In a catch 22: Stuck on contracts because I don't have enough science for the parts

[nurburg]

Hello all. I'm new to the game and have gone through all the tutorials and about 10 contracts in career mode. I still have a lot of general confusion for some things.

So, first, I'm stuck. For example I'd really like to attempt the "Orbit Kerbin!" contract but don't have the necessary research for parts like RCS thrusters and a reaction wheel (It appears I would need "Flight Control" and "Advanced Flight Control" which cost 45 and 90 points respectively). 

Am I missing some basic concept about how to acquire science? I've tried running a few experiments and getting crew reports outside of a contract and it didn't return very many science points. 

Thanks for you patience. This "game" is so hard and SO rewarding. 

[Snark]

Hello, and welcome to the forums! 

1 hour ago, nurburg said:

For example I'd really like to attempt the "Orbit Kerbin!" contract

Excellent choice, that's a good one!  Both for the practice it gives you in orbiting, and for a healthy injection of cash right near the start of your career.

1 hour ago, nurburg said:

but don't have the necessary research for parts like RCS thrusters and a reaction wheel

You don't need those to orbit Kerbin.  RCS thrusters are needed only for docking, basically-- until you get to the point where you're docking ships with each other in orbit, you simply don't need 'em.  At all.  (And even for docking, they're not an absolute necessity-- you can dock without RCS, though it's more of a pain.)

You also don't need reaction wheels, at all, until you start building fairly big/heavy ships.  That's because the command pods (such as the Mk1 command pod that you begin the game with) already have built-in reaction wheels, so you don't actually need reaction-wheel parts until you're building ships so big that the command pod's  torque isn't enough (or you don't have a crewed command pod present).

2 hours ago, nurburg said:

Am I missing some basic concept about how to acquire science? I've tried running a few experiments and getting crew reports outside of a contract and it didn't return very many science points.

It's possible that you are, but it's hard to tell without knowing more about your game situation. 

A couple of important points to bear in mind:

• Be strategic about which science nodes you pick first
• Understand how science works

 

First, be strategic about your tech node choices.  Eventually you'll have science coming out of your ears and you'll fill in the whole tech tree with plenty of science left over.  But in the early stages of your career-- which is where you are now-- science points are precious and scarce, which means you need to make every point count.  And that means being smart about where you spend them.

There's no one "right answer" for what order to unlock things, since different people have different play styles and like to do things in a different order.  However, broadly speaking, here are your two main priorities when deciding what to unlock first:

• Science instruments.  As you unlock more science instruments, those allow you to get more science which allows you to unlock more stuff, and you get a nice feedback effect.    The higher the "level" of the science instrument, the more science points it's generally worth.  So it's a good idea to prioritize these nodes.
• Mobility improvements that allow you to reach more locations (e.g. better engines, better fuel tanks).  That's because science points are per-location, so being able to reach more locations means you can gather more science.

Another useful way to think about it is to approach it from the opposite direction-- i.e. not "what do I really need?", but rather "what don't I really need?" so that you know what to save for later.  For example, if you're a "rockets" kinda guy and aren't into flying airplanes... don't unlock any of the airplane nodes until later-- spend those science points somewhere more useful.  Or, "I'm not planning on docking until later, so I don't need docking ports or RCS thrusters"; that sort of thing.

 

The second major point is, understand how science works.  Each science "result" can be retrieved for points only once (well, except for a tiny residual dribble that it's not worth discussing here).  However, one "result" is the cross-product of several variables, including:

• what instrument is it (mystery goo?  thermometer?  barometer?  etc.)
• what body is it (Kerbin? Mun? Duna? etc.)
• what situation is it (landed? flying? in space, low?  in space, high? etc.)
• what biome is it (e.g. on Kerbin, is it shores? water? highlands? desert? etc.)

So the key to maximizing your science is to get science results from as many combinations of the above as possible.  For example, even if the only science instrument you've unlocked is the Mystery Goo (which you start the game with), you can still get all of the following science results from your very first launch of a simple "Mk1 command pod, Flea booster, parachute, several goo canisters" ship:

• goo, landed at the launching pad
• crew report, landed at the launching pad
• EVA report, landed at the launching pad
• goo, flying
• goo, landed at whichever biome you land in-- could be Shores, could be Water, could be Grasslands, perhaps even Highlands.  (There are plenty more biomes at Kerbin, but those are some that are easily reachable from KSC with nothing more than a Flea.)
• EVA report, landed at whichever biome you land in
• EVA report, flying over whichever biome you land in (just jump in the air and take a report before you come down)
• crew report, flying over whichever biomes you fly over
• crew report, landed at whichever biome you land in

...you get the idea?

