GoSlash27

My first lucid dream. I was totally aware that I was dreaming, but it never occurred to me that I had the ability to change it. I was trapped in a mine with my family. Part of a resistance movement and totally surrounded by a cordon of enemy troops. I had to guide/ forage for and protect my family while fighting enemy scouts in the tunnels. This dream went on and on and on... The thing about lucid dreams... Time passes at a normal rate and you remember all the details as vividly as if they really happened. Well... this dream went on for days, and I just kept thinking "what a stupid dream. I'm going to be too tired to work when I wake up". I still have lucid dreams, but most aren't. When I do have them, it's about a 50/50 chance that I will remember that I can control them... but I almost always forget that at some point during the dream. Best, -Slashy

Some pencil- pusher either doesn't know the difference between a KH-11 spysat and a GoPro or knows but doesn't care because "regulations". I really hope this tweet is correct and it won't be a problem going forward. Best, -Slashy

Lo Var Lachland, I haven't tried it, but there is a section in the kerbalEVA.cfg defining the parachute module and lifting surface. You could try taking them out and seeing what happens, but be sure to keep a copy of the originals stashed so you can revert if necessary. Best, -Slashy

@monstah, Take care and God bless. It's been fun trying to figure out this "rocket science" stuff with you -Slashy

MPDerksen, Your dry mass is your wet mass minus your fuel mass. 6.74/(6.74-4) It should work out to 3,046 m/sec DV. 9.81m/sec2 is standard kerbin surface gravity. In this case, it's used to convert between specific impulse and exhaust velocity. Best, -Slashy

Okay, 0.5327 tonnes of propellant. Ship mass 9.96 tonnes. Wet mass is 9.96 tonnes Dry mass is 9.96- 0.5327 = 9.4273 tonnes Wet/dry ratio is 9.96/9.4273=1.0565 Take the natural log = 0.05497 Multiply by 9.81= .539 Multiply by the Isp 320s*.539= 173 m/s DV remaining. I did that leg down to 8km orbit and had 325 m/sec left. Not that big a difference, probably accounted for by the launch from Kerbin. From my mission Surface: 2,119 m/sec DV remaining Orbit: 1,470 m/sec Kerbin interface: 1,131 m/sec Best, -Slashy

Sorry, I'm winding down for the night. I'll check back in the morning to help you with the math. Find your ship with the tab button and let me know the mass. I'll assume the Isp is 320 s ; vacuum Isp for a Swivel. We're gettin' there... Best, -Slashy

Yeah, you're looking at the wrong place. Your focus needs to be on your ship. Keep hitting the 'tab' button until the focus is on "MPDGus"

Okay, so I'm assuming that both of those FL- T800 tanks have the same quantities of fuel and oxidizer. 23.97 units of fuel ( x2) plus 29.30 units of oxidizer ( x2). Adding them all together yields 106.54 units of propellant. dividing this by 200 yields 0.5327 tonnes of propellant. What's your current ship mass? Check in the map view, under the "i" tab.

MPDerksen, This is correct. I need to know: 1) exactly how many units of fuel and oxidizer are available to the current stage, 2) the ship's current total mass, and 3) the Isp of the engine (s) currently in use. I can calculate the DV of the current stage from those data points. Best, -Slashy

http://wikisend.com/download/212054/MPDMunGus.craft A slightly- tweaked version of your design. I was able to do a mission with it with plenty of excess DV. I made 8km LMO with 325 m/sec DV to spare in the core asparagus stage. The lander did the mission and achieved Kerbin interface with a (scandalous) 1,131 m/sec DV remaining in the tanks. And that was with a really bad mission. I actually tumbled the lander and broke half the solar panels (too busy taking pics). This required a re-hop and lots of burning to generate electrical charge and directional control. If you can figure out which part of the mission seems to be taking too much DV, let me know and I can give you some tips on technique. Best, -Slashy

MPDerksen, No worries. Just go to http://wikisend.com/ You'd follow this path: KSP_Win64>Saves> (career name) > Ships > VAB and find the .craft file. Post the download link here and I'll give it a try. Best, -Slashy

MPDirksen, Just guesstimating by appearance, you should have about 5,400 m/sec DV in the lifter (vacuum), which should get you comfortably into LMO with fuel left over. Likewise, your lander should have about 3,200 m/sec DV ; about 3 times what would be required for a "perfect" landing/ takeoff cycle. Again, these are just guesstimates. If you can post a craft file, I'd like to play with a copy and see what performance I get with it. What techniques are you using for launch to LKO and munar descent to landing? Best, -Slashy

