GoSlash27

As brdavis said above, most "earth-like" planets discovered so far are tidally locked. The concept of a habitable planet with one side facing it's star is not only feasible, but established as common. Whether an intelligent complex organism could evolve there or not... I don't know. The conventional wisdom says you need tidal marshes and a magnetic shield. Both would be hard to come by without rotation. Best, -Slashy

Sounds like you've got the efficiency problem licked (you're now on par with the rest of us... sorta), but I'm confused about the bolded part. If I can lift the same payload at $35 a tonne and assemble it in orbit, why is is not economically worth my time to do it? Especially since my lifter is much smaller and easier to recover? As an aside, I did use boosters and still came out cheaper than you did and at nearly twice the payload. Glad you got it sorted out and all, but running victory laps is poor form when nobody's competing with you. Scratchin' my head, -Slashy

^ This. Intakes generate more drag than stock parts and wings at very high velocities, and can cause a spaceplane to fly backwards at very high velocity/ low pressure. Active control surfaces can also have this effect if not balanced longitudinally, such as elevators with no canards to balance them. Since control surfaces can generate *negative* drag when deflected (infiniglide), they can easily overpower the balance and force the aircraft to want to fly backwards in reentry. Best, -Slashy

Aye. Something about a "password reset during server update". They're working on it. - - - Updated - - - Aye. Nav ball speed. I don't worry about the exact speed myself. So long as my G meter stays within my launch profile limits, I can be confident that my speed will also be in line. 2G is the limit for vertical acceleration, and it tapers off at a function of 2sin(pitch) as I pitch horizontal in the gravity turn. 1.8G at 80* pitch, 1.5G at 45* pitch, 1G at 30*. So long as you hit the marks and maintain your G limits, you can be confident that you're squeezing all the DV out of your design you can get. Once you're past 35km altitude, the terminal velocity is higher than orbital velocity and you don't need to worry about it (although I maintain 1G to simplify things). Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - A big +1 to all of this. Serial staging and tweaking the thrust limits of the stages gives a bigger payoff in efficiency than either technique alone. Tweaking it out is a big pain in the butt, but it pays for itself by allowing you to lift more payload to orbit with less rocket. Best, -Slashy

Space stations, tankers, and mass movers can always be made modular, launched empty, and assembled/ fueled in orbit. That's the point. May as well hold off on that. The next update will make fairings useful. Nah, by all means, carry on. You just asked whether $1000 per tonne was good, and have since gotten it down (or at least figured out how) to an efficient figure for rockets. So it looks like the original question has been answered. You're welcome, and we're always here if you have more questions! Best, -Slashy

Lynch, I appreciate the effort, but you have a lot to learn about how KSP aerodynamics works. Your calculator is based on a lot of false assumptions (too many to list here), and designs to a useless criteria. Nobody has a use for an airplane that generates just enough thrust and lift to maintain level flight at sea level and 100 m/sec. Check out this chunk of script that Numerobis kept from KSP .18: https://github.com/numerobis/KSP-scripts/blob/master/jets.py#L122 After the aerodynamics overhaul and part rebalancing we'll all be relearning this subject together. I look forward to your contributions in that effort. Best, -Slashy

Well... it's a traveling salesman problem. I don't know how we'd go about solving it. Your best bet might be to open it up as a challenge. Fly-by on the most planets with a single craft, something like that. Best, -Slashy

Funny, I was just pondering how to test that, and I was thinking way too hard. Also, sound travels in a vacuum in KSP. Best, -Slashy

DarthVader, It's not at all surprising that there wouldn't be a chart for it. 1) Mach is meaningless in KSP and 2) it's a constant in KSP because temperature is constant. What were you planning on using the chart for? Curious, -Slashy

Nevermind. Unless you happen to have an LV-N, there's no way you're making that landing. Nowhere near enough DV. My advice is to abort the landing and figure out how to get more fuel on board. You need an absolute minimum of 2,270 m/sec to land on Tylo. Best, -Slashy

Engine type?

I'm also not following the base assumptions here. Is this just showing an equillibrium point at takeoff where t=d and l=w? If so, what's the utility of it? Nobody launches planes just to have them limp along at 100 m/sec at sea level... Scratchin' mah head, -Slashy

Agreed. I've found that there's very little you can't do within a 15t per launch limit (and supplies can be much less than that). The one exception I've found is an Eve launch vehicle because it's staged and physics demands that it be big. Other than that... you can build pretty much anything you want in orbit without needing huge boosters. Best, -Slashy

I must be in the tiny minority. I've never had KSP crash. Probably because I run 100% stock. As for how many vehicles I've crashed, I have no idea. My missions usually go as expected, but I have crashed and I haven't kept count. Crashing is expected during my testing/ development. That's why I don't test manned Best, -Slashy

Yeah, I'll go along with that one. Aerodynamics overhaul, plus karbonite, plus procedural fairings, plus a 100% part rebalancing. That's an awful lot of major changes all at once to not have a beta cycle prior to release. Best, -Slashy

