Search the Community

Airplane Range on 100 EC (Electric Charge) Challenge How far can you fly an airplane with only 100 units of Electric Charge to work with? Let's find out! NOTE: This challenge requires the Breaking Ground expansion pack. The Basic Idea: Build and launch an electric powered airplane from the KSC runway. Plant a flag next to the airplane on (or near) the runway. Fly as far away from the flag as you can. How far did you get? For entries covering more than 100 km, great-circle distance from KSC should be used. If you're not sure how to calculate that, submit your coordinates (lat long) where you land or splash down, I should be able to do that for you. Thanks to @camacju and @OJT for pushing things this far! Airplane Construction Rules: Stock parts only. Airplane must have at least 2 Kerbals. They may be seated in lawn chairs (external seats), or in pods., Airplane must have no more than 100 EC at launch. Airplane must not have ANY means of recharging batteries. No solar panels, no RTGs, no fuel cells, no engines with alternators. Anything that produces additional EC is prohibited. Airplane must be propelled by electric rotors ONLY. Any other propulsion is prohibited. No Turbo-Props, no jets, no rockets, no RCS. Anything other than electric rotors and propeller blades that produces thrust (or any force) is prohibited. There are no restrictions on part clipping or parts which are offset visually. Must use stock parts, but beyond that you are free to place them anywhere the stock game allows! Autopilot mods are allowed. Please note that to be valid, they must not alter the physics of any stock parts. Also, if you use an autopilot mod, please indicate that in your submission. It doesn't disqualify you in any way, but helps inform other players. ( @OJT ) General Challenge Rules: Pushing the airplane with the Kerbals to gain additional distance is prohibited. Using the Kerbals to push a flipped over airplane so it's right-side-up again is fine though. Mods that alter the functionality of parts, or which alter game physics, are not allowed. Other mods are fine. Specifically, visual or information mods are allowed. Also, Autopilot mods are specifically allowed. See the Airplane Construction rules above. You must launch and start from the KSC runway. You may travel any direction you want though. Entries should ideally have a few screenshots: One showing the airplane on the runway with no more than 100 EC, and another showing your distance from the runway (flag) after your airplane lands/splashes down. If you are posting a large number of screenshots, I request you put them inside a spoiler window. You can launch horizontally or vertically from the runway, your choice. How well do you need to land the airplane? At least one Kerbal needs to survive the impact, so you can get a screenshot of your distance to the flag. If the airplane survives the 'landing' that's great! But not required. Also, water landings are fine. The easiest path would probably be just take off heading east, and just keep going till you splash down somewhere east of KSC. Planting the starting flag: Some aircraft designs make it difficult to EVA Kerbals and get them back inside. It is absolutely allowed to plant a flag just off to the side of the runway before you launch your aircraft. The flag needs to be several meters away from the runway, so that when your airplane is loaded on the runway it doesn't erase the flag you previously planted. I'm not sure how far away the flag needs to be to be safe. Hope that makes sense. How far did I get? Leaderboard: 4,923 km @OJT 30 May 2022 Getting ridiculous! Even so, @camacju still has suggestions for further optimization! 2,083 km @OJT 17 May 2022 Further weight and drag savings, but the big change was a new flight profile and engine/prop settings. Great circle path over the isthmus northeast of KSC, where 800 m altitude was more than adequate. 1,047 km @OJT 15 May 2022 Optimizations include new flight profile, a few weight improvements, and rotor/blade settings. Oh, and using shorter Kerbals to reduce drag! 373 km @camacju 13 May 2022 Wow! Experimenting with a single-engine design, after seeing @OJT's success. You guys are taking this to the extreme, single-engine props are not easy to fly! 370 km @OJT 13 May 2022. Jumping into the lead. We think. Actually, we think @camacju might have bumbled his last estimate, and perhaps underestimated his range. We'll sort it out tomorrow! (sorted it out- @camacju missed a digit in his calculation, he's actually in the lead. Currently..) 262 km @OJT 13 May 2022 At these distances, we need to calculate great-circle distances. A more optimized run with a similar craft to a previous run. Another single-engine entry, so the pilot has more work compensating for torque. 258 km @camacju 13 May 2022 The bar is raised. Another entry which cleared 10 km altitude. This entry didn't ditch any parts (I think..) but that's being considered. 231.4 km @OJT 13 May 2022 The mission director allowed the Kerbals to put their helmets on approaching 10 km altitude. A single-rotor entry- those take extra skill to fly! 109.9 km @OJT 13 May 2022 Passing 100 km on the first attempt!

