GoSlash27

This is with a max-effort zoom climb. Same craft. 30,661M. I'm sure that an ION engine would be able to push it into orbit from up there. Probably some other engine types as well.

Alright, that's better. infinilift.craft The cockpit weighs a little over a ton and represents a 1 ton+ payload. 20,853 M, and I'm sure there's plenty of room for improvement with this approach. This is all 100% stock parts and installation. -Slashy

This is what I get for not reading the rules carefully... ... but it won't carry a ton, so back to the drawing board.

Sorry, no can do. But this does give me an idea for a new challenge; one where 'copters would be okay... -Slashy

Why not drive a rover up the mountain? I did a lot of testing with my tylo rover in the mountains around KSC, and it climbed them like a billy-goat. -Slashy

After reviewing the original question, I've got to change my answer to no, Hell no. Nobody rides one of my rockets until I've had a chance to torture test it unmanned and prove it safe, and that includes me.

What wanderfound said. I started out using the rule of 10 (10m/sec closing velocity for each km to target) and it's still a perfectly fine way of doing it if you're not in a hurry. Once you get comfortable with that, you can go faster. My entire process: Intercept 1) match target altitude and inclination 2a) if ahead of target, raise apoapsis. No need to go hog-wild here. if you're way out of phase, take a few extra orbits and save the fuel. 2b) if behind target, lower periapsis. Don't deorbit yourself! 3) on the orbit that will get you closest to the target, fine-tune your periapsis or apoapsis to set up an exact intercept at CPA 4) wait until you're 3/4 of the way around your intercept orbit, then commence rendezvous. Rendezvous 1) use your heading indicator to "pull" your prograde marker onto the target's prograde marker, being careful not to exceed the 10x rule 2) flip retrograde and commence "pushing" your retrograde marker into alignment with the target's retrograde marker, being careful to keep your closure rate in accordance with the 10x rule. 3) at 30m to target, burn retrograde to make your closure rate zero. Docking 1) pitch and yaw to match the target port's attitude. 2) engage RCS and fire as necessary to get your port behind the plane of the target port. 3) disengage RCS. adjust view and roll to align your view with your ship's motion. I pitch and yaw to verify that it will move as I expect. 4) turn on lights and engage RCS. 5) begin vertical and lateral translation as needed to line up directly behind the target port. check periodically to ensure clearance to target. 6) roll as necessary for payload alignment 7) translate forward at 0.2 m/sec until docked. Best, -Slashy

Absolutely. I design all of my rockets to be safe and I never let Kerbals in them until they've been proven reliable. -Slashy

Actually... #8 doesn't sound half-bad!

Seems to me you've just answered your own question. If you're aware that you have "crappy KSP skillz", why not entertain yourself by improving them? The best challenges are the ones that force you to up your game. $0.02 -Slashy

I'll put on my "heretic" hat and go have a seat beside lammatt. I can't fathom why anybody would need SRBs bigger than what we already have. You can already do everything in this game with the boosters we have available if you work it right. /scratchin' mah head... -Slashy

LD< No, the numbers are correct for the assumptions it's built for. It's not assuming that you're burning from LKO; That's the point. If you want to burn from Kerbin to Jool and you're doing it after you leave their SOI, it'll cost 3,000 M/sec. Same deal in reverse. And the oberth effect is velocity- dependent. It would only cost the same both ways if your orbital velocities were the same during the burn, but they never are. Best, -Slashy

'Sallright. Happens to all of us from time to time... -Slashy

The maps shown here do not work the same way backwards because they assume a single burn from LKO to use the Oberth effect. This one works in either direction: props to mhoram. -Slashy

I would need to see some sort of evidence to back this up. Do you have a link to the Manley vehicle? What about a craft file for yours? *edit* wait... did you say "stage"? We're talkin' about SSTO, not multistage vehicles.

Aye. Typo on their part. And as I said upstream, you should not use your horizontal tail to generate lift, so even if they were shooting for what allmhuran is figuring, it would still fly funny. Step #1 is to balance your aircraft longitudinally without the wings. Ideally, the center of mass should be in the middle of the fuel tanks. Then you balance everything else around it like a balance beam. In fact... I *actually* balance beam my aircraft on the runway to ensure that this is happening. A light mass far away can counterbalance a heavier mass in- close. Step #2, add the wings. Preferably slightly low with dihedral. You don't want the wings touching or you'll have no roll stability, as wings produce lift and drag where they're attached, *not* in their center. They should attach slightly- behind the CoM. Step #3, add control surfaces. It's ok to have a vertical tail (move it back to give it leverage), but you don't want horizontal tailplanes adding lift, so use ctrl surfaces for that and ignore how they move your center of lift (it's misleading). Step #4, balance- beam it again at the center of the fuel tank (both empty and full) juggling your dead weight until it's perfect. Voila! A perfect flying airplane! Best, -Slashy

tomf, your tailplanes are fooling the lift marker and misleading you. Your wings should attach at or slightly behind your CoM, never ahead of it. The lift of the wings happens at the attachment point in KSP. You also shouldn't use a tailplane as a horizontal tail, but rather a control surface such as a delta deluxe. You want it to generate correcting forces (usually downward) rather than lift. As hodo pointed out, try to make your fuel tank the center of mass so that it won't move as fuel drains. Also, you should add a little dihedral (rotate your wingtips up and engines down) in order to add roll stability. Best, -Slashy