2 hours ago, nurburg said:

didn't return very many science points

Things to be aware of:

• you get more science points per result by unlocking higher-level instruments, so prioritize those.
• you get science per location, so visit lots of places and situations and get science from each
• when you can go places other than Kerbin (e.g. the Mun makes a good first destination), there's a lot more science there-- Kerbin science is worth much less than other places, since you start there.

2 hours ago, nurburg said:

I'd really like to attempt the "Orbit Kerbin!" contract but don't have the necessary research

Could you post a screenshot of your tech tree?  It really doesn't take a lot of science to be able to orbit Kerbin-- you can make a remarkably low-tech orbiter, if you don't mind it being kinda clunky-looking.  (Elegance can come later when you have a better part selection.)    As long as you've unlocked a stack decoupler, the Swivel engine, and the 1-ton LFO fuel tank, that's enough to get you to orbit just with that.  If you can unlock the Terrier engine and the 2-ton fuel tank, then it gets significantly easier.

If you can post a screenshot of your tech tree in R&D, we can offer specific advice such as whether you have enough tech already to get to orbit-- and, if not, what would be the best tech nodes to unlock next.

The other possibility is that your tech is just fine, but that you have an issue with either rocket design (e.g. maybe you're designing your rockets inefficiently, so they don't have enough dV), and/or piloting (e.g. maybe you're flying them inefficiently, so that you're wasting the dV that you have).  As a starting point, could you post a screenshot of your "best attempt" at building an orbital ship?  Then we can offer specific advice about "yeah, this looks good" or "oh, there's <some problem>, here's how you can tweak the design", that sort of thing.

[4x4cheesecake]

And another legendary wall of text by @Snark so there is probably nothing else to say...admit it, you wrote this before anybody else was able to see the post, didn't you?

Guess I'll wait for the screenshots though...oh wait: @nurburg if you need any assistance to upload pictures to the forum, you may want to take a look here:

And of course: welcome to the forum

[Rauko]

Also, if you are strugling with science, you can get some without even leave the KSC. Every zone and almost every building in the KSC is a minibiome. They yield even less than a regular kerbin biome, but at the beginning of the carreer it is still a lot. You must be landed in a zone (the launchpad, the zone around the astronauts complex, etc, or phisically touching a building (the flag pole, the VAB, etc) when you do the science to get those points.

[Espatie]

There's also a thread in the tutorial section which, while it's designed for experienced players to get their science as fast as possible, does give some good tips on how to maximise science gain fast.

 

 

[nurburg]

Hi Everyone. And wow! Thank you for all the patient and detailed responses. I'm sure my questions get asked a million times but I had a hard time searching the forums. @Snark Thank you for the detailed write up, very helpful. 

So first issue: Science Points

I've just been using a lot of trial and error after I posted here. I've managed to accrue quite a few more science points by running the goo experiment, temp, and barometer readings at the different levels of atmosphere and way out into space (I crewed the MK1 capsule with a scientist hoping that makes a difference). These took a lot of fiddling around with fuel and thrust levels but I got it eventually. 

I didn't realize about EVA's and walking around on Kerbin. I'm going to fool around with that and see if I can figure it out. I've spent the last of my science points on some advanced control stuff I apparently didn't need so I'm tapped out. 

Second thing: First time orbiting Kerbin

This album has my current research tree and my best attempt so far at orbiting Kerbin: https://imgur.com/a/ta2gmwZ
I've been trying to model this after the orbiting tutorial as best I can because frankly that's all I have to work off of. As was said RCS thrusters and Reaction Control Wheels are not needed (now I know). With this setup I'm getting closer (I think) to having the necessary Delta-V and weight management to get my apoapsis where I want it to be (tutorial recommended 80km so I'm trying that). My biggest problem is that in the tutorial 1) there is a convenient target marker to aim for telling you exactly what attitude you need on the gimbal and 2) There are additional targets available in SAS like prograde/retrograde, normal/antinormal, etc. So I'm having a heck of a time eyeballing the correct flight path which makes me think there's something missing (Can you like... plan launches from the control station so you're not just flying by the seat of your pants?). That leads me to the 3rd question.

Third thing: Targeting regions

This ties in with my last question but again I'm having a really hard time getting into the proper attitude to hit these targets. I try orienting the spacecraft in the assembly hangar to point approximately in the target direction so I can use mostly just pitch up/down. It's still very hard to control the gimbal the way I want. Is there any way to do flight planning so trying to reach a region isn't so haphazard? 

It seems a lot of my issues are just learning the game. It's definitely not intuitive at first. The tutorials are a good start but still a lot of trial and error in career mode (not a complaint, it's fun!). 
 

[Snark]

44 minutes ago, nurburg said:

Second thing: First time orbiting Kerbin

This album has my current research tree and my best attempt so far at orbiting Kerbin

Okay, let's look at your tech tree first:

Your first couple of tiers look good-- you've filled in everything, and that's a reasonable thing to do because those nodes, 1. are cheap, and 2. all have important stuff you need.  So that's good.  Basic Rocketry, Engineering 101, Survivability, Stability, General Rocketry-- all excellent choices.

