GoSlash27

In fact... If you study the pic, I think you can puzzle out how I managed to achieve this. Didn't adjust anything, just ran my operations in a different order. Seems cheaty to me, tho'... :/ *edit* I've decided to unilaterally disqualify this entry. If the goal is to figure out how much DV it takes to orbit, chucking entire assemblies overboard before launch and burning RCS just confuses the issue. I'll just go with my first submission. -Slashy

Gotcha. I played mine 100% straight (no RCS) and gave it one try cold. My KSP locked up while composing the last reply, so I was forced to recover Jeb. It ran the whole mission without needing any adjustments, so I'm kinda puzzled as to why this is a stock craft. Normally stock craft have intentional flaws designed into them. *edit* Yeah, I can see how you could substantially improve on this figure if you intentionally use the RCS instead of fuel for circ. I ran it again and hit 72x43 suborbital with 53 fuel left. The RCS could easily circ this. Best, -Slashy

I just took a stab at it and got 34.39 fuel remaining on what I'd consider a "nominal" launch (prograde gravity turn). Just out of curiosity, what's supposed to be "wrong" with this launcher? Best, -Slashy

Ships that are disposed of or recovered at the end of their mission don't get unique names in my scheme. They are named for their cargo or mission. That leaves: Mass mover (chemical): alphabetical star names Mass mover (nuclear): alphabetical galaxy name Shuttle: alphabetical planet name Orbital station: (planet) station Surface base: (planet) base Survey/ science satellite: (planet)sat Nothing imaginative in my space program Best, -Slashy

I personally play 100% vanilla because my experiences and techniques (generally) apply to most KSP players, whether they use mods or not. Best, -Slashy

How about just incorporating the Outer Planets mod into stock and being done with it? Tekto sounds like a cool place to explore. Best, -Slashy

I agree with the stuff the others have said above. If you're mounting engines radially, it doesn't matter whether they're attached to the fuselage, wings, clipped, or not clipped. The drag is the same. If you're going to mount a large number of engines, it's best to cluster them using adapters with a single shock cone at the front. It's aerodynamically clean, supplies enough air to feed all it's engines, and the engines are nicely occluded by the stack. Save the precoolers for ultra-low t/w designs. Good luck! -Slashy

Mr. Feather34, These are the big changes: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/1.0.3 added radiators http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/1.0.5 added PorkJet parts. If you like the old Mk1 inline cockpit, be sure to save a copy of the old part file somewhere. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/1.1 updated to Unity 5 game engine, which broke landing gear rather badly. A few of the subsequent updates were aimed at fixing the gear. They added tweakables for suspension stiffness and dampers in 1.1.1 The rest of the updates were bug fixes and hot patches. HTHs, -Slashy

Those things look like kraken bait. Best, -Slashy

Actually, I think you've got the idea of the authority limits. They're just percentage of default deflection. Negative numbers make them work backwards. I have best results by making sure that each control surface only responds to one input and not using active rudders. For pitch stability with changing fuel, I make sure the CoG doesn't shift when the fuel drains. Cog is in the exact same place with the tanks empty as it is with the tanks full. Best, -Slashy

The spring strength is the spring rate; the mass required to get it to compress 1m. That is based on the sprung mass and gets scaled when the Sim figures out how much mass is being supported. It's better to think of spring strength as a frequency adjustment. The lower the spring strength, the slower the suspension will bounce. The damper rate is the percentage of critical damping where 1 = critical, <1= underdamped, and >1 is overdamped. Critical damping occurs when all the energy imparted to the spring is dissipated in one cycle of oscillation. Typical settings are .3 for all terrain rovers and .6 for landing gear. Setting it too low causes bouncy, wallowy suspension. Setting it too high (never exceed 1) will cause the wheels to skip on the surface and "Jack down" (loss of suspension height over bumps). HTHs, -Slashy

Benji13, It is possible (tedious but possible) to calculate a DV budget for such a trip, but you'd have to decide exactly what order you wish to do it in and exactly what orbits you want at each moon. It takes a lot of math, but it's fairly straightforward math. You would use 1)vis-viva to calculate the excess velocity for the hohmann transfers, 2) Hyperbolic excess velocity to determine the DV of each burn and 3) Gate orbit to determine the optimal orbit altitude for each leg of the trip. I'm sure you wouldn't need anywhere near 10 km/s DV to do the whole thing. HTHs, -Slashy