My standard ascent profile for lifters: -Vertical ascent at 1.4-2G acceleration to 7km altitude. -gradual pitchover and throttle reduction to hit 70* pitch, 1-1.4G acceleration at 15km altitude -continue pitchover and throttle reduction to hit 45* pitch, .7-1.0G acceleration at 25km altitude -continue pitchover and throttle reduction to hit 30* pitch, .5-.7G acceleration at 35km altitude -At "orbit" indication, switch to orbit map. continue acceleration at .5G and pitch as required to maintain desired apoapsis. At this point, I can either a) pitch as necessary to maintain to maintain apoapsis while raising periapsis until circularized or cut throttle until 30 sec from apoapsis, then throttle level as necessary to maintain 10 sec to apoapsis until circularized. a is more realistic while b is easier. Either profile is *very* efficient. Best, -Slashy

I have better luck with turning off the angle snap and using symmetry mode. Also, holding shift while rotating a part will rotate it in 5 degree increments instead of 90. Best, -Slashy

PM, Isp is basically a function of the mass of your exhaust and the velocity you're expelling it at. The exhaust is accelerated through a de Laval (or "con-di") nozzle to get supersonic exhaust velocity. Having air pressure behind the exhaust interferes with the process, lowering efficiency. So the vacuum is the theoretical "perfect" Isp while the atmospheric is the Isp at sea level. The reason it's listed is what Claw said. Let's say you sent up a test rig into orbit with a jet engine, intake air, and fuel. You note it's mass and velocity. Now burn prograde to establish the highest apoapsis you can. Note the mass of fuel consumed. When you return to periapsis, note the new velocity. You now have all the info you need to establish the vacuum Isp of a jet engine. You have Mw/Md and DV, so it's just a matter of juggling the rocket equation a little and plugging it in. DV=9.81Isp*ln(Mw/Md) becomes Isp=DV/[9.81*ln(Mw/Md))] Best, -Slashy

-I always design my aircraft around the fuel tank so that the center of the fuel tank is also the center of mass. Balance everything else around that like a see-saw; same torque moment (mass*distance)in front of the tank as behind. -Wing loading is important. You want enough wings on it to maintain level flight at NLT 30 Km altitude. Otherwise you never get to a point where your terminal velocity can reach orbital velocity. Your most efficient lift-to-drag should happen at around 23 degrees angle of attack. -build your plane to be dynamically stable; center of mass a little ahead of center of lift so it wants to nose down. Wings sloping uphill (dihedral) so it naturally wants to fly wings level, etc. -KSP generates 2 types of drag; parasitic and induced, and they happen at your CoM and CoL. At low altitudes and speeds most of your drag is induced and works at your CoM. At high altitudes and speeds it's reversed. Your CoL should be in the longitudinal axis so that when this happens your aircraft won't spin out of control. Best, -Slashy

That one would certainly count as infinigliding due to all the control surfaces, but yeah. Gyroplanes are effectively perpetual motion machines in KSP so I'd count it as taking advantage of a loophole in the physics. Still... if you can build one that works, I'm sure we'd all like to see it in action. Best, -Slashy

Point #1, a 1.1 t/w is going to require more DV due to gravity losses, which is why I recommend keeping it between 1.4 and 2. #2, it doesn't actually assume a high TWR for the insertion stage. I design mine to have between .5 and .7 TWR in the insertion stage and can circularize comfortably with 4500 m/sec with plenty of reserve for intercept, rendezvous, docking, and deorbit. #3 4,300 m/sec is a good ballpark for an 80km orbit. 120Km is naturally going to require more. #4 I really don't have any experience with 100 ton lifters, as I've never had a need to lift anything that big. I'll have to take your word for it. Best, -Slashy

Use it in good health! Didn't take you long at all to sort it out. Best, -Slashy

That's the way I've done it also; design the mission backwards and build each stage to do it's job and nothing more. Saving a few kilos here and there at the tail end of the mission has a huge snowballing impact on the mass of preceding stages and usually spells the difference between "impossible" and "doable with a comfortable margin". The math is your friend! -Slashy