GoSlash27

While aluminum is pyrophoric, it can't actually ignite without first burning hydrogen. You still need a flammable binder. Best, -Slashy

Spacescifi, All chemical rockets come down to hydrogen and oxygen, even SRBs. Any planet/ body that doesn't have both elements in some form in abundance is a dead end. Mercury does have both elements, but I wouldn't call them abundant. Best, -Slashy

Elon Tusk, Duna is comfortably reachable using chemical rockets such as Terrier or Poodle. If you're going further, such as to the Jool system, you'll want to use the LV-N Nerv. Here's a chart I put together years ago showing the relative performance of both types: If your trip is less than 2,500 m/s dv you should use a chemical rocket stage. If it's more, you should use the LV-N. HTHs, -Slashy

It is exactly as OHara said; You want to minimize drag at the point where drag is most detrimental to your efforts. The rest of the time... you don't really care. In some of those cases, the additional drag may even be working in your favor. You have a lot of leeway in supersonic flight because your engines are producing buckets of excess thrust. You have a lot of leeway at low speeds because low speed= low drag. It's that one point where you're trying to transition between subsonic and supersonic where the drag must be minimized. Everything else is either "don't care" or "bonus". Just set the incidence so you're cleanest in the transsonic region at your chosen altitude, and the rest will all fall into line for you. Best, -Slashy

And don't even get me started on all the OSHA violations I see kerbals committing on a daily basis! I've never seen any comment from either bureau on the matter of KSP's flagrant misuse of spaces, official or otherwise. I bet that while they may agree with you in principle, they have expressed no opinion on the matter. I'm afraid you're on your own here. Best, -Slashy

OHara, I think they work pretty much exactly as they should. They produce lift, but with a lot more parasitic drag. This is as it should be since lifting bodies are not optimized airfoils. If you use them to produce lift (intentionally or otherwise), you have to expect more drag as a result. I think the vast majority of complaints about the Mk 2's "drag" are a result of this same sort of error. It's quite clean for its cross- section so long as you keep it pointed prograde. Best, -Slashy

freQuency, In the form you're using, Isp is the amount of time, in seconds, that an engine would fire while producing the same thrust as the weight of its fuel. In order to translate between mass and weight, you need g. Best, -Slashy

Thanks for the correction The two things desired for any stage are dv and payload fraction. As one goes up, the other goes down. I just multiply them together to give equal weighting (double the dv is just as desirable as double the payload fraction). Others may prefer to combine them differently, say by raising e to the power of dv to express them both in linear terms. Best, -Slashy

Certainly... but that's a apples/ barn owls comparison, especially when you factor in wings. We're just talking ballistic rockets on a gravity turn. Jet engines get their efficiency gains from their high Isp, not their low twr. Best, -Slashy

Here are some old plots I made years ago that are relevant to this question. They are a figure of merit (payload fraction x dv) on the x axis by dv on the y axis for various engines. This first one shows that for a sustainer stage (t/w of 0.7), the Swivel can never compete with a dedicated vacuum engine in terms of payload fraction or dv. It has an optimal dv range of 1500-2700 m/sec. This one compares the Poodle to the Aerospike as an interplanetary stage (0.5 t/w) and shows virtually identical performance. Ideal dv range would be between 1600 and 3000 m/sec. Same comparison as a sustainer stage, same result more or less. LV-N and Dawn compared for an interplanetary stage at 0.5g. Note that the Dawn's mass calculation doesn't include the mass of equipment required to generate and store the electricity, which is substantial. Ideal stage size for the LV-N in this regime is between 2700 and 5000 m/sec, while the Dawn is (theoretically) best between 3300 and 6700 m/sec. The LV-909 vs LV-N as a sustainer stage. Generally, a sustainer will have 1,600 m/sec to attain LKO, so this illustrates how much further than that you need to go before it's more efficient to use the LV-N. Finally... The dramatic difference between a chemical vacuum engine vs the Nerv for interplanetary travel. These charts give a rough idea of how big a stage should be for optimal efficiency, and how much leeway you have... which is quite broad. HTHs, -Slashy