Beyond that, though, you kinda go off the rails a bit.  You've selected Flight Control and Advanced Flight Control, neither of which you need right now.  (Eventually yes, of course.  But if you're in early career scrambling for science and just trying to get to orbit, you don't need 'em.)  Why don't you need these?  Well, Flight Control has a reaction wheel (which you don't need, your command pod has reaction wheel built in), and some steerable fins (which you don't need for small rockets; the reaction wheels in the pod are plenty for steering).  Advanced Flight Control gives you more reaction wheels (which you don't need yet) and RCS parts (which you won't need until you start docking stuff together in space-- can wait for later).

So, instead of picking those two nodes, you'd be better advised to get Basic Science (which unlocks the Science Jr. instrument-- great piece, has high science values), and also Advanced Rocketry.  Advanced Rocketry is super important, because it not only gives you the 2-ton fuel tank (meaning you can carry twice as much fuel in the same number of parts-- important in early career when you haven't upgraded the VAB yet and can only have 30 parts), and also because it gives you the Terrier engine, which is an incredible workhorse and really makes getting to orbit easier-- it's your go-to upper-stage engine.

(Reason why Terrier is so super awesome as an upper stage engine:  1. it's a lot smaller than the engines available before that-- meaning less dead weight to lug to orbit, and 2. it is very fuel efficient (high Isp), meaning you get a lot of dV out of it for a given amount of fuel.)

So:  you spent 135 science points on Flight Control and Advanced Flight Control, neither of which actually helps you get to orbit or unlocks more science.  Whereas instead, you could have spent just 45 points on Advanced Rocketry (which would make it a lot easier to get to orbit), plus another 45 points on Basic Science, which would get you more science points.  And still have 45 points left over to either spend on something now, or save up another 45 so you can get the next node you'll want after this, which I'd suggest as Electrics because you'll be wanting that in the near future.

 

Next, on to your rocket.

Those Fleas are going to burn out pretty quick, and aren't great Isp either.  Plus, the fact that you have four of them means more drag than you need to have.

I'd suggest replacing the four Fleas with two Hammers instead.  Less frontal area for drag; lower part count; better Isp means more bang per kilogram.

Here's an example ship that can easily get to orbit with plenty of fuel to spare, and uses only the tech that you already have:

Top stage:  Command pod with parachute, two 1-ton tanks, Swivel engine.  Bottom stage:  Four 1-ton tanks, Reliant engine.  (Never mind that my Reliant looks different from yours-- I'm running a mod that changes the appearance.  But the behavior is unchanged.)  Radial boosters:  two boosters, each consisting of a single Hammer with its thrust limiter set to 87%.  (Why 87%?  Because I like lifting off at a TWR of 2, and that's the number needed to give me that.  100%, which is the default, would give me too much oomph to start with, and I'd end up wasting energy on aerodynamic drag while still down in the thick part of the atmosphere.)

Note the staging setup, which differs from yours.  It takes off on the SRBs alone, and doesn't activate the Reliant until the SRBs burn out.  That helps "stretch" the dV for the rocket, since in general you get the most dV when you burn your lower-Isp fuel before your higher-Isp fuel, and SRBs have much crappier Isp than liquid-fuel engines.

So, try this ship on for size.  It'll work with your current tech, so you don't need to "start over".  It easily has enough oomph to get to orbit with plenty of margin to spare.  So, if you fly this, and still find yourself having trouble making orbit, then the problem is that you're not piloting your rocket efficiently-- in which case we can talk about how you're flying. 

But let's save that until you've tried launching with a rocket that is known to be orbit capable, and see how you do.  Either your problem will be solved, or else we can go into details about ascent path.

 

[nurburg]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Those Fleas are going to burn out pretty quick,

... Good gravy. WHY DID I HAVE FLEAS?! Total brain fart. I thought those Fleas WERE the hammers. That explains a lot haha. However, since I posted those images I finally managed to limp into orbit with that 4 engine frankenstein and achieve a near circular orbit at about 80km altitude

. It took quite a few tries. I even had enough fuel left for a retrograde burn and landed safely in the ocean!


But by the time I was done practicing getting into orbit I went back to snag the orbit contract and it had expired. Just my luck  I'm going to redesign that rocket with the proper SRBs and see how I make out (try to do an EVA while I'm in orbit). I shall return.

Thanks for your continued help!

[Snark]

27 minutes ago, nurburg said:

However, since I posted those images I finally managed to limp into orbit with that 4 engine frankenstein and achieve a near circular orbit at about 80km altitude

Excellent, congratulations!  Major KSP milestone right there.  You only get to make orbit for the first time once, so take some time to enjoy the accomplishment. 

