative. Using a SSTO rocket, VTVL jet or spaceplane is a much better way to go.

Learn the game in sandbox mode. Career mode 'helps' by removing the potentially-confusing number of parts when you start. It then completely ruins any attempt at being a way to learn the game or provide a logical progression by i) having an insane tech-tree, ii) starting with manned missions, iii) requiring you to understand contracts, iv) making financial-management important, v) restricting what you can build/launch, vi) removing half the tools for flight-management, vii) crippling ship-operations until you 'train' crew (well, send them on long journeys anyway). All of that is intended to make for a more challenging and complete 'game' but it's no way at all to learn how to build or fly spacecraft.

If you remove the wings, cockpit and cargo bay of a 'shuttle', what is left except the rocket? @FishInferno - I have no idea what you're disagreeing with. Shuttle design is inefficient, difficult and pointless - but at least you have the wings for landing accurately. I can happily land SSTO rockets and VTVL jets at KSC for 98% funds recovery and I've said elsewhere I don't think the possibility of another 2% pays for the complexity and comparative inefficiency of runway landings.

I think the whole idea of starting manned is mad, let alone starting with larger, heavier, multi-crewed capsules. Probes first!

Kerbol technology is only 'like' Earth technology, it isn't the same at all. Designs like the American "Space Shuttle" are very difficult to balance in KSP (and real life) so are harder to build and fly. All that mass of wings, etc. makes them less efficient on the way up too. The big advantage is that you can land them more accurately - for more funds recovery. Jets in KSP are much, much more efficient than real-life and can make much better launch-vehicles in atmosphere than rocket engines. But they can be difficult to land accurately for recovery, so 'pure' horizontal take-off and landing spaceplanes (which have never been done in real life) are most people's preferred reusable vehicles in KSP.

Really sorry I've been absent, just too much going on to get anything done. "Flowchart style" is definitely a good idea as it should be more compact and easier to display (bodies only shown once, presumably).

0.90 has been released - do your best for the newbies :-) peachoftree - I see your point, although those shouldn't overpower 'the popular vote'. The tricky bit here is we can't guess how long it will be until 0.91 (or whatever). As a guide my existing tutorial (link in sig and all that) has been getting ~100 views/day. Opinions, everyone? I'm relaxed about the Drawing Board being worth 100 or even 1,000 because it's something every entry should be worthy of. On the other hand there's only likely to be time for one or two (at a guess) to be 'tutorial of the month'. Opinions, again?

OpenGL works differently to DirectX. On my hardware, I lose memory using OpenGL. Rational explanations can't explain computers - it must be quantum ^^. Expect many 'actual, detailed explanations' - ignore them all, except as it works on your particular machine. (Obviously, the technologies are doing much the same job and largely in the same ways, but you really can't compare them directly).

* If you bother to ask a proper question you deserve a proper answer :-) * Bit of a relief that Pecan is only slightly nuts about the tractor design then ^^ * KER is fine - it, MJ and VOID (and probably some I don't know of) are excellent information mods. As it says right there in the introduction (Chapter 1, the OP), "Kerbal Engineer Redux (KER), MechJeb (MJ) and/or VOID – important and sometimes vital information you need for designing vehicles, such as TWR and deltaV stats. There is a lot of overlap in what these can display so you only need one of them, but you may prefer more." Partly it's a process of finding out what you need to know and finding which mod provides it the way you like. Personally I use MJ because of the custom windows and, since I test launches A LOT, I want repeatability, not my own dodgy button-pushing. With these, and the whole of KSP, find the way you feel comfortable with - there are no extra points for doing things the 'hard' way :-0 * ISP is just fuel-efficiency. A 'better' engine might work well in the short term but for long journeys or heavy payloads it comes down to this. Now learn the rocket equation, which is what it's really about! That's simple too, as it happens ... "Ve" = "Isp * 0.92" -> means engine efficiency counts. "M0/M1" = "mass-with-all-the-fuel / mass-once-you've-used-it" -> with more fuel available you go further. "ln(M0/M1)" = natural logarithm of how much fuel is available -> but double the fuel doesn't mean double the difference, because a lot of the fuel is used just to push the rest of the fuel. SO: (efficient engines) * diminishing_returns_of(lots of fuel) -> how much you can change which way, and how fast, you're going = deltaV. [Tsiolkovsky's ideal rocket equation: deltaV = (Isp * 0.92) * ln(M0/M1)] If you haven't seen this before - YES - this is really what it means and the way it's worked out. * Inspiration is the greatest gift I hope to offer. Merry Christmas! And you've done a lot better than you thought you could; something must be working :-) * Tavert's charts are a little outdated. John FX is updating them at the moment but I seem to have lost my link to that thread ... (let me know if you have it, please). I'm not going to comment on your ship unless you specifically ask, you flying dude! It works! It's better than you knew before! It's good! What YOU build YOU can be proud of :-) Also note that I'd been playing KSP for only 4 months when I started writing this tutorial/campaign. You will learn fast and go far - enjoy it :-)

