Pecan

I'm still playing-around with a monochrome left to right network version in Photoshop. Monochrome is not an issue but space is - the linear format shows actions and time-relations very clearly but at the expense of showing positon in space. This is simply a function of positioning things in the order, not the place, that they happen. Conversely, fixed-position displays such as StormKat's and 5thHorseman's show relative place well (and distance, with a bit of scaling) but obscure time-relations. Any presentation-display guru's out there know a good way to show both position and time relations on the same chart? ETA - I think there is a good way to display fly-bys and orbit information in either case: Fly-bys are an arc beneath the body disc, with (if wanted and display-scale allows) the periapsis marked between the body and flight-line. Orbits are then complete circles with the apoapsis marked above the disk. The point here being that fly-bys only have a periapsis (low point, shown below body) while orbits also have an apoapsis (high point, above it). Multiple orbits can be shown by larger and larger rings, each similarly annotation with Ap and Pe between it and the next-lower orbit. Working on a more complete diagram, showing separate bodies and vehicles.

Ahhhh, some time to relax and read ... some initial comments: I'd prefer to use this in a linear left-to-right format as complex missions are otherwise likely to have multiple crossing lines and the sequence of events becomes confused. Such a format does not affect the symbols used, or how other people use it, but does mean no 'there and back'. The basic paradigm I imagine is similar to a critical-path analysis network, with planets/moons as nodes and each ship/lander/whatever involved in a mission represented on its own horizontal line Before getting too colourful, can we also consider that one good use for this is printing-out and sharing paper copies of missions, even photocopies/faxes - which means monochrome. Example to follow ...

Dec 11. Just one picture for today's mission - 65km with a science jr. and thermometer so the kids can do their homework while they're up there:

The problem is that Squad think it's fun to start with manned rockets that can go to Mun and beyond (not just LKO and back), so they're the starter parts in the tech-tree.

In stock KSP wings are only worth their mass and drag on the way down (if you need them for landing). On the way up you're better-off using a VTVL design.

Awww man, I don't even have TIME to read this thread. It looks great and I've bookmarked it for later use but have no useful comment at the moment.

I am no great fan of spaceplanes because they're a pain, but their potential efficiency isn't in question. As you've said, a well-designed rocket can give 18-20% payload-ratio to orbit but no-one seems to have mentioned that a jet-SSTO can easily give you twice that even in stock, simply because the jets are so efficient. The heaviest spaceplane I've built was 38t and designed to ferry 40t (detachable, selectable, replaceable, modular) payloads into orbit and back - better than 50% payload-ratio with minimal fuel-costs and complete reusability. Other people can (and do) do better than that but my preference is for VTVL* SSTOs since wings are only extra mass, except for landing. I can get close enough to KSC on de-orbit that I'm recovering 98% of costs anyway and I don't find the potential extra 2% pays for itself or is worth the effort. Taking a spaceplane any further than LKO (apart from Laythe) is totally inefficient, especially without refulling. LethalDose vehemently disagrees with me about terminology (I think an interplanetary single-stage shouldn't be called "a SSTO" amongst other issues) but even we agree that "SSTO" does not mean "Spaceplane" and that far too many people 'do' spaceplanes because they mistakenly think they are necessarily more efficient. FWIW, here is the general "Single Stage" consensus I've gleaned from everyone's comments and shouldn't be too controversial: A "SSTO" vehicle is one that can (at least) go from launch to orbit without jettisoning parts ...Therefore a SSTO you can't get back and reuse is almost always a mistake (I call this a disposable-SSTO whereas LethalDose doesn't consider it a "SSTO" at all) ...Rockets, VTVL jets and spaceplanes can all be SSTOs ...Staging is always more mass-efficient except when a single small engine & fuel-tank is all you need anyway (tiny probes and/or low gravity) Since the point of a SSTO is to be recoverable/reusable fuel-cost per launch is almost all that counts In oxygen atmosphere jets always beat rockets except where even a single jet is overpowered ...Therefore it is more efficient to SSTO with jets than rockets ...But SSTO rockets can be simpler and quicker to build and fly and should be lower part-count Wings are excess mass ...That make landing where you want to a lot easier in atmosphere (LethalDose again makes this a requirement of the definition of "SSTO") ...And mean you can take-off with a TWR < 1 (I'm unconvinced about the value of this, but Wanderfound and others who are masters of spaceplanes seem to advocate it) ...But VTVL jets, without them, can be very efficient (Stratzenblitz's designs are my exemplar here) Single Stage Beyond Orbit (except to Laythe) is always inefficient because at the very least you're carrying partially-empty tanks and the wrong/too many engines ...To be useful a SSTO usually has to deliver a payload and/or rendezvous/dock once in orbit (pointed out by Slashy) ...Therefore it is more efficient to launch with SSTOs, then decouple/undock any space-based vehicles/payloads ...It is most efficient to keep those space-based things in space, rather than re-landing and re-launching them ...So for ultimate efficiency only launch (with a SSTO) new vehicles, then the fuel to keep reusing them ...Alternatively, re-dock to a SSTO to land those things that need to come down again (science, crews having a rest, etc.) [*VTVL = Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing - used as a name for jets that fly like rockets]

Nice progress. Now, given how hard it all seemed when you started, did you think you'd be able to do all that within 10 days? :-) I love messing around with spacestations and 'short' flights within Kerbin's SOI (Kerbin/Mun/Minmus) as there is so much you can do relatively quickly. If you feel up to installing a mod I'd recommend SCANSat, which adds mapping-sensors for satellites (or manned craft if you prefer). The great things about that is that are i) if gives you more of a reason to use satellites, ii) the maps can be really useful for finding appropriate landing-sites, iii) the multispectral sensor also finds 'Easter Eggs'*, which are fun (and sometimes challenging) to visit and identify. [*Easter Eggs are 'fun' things added to the game, or obsolete things left in, which are 'odd', amazing of funny. Programmers get bored at work too ^^. Saying more would spoil the fun - there is a thread about them and if you want to find them yourself, just get SCANSat].