Rover Endurance on 100 EC (Electric Charge) How far can you drive a rover with only 100 units of Electric Charge to work with? Let's find out! The basic idea: Build and launch a rover on the KSC runway. Plant a flag on the runway next to the rover. Drive as far as you can from the flag. How far did you get? Rover Construction Rules: Stock parts only. Rover must have at least 2 Kerbals. They may be in external seats (lawn chairs..) or in pods. Rover must have no more than 100 EC at launch. Rover must not have ANY means of recharging the batteries. No solar panels, no fuel cells, no engines with alternators. Also, no RTGs ( @Mars-Bound Hokie ) No flying vehicles or boats. (That might be a separate challenge..) No propulsion from any source other than rover wheels. No rocket engines, no propellers, no jet engines. General Challenge Rules: No, you can not 'get out and push' with the Kerbals. That's prohibited. However, you may use a Kerbal to flip a rover back up if it flips over. Just don't use Kerbals to add distance. ( @OJT ) You may use a combination of powered and unpowered wheels. Aircraft landing gear are allowed. At least one wheel must be a powered rover wheel though. Mods that add or alter the functionality of parts, or which alter game physics are not allowed. Other mods are fine. You must start at the KSC runway. You can go any direction you want though. Entries should ideally have a few screenshots: One showing the rover on the runway with no more that 100 EC, and another showing your distance from the runway (flag) when you run out of juice. If you are posting more than 3 or 4 screenshots, please put them inside a spoiler window. I managed to get a rover with 2 Kerbals 7.1 km from the flag, but I think you can go much farther than I did! Leaderboard: 9.9 km @OJT 12 May 2022 - A couple of rollovers, and a Kraken attack to end the run. Lots of EC remaining when the rover unglued itself. 10.0 km @camacju 12 MAY 2022 - A classic camacju entry, with parts attached by no visible means! Also classic by carefully evaluating the limitations and characteristics of the elements involved. I think camacju already has some ideas for improving his distance.. 13.5 km @swjr-swis 15 May 2022 - A stylish blue and green chassis, how did he do that? Kerbals reclined for lower drag, and more comfort while sleeping and driving. 14.7 km @camacju 12 MAY 2022 - Investigating some aero tweaks. End distance is more than double my original test run. Terrain is becoming a bigger factor as it becomes less flat. Confirms @OJT's observation that small wheelbase tricycle rovers might occasionally tip over. 26.7 km @swjr-swis 16 May 2022 - Focusing more on drag reductions than weight, nearly doubling the previous record! I just realized I’m ordering these from lowest to highest distances, not sure why I ordered them that way.

This is a mission I have been thinking about for a long time, but I haven't gotten around to actually flying it until recently. Flying from Kerbin's surface to Laythe's surface and back three times is at the very edge of what a liquid fuel only SSTO craft can accomplish. Consequently, this is the first mission I've flown that required close to optimal piloting, and a lot of quicksaves and reloads. I use no ISRU, no docking or refueling, no part detachment shenanigans. This is a purist single stage craft that I fly as far as it can go. I don't use ion engines either, because I don't like ions - they're a hassle to work with. If I were to use ions, I might possibly be able to do a fourth landing, but I'm not willing to try it. Note that the Laythe Star is not quite at the peak performance of a liquid fuel craft. I've had better performance with three Rapiers and two Nervs for a 105 ton plane. However, the part count means that landings and takeoffs have to be done at quite a low frame rate, and vacuum TWR will be lower, requiring more periapsis kicks. In other words, it would be a lot less fun to fly, and the plane as-is can pull off the mission. Stats of the mission: The craft is composed of a Rapier and a Nerv, as well as six strakes, which I've arranged into a star shape purely for aesthetics purposes. Almost all of the rest of its 39 ton mass is Mk0 fuel tanks. In this mission, I perform 49 gravity assists, which is more than I've ever done before in a single mission. The bodies used were: Mun x15, Kerbin x13, Eve x7, Tylo x7, Laythe x6, Minmus x1. The Minmus assist was to prove that a Kerbin-Mun-Mun-Minmus-Mun-Kerbin-Mun-Eve route was viable in a real mission rather than just a proof of concept. All gravity assists and burns over 1 m/s are shown in the video.