@ SRV Ron and bobcook - Gone to Duna while the rest of us wait in LKO, huh? Oooo, you're going to feel silly if the next challenge is 'mission re-tasked - test by performing a Mun fly-by' ^^ (just kidding).

It has to be done. A reusable infrastructure - Chapters 7 and 8 of the tutorial in my signature guys. Station includes LOTS of refuels for the landers. Tractor Light Towing a Complete Station (which isn't the best way to do it)

I'm glad you are getting help from it. Remember - ideas and inspiration for your own style of play are far more important than the specific designs I use. That said: Yes, your rockets are rather inefficient! A minimum acceptable for most rockets should be 10% payload-ratio (those in Chapter 3 are awful, but there to demonstrate staging rather than performance), with 15% being a reasonable design expectation. With practice you should be aiming for 17-18%, although the practical maximum is about 20%. Asparagus is a matter of taste that has caused many (genteel) rows in the forums. If you are trying to optimise payload ratio it is provably the way to go. That said, I rarely use it now because I prefer part-count optimisation (I have an old computer). Bear in mind that there are many things you'll need to avoid in KSP if you care about realism - any sort of spaceplane, jet, nuclear and ion engines, etc. Stock KSP technology, physics and aerodynamics are only 'like' Earth things; you may want to try the FAR, KIDS and DRE mods. All the launch vehicles I'm currently using for my own missions are SSTOs; mainly VTVL-jet or rocket based because fuel is cheap and I can't be bothered to mess around in the atmosphere for ages with spaceplanes. I use variations of the Tractor Light design almost all the time in space - if you're only getting 969m/s deltaV have you got the fuel lines attached, the right way around (from the central tank to the ones on the outriggers)? As listed it should give 3.5km/s! Here's the thing about engines; ISP. The LV-Ns have an ISP of 800, the T30 has 370. What that means is that for the same total deltaV of the LV-Ns you'll need to carry twice as much fuel for the T30 so, for longer burns and/or heavier payloads, (LV-N + fuel) < (T30 + fuel + fuel). Worse than that the fuel has mass too, which takes deltaV to push so you need more fuel, to push the double-load of fuel, making it more like (T30 + fuel + fuel + (fuel/nnnn)). Four LV-Ns is a big mass to haul around, performance would be best with just one - or even just one Ion engine! - but TWR would be minute and burn-times very, very long (which brings a whole new set of problems). Tavert's mass-optimal engine charts will tell you which is best but essentially, it's ions or nukes in space or carry lots and lots of fuel. Hmmm, I've just checked the Tractor Light and discovered two things; i) in 0.90 MJ doesn't update with/without the fuel lines, ii) more importantly for you, in 0.25 I get over 1,710m/s deltaV even without them so I don't know why you're only getting 969m/s. As it stands swapping the four LV-Ns for two T30s (to keep the centre 'stack' free for payload) and adding the extra fuel does give better performance - which is fine for working within Kerbin's SOI and without a payload. When you want to go further though attaching a jumbo orange fuel tank to the LV-N version gives 8.7km/s deltaV and Mun TWR of 2.42. With the T30s I ran out of height in the VAB after attaching 7 jumbo tubes - for a paltry 7.3km/s (Mun TWR 0.99). Put that together with the purpose of the tractor - which is to haul other stuff around - and you are saving an awful lot by using the efficiency of the LV-Ns. Looking at the same thing from the payload point of view - Tractor Light with 4 LV-Ns can take a full orange tank to Mun orbit as it is, with 2 T30s it requires additional X-200 8 AND X-200 16 fuel tanks for approximately the same deltaV.

