GoSlash27

On the second part of the original question, no it's not very important. If you need to squeeze more payload from a limited pad, asparagus staging can help boost your payload fraction at the expense of part count. "Quasi- asparagus" staging (where the outer stages feed the inner stages like asparagus, but are drop tanks propelled by SRBs) can dramatically reduce the cost to orbit for large payloads, but aren't cost- effective for smaller payloads. Generally speaking, using this technique won't have a big impact on your career. Best, -Slashy

Best, -Slashy

Rocket in my pocket, Not quite. I'm saying that two- staging from LMO to the surface and back to LMO isn't worth it. A single stage lander winds up being lighter. If you extend the trip to Kerbin, the results may vary. Best, -Slashy

Plusck, It's not actually beneficial for Mun landings. There's not enough DV in the evolution to warrant it, so 2- stagers wind up heavier than doing it all in one stage. Best, -Slashy

Wcmille, "Serial" as in one stage accelerates with the next stage as payload. It gets more complicated with parallel, drop tanks, and asparagus. The same formulae do not apply in those situations. Best, -Slashy

Wcmille, Unfortunately, those only apply to serial staging. Best, -Slashy

A really good example of how keeping the thrust pointed through the CoM really helps with stability. Best, -Slashy

*DERP!* Same deal with the asymmetrical arrangements. Thanks for the catch, -Slashy

Spaced Out, If you notice, the Delta II-500 has 9 structural hardpoints, and many configurations wind up in an asymmetrical arrangement. *EDIT* Wrong rocket! (Thanks Bill Phil) If the boosters thrusted parallel to the stack, the asymmetry would result in a torque moment, trying to rotate the stack. This also sidesteps control problems that might result from variations in burn time or cross-sectional "throttling". Having the SRBs thrusting through the CoM eliminates a lot of potential headaches. Best, -Slashy

Also so that their thrust is directed through the CoM instead of parallel. Best, -Slashy

I Agree with Bornholio. Get all the science from low & high Kerbin, then high & low Mun, then high and low Minmus, and all the Minmus biomes. I can pull that off with full Caveman limitations, so no reason you can't do it. Best, -Slashy

wumpus, I'm not arguing any of that. I'm just pointing out that, all else being equal, nukes and ions won't always work out lighter and cheaper than chemical rockets. This only holds true for high DV burns. For example, directly comparing the LV-909 to the LV-N at 10t payload and 0.5g minimum acceleration shows the LV-909 is lighter at 1,746 m/sec DV or less and remains cheaper (although heavier) throughout the LV-N's entire staging envelope. Best, -Slashy

Modeling an all- nuke asparagus arrangement by hand with the above constraints leads me to 1,192 tonnes. I wonder if going to chemical outside the nuke cluster would reduce the overall mass... but not so much that I want to chase the math to find out Best, -Slashy

Wumpus, While this is certainly true for high DV burns, it isn't necessarily true for short ones. For trips under 2km/sec or so, chemical rockets can actually come up lighter than nukes or ions. 2km/sec DV can get you to a lot of places if you spend it wisely. For many longer trips, chemical stages remain cheaper even though they're heavier. Of course, this doesn't apply to what Wcmille is talking about. Best, -Slashy

Wcmille, I poked around on my spreadsheet to find the optimal staging point for LV-Ns in series, assuming a 0.5g minimum acceleration. It worked out to 6,600 m/sec DV. A simple series LV-N would therefore be a 3-stager, with 6km/sec DV per stage. Stage 3: Payload= 10t. Mt= 74.9t Neng=6 Stage 2: Payload= 74.9t. Mt= 522t Neng=40 Stage 1: Payload= 522t. Mt= 3,640t Neng=279 Since my process only evaluates a single stage pushing an inert payload, it is incapable of modeling parallel staging, drop tanks, or asparagus. These schemes are more efficient than series staging, so they should be able to get you a smaller rocket. To model that, you will have to work the rocket equation the normal way and employ successive iteration. Best, -Slashy

Yeah, He's just putting some water in a tank, heating it up, and popping the cork. It should be noted that his Isp is way below kerolox because he's ejecting hot water along with the steam... Or "throwing out the bathwater with the baby" Best, -Slashy

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mad-mike-hughes-diy-rocket-launch-flat-earther-postpones-his-lift-off-after-launchpad-breakdown-1648912 He's planning on launching Tuesday at the earliest. His motorhome/ launcher was easily repaired, but BLM informed him that he wasn't allowed to launch over Amboy. Instead, he will be using a patch of private land in the area. Best, -Slashy

wcmille, No, my process is for optimizing a single stage only. It wouldn't tell you exactly how many stages to employ. Best, -Slashy

Wcmille, I've written a couple tutorials on mathematically optimizing stages based on payload mass, required DV, and minimum t/w. Is that what you're looking for? Best, -Slashy

Kerbal7, You should rethink your approach here. If you add a little mass to fix the aerodynamics, you will be able to accelerate more efficiently and perform a proper gravity turn. This will result in DV savings, both in drag losses and cosine losses, and leave you in orbit with *more* DV. Best, -Slashy

I don't believe that this guy is a flat-Earther, since flat-Earthers don't believe there is such a thing as "space". Nevertheless, it doesn't bother me at all if he's manipulating these people to fund his rocket and it doesn't bother me at all that these people believe that the Earth is flat. Maybe it's just me becoming more apathetic with age, but this ain't my circus and these ain't my monkeys. I wish him the best of luck. I hope he built this one more sturdily than his last attempt. Best, -Slashy

2 whole days. The KSP community is slipping. -Slashy

Yeah... but it's still cheaper to depart directly from low Laythe orbit. It makes more sense to have your refueling station there. Best, -Slashy

MinimalMinmus, I don't think so. The bottom of a giant gravity well is not a good place to set up shop. I would argue the opposite; this body would need to be extremely rich in ore in order to make it worth the trip. Best, -Slashy

Jordan, You're mistaking sound and light as transverse waves. They're actually longitudinal waves. Sound is alternating compression and rarefaction (high and low pressure), while light is alternating electrostatic and electromagnetic fields. HTHs, -Slashy