The payload fraction challenges were a nice way to squeeze as much as possible out of the stock parts in KSP, but they've all fallen into inactivity. Recently I've been playing around with efficient single stage craft, and I've been having a lot of fun trying to maximize the payload capacity. Also, since new optimization techniques have been discovered, I'm curious to see what the players can come up with. Categories Categories are arranged in two axes: -Type of craft (single stage vs multi stage, rocket vs plane). All else equal I expect multi stage designs to have an advantage over single stage designs. -Techniques used to design the craft (aero optimization) In my mind I divide this axis into three parts: Purist, Technical, and Anarchy. Purist: The craft must be physically possible. In other words, no clipping, unless that clipping is incidental and doesn't affect the craft's aero properties. Fairings are allowed if they don't clip through anything. Technical: Clipping is allowed, as well as node occlusion and root fairings. These crafts are still bound by the physical properties of KSP's wings. Anarchy: Any aero glitches are allowed. Stacked cargo bays, magic wings, et cetera. However, you must still use an actual engine for thrust - no Kraken drives. Score is Payload Mass / Launch Mass. The payload cannot have wings or engines, and all resources must be full. (Clarification - the resources don't necessarily need to be full as long as you can prove that no resources were drained from the payload). The payload must be separated from the launch vehicle in a stable orbit (Pe > 70). Leaderboard: Single Stage Multi Stage Purist camacju - 0.614 (Plane - reusable) Sival - 0.416 (Plane - reusable) swjr-swis - 0.22 (Rocket - reusable) pedter - 0.191 (Rocket) Sival - 0.340 (Rocket) Technical camacju - 0.676 (Plane) camacju - 0.664 (Plane) zacspace - 0.405 (Plane) Anarchy If there are any suggestions for categories or rules, please let me know!

This was for a forum challenge (kind of an orange efficiency reboot) but I thought it merited its own mission report. If I had flown this mission better, I could definitely have included another landing, but I wasn't able to. This mission is at least a good proof of concept however. I don't think anyone else has gone this far with just an orange tank before. Craft in VAB. Since I can only use the orange tank as fuel, I don't need to use the Big-S wings (although I still could). Instead, I use the standard wing parts. The fairing, tank, intake, and engines are attached, rotated, and offset such that they produce much less drag. I use minimal rudder surfaces to reduce weight and drag, because I don't really end up using rudder and it's mostly just for stability. Also, the wings are rotated upwards 5 degrees to improve lift:drag ratio while running the lower efficiency nuclear engine in the atmosphere. Finally, I use a single Rapier and a single Nerv as engines. The result is a craft that doesn't look like most high performance SSTO craft but flies pretty well. The orange tank is drained completely of oxidizer before launch. Neither the Rapier's open cycle nor the Nerv require oxidizer, and I don't use the Rapier's closed cycle at all, since the high efficiency of the Nerv more than makes up for its weight. The closed cycle of the Rapier is only worth it for very light SSTO craft. I stay near sea level until 400 m/s when I start to climb. I level off at just over 20 km. At 1600 m/s I turn on the Nerv In Kerbin orbit with almost 5k delta-v left. Two periapsis kick burns give me a Mun assist. This transfer was inefficient but not so inefficient that I'd fly it again. Two Mun assists give me an orbit high above Kerbin where I can loiter until I fly past Mun again. A third Mun assist ejects me radially where I encounter Kerbin again in one year for another gravity assist. In the Kerbin encounter, I get another Mun assist to get more energy, since just a Kerbin encounter won't help me any. Using Kepler's third law, I try to get into a sun orbit with the sum of apoapsis and periapsis equal to 3.243 * 10^10, since that represents a 4:3 orbital resonance. This correction burn is very suboptimal but again I've got more than enough fuel. My calculations were precise enough that I already had the next Kerbin assist plotted. This raises my orbit up to Duna. Aerobraking at Duna Landed at Duna. This was really hard because of the low wing area and thin atmosphere. Ascent from Duna. My high pitch angle is visible here. Luckily my TWR is above 1 so I can afford to fly at a higher angle of attack until I can pick up speed. In Duna orbit. I've still got a good amount of fuel left. Can I make it to Laythe? Ike assist. Again this transfer was likely suboptimal, and I would fly this a different way if I were to do this mission again. Probably by using the same strategy I used for the Kerbin->Duna leg. I bounce off Kerbin and get a plane change, setting up an Eve encounter. I'm going to do a K-E-K-K-J route rather than something more efficient because the Ike assist gave me extra Kerbin relative velocity. Eve and Kerbin assists set up Eve flyby Tylo assist to capture around Jool and intersect with orbit of Laythe Descent on Laythe Aerobraking Landed on Laythe - much easier than Duna. Ascent from Laythe, going suborbital on just Rapiers Laythe orbit. I've got more than enough to get home from here. Vall and Laythe assists Tylo assist Kerbin and Eve assists Aerobraking at Kerbin Landed back at KSC

