GoSlash27

sheirtzler18, No shame needed. It takes a big person to admit their errors and correct them, so have some rep! Best, -Slashy

^This, but mainly this: I did not wake up this morning thinking "you know... those people who use (insert mod here) aren't really part of the KSP community and I think I'll imply that obliquely in a thread unrelated to that subject without being clear about it". IME people who use the phrase "are you saying" are generally just looking for a reason to intentionally misinterpret someone else's statement for their own purposes. The answer to that question is almost always "If I had meant to say that, I woulda said that". Best, -Slashy

The monoprop tanks have horrible mass efficiency and the O-10 has average-to-poor Isp. This means that the right chemical rocket will almost always yield a lighter overall stage. The exception is where the thrust and DV requirement is super low. In this case, you can't find a chemical rocket and tank combo small enough to do the job efficiently. An example from .90: Chemical Tylo descent stage vs. monoprop. Best, -Slashy *edit* remember that missions are not planned around which engine can give you the most DV, but rather which engine gives you the needed DV in the smallest and cheapest total package.

I have always liked SSTOs, but this analysis is pretty spot-on. Rockets are cheaper for initial outlay, but SSTOs are cheaper to operate long term *provided* they are actually safe, reliable, and designed to do an SSTO's job. A good SSTO is also much more difficult to design and operate than a disposable rocket. They are indeed very limited, but the best thing going within their limitations. Best, -Slashy

A-Name, The short version: Where required acceleration is under .5G and DV requirement is over 2kM/ sec and payload is at least 7 tonnes This is the range where an LV-N will yield a lighter stage than an LV-909. It will still be more expensive and troublesome, though. In any case with a substantial payload where you need more than about 4km/ sec DV, the LV-N will be your best bet because it's really the only option you've got. 4kM/sec represents a *huge* DV requirement. Best, -Slashy

Falkenherz, Again, it would depend on how far it's going and whether the added cost/ headaches associated with the LV-N outweigh the benefit. I can accomplish an awful lot with the plain old LV-909, so I tend to not resort to the LV-N unless I really don't have a choice. Still and all.. the LV-N has more opportunities to be useful than the aerospike. Best, -Slashy

Regex, Not in the sense that I'm talking about, no. Most people on the forum don't use realism overhaul, so your techniques, designs, and tribal knowledge don't really interchange outside your subset. I like to help and learn from the widest group possible. Best, -Slashy

I play completely stock so that my designs, approaches, and techniques are fully compatible with the rest of the KSP community. I also like the challenge of doing it all myself rather than relying on mods like MJ or KER and I think that this has made me a better engineer and pilot than I would have been otherwise. Oh... the original question was "how do I get by without them"... KER: I use spreadsheets that model all sorts of different forms of the rocket equation. Not only do I not need KER, I can do things that it can't, such as instantly tell which engine is best for a certain stage and exactly how much fuel/ tankage I need to feed it. MechJeb: I simply learned how to fly and how to execute all the different maneuvers necessary. Alarm Clock: I put up a little sat just ahead of Kerbin and barely outside it's SoI. I use it to generate maneuver nodes to tell me when my transfer windows will be open. Best, -Slashy

Not so much. I'm just not interested in making fun of people who aren't as good at something as I am. It shows poor character IMO. YMMV, -Slashy

Falkenherz, The aerospike doesn't match the LV-909 or Poodle for vacuum operation, but it's not very far behind and pretty strong in- atmosphere. It would be useful for an SSTO lifter or (especially) a boost stage on Eve. *edit* I missed the initial question. I would go for the NERV before the Aerospike. Just remember that you really shouldn't use the Nerv unless you're going farther than Duna with a decent sized payload. Even then, it probably works out cheaper to use an LV-909 or Poodle. Best, -Slashy

Foxster, SSTOs were never really intended to lift large assemblies or take you all the way to Jool. The latter, especially, is an inefficient use of resources. SSTOs are still the way to go for ferrying kerbals and supplies to stations in LKO. For large structures and assemblies, you don't save very much by building a big complex SSTO vs. a disposable lifter. Best, -Slashy

Right... but by his own admission he didn't play with airplanes. Airplanes/ spaceplanes are the most difficult thing to master in this game. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of pointing and laughing, and I think most would agree I know a thing or 3 about this. Best, -Slashy

Well... everybody has to start somewhere. *shrug* Best, -Slashy

Heat exchangers/ radiators. If we're going to deal with thermal issues, we should have a way to radiate it off. Best, -Slashy

I agree with this, which is why we would want Mk.3 sized engines also. They could also be proportionally heavy but maybe more efficient to encourage stepping up to Mk.3 designs. As it stands, the current air breathers are too small for Mk.3 designs. Best, -Slashy

As it stands, a properly designed SSTO doesn't require much in the way of engines. Most mass-efficient designs are running 15 tonnes of spaceplane for each RAPIER and I have designs that still work fine up to 18 tonnes per RAPIER. Reducing the thrust wouldn't kill SSTOs, especially if they're tweaked around Mach 1. It would make them a little more difficult, but not a whole lot since they're more limited by drag than by mass. It would mainly just make them less attractive for vertical lifters. Best, -Slashy

I think it needs less air breathing mode thrust, along with the turbojet and basic jet. These parts are attractive for use in vertical launch boosters and they really shouldn't be. Best, -Slashy

The rooftops are indeed a different biome. I found what I consider to be an easier solution: jet powered parasail. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Ranger2 Handling is very docile and it lands at very low (or even no) speed for pinpoint landings. Best, -Slashy

Heterogenous. Like air masses, sea water masses at different temperatures resist mixing and tend to stratify. This is why you have effects like thermoclines/ ocean currents, etc. Best, -Slashy

Interesting! So possibly the rooftops may be different biomes? That's a lot of science I've just got sitting around if so... Best, -Slashy

I use a simple basic jet to collect science from biomes all over Kerbin early-on. temperature, goo, science jr, crew reports, etc. The science builds up in a hurry. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Steve V, Isn't the rooftop the same biome as the grounds next to the building? I built a simple jet cart to drive to each building and collect science. Best, -Slashy

Sorta-related: The fuel flow "units" when you right-click on a running engine is tonnes/ sec. Best, -Slashy

^ This too. The problem with powering the LV-N with LH2 is that it's useful envelope winds up outside the boundaries of anything you'd ever need to do in KSP. Pushing large-ish payloads beyond Duna at low acceleration is a good job for the LV-N as it sits. Anything else isn't a good job for it and shouldn't be. Best, -Slashy

Agreed What do they call it when somebody accidentally uses a more apt word? There's a term for that... *edit* an "eggcorn"? Best, -Slashy

Agreed. User interfaces are pretty darn intuitive regardless of OS. I personally think it's an overrated distinction. Best, -Slashy