GoSlash27

davidpsummers, That sort of thing is normally done with time. If you know what time you pass over KSC and your period, then you can work out your longitude simply by the time of day. But in your case, you'd have to know what zero is for the argument of right ascension. I don't know where that is for the sun. I'd guess it's on Kerbin's radial at the start of the year. If that's the case, then you'd know by the calendar, same way we spitball transfer windows. As for burn angles, your nav ball is useless for a reference in the solar ecliptic until you're out of Kerbin's SoI, so I've got nuthin' for you there. Best, -Slashy

nhnifong, If it helps, I think you can clean up the design a fair amount and still make your payload requirement. This would reduce your operating cost and also risk. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118728-Slashy-s-1-02-Spaceplane-recipe?p=1922759&viewfull=1#post1922759 This one does 25 tonnes, and as you can see it requires only 6 engines and 6 intakes. I'm sure you could scale that for your needs. 8 engines, 8 intakes, 8 wings, and 33% more rocket fuel will get you 33 tonnes of payload. Best, -Slashy

I'm wandering off in the weeds and away from your original question. For each successful landing, your operational cost is $5,700. For each failure, your operational cost is $223,234. For it's operational cost to match $27,395... x(223,234)+5,700=27,395 x(223,234)= 21,695 x= .0972 If you make 90.3% of your landings (or at least not crash), you will break even. Yeah, about 1 in 10. Best, -Slashy

NVM, ninja'd Okay then, you're batting .600. Were the 2 failures crashes, or successful landings off- base?

nhnifong, That really depends on the pilot. How good are you at getting a spaceplane back on the runway? If you can do it every time, then there's no risk. Also, are you sure that spaceplane can survive the trip? Best, -Slashy

Edax, You can replace the wet wings & strakes with an additional Mk.1 fuel tank in the jet stacks and dry wings. *edit* Something like this: Best, -Slashy

All, Starting career mode doesn't have to be grindy even with the vanilla settings. Observe how Jouni completes the Caveman Challenge (unlock all tier 4 parts without any facility upgrades) in just 10 flights. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/127795-KSP-Caveman-Challenge!?p=2087722&viewfull=1#post2087722 When he was finished he had all sorts of tech and over a million credits. Best, -Slashy

Jouni, Very well done! Excellent step-by-step documentation, too! This is going to prove very helpful to people who are struggling to get on their feet in the early going. You are hereby inducted into the clan with full honors and privileges! Best, -Slashy

StevieC, Afraid not. Whatever you launch will show the landing gear deployed in the annunciator. If you hit G, it'll read correct. Best, -Slashy

Edax, All that for just 2 crew? This one does 14: Best, -Slashy

They are mistaken, as I have done it myself. And if you're going to use a chemical rocket, I recommend the LV-909 or Poodle. You don't need high thrust in closed cycle mode, you need high efficiency. Best, -Slashy

The number I had always heard thrown around was 15 minutes. A sub can deliver a nuke anywhere on the planet in 15 minutes from launch. I don't know if it's correct, it's just what I've always been told. Best, -Slashy

SSTOs were definitely do-able in 1.02, and they're a shade easier in 1.04, but things have changed since .90 and the old rules no longer apply. Check this out: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118728-Slashy-s-1-02-Spaceplane-recipe Best, -Slashy

Nightingale, Congratulations on completing the Caveman Challenge! Welcome to the clan! Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Terwin, Sorry, but I've got to disallow that. The fact that it would help is exactly the reason why it mustn't be used for this. Apologies, -Slashy

It would definitely be impressive, but you don't have to go interplanetary to gather enough science to complete the tree. Best, -Slashy Nightingale, Congratulations and kudos! I will get you inducted this afternoon. Best, -Slashy

Surprisingly, this doesn't work out quite like that in practice. The reduction in DV from higher t/w will be offset by the additional engine mass (and fuel to move that mass, etc) needed to get the t/w and you end up with worse mass efficiency and higher fuel consumption even though you've expended less DV. Also, the finesse required to get the most out of the t/w becomes increasingly difficult to attain as t/w increases, and the reduction in DV gets lost in the noise floor of human error. Long/ short, there is an optimal t/w ratio for each engine type and each airless body. It's generally in the 1.4- 2.2 range. I did a lot of work in this area about a year ago and my findings were validated with another independent study. I'll see if I can find links. *edit* Here's my results. I will have to redo them, as these apply to the .90 version. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/105422-Ideal-T-W-ratios-for-airless-body-launch-(KSP-90) Here's Tavert's independent findings: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/39812-Landing-and-Takeoff-Delta-V-vs-TWR-and-specific-impulse?p=747317&viewfull=1#post747317 Best, -Slashy