Hi , Today , I want to build a ring to my station . I have the ring and it is stable , so that's right . I've put nuclear engines because I heard they are super efficient . Then , to see , I replaced them by spark engines . Here is the result : With nuclear engines . With spark engines . ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Big difference , isn't it ? So , what is better ?

So I have sent some probes to Jool and Duna, but I was wondering if anybody has some tips on getting Kerbals back from Duna, which I am going to try first. Whenever I get there, I never seem to have enough fuel to get back to Kerbin. I sent a probe Rover to Duna that I successfully landed, but there was no hope of getting back with the fuel and dV I had left. Any tips on making ships more efficient? Thanks!

Hello everyone! I'm Nuno Seletti and I am new in this forum! I use KSP for many years. Now with this new version I want to present to you the result of some hours of experimentations and work to built a very efficient and powerful lifter to launch any size of playload in medium Kerbin orbit or more further than the Mun: I present to you the OLS! (Orbital Launch System) made by myself (NASA flag company) A perfect regular lifter that can carry as I said before any playload (in size not on every type like a space shuttle) on medium or more high orbit, with a big torque and fuel reserve, so you cannot be out of fuel OLS specification: Hight: 32 meters without coiffe (that protect the playload) Diameter: 9.3 meters Weight: 337.100 Tons Bye everyone! What do you thinks about it? I may post a link to download it if you you want it to fly! Regard Nuno

I have a mining vessel with a Convertotron 250, four drills, four ore tanks, some cooling, some batteries, some solar cells and a load of other stuff which you will see in the picture below. My question is - why is only one of my drills at 45% load and the other three at around 2%. The ore in the local area is 14.5% average. I don't fully understand mining and drilling yet so could somebody explain what's going on here? Even more confused. They all say ore rate 0.22 now and I stopped and restarted them and instead of a load they just say "Operational".

Your mission, should you choose to accept it: Take an asteroid and put it on a collision course with Kerbin, then send up another space ship to redirect it. I'm kidding. All you have to do is just put a small, energy efficient satellite into orbit. RULES: You can use mods. You can use any way of transportation you want (SSTO, Rocket, HyperEdit, F12, etc.) You CANNOT be void of any source of power. It MUST have a power source of some kind. For extra humour, use the nuclear engines on your rocket. You're reducing energy but causing a slight fallout. For proof, you must take a picture/video. Not that typed confirmations are wrong, it's just that I'd like to know if you legitimately did it or not. Your satellite must be small. That's the only limit. Rocket size, plane size, orbit size, those don't matter. The satellite size does. Can't wait to see what y'all did! Most importantly, have fun! (...but if you do the asteroid one, let me know.)

Are larger payloads always more efficient per mass than smaller ones? Is it always better to do a single assent (assuming a reasonable profile), or can it be more cost effective to do multiple ascents and then join in orbit? Is the only real limit the part count your computer can handle and your ability to keep the a rocket from wobbliness because of its large length, or is their a mathematical point where splitting a payload into multiple launches is more efficient?

