GoSlash27

As long as we're all going nit- picky on what should've been a simple question, do you have a few minutes to talk about our Lord and Savior the Gate orbit? Trips to Duna and Eve are much cheaper if you refuel in low Munar orbit and depart directly from there. LKO isn't the ideal starting point for most interplanetary trips. Best, -Slashy

^ These were your words, correct? This value is for sea level, not the mountains. SSTO from the mountains is a much easier prospect. Definitely not the "ultimate KSP rocket". Perhaps in the future you should sort out exactly what you're after so we're all on the same page.

I am certain that it is the opposite *from sea level*. Assuming it's possible at all from down there... which I don't. The math precludes the possibility of a vertical SSTO from down there. Best, -Slashy

Irvin, Yes it is. Burn radial-in and accept the steering losses. Best, -Slashy

Makes sense for a high altitude SSTO. Best, -Slashy

^ Reposted for truthiness. I should also add that very few people in this community are interested in being handed a fish. They want to know how to become more successful fishermen (if you catch my drift). What people really take and run with around here is knowledge and insight. If you have (or develop) something along these lines that's new and effective, they will beat a path to your door. But again, the object isn't and should never be "popularity", but rather advancing understanding for its own sake. Best, -Slashy

Nascarlaser, If you can give me a payload mass you wish to SSTO, I can give you a recommendation for the engine and tanks. Best, -Slashy

A chart that illustrates the relative masses: As we already know, the chemical engines are superior below 2km/sec DV, but what is surprising is how little the advantage is either way for DV budgets typically encountered in KSP. Total chemical stage mass doesn't reach twice that of nuclear stages until 5 km/sec, which is a heck of a lot of DV in interplanetary terms. In career play, the added mass of chemical rockets to Jool and beyond may be worth the relative bargain, even at launch. Best, -Slashy

Sharpy, I understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't actually work that way. At least... not in KSP. If your hypothesis were true, it would apply equally on Kerbin, and that's a relatively simple test. Build a space plane that just barely gets through Mach one in level flight and see how much fuel it uses to get to the transition point. Then add a couple engines and repeat. Speaking as a guy who's been all over this territory countless times, I can tell you that the most efficient t/w is not at the bare minimum. Best, -Slashy

Well, I'm glad we got that all cleared up

Procedural fairings are a bit wonky in KSP. Basically, it won't allow you to extend or close a fairing if it *thinks* you have a collision with the cargo, and it doesn't matter whether the collision actually exists or not. Best, -Slashy

I had a highly- cheaty craft that could maintain a constant 1G back in KSP .24. I flew so that my prograde was aligned directly with Duna and intercept happened in a matter of days. You achieve a trajectory that's a virtual straight line in very short order, so the target planet has no chance to get out of the way. HTHs, -Slashy

Probably not... but I suspect most players are in the same boat. Best, -Slashy

A more immersive way to do it without using websites: Launch a probe just barely outside Kerbin's SoI but on it's orbit around the sun. You can then use the maneuver node to find transfer windows to various planets. HTHs, -Slashy I think that calendar is on the old 24h clock. Take the days it gives you and multiply by 4. Best, -Slashy

I also don't agree. Stock career is way too easy right now. Not only is it not grindy, but you can blow your way through most of the tech tree in a matter of days and complete the entire tech tree and upgrade all the facilities in a matter of weeks. Best, -Slashy

^ What he said. And a merely "good" ship really isn't going to be good enough to generate downloads. It's pretty much got to be "revolutionary", perhaps even "astounding".

^ This. In order to get popular, people have to know exactly what your ship does that theirs don't. They're pretty much going to have to look at it. So... pics, preferably video. Without that, your ship will never be popular no matter what you do so there's no point in talking about why. Best, -Slashy *EDIT* Also... if MMCRP's pics are of your craft... I mean this in the nicest possible way... it's not a particularly outstanding craft. You'd have to make something way more amazing before you can expect people to get excited about it. Remember, this is a huge community of aerospace geeks and quite a few of us are aerospace engineers by trade. It takes a lot to move the needle around here. Don't take your design's reception (or lack thereof) as anything personal. Apologies, -Slashy

No entries?? Here's one to get the ball rolling: http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Monstro 318 tonnes to orbit/ 80 parts= 3.98 points. Best, -Slashy

I flew an SSTO to the surfaces of Eve, Duna, Laythe, and back home in less than a month and expended no fuel in the process. Infiniglide + kraken drive= awesome! Best, -Slashy

Whackjob was a minor deity around here back in the day. Last I heard, he got a girlfriend and stopped playing very often. Best, -Slashy

foamyesque, All true, but I got the impression that he wants to do it from sea level. I could be mistaken... Best, -Slashy

No, but as @foamyesque points out, it doesn't hurt either. Best, -Slashy I think that was back in KSP .90. Possibly even earlier than that. These days, it makes no difference. Best, -Slashy

I would argue that there isn't *any* way to success on this project. The math says that using a Mammoth (even with zero drag) will yield *at best* 6,790 m/sec DV. That's with an infinite number of fuel tanks, no mass that's not fuel tanks, and vacuum ISP. It's nowhere near enough. If he has any chance at all of making orbit from sea level in a single stage, he'll have to use nukes or ions in the process. *edit* Of course... this is assuming he doesn't get cheaty as heck. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/KrakBadger Best, -Slashy

foamyesque, If he's going to try to use LV-Ns at higher altitude for the brunt of the work, he's gonna need to store jet fuel. There's no better way to do that with wet wings, especially if he's looking for low wing loading. I'm not sayin' it's gonna work, mind you... but if that's what he's trying to do, that's probably his best chance of success. Best, -Slashy

Sharpy, Well... *sorta*. Fuel is consumed at a lower rate with lower thrust, but over a longer period of time due to the reduced acceleration. You wind up spending a lot more time in atmosphere and suffer more DV loss to drag than you would otherwise. Actually, this isn't much of a problem. Wings comprise a very low percentage of the total mass of airplanes in KSP. Moreover, wet wings are the lowest- drag way to carry your fuel. Minimizing drag is absolutely critical if you're going to try to fly out of Eve. Best, -Slashy