29 minutes ago, nurburg said:

It took quite a few tries. I even had enough fuel left for a retrograde burn and landed safely in the ocean!

Even better! 

By the way, just FYI:  If your reentry vehicle is mainly just a Mk1 pod, and if you're reentering from low Kerbin orbit, you don't really need a heat shield-- it'll re-enter just fine on its own.  If you're coming back from the Mun or beyond, though, then your speed will be up around 3 km/s or more, and then you'll want to have a heat shield.

Leaving the heat shield off saves a part, and a fair amount of mass.  (And even if you do need a heat shield, you almost never need a full load of ablator.  Reduce it down to 10% in the editor, or at most 20%, and you'll save quite a bit of weight.)

Another thing you can do is, make sure to set your pod's monopropellant supply to zero in the editor, if you don't have any RCS thrusters.  It'll save a bit of mass-- no point in hauling the monoprop up to orbit and back if you're not using it. 

Omitting the monoprop is a pretty small savings, but reducing heatshield ablator (or leaving the heatshield off entirely) is actually a pretty significant weight reduction and could make getting to orbit a bit easier if you're marginal.

33 minutes ago, nurburg said:

(try to do an EVA while I'm in orbit)

FYI:  if you're in low orbit, EVA science results are per biome (i.e. "EVA while in space just above Kerbin's Highlands", "EVA while in space just above Kerbin's Deserts", etc.)  So when you get to orbit, make sure to hop out of the pod to collect EVA results many times, i.e. once over every biome you pass over.  A fair amount of juicy science right there. 

The same does not apply to most science instruments, or to crew reports.  For example, you can only get one "temperature reading while in space near Kerbin", ditto for crew reports and most other science instruments.  (The gravioli detector produces per-biome results for near space, but that's way at the end of the tech tree and you won't have that for a while yet.)  So make the most of orbital EVA!

[Snark]

3 hours ago, nurburg said:

There are additional targets available in SAS like prograde/retrograde, normal/antinormal, etc. So I'm having a heck of a time eyeballing the correct flight path which makes me think there's something missing

Just realized that you also had this question, which hasn't been addressed.

Once you've leveled up a pilot (like Jeb or Val) to level 1-- which they will achieve after the first time they go to orbit and back-- then they will gain the SAS ability to hold or , which will make life easier.  Be aware of that. At level 2 they get hold , and then at level 3 they get hold .  The latter is nice... but really, the is about 95% of what you need, and you get that at level 1. 

Also, a little later in the tech tree, the HECS probe core has and hold abilities in SAS, and higher-level probe cores beyond that can hold the other ones.  So, once you get to the point where you want to, for example, send a one-kerbal ship to the Mun, and you want it to be a scientist because that way they can reset the goo and materials-bay instruments, then having a HECS is handy for the piloting.  Something to bear in mind.

3 hours ago, nurburg said:

(Can you like... plan launches from the control station so you're not just flying by the seat of your pants?)

Alas, no.  What you're doing now is just how it's gonna be.

That said, though:  one thing that I like to do, which reduces the seat-of-the-pantsness somewhat, is that I always carefully engineer my ships to have exactly the same TWR on the launchpad.  Big ship, little ship, doesn't matter:  I like a TWR of 2.0 on the pad, and all my ships are exactly that.  (There's nothing magical about 2.0, it's just what I like and is well suited to my style of play.  If you wanted to go with something a bit lower, that's fine, too.  The important thing here is that it's consistent, rather than having any one particular magical value.)

Why is it so useful to have a really consistent TWR?  Because here's how I fly to orbit:

1. Launch!
2. Immediately upon liftoff, crank it N degrees eastward and set SAS to hold .
3. Full throttle, staging away stages as they burn out, until my Ap reaches the desired altitude.
4. Coast to Ap, then do a burn to circularize.  (Usually I do this with a maneuver node, just because I'm OCD about getting perfectly circular orbits, for no good reason.  But it's easy to do just manually, too.)

See where I said "N degrees"?  Figuring out N is the tricky bit.    But the thing is... N is basically a function of launchpad TWR.  If I always launch with the same TWR, then my initial eastward turn is always about the same amount.  So that makes it pretty easy and repeatable, and not very seat-of-the-pants at all.

3 hours ago, nurburg said:

Is there any way to do flight planning so trying to reach a region isn't so haphazard? 

Not so much on Kerbin, since the vagaries of atmospheric entry tends to throw projected trajectories all higgledy-piggledy; it's pretty much just eyeballing stuff.   Bear in mind, though, that if you're just trying to gather science so you can climb the tech tree, you really don't need to be "completist" on Kerbin.  Kerbin science is a pittance compared to what you get on the Mun and beyond.  So, by all means be opportunist and grab whatever Kerbin science you can if you just happen to be somewhere-- but once you have enough tech to do a Mun flyby (and then orbit, and then land)... at that point, you're better served (in terms of "science per hour of gameplay") to forget about Kerbin at that point and focus on visiting Mun and Minmus biomes, they're way juicier.