king of nowhere, I think you're finding out firsthand that 5° static incidence is way too much. You want just enough to have the nose pointed perfectly prograde when you hit 320 m/sec. Once you knife your way past 410 m/sec, that planes gonna take off like a scalded cat. With as much wing as you've got, that's probably 1 or 2 clicks on the fine adjustment setting. If you need more incidence while on the ground, you can adjust the landing gear to give you a nose high stance. Best, -Slashy *edit* It's hard to tell from that photo, but if your engines aren't aligned with the fuselage, they should be.

You can make more precise adjustments than that. Make sure to click the hexagon in the lower left hand corner to make it a circle. Oh, and grab the rotation ring, don't use the keyboard. Best, -Slashy

That's exactly what the problem is; they are pitched down relative the prograde vector. Best, -Slashy

The most 'Kerbal' music video ever created.

How long?

I'd recommend a staged rocket for going to the Mun. For a lander using a hitchhiker can and a single seat lander can, that's going to work out to around 3 1/2 tonnes or so. A single 48-7S with 6 FL-T100 tanks will get you from Munar orbit to the surface and back comfortably. Best, -Slashy

jimmymcgoochie, It was normal difficulty. I always start my careers Caveman in normal difficulty and speedrun them. It's never not normal difficulty. The payout for doing these missions has definitely jumped recently. This is in the same ballpark for doing satellites, munar science, and rescues. This definitely was not the case before. Best, -Slashy

No, it's normal difficulty. Best, -Slashy

Is it just me, or do these contracts seem OP lately? I hadn't bothered with them in the past because they paid so little, but now they're paying me $80,000+ just for a handful of crew reports. I picked up over a quarter of a million kerbucks in just 3 missions. I don't remember this being the case before. Best, -Slashy

Exoscientist, The fact that it would only serve a small percentage of the market is not a point in its favor, and unfortunately it wouldn't take half an hour. Gate-to-gate time would have to include fueling, range delays, weather delays, and scrubbed launches. If there was any money in faster air travel across the Pacific, the airlines would already be running supersonic flights on those routes. Best, -Slashy

I concur with the other opinions posted here; rocket science is relatively easy compared to airplanes, especially in KSP. KSP has its own rules for lift and drag that don't correspond to the real world, and it took me literally years to figure them all out. IMHO I make pretty good SSTO spaceplanes, but I can only hazard a guess just from looking at your picture: Your wings are too small, those Goliaths are boat anchors, and you don't have any static incidence built in. That might be totally incorrect, tho'. Best, -Slashy

I appreciate that, but no. I'm not going to use this forum as a soapbox to proselytize either. I have my reasons for my conclusions, but I'm not recruiting, especially not here. Best, -Slashy

Joe, He stated his opinion, I stated mine in return. I'm not interested in going into the details and having a big internet flamewar over it. This forum is not the place for that. I will not participate, will not defend my own position, or attack anyone else's. Just leave me out of it. Best, -Slashy

^ Except for this bit. I mean it. I do not wish to participate in this discussion with you or anyone else on this forum. Every single post that you make in this thread tagging me will be reported as harrassment to the mods. I asked nicely, -Slashy

@sevenperforce, I have gone to great lengths to avoid discussing this topic in detail on this forum because it's simply not appropriate for the 'little green space frogs' community. I have refrained from going into the details and supporting evidence that I *do, in fact* have for the same reason; I believe that such discussions and (ultimately) arguments simply detract from the enjoyment of all the other people on this forum who come here as an escape from such discussions. I have asked you *repeatedly* to drop the matter, or at least refrain from calling my attention to it. Yet you seem to be unable or unwilling to respond in kind. I will now call your attention to this text in the user guidelines: