GoSlash27

This is my approach to the biome- hopping problem. Still undergoing field trials ATM.

Last run for me. 38,156M I ditched the remote guidance unit and put on a couple rudders and ailerons. It didn't much care for that and became difficult to fly even in fine control mode. 39 parts, 2.11 tonnes, √21,148. Same achievements as above. Best, -Slashy

Run#2: 35,763M. 1 elevator, 12 intakes. Same achievements as above. Best, -Slashy

26,595M. All stock and no control surfaces. 20 structural intakes. 1.98 tonnes. Achievements: MachingFly, Wind in my hair, and Gnat. There's room for improvement here, so I'm gonna tinker with it a bit. Best, -Slashy

Jake9039, Please post Tsevion's achievement in lieu of mine if you need to. It is a much more difficult and historic feat than mine. Thanks, -Slashy

^ [Answered!] -Slashy

I would add that understanding the rocket equation and using it will make you a better engineer and will allow you to design much more efficient and capable vehicles than you could otherwise manage. I'm a firm believer in working out the problems on your own early-on in order to further your understanding. You can work it on paper using a scientific calculator (or a slide rule, which is my preferred method) and then creating your own spreadsheet once you've gotten tired of doing it the hard way. I'm kinda old- school when it comes to learning and I believe people learn best by doing. Best, -Slashy

Sure it does. A beginner just wants to know what the term means and how it's used. They will no doubt have more questions later on down the road, and they tend to ask when confused about something. We egghead types have a habit of going all "precision police" to make sure that we are conveying our information with no misunderstandings, and this is one of those times that the tendency must be avoided. It doesn't help anyone to get so bogged down in the technical discussion that the gist of it gets muddied, confused, or lost. Best, -Slashy

All, Let's not get so bogged down in the details that we confuse the beginners. It's sufficient to say that 1) "Delta V" means "change in velocity" 2) It is the measure of what it takes to get you where you're going and can be found in various Delta V maps 3) It is the measure of what your stage can accomplish and can be calculated using the rocket equation You could fill out entire chapters on the ins and outs of it, but this is all a beginner really needs to know. Best, -Slashy

A little tip I figured out while doing this stuff in FSX: You can do all the inputs that only require momentary button actuation by buying a cheap USB keyboard and gutting it. You can break out the row/ column buses to a perfboard and jump in momentary switches with a diode to simulate keypresses with momentary switches. You can add support for dpdt toggles by using pullups and a few easy logic gates. I'll root around and see if I still have the scats around... *edit* Took some doing, but I found it. The circuitry can actually be simplified since KSP doesn't natively use complex keypresses like FSX does. Theory of operation: The resistor on the switch input is a pullup, placing a logic high so long as the switch is open. The logic high holds the single shot circuit (NAND, R/C, and NOT) in a low preset state with a high output. This keeps the NOR gate open, isolating the scanning row input from the column output. Upon closing the switch, the NAND outputs a logic high , which triggers the RC circuit to bleed off to 0 in about 1 Msec. While that output is high, the NOT inverts it to a low. the NOR conducts the scanning row input to the column output, simulating a key press. Each key press is simulated through 2 of a total of 6 diodes, thus reproducing up to 3 simultaneous keypresses. 1 pair is reserved for CTRL, 1 pair for SHIFT, and the last is for the unique character. Once the RC circuit has depleted, the output of the NOT is latched high, thus opening the NOR gate and disconnecting the scanning input from the output. This is it's stable "discharge" state. When the switch is opened, the single shot is reverted to it's preset state, keeping the NOR open. Since each "cell" contains 4 NANDs, 4 NORs, but 6 NOTs, there are 2 unused NOT gates in each gang. They can be used (if desired) to invert the action of 2 single- shots so that they cycle on their parent switches being opened instead of closed, thus generating 2 unique keypresses for a single switch depending on whether it's being opened or closed at the time. The opposite side does away with the single- shot circuitry, simply connecting up to 3 row/ column connections each when a momentary switch is closed. All the diodes are necessary in order to avoid "ghosting"; the phantom appearance of multiple keypresses being generated due to the closing of multiple nodes that make it appear as if you've made a connection that you didn't. For KSP all the diodes are unnecessary when using the active circuitry. You can directly connect the desired row to the input of the NOR and the desired column to the output. Best, -Slashy

^ What srpadget said: Put something into LKO and use the Mun to zero it's inclination. Now you can use that to target Minmus and project it's AN and DN right onto Kerbin's surface. Best, -Slashy

RainDreamer, Adding more engine will never increase your DV, but it can (depending on the circumstances) reduce your losses due to drag and gravity, thus accomplishing more even though you have less DV. This also applies to the Oberth effect... and now we're getting a bit out into the weeds. If your calculator says that adding engines is increasing your DV, it's misleading you. HTHs! -Slashy