And on the Mun or Minmus, which don't have pesky atmospheres getting in the way, it's easy to plot a landing site, just use the map view and see where your trajectory is taking you.

If you like exploring everywhere on Kerbin, there's nothing wrong with that, of course.    Just, you really don't need to.  You're already pretty close to doing a Mun flyby-- heck, unlock the Terrier and you're set for a Mun landing.  (If you are interested in doing more Kerbin surface exploring, then that's where you might want to consider unlocking some "airplane" nodes.  Airplanes are easy to fly and land anywhere you want, don't need a lot of tech for low-end models, and have pretty long flight ranges.)

[Draalo]

Congrats for Orbit!

The picture also shows the other launchsites, so you are able to get even more siencepoints quick and easy.

Just take a pod with all availiable instruments attached and "launch" it from all 3 launchpads and all 3 runways.

You can select the site by clicking just below the green launch button.

Resarch the Science Jr. first and repeat gathering

[GoatRider]

22 minutes ago, Draalo said:

Congrats for Orbit!

The picture also shows the other launchsites, so you are able to get even more siencepoints quick and easy.

Just take a pod with all availiable instruments attached and "launch" it from all 3 launchpads and all 3 runways.

You can select the site by clicking just below the green launch button.

 

I can't figure out what you mean by "below the green launch button". I click the launch button and I go to KSP launch pad, I don't see any other choices. Is this perhaps an add-on you're using?

[bewing]

15 minutes ago, GoatRider said:

I can't figure out what you mean by "below the green launch button". I click the launch button and I go to KSP launch pad, I don't see any other choices. Is this perhaps an add-on you're using?

It's a setting in Career mode, if you have the DLC. Generally, once your VAB/SPH have been upgraded, you can launch from Woomerang/Dessert/or the Island Airfield.

What happens is that a dropdown appears underneath the Launch button, allowing the extra options.

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by bewing

[Draalo]

Oh, just realized that the extra launchsites are visible in map even if you dont have the DLC "Making History"

If you dont have the DLC they are not accessible.

If you have it should look like:

The DLC brings some new parts, the mission-builder and allows you to launch from more sites. If you like KSP consider buying it

Sorry if i confused you.

[GoatRider]

Ah that's it, I don't have "Making History". I can see the landing sites, but not choose them from the VAB.

[nurburg]

Hi all. Quick update. I've been doing a lot more experiments/trial and error. So I've managed to rendezvous with the Mun, orbit the Mun in a stable circular orbit, AND return safely from the Mun. 

My problem now is landing on the Mun. I have done it successfully several times but I had to turn on Infinite fuel in the debug menu (I know, shameful but it's helping me learn  ) because the ship I'm using never seems to have QUITE enough fuel to get home (I have a two stage landing craft that starts with full fuel in Kerbin orbit, then I capture the Mun, establish orbit, land, engage second stage which is just the [pod, heat shield, flt-200 fuel tank, and Terrier rocket]. 

I'm still tweaking weight and fuel requirements to get everything balanced out so as usual it's a lot of trial and error. Of course it's a big system of equations so you add a little more fuel to the final stage and you have to adjust every other stage as well!

This is the monstrosity I have right now (I've been adjusting it a lot but this is from quite a few attempts earlier). It's obviously highly unstable but I feel like I need larger components (more fuel, bigger engines) to get the delta-v I need:

My next problem: I'm trying to design a 3 stage rocket that can land on the Mun but having a hell of a time getting all the right delta-v's. Based on the wiki I need ~3400m's for the ascent stage, Kerbin orbit insertion ~1000m's, TMI/Mun landing/Return ~3000m/s. I don't know if I can do that with my current research tree (see attached image): 


Maybe I'm just not thinking out of the box? 

Edited January 3, 2019 by nurburg

[Kryxal]

Here's how I figure things to be:

• 3500 m/s to LKO
• 860 m/s transfer orbit
• 280 m/s Mun orbit
• 600 m/s plus LARGE margin for landing
• 600 m/s back to orbit
• 280 m/s transfer to suborbital trajectory

Feel free to add some margin to those numbers, but you don't need a lot except for probably the landing.  I get the feeling you're returning to LKO, and you don't need to do that, a heat shield with a bit of ablator will let you return nicely from there.

A possible staging plan:

• 1800 m/s, landing/takeoff/return
• 1500 m/s, last bit of LKO burn/transfer/Mun orbit
• 1800 m/s, launcher upper stage
• 1800 m/s, launcher lower stage

There's a fair bit of overkill there in a few spots, you could afford to drop the top stage to 1600 m/s easily if you can count on getting there with maybe 200 m/s left in your transfer stage.  Hope this helps.