That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the question. If you knew what everyone would enjoy more, then why isn't everyone as upset about this as you are? Best, -Slashy

Well... you simply can't continue the Caveman Challenge beyond the original without upgrading the R&D. If you do that, then you have resource transfer. If you have that, then you have vehicles that weigh 18t empty, so by extension 100t fueled. If you have that... you have the whole tech tree (excepting the last tier). And if you upgrade to have access, then you have that too. It wouldn't be technically difficult or require any additional skill over what was already demonstrated in the original caveman, it'd just be grindy. Best, -Slashy

Agreed; ablative heat shields make a *huge* difference. You can get a lot more aggressive when you have them. My point is that you can't come in too fast and steep or you'll blow it up, but if you're careful then even stuff you'd think can't survive will. Likewise, if you're too aggressive, then stuff that "should" survive won't. *edit* Put another way... Coming in completely unprotected from Minmus is dodging a wrench. Best, -Slashy

Clearly, if you knew what would make us "all happy", then you wouldn't be scratching your head over why the rest of us aren't all up in arms about this like you are. Have you ever considered the idea that you're mistaken about what the rest of us actually want? Best, -Slashy

They are contracts, but not contracts you have to *accept*, which is what I was saying. During my "caveman" career, they allowed me to unlock everything that can be unlocked without a R&D upgrade and I was able to not only fly by Mun and Minmus, but actually land, collect lots of science, and return it to Kerbin. Early career is almost all about science, not cash. And once cash becomes an issue, satellite and rescue contracts pay the bills nicely. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Chibbity, There's no reason for the early career to be "grindy", even with a vanilla career. You should be able to collect enough science in the first 2 "flights" to unlock the parts needed for orbit. After your first orbit, you've got lots of cash. Your next flights can harvest science from KSC's building "biomes", which unlocks the ability to go to the Mun and Minmus (and complete the really lucrative contracts). Once you have the ability to do that, it's just a matter of time until you've unlocked everything. Best, -Slashy

merendel, I was thinking about the same, but my first priority after R&D would be the astronaut complex. Soil samples and EVA reports are worth a lot of science. Since the Kerbin system itself contains all the science necessary to unlock everything, patched conics are really just a luxury IMO. The mass limit would be a headache for manned exploration of the Mun and Minmus. My next priority would be to eliminate that with a pad upgrade, but I could still get it done within the 18t weight limit if I just had to (would get grindy). After that, it's pretty much gravy. I'd pick the tracking station for patched conics and target tracking just because it'd make everything so much easier. Best, -Slashy

I have brought vessels back from Minmus with exposed science jrs and goo pods *without* heat shields, storage bays, or radiators and had them reenter safely. The trick is to be very conservative with the aerobraking by setting a high periapsis. I ran as many as 10 aerobraking passes to work off the excess speed before making the final reentry at 45km. tl;dr: If you come in too fast and steep it's gonna blow up no matter what you do. Best, -Slashy

I remember being embroiled in a massive flamewar over this one. Thankfully, it eventually gave way to some excellent science and we were able to prove definitively that a vertical ascent to escape velocity is never as efficient as a prograde burn, although in some cases the difference can be quite marginal. arkie87 created a very powerful mathematical model of the prograde burn to orbit that we were later able to use to establish mass-optimal thrust to weight ratios for ascent stages using all engines on all of the airless bodies. Best, -Slashy

Actually, that's not quite the way it works IRL and also not necessary in KSP. IRL the rudder is there strictly for turn coordination and intentional crabbing for crosswind landings. For a coordinated descending turn, you would simply roll to the desired bank, use pitch for the sink rate, and just a hair of rudder to keep the nose pointed with the velocity vector. The plane will change direction on it's own. Trying to use the rudder to control the climb rate will induce crabbing/ slipping, which makes for a sloppy turn, excessive drag, and weird roll response. Unless you're doing aerobatic maneuvers, active rudders really aren't necessary in KSP (especially the ridiculously overpowered ones available). Best, -Slashy