GoSlash27

I just ran a test, and found the opposite result; chutes placed in symmetry on an otherwise identical testbed were slightly *more* effective than chutes placed without symmetry. The symmetrical setup had a terminal velocity of 3.15 m/sec, while the non-symmetrical setup was 3.6. I'm running 1.22.1622, all stock. Also, I can confirm the lack of interference when chutes aren't placed using symmetry. Best, -Slashy

Gaarst, But you did say that they add normally when placed without symmetry, right? Ergo, the difference in drag is due to symmetry rather than interference... Best, -Slashy

eloquentJane, Why are you concerned about that? It's not like it affects anything... Best, -Slashy

Good work, Gaarst! I wonder what's up with symmetry altering the drag of the chutes. Sounds like a bug... Best, -Slashy

People who are emotionally attached to their beliefs tend to get angry about it, while people who are dispassionate and objective don't. I therefore don't see any benefit in arguing about it. Nobody's going to change their mind, and it really wouldn't matter if they did. Whether or not people *believe* it happened has no impact on whether it actually did. Best, -Slashy

The way I'm doing it now, I have a high power relay out near the SoI of the destination planet, and then a lightweight local constellation around the body. Duna and Eve get each get a 2x RA-15 repeater (earlier tech) while Jool and subsequent destinations (better tech) get a 2x RA-100 repeater. This is sufficient to bounce around signals on the rare occasion that Kerbin doesn't have line of sight. The low power constellations are a set of 3 2x HG-5 repeaters at an altitude of 2x body radius. They can easily reach any point on the surface (with default propagation) and communicate with a communitron and bounce to each other if one of them is obscured. Best, -Slashy

Nevermind. The problem wasn't with my e- mail, it was with my name. Apparently names with 2 capital letters and 2 numbers (such as GoSlash27) follow a pattern of known spammers. Best, -Slashy

So one would think, but apparently not this one Best, -Slashy

Complete aside: Every time I see this thread, I start singing "Moho City" to myself. Carry on -Slashy

If only it was that simple I would've updated many things on the Wiki by now, but my e-mail is on Yahoo, so it won't let me Best, -Slashy

The_Rocketeer, I catch the funny, but just to clarify for folks who may not be aware of the practice... Many KSP players hate having debris cluttering their map view, so they plan their missions accordingly. Basically... every time a stage is jettisoned, the spent stage is either on a collision course with a body or has an atmospheric Pe so that it will burn up. Best, -Slashy

phantom000, No, no we don't. A lot of us go to extra lengths to ensure that we don't leave debris. Best, -Slashy

Nobody's mentioned the tailcone. That looks to be the main source of drag in this design. It's not attached to a preceding node, and therefore not occluded. It's basically like a 1.25m plate hanging out in the breeze. I think that's why you can't break Mach 1. *edit* also FWIW, the Nerv isn't worth the additional mass and hassle for such a low DV trip. You'd be better off to just run the RAPIER. Less parallel nodes makes for an aerodynamically cleaner design, which will allow you to use less t/w in airbreathing mode. The mass of the NERVs can be replaced by fuel, which will make for a lighter ship, even with the RAPIER's relatively poor Isp. My rule of thumb is "If you don't need 2km/ sec of DV, don't use nukes". HTHs, -Slashy

Judging by the way they build their rockets, Kerbal cities probably look like this: Best, -Slashy

IRT the OP, Those intakes on your Mk2 design are horribly draggy. They're probably accounting for more drag than the Mk2 parts themselves, even with the body lift and drag. If done correctly, Mk2 designs can actually be aerodynamically cleaner than their Mk1 counterparts, especially when built to haul similar payloads. Best, -Slashy

I didn't see an explanation of the method that my spreadsheet uses, so I'll outline it here... For a single engine of a single type, input thrust in kN and Isp. (available by right-clicking the engine)This can be calculated as stated above for multiple engines and types. Input ship's current mass in tonnes. (available from info tab in map view) Input DV of desired burn. (from nav ball or predetermined by the user) Equation #1: Mass at end of burn Mstart/[e[DV/(9.81*Isp)]]= Mend Equation #2: Average mass of ship throughout burn (Mstart+Mend)/2= Mavg Equation #3: Average acceleration T(kN)/Mavg(tonnes)= a (m/sec2) Equation #4: Cumulative burn time DV/a=tcum (sec) Equation #5: Burn start time Time to node (from nav ball or predetermined by the user)- tcum/2 = tstart Equation #6: Burn end time Time to node (from nav ball or predetermined by the user)+ tcum/2 = tstart HTHs, -Slashy

If Kerbals are spread around Kerbin, they are not territorial. We know this because Kerbals are free to explore anywhere without fear of attack. Best, -Slashy

I would buy you a fur coat. But not a *real* fur coat; That's cruel... Best, -Slashy

Conversely, you can also increase the DV by switching to a lighter and less powerful engine. It's all in what you're trying to do. I generally look at how much DV I need for a mission and design the lightest and cheapest stage that'll get the job done. A bunch of extra DV doesn't help if you never wind up using it. It's just a lot of dead weight you end up heaving into orbit and dragging around the solar system. Glad you got it sorted out and give 'em hell, -Slashy

I'll shamelessly nominate a challenge I started: It's currently in it's 3rd iteration and maintained by @MoeslyArmlis. It was TOTM in Jan 2016. Best, -Slashy

Jestersage, When I speak of "payload", it's anything that's not engines, fuel, and tanks meant for use by the stage. Best, -Slashy

It definitely gets less convenient if you get much below .5g, because you may need to do multiple passes. I personally don't find a need to go under .5G because that moves way more payload than I have a need to move. HTHs, -Slashy

"Almost a small mothership" ?! O.O I'm scared of whatever it is you're doing -Slashy

The Rhino is way too much engine for that ship. You only need to accelerate at .5G for an interplanetary burn. Even so, you have enough DV to make the trip there and back in your current design. You just have to refuel in low Munar orbit and depart from there. Best, -Slashy

There isn't a trick to making a successful shuttle. There are a lot of tricks. Shuttles are complicated, and require an understanding of how to tame all the problems you encounter with all of the individual parts of the stack. Hopefully, this slideshow will give you some insight into the problems and solutions. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Shuttle Kourageous You have to understand how to make a fundamentally poor orbiter design behave during reentry and landing. You have to know how to predict and control the movement of the CoM during launch. You have to design a launch stack with asymmetrical thrust so that the center of thrust is properly aligned. You have to learn how to separate boosters without wrecking your stack. And you have to learn how to fly a crooked rocket. There's a lot that goes into the successful design and operation of a shuttle. Getting any of it wrong will result in lots of explosions and debris, but getting it all *right* is very educational and rewarding. HTHs, -Slashy