On a challenge thread on getting to Minmus and the Mun and back in one trip, a discussion came up on the mass of kerbals and their EVA suits. Based on the before / after mass of a basic craft and adding a kerbal to a command seat, a kerbal has 0.09 t mass. MechJeb apparently reports it as 94 kg. Now take the kerbal and remove the EVA fuel, and you still get 0.09 t, but somehow that suit has 600 m/s dV according to the Wiki. @Teilnehmer did some math and figured the EVA fuel was 10 kg based on the max acceleration of 3.2 m/s2 but that would mean the exhaust velocity was 5.4 km/s! If the stuff was actually the same as monopropellant, that would make EVA fuel 20 kg but that still puts the exhaust velocity at 2.5 km/s and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want that on my back. Especially since real monopropellants are pretty volatile stuff. Modern EVA suits use compressed Nitrogen and apparently that suit only has 25 m/s dV. Now EVA fuel in KSP comes from hammerspace currently and a kerbal in a command seat is still 0.09 t with a full or empty EVA pack. But is this sort of EVA suit a real possibility? (I found an old thread on this regarding the mass of kerbals, but the advice against necro-posting applies.)

I'm trying to work my way up the tech tree towards space planes, because my designs tend to require a fuel stop in Kerbin orbit. But until I get there, I have to make do with wasteful trips to my station at 250km. I've considered building an ore refinery on Minmus, but it sounds like a lot of work. I have a design that delivers about 1,700 units of Liquid Fuel (and matching Oxidiser) at a price of 47.9 per unit. I tried experimenting with recoverable rockets, e.g. by adding 12 parachutes to my design, but the recovery cost didn't make any sense when return costs were factored in (500 liquid fuel left in for deceleration, plus apoapsis/mass losses on the way up due to the parachutes). I was getting about 10,000 - 15,000 recovery. I challenge you to do better, my refuel ship is attached! (has an Engineer Redux) https://gist.github.com/fommil/272ef721db825ee8e1d4a458c219922d This translates into 75.85 / unit at 100km orbit of the Mun (I can send 6480, with 4092 arriving).

Let's keep it simple: Arrive at Minmus SOI from Kerbin. Hyperbolic orbit with perigee at 150km, generally equatorial. Desired orbit is 15km x 15km, equatorial. I can play this two ways: 1) Immediately burn retro, dropping Pe to 15km. Then burn retro at Pe to lower Ap to 15km. 2) immediately burn nadir to tighten Pe down to 15km. Then burn retro at Pe to lower Ap to 15km. What at is the difference? What is the trade off between the two methods? Would (1) actually effect entry speed in a meaningful way, if it were Duna and not Minmus? Would (2) provide more of a boost if I was only using the encounter for a slingshot? These are my suspicions, but I find it hard to quantify any F5/F9 results. When should I be employing which method?

