FleshJeb

It's a two-stage lasagna. I like asparagus and all, but "lasagna-staging" sounds like the ultimate evolution.

Things Gargs won’t admit wearing, even to us:

Those are Jool-numbers. Duna should be MUCH less from low-Kerbin orbit. I will respectfully suggest that you have a planning/timing issue.

Man, there's a lot to respond to in this, but I'll stick to the above: I have a somewhat contrary but complementary opinion (what's new?): You're right in that purity and single-minded purpose look much better on the young. In the old, it's tragedy and madness (King Lear?). I don't think that one has to LIKE the protagonist, just understand them. Time and distance and clarity of hindsight make for easier writing...and the issues are simpler. I don't think there's ever a point where we cease making mistakes, it's just that the attitudes and responses are different, and the demands and inertia are higher. It's more of an internal story, and the backdrop tends to be much less important. Setting and environment is probably much more fun to write. The older person just makes different kinds of mistakes, and I think the journeys of self-exploration are more intentional. As is the self-destruction, if one identifies something in the self that one thinks needs to be destroyed. I've not actually read his books, but I think this is something that Steve Martin (that jerk) writes the preamble to in Shopgirl. Writing prompt/character study: Sam Elliot-type. Full of "common sense" and gravitas, and surety. Until one day, someone asks him, "If you've got it all figured out, then why are you an alcoholic?" Actually, Sam Elliot has probably already done that bit, and if he hasn't, I bet Kris Kristofferson has.

I've taken to minimizing the amount of oxidizer capacity, or just going pure-LF only. I enjoy the long, slow ride to orbit though. You'll probably be interested in Editor Extensions, RCS Build Aid, and CorrectCoL. Really useful for us spaceplane zealots. Links are in my sig. Have you tried a https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Constant_altitude_descent? If I did my math right (arccos 305/800), you can point up to 67deg above retrograde with the Nervs before you have the same effective ISP as the Rapiers thrusting pure retro. By coincidence, that's about the starting angle you need to land with a local TWR of 1.1 (arcsin 1.0/1.1 = 65 deg).

Huh. a Wolfe fan...somehow fitting. I've finished a couple of novels by Gene Wolfe. I've started a few more novels and never finished due to hitting the "I don't have a Master's degree in Literature" wall. Similar problem with the equally-sophisticated Toni Morrison, although I love her work. I've ready many of Wolfe's short stories, and the one that sticks with and haunts me is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cabin_on_the_Coast I tend to stick to Zelazny, Vonnegut, and Le Guin, where I can at least intuit 90% of what's going on. Now you've got me thinking about why Severian is who he is... Even in his later years, I still see him as a lonely, isolated, and detached little boy. All the self-mastery and philosophizing in the world won't fix that. I think he does arrive at some Buddhist state of Oneness with the Universe, but I don't recall that he ever truly connects with another human being, or with himself. I think a lot of young men (myself included) go through a phase of wanting to be as detached and dispassionate as Severian usually is. What aspiring Sigma Male wouldn't want that professional career? Variations on Autarchy are often though as an end-goal of many philosophical systems (exs. Stocism, Libertarianism, MGTOW). Or as I like to call them, "Philosophies for adolescents by people desperately trying to prove they don't have mommy and daddy issues." Ultimately, chasing Logic, Virtue, and Mastery is about seeking approval and justification from the universe, and all of that seeking is fear-based. Adulthood comes when one can exist and be present without the burning need to know why. Anyone who doesn't try first is a flarping quitter, though. Sorry for the tangent, literature gets me thinking. I got about 1/3 of the way through Knight before putting it down. I think it's covering a similar very distinct phase of young-malehood. I should finish it, and get into Wizard, as I'm interested to see where it goes. Wolfe seems to be a firm believer in "necessary phases", and I don't disagree with him. I'll probably re-read Zelazny's Amber series first because I understood and saw the character growth more clearly.

@miklkit You should only have to do it once in the editor. I would empty all your oxidizer tanks, and thrust limit the Rapiers. That will give you your max DV in space. Kerbal Engineer Redux is the most universal and accepted mod for DV calcs in the editor and informational readouts in flight. This is the latest version: https://github.com/jrbudda/KerbalEngineer/releases It still won’t necessarily solve your problem the way you want it solved because it doesn’t understand intent. If you want to figure out range AFTER using the Rapiers in Closed-Cycle, assume that all the oxidizer is gone, and (9/11) * Oxidizer of your liquid fuel is gone. Set the tanks to the appropriate levels in the editor, set the Rapiers to 0 thrust, and any DV calculator will spit out the right answer. (Be sure to lock any tanks on your payload, if any.) Yes, it’s a bit of work, but you only have to do it one time. Be sure to note the tonnage of liquid fuel from the above if you want to do mid-mission calcs by hand. None of the calculators do well with switching engines on and off via action groups in flight. For the DV maps, I add a safety factor of 20%. EDIT: Spaceplanes are just harder operationally...That's why I like them. This is a really good thread: In addition some common rules of thumb are to aim for 1 Rapier per 15-40 tons of plane (15 is reasonably easy, over 30 is very hard), and 1 Nerv per 2 Rapiers, or 2 Nervs/3 Rapiers.