Engage Brakes. Activate jet(s). Allow time for them to spool-up to full power/overcome brakes. Release Brakes. Rotate.

Easter-egg hunting and messing-about with reusable (tractor/spacestation) infrastructure to everywhere.

There is no reason not to have as many installs of KSP as you wish. From other similar threads recently I think a lot of us have three or more. You can, of course, have as many saves within those installs as you want as well, but they share the mods in Gamedata. There are mods that will activate/deactivate mods on a save-basis, within a single install, if you prefer to do it that way.

More than two-year old necro. OP last active more than a year ago (as you can see from his profile). Update unlikely ^^.

Well at least that's sorted out. As for your other question - the best way to ensure you don't underpower your SSTOs is to make sure you don't weigh them down with wings and other silly things like that. Building a SSTO rocket is just like building any other that is designed to go TO ORBIT, with the Single Stage making it somewhat simpler - big engines! Once in orbit, and with any payload detached, 200-300m/s deltaV and a couple of drogue parachutes should be all you need remaining for a targetted landing. Since orbit requires approx 4,500m/s in stock KSP that means aim for a launch deltaV of 4,800 - 4,900. Being single stage, the TWR will be very large by the time you get to orbit (and have burnt most of the fuel) so a launch TWR of 1.2 is plenty.

Same album, Dec 10th begins at picture 14. It's my daughter's birthday, so a special flag.

Move the mouse to the top-centre of the screen in Map view and the icons for different ship-types will drop-down. Those that are lit (white) will be shown on the map, unlit (black) ones won't. Click to toggle any of them. You should note that KSP might not categorise things the same way as you - so, for instance, if your main command-pod is a Mk1 lander can or similar then the 'ship' will, in fact, be marked as a 'lander' - and not shown if landers are currently de-selected. If you are sure the icon should be shown - all icons in the drop-down are lit, say - but it's still not shown I'd think it's caused by low-memory conditions and KSP is getting close to a crash. Save, exit and re-start the game and things should be ok.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/24898-Challenge-Submission-Guide

Yes, I do know. Many other people do too. Laythe is a special case, of course, since the jets, etc. are not 'excess, useless' there. None of those advantages apply to other bodies, especially those that are in vacuum, or are easier than using a simpler design. 'Planes look cool, of course, but mostly because of that and their RL impossibility so many KSP newbies get the idea they are "THE" way to do things. I'm just trying to stress the benefits of the alternatives here, since hardly anyone ever does. Many people want to create 100% reusable vehicles. Don't make the common mistake of thinking that means it has to complete the mission in a single stage. Separating and re-docking is prefectly valid, as is keeping special-purpose vehicles in space. Take-off, orbit, transfer, injection, de-orbit, landing ... and all the way back in one big lump, or Launch/Recover, Transfer, Lander with three specially-designed vehicles? The best thing about KSP is that it allows you to choose.

It's such a handy manoeuvre to remember that Chapter 4 of the tutorial in my signature even recommends it, "One, very Kerbal, solution is to 'get out and push'"

My best first guess would be that you have angle-snap on or off, whichever you weren't used to before. Nothing else has changed in the editor recently, but will do in the next version. Toggle angle-snap by pressing 'C' or clicking the button to the right of the symmetry-icon.

Congratulations; that's pretty impressive progress for how recently you bought KSP. My computer (and its typist) are old, so I got the demo to see if it would even work. It did and the tutorials were ... nice, might get the game. OMG came as soon as I built and flew my own ship to orbit (thanks to tutorials here on the forums!) then watched it through re-entry and splashdown.

I have learnt to re-dock before de-orbit ;-0 However, my space vehicles are mostly reused by refuelling in space. Why come all the way back down just to go all the way back up again? Yes, I have to lift the fuel, but just the fuel, with a light Single Stage To Orbit not the whole vehicle that has to go interplanetary. I wreck my efficiency by using Moho-capable tugs to take stuff to Duna sometimes. If you want to take your 'plane all the way you can do that too. Neither of us should pretend it's efficient to take mass you don't need where you don't need it though.

The desert. The star in the East. Oh It's Christmas!

Dec 8th/9th: not a lot to say about the 8th since it's just a landing with the previously-shown vehicle. I just couldn't attach a rover to that thing though - serves me right for using a design with almost all tolerances stripped out. So I probably failed the challenge for the 9th, but had enough fun building a new vehicle that I thought it was worth several screenshots and put the whole lot in an album for simplicity: (Dec 9th starts at picture 6).

Check The Drawing Board, as Red Iron Crown recommended. Then read the tutorial linked in my signature ;-0

Me. Most of my SSTOs are rockets, for construction and flight simplicity and part-count. When I use jets my Single Stage TO ORBIT vehicles separate the (rocket) space vehicle once they are IN ORBIT. Who would carry excess, useless, heavy, wings, jets and landing-gear across interplanetary distances?