Boat Momentum Part and/or Fuel Efficiency Challenge There have been challenges to build the fastest boat, and there have been heavy lift rocket challenges. Welcome to the boat momentum efficiency challenges. Whether you are considering fuel efficiency or part efficiency (fewest number of parts), efficiency is a tough nut to crack. Arguably, building a very heavy AND fast AND efficient boat is harder than building a very light and fast boat, so let the kerbalizing begin! Power Fuel Efficiency Scores: (foamyesque) Hydrofoil 2: 204,002.24 (Ezriilc) Orca 6: 153,021.41 (Ezriilc) Orca 5.3: 99,048.34 (Ezriilc) Sea Train-depleted fuel: 88,772.11 (seanth) Franklin My Dear, I Don't Give A Damn: 71,078.48 (seanth) Crick in My Neck-full throttle: 67,473.30 (Ezriilc) Sea Train: 63,052.18 (seanth) Crick in My Neck: 55,997.77 (foamyesque) We don't need no stinkin' hydrofoils: 55,967.62 (Ezriilc) Orca 3.4: 54,098.84 (The_Rocketeer) Soviet R: 46,966.95 (SpannerMonkey(smce): Challenge Cat: 26,400 (estimate) (seanth) Watson Your Mind: 22,542.14 (foamyesque) Unnamed: 18,543.40 (Heffy) Make KSP Great Again-minimal fuel: 5,379.70 (Heffy) Make KSP Great Again: 2,650.18 Momentum Part Efficiency Scores: (foamyesque) We don't need no stinkin' hydrofoils: 1,651.12 (Ezriilc) Orca 5.3: 1,268.37 (Ezriilc) Orca 6: 782.32 (Ezriilc) Sea Train: 337.82 (foamyesque) Hydrofoil 2: 305.05 (Ezriilc) Orca 3.4: 297.89 (seanth) Franklin My Dear, I Don't Give A Damn: 241.36 (Ezriilc) Sea Train-depleted fuel: 224.25 (foamyesque) Unnamed: 155.73 (The_Rocketeer) Soviet R: 149.9 (seanth) Crick in My Neck-full throttle: 138.94 (seanth) Crick in my Neck: 118.08 (SpannerMonkey(smce)) Challenge Cat: 56.36 (Heffy) Make KSP Great Again: 25.07 (seanth) Watson Your Mind: 19.11 (Heffy) Make KSP Great Again-minimal fuel: 10.05 Just for funzies--Momentum per L/s scores ([mass*velocity]/fuel usage per second): (foamyesque) Unnamed: 30,411.51 (Ezriilc) Orca 6: 13,495.18 (seanth) Franklin My Dear, I Don't Give A Damn: 9,654.28 (Ezriilc): Orca 5.3: 7,756.71 (The_Rocketeer) Soviet R: 7,746.6 (seanth) Crick in my Neck: 7,039.45 (Heffy) Make KSP Great Again: 7,391.23 (foamyesque) Hydrofoil 2: 6,512.25 (foamyesque) We don't need no stinkin' hydrofoils: 6,432.94 (seanth) Crick in My Neck-full throttle: 6,066.44 (Ezriilc) Orca 3.4: 5,906.37 (Ezriilc) Sea Train: 5,570.42 (Ezriilc) Sea Train-depleted fuel: 3,916.43 (Heffy) Make KSP Great Again-minimal fuel: 2,964.17 (SpannerMonkey(smce)) Challenge Cat: 2,479.07 (seanth) Watson Your Mind: 1,777.44 Momentum Part Efficiency Scoring: Total mass of your craft, multiplied by its velocity, divided by its part number (mass of your ship*speed of your ship)/total number of parts or (tonne*m s-1)/part number = Part Efficiency Score. Momentum Power Efficiency Scoring: (Thrust of your ship * speed of your ship)/units of fuel per second or (kN*m s-1)/units of fuel per second = Power Efficiency Score. Momentum Fuel Efficiency Scoring (for funzies): (mass of your ship * speed of your ship)/units of fuel per second or (tonne*m s-1)/units of fuel per second = Momentum/Fuel Efficiency Score. General Rules: The craft must be carrying at least one Kerbal. Hydrofoils are allowed BUT craft must not completely leave the water. That's called a plane. MechJeb is allowed since it might make it easier for people to show values in the screen shot (see submission guidelines). The intent is to build something using stock parts that works in KSP's normal physics. This means no mods that add parts, alter how stock parts work, or something that alters the aero- or hydro- dynamics (or other physical characteristics) of KSP. Something like MechJeb, even though it adds a part, is allowed since the part in question is essentially massless and can't effectively be used for structure, lift, or buoyancy. When reporting your fuel per second values, remember to add all the fuel being used together. If you are using rocket engines AND ion engines, you would add the liquid fuel, oxidizer, and xenon gas rates together to get one L/s value. MechJeb is highly encouraged since it allows you to show part number, mass, etc on the same screen as your craft while it is underway. Use of the debug toolbar for cheating is strictly not allowed. Of course, use of the debug menu to visualize aerodynamics when you are testing is allowed AND ENCOURAGED. Submissions should be made in the latest version of KSP. Submitters are encouraged to share their craft with others so we can improve on designs. Submission Guidelines: Please include images or video of: The boat moving through liquid at that speed. The craft's mass while moving has to be shown. It's not enough to show the mass of the craft in a build area, since fuel might be consumed getting to the water or getting up to speed. For the part efficiency challenge, the ship mass, velocity, and parts present must be shown in the image For the fuel efficiency challenge, the ship thrust, velocity, and fuel used per second must be shown in the image See the following post for examples Craft sites: http://www.kerbaltek.com/craftkitchen