Put all your engines on the same stage and set the thrust limiters of the ones you want to ignore to zero. This works with KER and MJ, not sure about the stock DV meter (I disabled mine because it’s a performance hog)

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you, per se. It's just that we live in an era of decreasing faith in public institutions, and I like to make a point of standing up for them. I know a lot of hard-working, honorable people on the other side of the regulatory fence from me. They're absolutely a pain in the butt sometimes, but that's their job.

Do you accept √ ?

Let's: This is a persistent trope/fantasy that doesn't have much basis in a rules-based society. I've worked and talked with a lot of people in a lot of permitting departments, and bribery just DOES NOT HAPPEN. Culturally, they tend to be very rules-oriented people (Many will argue that they are excessively so.) Projects go through extensive review from many people, and things that get built adhere to the rules. Large, controversial projects also have to go through serious public scrutiny. "I don't like the rules, ergo the rules-enforcers are corrupt" is actually a very reductive and dangerous way of thinking. Blanket cynicism is disempowering--If one doesn't like a proposed project, go to a County Board of Supervisors (or equivalent) meeting and say something. Projects can and do get supported/killed all the time by this process. Do favors and politicking get done? Sure, but there is a very strong corrective mechanism built into healthy societies.

@swjr-swis Also notable: The Coriolis effect and the act of trying to fly a straight line on a sphere. If the KSC were exactly on the equator, we’d see fewer perturbations when flying due East or West. If it were at latitude 45 we’d see it much more.

You can click on several types of parts and hit "Control from Here", and it will reference the controls to that direction. A few of the probes and command pods have different axes you can pick from, like Up or Forward. This also works with docking ports.

"Pendulum Rocket Fallacy". Center of Gravity wants to be as high as possible. https://www.wired.com/story/lets-unpack-the-pendulum-rocket-fallacy/ Should be BDArmory

Is your probe core upside-down? Look to see if it's showing brown as up. Fins are far better than reaction wheels. I rarely use more than what's on the payload.

That's the best part! Especially if the guidance and tracking is nominal.

Orkish Kult of Speed.

Breadcrumb is a fantastic method. Be aware that all those decouplers and fuel lines (and struts) add dry mass, so it may make sense to use fewer, larger/longer tanks, especially as you get down to the smaller diameters. FLT-T400s are pretty small. Structural complexity/part count can be an issue too. There's also a rule of thumb for mass-efficiency that says for engines with roughly the same efficiency, each stage should have the same amount of dV. This is somewhat broken by the non-serial staging methods, but it's a good guide. You may be best off having your probe stage sitting on top of: A long 1.25m stage with one Terrier (capture) A 2.5m stage with a Poodle, or a Wolfhound if you've got it. (capture) A 3.75m stage with a Rhino. (transfer) Surrounded by 3.75m stacks with Mammoths, Asparagus-ed into the Rhino core. The Rhino and Mammoths all start at launch. You'll probably have a couple of Mammoths +Rhino left in orbit to start the transfer. Add SRBs to fill launch TWR needs, if any. This is the gravity brake that Jimmy mentioned. From the BH dV map, it looks like you want to use Kohm, as I'm guessing it's the biggest moon at Gateway: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:_Gravity_Assist#Gravity_brake https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/186643-how-to-plan-a-tylo-gravity-assist/

Efficient staging and/or orbital refueling is your only good answer. One of the most efficient staging methods is called Asparagus, and has the benefit of a reasonably consistent TWR. You can also have multiple stacks of asparagus-staging, arranged in series, to suit the TWR and dV needs of that phase of the mission. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Asparagus_staging https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/68532-staging-methods-overview/ If you really want to get into the weeds, a guide on optimizing multiple stages is on this page: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/multistage.php I've built "serially asparagus-staged" LFO rockets that have in excess of 20000 m/s dV, and an average TWR > 1.0. Because when you're trying to circumnavigate the planet at faster than orbital velocity, you have to thrust straight down for extended periods.

I think it's important to note that: If one were to apply the same critiques to the science of economics that one applies to the science of climate change, economics would (IMO) come out looking a lot worse. Points of interest: Ideological motivation of the practitioners. Quality of assumptions made. Quality of data and the size of the error bars on that data. Quality of the methodology, and whether it properly takes into account all external confounding factors. Not attempting to get into politics or economics here, just drawing a parallel as food for thought.

Desmond Tutu passed today. A very VERY good man:

I didn't realize we'd detected ANY rogue planets, much less 70. What a wild time to be alive: https://www.inverse.com/science/largest-group-of-rogue-planets

Take a look at the F-76 listing: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/fuel-oil.htm EDIT: Looks like there are a few grades of bunker oil. I'm actually not sure now if F-76 qualifies. EDIT 2: The answer is yes for gas turbines: https://www.wartsila.com/energy/learn-more/technical-comparisons/combustion-engine-vs-gas-turbine-fuel-flexibility "Only about 400 GE gas turbines globally operate on crude, naphtha or heavy fuel oils."

Not apropos of this particular thread: Is it possible for us to be less reductive and hyperbolic when discussing serious scientific matters? Or is poop-flinging more entertaining than having serious, good-faith exchanges and learning things?