Minor correction which you have sorta- mentioned here: The mass of the engine(s) is in the rocket equation, but it's hidden. (Mw/Md) is more usefully described as [(Mp+Me+Mt+Mf)/(Mp+Me+Mt)] where Mp= payload mass Me= engine mass Mt= tank mass and Mf=fuel mass. This is why adding more engine than you need will (as you stated) reduce your wet/dry ratio and DV. Best, -Slashy

*D'OH!* Ninja'd by Red Iron Crown! I have 1 more thing to add, so summarizing the above posts... "DV" means "change in velocity". We use it to describe 2 things: 1) The change in velocity a rocket stage is capable of imparting to a vehicle. 2) The change in velocity that is required to get our vehicle where we want it to go. Best, -Slashy PS I have never used MechJeb and it's definitely not necessary to be successful in this game, but it *is* necessary to employ the rocket equation in your design process. Not only in the classical "how much DV will this rocket generate" form, but also in the "which of these engines is best for this job" form and "how big a fuel tank do I need" form.

Stuff that I did that's note-worthy: First manned ion powered stock SSTO Aug 15th 2014 link First successful stock SSTO round trip from KSC to Eve surface and back. Nov 2nd 2014 using KrakBadger 2.5 link Land speed record for stock vehicle without rockets or jets, 787 m/sec Jul 31st 2014 link Best, -Slashy

While I personally own a few achievements that I believe are records, none of them are as impressive as this one: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/85728-Ion-glider-collier-trophy!?p=1548671&viewfull=1#post1548671 Tsevion launched the world's first (and as of this writing only) ion powered manned stock SSTO without the benefit of infiniglide on Nov 18th, 2014. Best, -Slashy

Honestly, the "best" engine for interplanetary burns is the Kraken drive unit. No waiting for transfer windows and journeys are reduced to days instead of years. But in a realistic mission, the LV-N mass mover is the best IMO. Ions can out-perform them in terms of pure DV, but the LV-N gets you where you're going with a lot less hassle, complexity, and expense. Best, -Slashy

OhioBob, Yep, just as the others here said. I do the same thing all the time. Best, -Slashy

I lived through the last cold war. I would not consider a new space race something to be excited about if it comes with that price tag. Best, -Slashy

I don't understand why his attitudes or behaviors would matter to you. Not just to the point where you feel compelled to change him, mind you... but to the point where you even feel the need to bring it up. Not to be callous about it, but who cares? or more to the point, why do *you* care? Scratchin' mah head, -Slashy

Chalk me up as another "old school" guy. Bullying is a natural part of human existence. All social mammals will have those who attempt to establish themselves as "alphas" through physical domination, and humans are still social mammals. The way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them, show no fear, and defend yourself. They will leave you alone if they sense that you might beat them in a fight because they are afraid of being humiliated publicly. *edit* After reading some of the other responses in this thread, I feel the need to elaborate a bit... #1) Bullying is an unfortunate life- lesson. It won't kill you, but it will make you stronger *if* you learn the lessons it offers. #2) Don't think for one second that "the authorities" will handle it for you. The school is only interested in protecting themselves from lawsuits and their "zero tolerance policies" will force them to treat you as an equally- guilty party even if you're totally innocent. And the police aren't there to protect you and are under no obligation to do so. Their job is to document crime, not to prevent it. When you grow up, life will always be like this. The sooner you learn to adapt to it, the better you will do in the long run. Best, -Slashy

I had a really hard time trying to decode what you meant by "no drag", so please bear with me if I've gotten it wrong. Are you saying that it becomes dynamically unstable at high speed and wants to flip backwards? If so, the problem is that your intakes are too far forward. Contrary to popular belief, not all parts have equal drag in KSP. Balancing slow planes is just a matter of getting the CoL correct in relation to the CoM, but at high speed it's more important to have the low drag parts in front and high drag parts in back. Intakes have extremely high drag, so they need to be in the back. Also, wings are extremely low drag, but they must necessarily be close to the middle for the plane to fly. It is important that your center of lift not be above or below your center of mass so that it doesn't cause a torque moment at high speed. Best, -Slashy

From everything you've described and posted, it's not rotating. Everything you ever put in orbit is going to seem to slowly "rotate", but it's just an illusion because you're confusing the planetary horizon with your inertial reference. Sorry if you don't like the answer, but reality is sometimes inconvenient that way. Regards, -Slashy

I've always had issues keeping parking brakes engaged when I'm not actively controlling a rover, so I've developed the habit of attaching a small landing gear to them for use as an anchor. Best, -Slashy

It's not rotating, it just seems like it is. Best, -Slashy