[nurburg]

Hey, thank you! Those numbers make sense to me.

Quick question: When designing a ship the numbers in the staging stack to the right correspond with the delta-v for that stage correct? Like, when designing the ascent stage to get into orbit I'm finding it impossible to get a delta-v over 2000 m/s. I've tried adding more fuel tanks for the liquid engine but it doesn't make much difference (adds more than 250m/s for a flt-400 tank). I mean you look at the Apollo missions and it has a HUGE first stage to get into orbit. Do I just need to add fuel and rockets to my research tree? I have about 110 points I can spend (not enough yet for both fuel systems AND advanced rocketry).

[bewing]

5 hours ago, nurburg said:

When designing a ship the numbers in the staging stack to the right correspond with the delta-v for that stage correct? Like, when designing the ascent stage to get into orbit I'm finding it impossible to get a delta-v over 2000 m/s.

The numbers given above are vacuum dV numbers.

Unless you click a button, the staging dV numbers are atmospheric dV numbers, and they are very different. If you launch, the dV numbers show your dV according to your current atmospheric pressure, so many of the dV numbers will increase as you gain altitude.

To get vacuum dV numbers in the editor, click the deltav "tools" button on the bottom, and click the Vacuum button.

 

[Snark]

15 hours ago, nurburg said:

This is the monstrosity I have right now (I've been adjusting it a lot but this is from quite a few attempts earlier). It's obviously highly unstable but I feel like I need larger components (more fuel, bigger engines) to get the delta-v I need:

KSP is tricky.  Bigger is not always better.  A ship that can go land on the Mun and return doesn't need to be anywhere near that big-- I'd suggest you can get more dV by going smaller, not bigger.

15 hours ago, nurburg said:

My next problem: I'm trying to design a 3 stage rocket that can land on the Mun

There's your problem right there-- you're making life a lot harder for yourself by limiting yourself to 3 stages.

Not sure how mathematically inclined you are, or how versed you are in the physics of rocket flight, but you might want to familiarize yourself with Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation.  Even if you're not a "math" kinda guy and don't want to get embroiled in the details, it's important to understand the implications:

It is much easier to get more dV out of a rocket by adding more stages than by trying to put more dV into each stage.

It's how the math works-- it's a consequence of the above-linked equation.  Basically, what it boils down to is that the amount of dV you can get out of one stage is going to be effectively limited by the stage's Isp, regardless of how much fuel you try to pack in-- it's hugely subject to diminishing returns.  Whereas every time you add a stage, you add dV in a much more efficient way.

15 hours ago, nurburg said:

I'm trying to design a 3 stage rocket

^ That's where you're going wrong.  It's the wrong approach.  You never "try to design an N stage rocket".  Instead, what you're trying to to do is design a rocket with N amount of dV.  The dV number is what you care about, not the number of stages.  And the way you do that is:  you design your top stage first, in a way that is "dV efficient" (i.e. best dV for least mass).  Then when you're happy with that, you add a stage that is, itself, designed to give good dV efficiency.  And then just keep adding stages until you have as many stages as you need for the mission.

The best way to boost your dV is to have a higher Isp, since that's linear.  Double your Isp, double your dV.  However, even though this is "best"... as a practical matter you're rather constrained, because the available engines have somewhat-similar Isp ranges (for example, LFO engines are pretty much all in the low-to-mid 300s).

So if you're already using reasonably-efficient engines... then the way you add dV is to add more stages.  Assuming you have a "reasonable" fuel ratio (very broadly defined), typical dV per stage for LFO-engine-powered stages is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500-2500 m/s.  (Typically lower for high-TWR ascent stages, higher for orbital stages.)  It's really hard to squeeze much more than that out of one stage-- the math blows up and your rockets will get huge without adding much dV, because you're fighting a logarithm.

A handy rule of thumb for practical rockets in KSP:

• 3 stages for getting to LKO.  (Yes, you can do it in fewer, but 3 seems to be the "sweet spot" in my experience).
• 4 stages for going beyond LKO to another place (like Mun or Minmus orbit).
• You may very well need 5 stages or more if you need a big chunk of dV after you arrive at the destination (e.g. you've made it to the Mun, but now you need to land on it).

15 hours ago, nurburg said:

Maybe I'm just not thinking out of the box?

No, I think the problem is that you're thinking in the wrong box.   

Don't feel bad, we've all been there!  It just takes time to get the hang of how the math hangs together.

Let's take a look at your Mun lander:

If I'm reading this correctly, your lander is 2 stages, as follows:

• Top stage:  Pod (with monopropellant emptied), parachute, heat shield (with ablator reduced to 10%), decoupler, 1-ton LFO tank, Terrier engine.  Total mass, 2.685 tons.
• Bottom stage:  Decoupler, 1-ton fuel tank, four micro legs, another Terrier.  Total mass for both stages, 4.410 tons.