For almost all cases, the discrepancy between g0 and literal sea level gravity amounts to an error of 3 hundredths of 1 percent; inconsequential. The only case where that's significant is calculating orbital period vs. radius, and that uses 9.81 m/sec. I just use 9.81 m/sec for all calculations and don't worry about the tiny error. Best, -Slashy

Lego, You have already defined the 2 problems. #1 running out of fuel and #2 insufficient thrust to weight. Problem #1 is solved by understanding maneuvers and spacecraft in terms of "delta- vee"; the change in velocity. Problem #2 is solved by understanding exactly how much thrust is required for each phase, and providing it. The two problems seem diametrically opposed, but they are soluble. There is math ahead, which aerospace engineering involves. Buckle up, ask lots of questions, and prepare for some brain- fry. There are some scary- competent rocket scientists on this forum. Task #1: My first bit of advice: Forget about SSTOs to the Mun. They can be done, but they are almost entirely what's described in this video as "dumb mass". Wings, airframe, landing gear, intakes, empty fuel tanks, air- breathing engines... all things that are useless for a trip to the Mun. Getting to the Mun (or anywhere else for that matter) is all about weight. Embrace the concept of travelling light. Welcome aboard! -Slashy

FleshJeb, Batteries aren't dragless, but they do exhibit their drag in the CoM of the parent part. Having them out in the slipstream will slow you down, but it won't pull you off- course. I'd normally agree with you on the service bay, except in this case he doesn't need it. The shroud will protect the experiments during ascent and the experiments aren't coming home. All the bay is doing is adding mass and raising the CoG in this case. Good catch. Yeah... I'd clean up the payload, add the Swivels, and ditch them completely. The drag of the asparagus boosters is enough to keep him on course. Best, -Slashy

I just checked on my Caveman career install. The 1.25 shroud *is* still in Advanced construction and you have already unlocked it. If you add 1 going up from the stack to the bottom of the lander tank and 1 going down from the capsule to the top of the lander's fuel tank, it should be much more clean and stable. If you do that, you can also get rid of the cargo bay, saving some weight and lowering the CoG for a more stable lander. Finally, I'd recommend reducing the number of fins to 4 and placing them orthogonally opposed (one pair n/s the other pair e/w) so your control response won't be wonky. Or better yet, do as @FleshJeb did; replace the core and late asparagus motors with Swivels. You won't need fins then. *EDIT* Oh... while I'm thinking about it: I hope this comes across well using ascii art... Instead of feeding your asparagus like this o -> o -> o -> o <- o <- o <- o Try it like this: 8 > o -> o <- o < 8 Take the first 2 pairs and reroute them so they feed the last booster pair in parallel, then drop all 4 at once. That way you won't have that underpowered phase in the sequence and early burnout of the first stage. Best, -Slashy

I thought the 1.25m shroud unlocked pretty early. The wiki says it's in Advanced Construction, which you have unlocked. The wiki may be out of date... My first career mun lander had the same payload as yours, but needed a tonne less fuel and corresponding tank mass. Probably landing technique made it easier for me. The lighter lander and improved aero of the shroud allowed for a much cheaper lifter (about $26k at launch) I use a technique called the "reverse gravity turn" for my landings. I wrote a tutorial on it, but Photobucket borked it last year. There's a video demonstrating it's use, but it wasn't executed quite right. The Pe isn't supposed to be lowered and the burn is done continuously rather than in spurts. It can't quite match the efficiency of a perfect zero descent rate landing, but it's much easier to do well and is pinpoint accurate. Best, -Slashy

I concur with FleshJeb about the streamlining. I would add that that's an awful lot of rocket for just a Mun trip. I understand "better safe than sorry" and you're probably better off doing it that way for now... Best, -Slashy

A kerbonaut after my own heart

g0 in the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is always 9.81 m/sec^2, no matter where you are. And to clarify something else, you would not use this equation to determine the DV required for a maneuver (such as a return from the Mun to Kerbin). It is only used to determine the DV your rocket is capable of generating. Those calculations use the vis-viva equation and hyperbolic excess velocity. Best, -Slashy

I guess this is a better way of phrasing the question. With all the crazy angles these trolley poles operate at, I was wondering if there was some special design for the shoe/ wire that's not used on tracked trolleys to help them stay connected. Best, -Slashy

*Golf clap*... -Slashy

This episode still makes me giddy like a schoolgirl...

"Seven Wonders"... good pull!