Pecan

... Still ... too ... busy. Soon

SSTO rockets need to have approximately 300m/s more dV than a disposable one so they have enough fuel to de-orbit and land. Otherwise, a couple of drogue 'chutes and fly a normal ascent path. The cost of SSTO rockets is carrying all that extra fuel and used engines there and back so, yes, using jets instead of rockets is more fuel-efficient (but has higher part-count and construction costs). Using jets, follow a normal spaceplane ascent instead of a rocket ascent - make orbital speed (~2km/s) almost horizontal before 30km altitude. Ditch the LV-N; it's too heavy to take to orbit and no use once you've got there, since you're just coming back. 48-7Ss are the best, since they're so light.

Please quote your definitive source for the pronunciation (or even spelling!) of this. In English (we could get into language, dialect or even accent difficulties here ...) I've always assumed it wasn't 'Mun'-rhymes-with-'Bun' because of the umlaut.

SSTO from Kerbin Space-only tractor Lander Is that three stages or five (+ Kerbin spacestation and destination spacestation).

Oops - I thought Kashua was the one that did Eve and back twice originally. (Still haven't tried returning from a landing there even once myself).

As above. Or read a few of the posts here. I play sandbox almost exclusively - only career to check how it affects the designs I make.

If you've already got RPM you don't need anything else. Yes, when you go into IVA control automatically passes to the cockpit, but RPM has a solution in the Target MFD Menu. Select your docking port as the 'reference part'. Without having to add another camera you then get that in the Docking MFD, with (IVA) navball and everything else all behaving as you'd want them to. Also works with NavBallDockingAlignmentIndicator, which I use instead of the pop-up window in Navyfish's full version.

What actually is the problem? If it's the flag you don't like you can click on them to change which one is displayed, including ones you make yourself.

That's the theory, yes. The Kerbal X becomes a pretty good ship if you strip-off all the twitchy, massy "decoration" for instance. To be honest though, you've got to be pretty bored to want to spend your time on patching them up to 'ok' instead of building your own beautiful (by your own definition) creations.

It is not suprising that information from more than two years ago is out of date. Please don't resurrect such old threads just to say so.

Your first picture is not Mk2, it's not even stock! If your second picture is using stock parts it's not Spaceplane +, it's Mk2. If it's using Spaceplane + it's not stock.

Install Transfer Window Planner for two chops at once. No need to play KSP, just look at the psychadelic screen ^^.

You're right, of course, but there are times - life support mods, challenges, Bob's wife's birthday - when you just have to transfer outside an efficient window.

Well that's the idea - here are some vehicles that, although not optimised, should help explain a) how to design rockets (and others), how little you need for most missions. If it's any use to you at all then I'm happy :-) As I said to Volcanix some time ago (in this thread), it's not meant to be "This is THE way to do it", but "This is A way it can be done", and the chapter 7-8 designs are very much "Look, this is only ONE way I've done it".

Thank you for that Rowsdower. Rest assured you have a customer for more or less anything you do next :-)

Thank you for your comments. The PDF is updated right now, Text in this thread will have to wait because I'm rushing to work ...

Well exactly - if that's what you want. Hmmm, I never actually gave my own idea. I think Squad would be well placed to develop "Software Tycoon" ^^

The best example I have made is in the design of "Long Tom", in chapter 5 of the tutorial in my signature. But then the whole 100-odd pages is about how to plan and design for missions. Specifically it talks about what has to be recovered at Kerbin, what it takes to get that back from Mun/Minmus, what's needed to land it, what to get it there and, as a separate launch-vehicle, what it takes to get that into orbit in the first place. Summary: I recommend planning in five stages, backwards through recovery, return, landing, transfer and launch. Building one rocket-stage per mission stage is a matter of preference; launch vehicles are usually large enough to require more than one stage while even a convenient transfer stage can also complete the landing, etc. I wouldn't bother too much with orbital darkness - your vehicle is going to be spending a lot more time without sunlight while it's on the surface and, if it's a rover, will need a lot more while driving than while in space. You also need to plan for coming out of Mun's shadow, for instance, slap into a solar eclipse courtesy of Kerbin, which lasts until your next orbit. If you do specifically want to cover that point I wouldn't concentrate on Kerbin-system because even a z100 battery is sufficient for most light vehicles. Maybe talk about the comparative effectiveness of solar panels out at Eeloo orbital distance from the sun. TWR is also only a significant issue when you're launching through an atmosphere - everywhere else it's >1 for launch and 'as low as your boredom threshold allows' for transfers.

At best I'd like to know how Squad as a marketing company feel about their adventure into software development. I am specifically not asking for a sequel, but you have to bet the development team will be wondering where they'll be working when 1.0 is released, so they may have plans for another game.

When was it beefed up? It's only been destructible since 0.25. Same thing with the launchpad - these things are so much weaker than the actual planes/rockets they can't even handle heavy launches, let alone landings.

Lol, right - the biggest problem on Gilly is not landing but staying down ^^.

100-odd pages of logically-structured missions, with example designs provided and discussed. See link in signature (yes, Ike and Duna are best for first interplanetary). Gilly has a lower deltaV requirement if you're landing rather than just orbiting, but it can be hard to get an encounter and there isn't a transfer window for ages.

For sure, "Because I want to" is a great reason for anything in KSP :-) The fact remains though that building something that looks, let alone works, like a Shuttle is extremely hard in KSP, unless you use specific shuttle mods.

Downloadable craft files now updated. The only change to rockets is to replace any Inline Reaction Wheels with SAS units, as the IRW was resized. The Trainer aircraft and Crew Shuttle SP spaceplane have been replaced (with 'Trainer Mk1' and 'Crew Shuttle Mk2' respectively). You'll still have to wait until the weekend for any text about them though ^^.

All in one piece is good :-) It might be even better than you think ... Using the control keys (WASDQE) and turning SAS on and off it is often possible to 'rock' a ship back upright. Retract and extend the landing-gear as required. Even if you can't get the thing to stand on the legs properly you should be able to get it pointing in the general direction of 'up' - hit Z to go to full throttle and keep turning to 'straight up' and you should be able to take off, then turn back flatter to get into orbit. Yeah, safe! Pretend it didn't happen ^^.