So, how much dV do you have in the lander?  Plugging in numbers for the Tsiolkovsky equation, and using the Terrier's Isp of 345s, we get the following:

• Lander dV, bottom stage:  870 m/s
• Lander dV, top stage:  1577 m/s

Total lander dV is therefore 2247 m/s.

That's nice!  That's a lot!  Let's consider just how much of a Mun land-and-return mission is covered just by the lander itself, starting from the end and working backwards:

• From low Mun orbit to go home:  300 m/s.  (Good, 2247 - 300 = 1947 m/s dV left.)
• Go from Mun surface to low orbit:  600 m/s.  (Good, 1947 - 600 = 1347 m/s dV left.)
• Go from low Mun orbit to the surface:  600 m/s.  (Good, 1347 - 600 = 747 m/s dV left.)
• Capture to low Mun orbit:  300 m/s.  (Good, 747 - 300 = 447 m/s dV left.)
• Eject from low Kerbin orbit to go to the Mun:  850 m/s.  (Nope, not enough-- you only have 447 left for this.  But it's enough for about half of your ejection burn from LKO.)

So, what does this mean in practical terms?

It means that if you can eject this lander from low Kerbin orbit with full tanks, it has enough dV to complete the rest of the mission all on its own.  So, that means that when you're designing all the part of the rocket below the lander, its job is simply "get this thing to LKO and then eject it Munwards".  If you can do that, then you're golden.

(Or, rather, if you can do that and still can't complete the mission, then it's a piloting problem rather than a rocket design problem, so we'd talk about that instead.)

It's also worth using this as an example of the "smaller is better" philosophy.  Your lander is actually pretty good-- give yourself credit! -- but it could be better.  Note that each Terrier is only given 1 ton of fuel... and the Terrier itself is 0.5 tons!  It means that the engine itself weighs fully half as much as the fuel you give it!  That's... a lot.  Remember that engines are dead weight; the fact that you have two stages here means that you're lugging along an additional half-ton Terrier, which more than offsets the advantage of having two stages instead of one.  (It would be different if the lander's top stage were powered by a 0.1-ton Spark rather than a half-ton Terrier, but it's not.)

I've found that a good rule of thumb (works for me, anyway) is that the fuel in a stage should be at least 4 times the mass of the stage's engines.  If the fuel-to-engine ratio of a stage is much less than 4, then you're carrying too much engine mass as dead weight-- you need less engine.  In this case, your ratio is 2-to-1, which is way too much engine.

So, let's consider what happens if you simplify your lander:  instead of two 1-ton tanks with two Terriers in two stages, you just have one stage, with a single Terrier, and a 2-ton fuel tank.  Same total amount of fuel, but fewer stages and 1 Terrier instead of 2.  You get this:

Total mass, 3.870 tons.  Plugging the numbers into ol' Tsiolkovsky, this gives us 2461 m/s of dV.

See what just happened?

• Your original lander:  2247 m/s dV, mass 4.41 tons.
• Simplified to one stage:  2471 m/s dV, mass 3.87 tons.

It's got a lower part count, and over 200 m/s more dV!  With the added bonus that it's over half a ton lighter, which means that the part of the rocket below the lander has an easier job.  Also, it's shorter, with a lower CoM, which means it's less likely to tip over when you land on the Mun.

Smaller can be better. 

6 hours ago, nurburg said:

When designing a ship the numbers in the staging stack to the right correspond with the delta-v for that stage correct?

Yes, but with a huge caveat:  those numbers are showing the dV per stage, assuming atmospheric pressure.  Which is unfortunate, because most of your ship's dV expenditure will happen in a vacuum... and for so-called "vacuum engines" like the Terrier, there's a huge disparity between their atmospheric and vacuum Isp.  They're way worse in atmosphere.

This means that the blue numbers shown will likely be reasonably accurate for your first stage (since it's taking off from the launch pad in full atmospheric pressure, and a first stage typically only takes you up a few kilometers).  For every stage after the first one, though, the numbers will be wrong.  Just how wrong will depend on what kind of engine you have-- specifically, how big a gap between that engine's vacuum and atmospheric Isp.  For a "sustainer" engine like the Swivel-- i.e. the kind of engine that makes a good 2nd stage-- then those two numbers are fairly close together and the blue number won't be too wrong.  But for vac engines like the Terrier, it'll be way off-- your actual dV will be hugely better than what those blue numbers are showing you.

To see the vacuum numbers, follow @bewing's advice, above.

Other options:

• Pull out a calculator (or spreadsheet) and plug the numbers into Tsiolkovsky's equation.  That's what I've always done ('coz we didn't have these nifty little-blue-numbers until KSP 1.6 shipped, just a few weeks ago).    The equation may look intimidating at first, but it's pretty simple once you get the hang of it.
• Install some mod like KER that will show per-stage dV readouts for both atmospheric and vacuum.