What Plusck said. The VAB doesn't show the center of pressure, and that's probably what's getting you. Your aircraft has less drag flying backwards than it does flying forward. Cargo bays are notorious for causing this problem when they're forward of the CoG. Best, -Slashy

PB666, That's all well and good, but the rest of the country doesn't share your views. They have things they want to spend money on, and space exploration isn't high up on their list. You think it'd be productive for all of them to start calling you "spineless" simply because you happen to disagree with them? I don't. I also think "singled out as a disaster" is over the top. It's simply a program that wound up being less than it should've been. One program on an infinitely long list. Best, -Slashy

That's why I was looking at it from the perspective of "% starting orbital velocity for the prograde burn" instead of apoapsis altitude. In theory, it should all work out about the same regardless of parent body mass or initial orbit altitude. Of course... I'll need to do a lot more work before I can confirm that. Reason being: if you are in a circular orbit, you cannot exceed 141.4% of your current velocity without leaving the SoI. Or 140.9% in KSP due to the patched conics. Doesn't matter the altitude or parent body. So the investment/ payoff shouldn't change much in any circumstance... until you involve atmosphere, interfering bodies, or elliptical starting orbits. Best, -Slashy

MaxL_1023, It would shift the whole matrix to a lower inclination angle where it makes it worth doing. Only half the DV in prograde/ retrograde burns until it becomes cheaper to do it at SoI instead of low orbit. All the payoff for half the investment. Best, -Slashy

Well... that would be about like making out the surface details of the ball in a ball-point pen in Pittsburgh... from Chicago. That would be one helluva telescope! Best, -Slashy

It doesn't take much science to unlock the first aircraft node. Once you have that, you have everything you need to make the "jet powered rover of science!" (da-dada-daaa!) Some folks go more hardcore with reaction wheel rollers. That gets access to KSC sooner, but is kind of a PITA. Best, -Slashy

Whatever we send, it will have to be autonomous enough to detect it, work out it's orbit, and execute an intercept without intervention. It will also have to be rugged enough to survive a century at absolute zero and no power source other than it's RTG. Oh yeah... and about 150 km/sec DV. That's a bit beyond our current tech and we'll all be long gone before (if) it sends back any data. Best, -Slashy

Well... that's where we part ways. It's not a matter of "backbone and stomach", but rather a lack of consensus on Mars as a national priority. Our government is spending $2 for every dollar it takes in. Some people are worried that that is unsustainable and will tank the economy. Most people who are not concerned about that want more money spent in some other sector of the government that they deem more critical. Very few people, in or out of government, are interested in spending the kind of money a Mars mission would require, *especially* in this climate. If you run a poll on the average American's priorities or the average politician's priorities, space exploration is pretty far down the list. That's not lack of fortitude, it's just plain pragmatism.

Okay, so now that I've turned down the suck on the mixer board, here's what I get: It's not worth it to raise apoapsis for any plane change less than 38.3°. From 38.3° to 49.5°, It's pretty linear from zero DV added to escape velocity (as a function of %Vorb DV prograde) Above 49.5°, always climb out to SoI and do the plane change there. Sound about right? Note: I ran my figures from 70km. Best, -Slashy

Hmm... Let me dig a little deeper into the numbers for that case... Starting from 70km altitude, Vorb is 2295.8 m/sec. Pushing the Ap up to 84,159,286m, the DV prograde is 938.2 and the Vap is.... Oh! *facepalm* I see where I screwed up. I used the orbital velocity for a circular orbit at Ap instead of the velocity at transfer. Okay, I'll take it from the top and use the right numbers this time Thanks! -Slashy

Good point! The crawlerway is a biome. That's the only one I can think of that's not mentioned in the wiki.

The wiki is current on which biomes are available when during your facility upgrades. Some biomes require physical contact with the building. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbal_Space_Center Go to the main articles for each to see the biomes. Best, -Slashy

I've plugged the numbers into my model, and they check out. Perhaps some of you folks could verify or refute them? For a 53° inclination change, I have remaining in LKO as the most efficient maneuver. 2,048 m/sec inclination change. For a 54° inclination change, I have a 3 burn strategy all the way out to the SoI as the most efficient maneuver. 938 m/sec prograde, inclination change of 185 m/sec, and 938 m/sec retrograde = 2,061 m/sec total DV. My math says that there is no case where an intermediate apoapsis will be more efficient than one of these two... at least not when starting from LKO. Thanks! -Slashy