Brainlord Mesomorph

1. once made a time-bomb by mounting spratrons on a fuel tank with the fire pointed at the fuel tank. 2. build in really weak points and shake it apart w/ RCS

Seaplanes, and an Eve Aircraft Carrier (for Science!)

Leave Uranus out of this.

if you say so. (where does it say that?) I've been spending the last several days dealing with heat from the nukes slowly seeping everywhere and then blowing up RCS tanks halfway accoss the ship, So it seems logical to me that a payload bay only can provide so much heat protection to the payload.

max temp for the bay is 2900 degrees max temp for average science experiment is 1200. so even if the bay only transfers half its heat to the payload, the experiments are red-lining way before the bay does. The heat of an oven doesn't harm t he oven, but can burn the food. Also the experiments have no place to transfer heat to, so it builds up. the bay is bleeding off heat to both ends and to the payload.

I have to disagree, bug wise, hot things transfer heat to things that are attached to them IRL thermodynamics. if the bay's skin is hot enough, logically things inside would hot too, not as hot as quick. not from friction, because they are bolted to a hot metal bulkhead, EDIT: when you use the nukes, they get hot, and transfer heat to the fuel tanks above them, which then transfer heat to whatever is attached to them (usually radiators).

I didn't mean in orbit. Fixed. I don't think anything in KSP (or reality) is a perfect sphere. (edit: Jool doesn't count, we're taking about landing) And I don't think everyone here is using the same definition of "suicide burn." A horizontal burn with lots of TWR isn't suicide. A Pe well underground and not enough TWR to change that and hoping you get the timing right to avoid crashing... that's my definition of "suicide burn."

I thought of another way of saying this may help anyone who still not getting it. They measure gravity in meters per second per second (m/s/s). So for every second you’re off the ground (EDIT: AND NOT IN ORBIT) you're adding that many m/s to the total amount of work you’re doing to land. Hovering is a complete waste of fuel. (Agreed?) So, coming in at half of free fall is half of that complete waste of fuel. Even taking 25% off of free fall, is 25% of a complete waste of fuel. So you need to free fall absolutely as much as possible, and run your engines absolutely as little as possible. How much fuel can this save? Well, so far, two different vehicles that I have that I thought had enough fuel to land, but not make orbit again (without refueling), turns out they have enough fuel to land and take off, as long as I don’t waste it on landing. Sci fi movies are missing a bet, by not accurately depicting a minimum delta V landing. That is, a very dramatic suicide burn! So, I sure learned something in this thread. Thanks everyone

THAT's what I originally described. One long burn to the ground and "manage the remaining vertical velocity" Snark says what I need to do is one short burn right before impact. I'm saying PLOTTING A NODE for that burn tells you what your speed WILL be, Tell you how long a burn it is and gives you countdown for it. Taking all the guesswork out of it. I just tried it, it worked, took less fuel, and was very exciting, (flying horizontally (toward a mountain) at 550 m/s about 1 km up, with "Well, it says I'll stop in 70 seconds..." aaaaand go! EDIT: Just did it again, (definitely more fun!) only problem so far is that I'm have trouble landing on target because of planetary rotation between plotting the node and getting there.

Ok, I think I'm following this. (god, I am learning sooo much physics playing this game.) Then would this be a method: (start in very low orbit) 1 Do a deorbit burn that gives me an impact site about 500 m past my landing target. 2 Plot a burn over the landing site to stop. 3 Look at the burn time, add a 25% safety margin 4 that many seconds before the mode, throttle up 5 change shorts. ??

Still not understanding the why. Granted, hovering is a waste of fuel. And coming in very slowly is a similar waste to fuel. But if a 15 second burn at full throttle will stop my ship. Wouldn’t a 30 burn at half throttle, or a one minute burn to at ¼ throttle be exactly the same? Except perhaps without the changing my shorts part? My goal is always zero velocity just at zero altitude. How is doing it at panic more efficient? EDIT:Wait, scratch that, the longer I’m in the air the longer gravity is working against me? Gravity is building up by the second, so it’s like Judo, I just go with it.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. AFTER I've placed my PE as low as possible over the landing site. And I AM burning retrograde, and I do start at full throttle. But I quickly have to back off the throttle or I'll end up hovering (or rising) and that MUST be inefficient. Are you saying I should build a ship with a lower TWR and run all the way down at full throttle? Why would that be better? or are you saying I should free-fall more and do shorter burns? and again, Why would that be better? I'm trying to understand why.

That's fascinating. But why do I need to know length C? or A for that matter. All it looks like I need is B. - wait do I even need to know that? All I really need to do is: 1 Plot that test mode. 2 Know how long the burn is. 3 and start the burn that many seconds before the node. I don't need to know distances at all just speeds and times. or am I missing the point? (which I usually am)

thanks for the correction. I've haven't built any small planes in 1.0, just giant ones. I did notice they seemed to burn alot of fuel, but I thought it was because of their size.

It happened at my 500th post.\ Jr. Rocket Scientist make me think of Robert Goddard's nephew. Sr. Spacecraft Engineer makes me think of Geordi Laforge.

My method for landing has always been “burn it to the ground,†what you guys are calling it a suicide burn. But I don’t consider it suicidal, my ships have plenty of TWR. So I just lock to retrograde, and make minor throttle adjustments while the way down. This means that for the most of the decent and I’m running at half throttle or less. And the very end almost none. My question is, is that maximally efficient? Doing it at half throttle like that? or would shorter full throttle burns be better? EDIT:As for landing on target, I just try to keep my target point halfway between my ships current location at my projected impact point. As I continue my retro grade burn, the impact point moves closer to me, and I’m moving closer to it, and, theoretically, everyone meets in the middle.

C'mon. After 2 failed rescue attempts. I just couldn't risk more lives!! Bill knew the risks.

Welcome! and You've discovered the limits of the physics simulation bubble. Things that get too far from your ship, that aren't in stable orbits or landed, just disappear! The game assumes they burned up , or blew up, but they are gone. The limit used to be 5 km, I think now its 20. I went nuts noticing rocket stages disappearing. EDIT assuming you circle and WATCH them spashdown (land) they should remain permanent

I didn't forget him. But after two failed rescue missions, I did leave Bill on Moho forever.

Yesterday I was a Sr. Spacecraft Engineer today I'm a Jr. Rocket Scientist, was that a promotion??

Those maps are minimum numbers for efficient burns. I blame my own sloppy piloting for burning way more fuel than that.

My Saturn SSTO 30 ton lifter and Saturn SSTO Triplet, 100 ton lifter are about to go into the Craft exchange. so, yes. - - - Updated - - - Edit they're not jet assisted. but I am working on a Turbojet/Nuclear VTOL spaceplane. For Laythe.

I often stock a small spaceplane with ALL LFO. Sure you're carrying extra oxidizer, but you burn so little jet fuel before you need LFO, its not worth LF only tanks. (that's how I won the k-prize -- WOW one year ago today!)

Jean Michel Jarre the early stuff!

The Nazis used rocket assisted take off.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QtwIwAGoVChMIudW724z3yAIVAzwmCh2KaAOY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbHCkWlG4pio&usg=AFQjCNEfnUvPSOiMbn8ZcpHbn54NPd_Ftg If its good enough for them, its good enough for me. (LOL)