Oh yeah! That just fixed it for ya! 1) Remove the 4 booster stacks and reattach them as pairs. 2) Set their decouplers to detach in 2 stages. 3) Stage pair 1 has their throttles set to 100 4) Stage 2 pair has their throttles set to 50 Leave the FL-T200 empty (don't forget to fill it before jettisoning the remaining boosters). Launch at full throttle. Prograde gravity kick at 6km Maintain centered prograde ball through the gravity turn 67* pitch at 15km, throttle to maintain 1.5G 45* pitch at 25 km, Throttle to maintain 1G Jettison stage 1 when dry Establish 75km periapsis Establish 100km apoapsis This leaves you all sorts of extra fuel. You can probably bring along the science. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Ah, cool. So he's got a couple different options now. Best, -Slashy

Okay, It has just barely enough to establish a 75x100 orbit. I drained the FL-T200 tank completely and then transferred the remaining fuel into it after establishing the orbit. I had to fly a very precise launch profile to make it work, so there's not much room for error. If you're still having trouble with it, just let me know. I have one more idea to squeeze a couple hundred more m/sec out of it. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Torquemadus, I may be mistaken, but I don't think he can use the BACCs in his stack because he's testing one in orbit. Best, -Slashy

It's pretty much on the ragged edge now, but I'll try it and let you know. Apoapsis needs to be 100 km? Best, -Slashy

You can lose the fin also. I went with a reaction wheel in the lifter since it's recoverable. If you just want fins, you can always place them on the lifter Looks to me like you're right in the ballpark AFA cost efficiency. A few minor differences due to aesthetics are the only reason you're not at $600 per tonne, and even with that $800 is still pretty darn good. Best, -Slashy

- - - Updated - - - 1) Remove the aero shrouds. That'll get you 4 parts and lose some dead weight. 2) Replace 2 of the engines (preferably all 4) with LV-T30s. See how it looks then... What's your velocity at apoapsis? Best, -Slashy *Edit* I built a copy, and with my changes (plus removing the monopropellant from the capsule) it's about 100 m/sec short of LKO. Does it have to go to 100km, or is 72x72 okay? If 72x72 is alright, I can defuel the T-200 most of the way and use the LV-909 to deorbit. Would that satisfy your test? - - - Updated - - - Using the same vehicle, I was able to establish a 75x75 orbit, test the BACC (empty), and deorbit using the LV-909. Changes: -Removed the fairings -Swapped the engines to LV-T30s -Removed the monopropellant -Unloaded the T-200 tank to 10% -Set throttle limiter on the LV-T30s to 80% Unfortunately, splashdown was at 7.9 m/sec and was just hard enough to destroy the LV-909 and tank. HTHs, -Slashy

It's not nearly as "fine" as you make it out to be. "Providing feedback" means relaying your impressions/ thoughts/ concerns. "Throwing a hissyfit" is dictating to them what they should or should not do. It is not your place or mine to demand of the Devs when or if they choose to go open release. It is not your place or mine to demand explanations about their business decisions. And frankly it seems silly to seeing as how KSP is already a huge financial success and has a robust mod/ development community already in place. Something to keep in mind: We paid them to give us early access to a game in development. We had a fun time with it. They accepted our feedback to improve it. As nice as they have been about all of this, *they* do not owe *us* anything. Best, -Slashy

^ seconded. Rapiers can't get you nearly the efficiency of dedicated turbojets and rockets. For a single turbojet (6 tonnes payload) I use 2 48-7S rockets. For a twin (14 tonnes payload), I use a single LV-909. Best, -Slashy

Brainlord, No, I'm running all stock. Entire vehicle cost $125,802 Launch vehicle minus 41.5t payload $109,442 Launch vehicle minus boosters $97,790 Less fuel/ oxidizer/ monoprop $84,499 (recoverable) Supplies/ parts expended $24,943 Operating cost= 24,943/41.5 = $601/ tonne. In my case I didn't use 100% of the supplies and was able to recover them. Best, -Slashy *edit* I think I found the problem: You said your boosters cost $20,000 for 6 (plus hardware)? KD25k boosters are $1,800 per, or $10,800 for 6. How much do yours cost and what additional hardware did you use?

Good eye. My question isn't directed at whether or not people should "care", but whether they are justified in throwing a hissyfit about this. So far, I haven't seen any reason to justify or engage in this behavior. Personally, I'm a bit apprehensive about going open on the next release. Not because they haven't added enough, but because they're about to unveil a complete rework to the aerodynamics and a total part rebalancing without beta testing. I'm all for "providing feedback", and I've provided plenty myself. I'm just not for dictating to the devs how they should do their job. KSP is *their* baby, not yours and not mine. Best, -Slashy

You know... I bet I could reverse engineer the entire equation using a simultaneous nonlinear substitution. I'll have to try it and see. Best, -Slashy