 

6 hours ago, nurburg said:

Do I just need to add fuel and rockets to my research tree? I have about 110 points I can spend (not enough yet for both fuel systems AND advanced rocketry).

No, you've got plenty of tech for going to the Mun and back at this stage.  My advice for your next tech node would be to get Electrics, which will give you solar panels and batteries.  You'll be wanting those for longer missions (such as going to the Mun and Minmus).

[nurburg]

No, math is good! Calc, linear algebra, differential equations. I'm more than happy to crunch the numbers. Funny, KSP has inspired me to work on learning matlab again (haven't touched it since college 15 years ago and I was a CS major so we BARELY used it). It would be fun to make some simulation models. 

I don't have time to go over your entire post at the moment but trust me I will be soon. Thank you thank you again! I figured I was a) designing vehicles with way too much mass and b) not enough stages. I guess I'm just fixated on Ascent, Kerbin orbit, Mun rendezvous, Mun landing, ascent blah blah blah. 

I will start over with the less-is-more approach and see what I can come up with. 

[Snark]

9 minutes ago, nurburg said:

I don't have time to go over your entire post at the moment but trust me I will be soon.

Yeah, I do tend to throw out massive walls of text. 

Executive summary:

• Smaller is often better.
• When you don't have enough dV, "throw MOAR FUEL at it" is usually not as effective as carefully tweaking the design to do more with less.
• Be dV-efficient on each stage.  Fuel mass in a stage should be around 4-8 times the engine mass.  If it's less than 4, you have too much engine-- either get a smaller engine or consider combining stages so you're only lugging 1 engine instead of 2.  If it's too high, like over 8, then you're probably lugging too much empty-fuel-tank mass and may want to consider splitting into multiple stages.
• The way to design a rocket is to work out how much dV you need for a mission.  Then you build it by adding stages until you have enough dV.
• Be aware of the difference between vacuum and atmospheric Isp when you're looking at the little blue numbers in the VAB.

9 minutes ago, nurburg said:

I guess I'm just fixated on Ascent, Kerbin orbit, Mun rendezvous, Mun landing, ascent blah blah blah. 

The fact that you listed them in that order in that sentence might be an indication of thinking about this from the wrong direction.  You need to work backwards.  In other words:  it sounds like you're thinking about all the right things, but you might be thinking about them in the wrong order.

In other words:

• Don't think about "Kerbin ascent, Kerbin orbit, Mun rendezvous, Mun landing, Mun ascent, going home".
• Instead, think about "going home, Mun ascent, Mun landing, Mun rendezvous, Kerbin orbit, Kerbin ascent".

Start from the end of the mission and work backwards.  The design process becomes a lot easier that way.

[Snark]

Oh by the way, on another note-- quite aside from your rocket design.

I'd suggest scraping the cash together and upgrading the R&D facility to level 2, if you haven't already-- if not now, then fairly soon.  For several good reasons:

• Surface samples!  Upgrading unlocks the ability of kerbals to take surface samples when on EVA.  You really, really want this-- surface samples are worth boatloads of science (especially in the early-to-mid game, when you haven't unlocked the top-end science instruments yet).  Not such a big deal when you're just puttering around on Kerbin, but once you get to the Mun and Minmus, surface samples are a bonanza that you don't want to miss out on.  You'll want to get one from every biome you visit.
• HECS probe core.  After unlocking the "Electrics" node, I'd recommend Precision Engineering as your next stop, and you'll need an upgraded R&D facility for that.  Why this node?  Because that gets you this very useful probe core that will be your go-to core for a long time.  What's great about it is that it supports SAS level 1, meaning you can set it to "hold " or "hold " even if you don't have a pilot aboard.  Those are super useful tools to have-- for example, landing on the Mun is much easier if you've got "hold " available.  "But I have pilots!" I hear you cry.  Yes, but this allows you to send a scientist instead of a pilot, as long as the ship has a HECS on it.  Which is useful for gathering science.
• RA-2 relay antenna.  Also unlocked on Precision Engineering.  It's literally four hundred times more powerful than the HG-5's you're using now.  Makes comsats in Kerbin's SOI much more effective (it has enough range to easily span point-to-point anywhere within SOI).
• Path to better science instruments.  Once you've unlocked Precision Engineering in the 160 tier, you can then go on to Electronics at the 300 level, which you'll want because it will give you the seismometer (really nice instrument, provides a lot of science) and also the RA-15 and HG-55 antennas that will open up the inner solar system for you.

 

[nurburg]

I'm trying out the Kerbal Engineer mod (this is the kind of thing I need!): https://github.com/jrbudda/KerbalEngineer/releases