Welcome to the forums. There is a forum area for add-on development, which has a help and support sub-forum for plugin development.

Have a look at the appendix at the very end of the tutorial in my signature - deltaV requirements for missions to each planet and moon. Makes an easy look-up for what's "next".

Welcome to astronaut training. Class - sit in the school bus while we will fly you all to Mun, where you will each plant a flag. Snacks will be provided, you'll be back in time for dinner... No talking and no playing with any of the equipment - Pilots, there is no need for you to fly to gain experience. Engineers, it ain't broke so don't fix it. Scientists, no experiments! Welcome back, that completes your pilot, engineering and science training ^^ ... years later someone invented the wheel.

Do you have time to keep an eye on this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53567-List-of-places-and-biomes-in-KSP-%28planetary-geology-geography%29-UPDATING-FOR-v0-90

:-( Hmmm, I don't think science experience from milestones makes much sense. Pilots getting experience from longer flights & new destinations because they're flying. Similarly scientists should get experience from doing science, with a new component for example. As an example, I'd rather a scientist who'd used all the equipment in orbit than one that has only ever done 'crew reports', wherever they were from. Hopes for beat polishing ...

LOL, Don't you think a new player of any game who starts by setting everything to the hardest possible deserves to fail?

0.90 compatibility testing started - expect an update on the 22nd. Now KSP's in Beta and this thread is almost a year old this is the last update I intend to make using the current mission/ship structure. This tutorial was always intended to be one of a set and it's time to get on with the others. In reading order the outline so far is: Induction To Construction - Total beginners' guide to starting KSP, what the game modes and KSC buildings are, what the solar-system looks like, basic vehicle construction (where the 'Prologue' vehicles come from). Exploring The System - Beginner-to-intermediate sandbox guide to vehicle and mission design (this remodelled - prologue shortened, system-wide infrastructure expanded). Career - Intermediate; contracts, money, science, reputation, strategies, crew. World Of SSTO (With Wanderfound) - Single Stage To Orbit masterclass - SSTO rockets, VTVL jets and spaceplanes. Comments?

I use a deltaV map, which indicates what it takes to get everywhere. Coupled with a mod like KER/MJ/VOID (or a spreadsheet), which give you actual performance figures for builds, that means I'm not surprised at where my craft can go, or how much they can lift - they were designed for a particular purpose.

[ imgur ]kRYWQ[ /imgur ] (without the spaces) Nice set of pictures.

@ALL - I think Rocketeer's second post clarifies a lot which I had not read when I posted above, and I have given him rep for it. However ... 2. *Challenge accepted* - what payload or total vehicle mass do you require? You build the spaceplane, I'll beat it (probably using jets). Where we're going we don't need wings and landing-gear! 3. You said safer and cheaper. While you could make a 'tail-sitter' spaceplane or use parachutes your wings are then just useless mass and have only cost you more to have and to haul. For horizontal-landing you are restricting yourself to a clear, longish and flatish area. How 'safe' would it be to land a spaceplane in a Mun canyon? 4. It is more efficient to SSTO with jets than rockets. That has nothing to do with reusability. In any case, even with rocket engines, the fuel cost is insignificant. How much fuel does your 100t-payload to orbit spaceplane use? 6. I refer you to the Jool-5 challenge thread. I must agree that spaceplanes are the best way to land stuff at KSC. How much needs to land though? Returning crews, science, empty fuel-tanks (maybe).

*Sigh* 1. Absolutely. 2. WRONG - Jets are more fuel-efficient than rocket engines. 3. WRONG - (Well, unless you're really bad at landing rockets). Parachutes are cheap and safe, if you need them! 4. WRONG - "A spaceplane" may well stage. A SSTO spaceplane is no more reusable than a SSTO rocket. 5. Absolutely. 6. WRONG - and I can't even imagine how someone could suggest that! The good reasons to make spaceplanes are all about personal preference. The bad ones are about pretending they are 'better'. That said, I agree with you that the 'personal preference' reasons ARE good ones!

Congratulations Squad, and thank you. Hope you all get some time to relax with your loved ones over Christmas now :-) Especially you newlyweds!