I was reading about the propulsive efficiency of jet engines earlier, when I thought about the Oberth Effect. A jet (or any type of reaction engine) is most efficient when operating at the velocity equal to that of its exhaust; this is because if the exhaust is traveling at zero velocity in the vehicle's frame of reference, then the vehicle gains all the kinetic energy from the propellant and the exhaust is left with no kinetic energy. If a rocket were to be traveling faster than its exhaust velocity, however, then the exhaust would still have some of the kinetic energy that the rocket's propellant originally had, which would result in lower propulsive efficiency. Why then does the Oberth Effect still increase the available kinetic energy when rocket velocity exceeds exhaust velocity?

Hi. I'm looking to create a special ModuleResourceConverter. Its efficiency increases with either: -The number of empty seats available in the part. or -The total number of Kerbals in the part. How can this be achieved? I'm testing this: UseSpecialistBonus = true SpecialistEfficiencyFactor = #$/CrewCapacity$ SpecialistBonusBase = 0.05 Specialty = Scientist EfficiencyBonus = 1

A thread for discussing the topic of making your stock warships efficient. I've wondered what some of the other stock warship builders have been getting for delta-v on there larger ships. My craft seem to hover around 2500 to 3000 m/s. What is a good way to give armored craft more delta-v? Edit: Lot of great and interesting discussion going on in this thread. (witch I see I have missed out on do to being in the field lol) To be clear though the main topic of this thread is practical in game construction of armored warships.

I am currently developing a VTOL engine mod, and they drain LFO like crazy. Is there a way to make them more efficient so that I can keep the craft's design without making the VTOL bit impractical? Thanks!

The Hypermile Challenge Your challenge is this: Construct a craft, fly it around Kerbin once, and land at or near KSC, using as little fuel as possible. Rules: --Stock parts only --Must be Kerballed in a cockpit or pod. If there's enough demand, we can create a separate category for Command Seats --Air-breathing engines only, liquid fuel only --Informational mods (e.g. KER) and autopilots (e.g. MechJeb, Pilot Assistant) are fine. --FAR will be judged separately --All fuel tanks must be full on takeoff, OR you must provide a screenshot at takeoff showing how much fuel you started with, so we know how much was used --Your craft needs to return to KSC in one piece (no staging off bits). I'll give you some leeway if you lose a few parts on a hard landing. This challenge is more about craft design and piloting at altitude than it is about your ability to stick a landing. --Exploity stuff isn't allowed, with the exception of nose cones or small parachutes on the back of engines. Alt-F12 stuff is ok, as long as it's only informational --You don't have to land on the KSC runway. Just be reasonably nearby. If you're going east, as long as you get past the mountains that lie to the west of KSC, that's probably close enough. --For credit, please provide screenshots: 1) at launch, with the Resources Panel open, showing your starting fuel. This shot is optional if you start with full fuel tanks 2) somewhere on the opposite side of the planet, halfway through the flight 3) after landing, showing your ending fuel Leaderboards: (feel free to enter as many of these as you like. Each submission can count towards multiple challenges. If you'd like another category, feel free to suggest it) 1) Scrooge McKerbal: Least fuel used. Your score is (fuel at launch - fuel at landing). If you have a rough landing, you only get credit for fuel still attached to your cockpit/pod. 2) The Engineer: Prove you don't have to sacrifice speed for efficiency. Multiply the total time by the fuel used, and divide by 100,000. Lowest score wins. For example, if you use 2,000 units of fuel and it takes you 2 hours from launch to landing, your score would be (2,000 * 7,200/100,000) = 144 3) Sardine Can: Least fuel used per passenger, a la the Regional Jet challenge from a couple months back. Scrooge McKerbal The Engineer Sardine Can 1) ihtoit - 2200 1) ihtoit - 99.462 1) ihtoit - 2200

As the title says: we have listed values for vacuum and ASL thrust, but how is the Isp/thrust interpolated from there (or extrapolated for higher atmospheric pressures)?