OhioBob

It's the new number. Kerbin geostationary altitude is now 2,863,334 m. Using the old 6-hour sidereal rotation period it was 2,868,751 m.

Sombrero Galaxy

There are basically two common ways to get to Mars... In Figure 5.5, what you first do is launch from Earth into a zero-inclination ecliptic orbit. Then, when you are 90 degrees from Mars, you perform a plane change. As you said, however, this can be a fairly large burn - 800 m/s sounds reasonable. The other thing you can do is to launch directly into an inclined orbit as shown in figure 5.6. Figuring this our gets messy. If you don't mind using mods, you might try Transfer Window Planner, which is the in-game version of this web tool. I've only used Transfer Window Planner in the stock game, but its my understanding that it pulls its information from the game files and will work with RSS.

Twice, I think. I went there at least once unmanned, and one time with a manned mission. I'll soon be returning because I just accepted a contract to explore Dres.

So far I've played almost exclusively stock. I also have an install with Real Solar System, but I've only briefly puttered around with it. One of these days I'll get serious about it.

That's a good idea. I haven't tried that but it certainly ought to work, at least in the scenario described here. We don't necessary have to add tankage, we can start out with an oversized tank and just increase or decrease the amount of fuel/oxidizer. For step #1, we add a tank (best guess size) and use the sliders to decrease the propellant load until we have just enough Δv for the return trip. In step #2, we add the LM* (or an equivalent mass) and use the sliders to increase the propellant load until we've added enough Δv for the maneuvers that will take place with the LM attached. If we end up with a tank that is too small or way too big, we can either increase it or decrease it and repeat the steps. * Note, that when the LM mass is added, the Δv indicator will go down, but that's OK. We know from step #1 that, after jettisoning the LM, we'll have enough Δv for the trip home. In step #2 we add to whatever value the indicator is showing the amount of Δv needed for the first part of the trip. For example, say we need 950 m/s with the LM and 1050 m/s without the LM. In step #1 we adjust the sliders until we have 1050 m/s. Say that after adding the LM the indicator drops to 450 m/s. We now adjust sliders until we have 450 + 950 = 1400 m/s, plus whatever margin we want to include. If we now remove the LM, the Δv indicator might jump to something like 2700 m/s. So the indicator is telling us either 1400 m/s or 2700 m/s, depending whether the LM is attached or not, but we know that we'll actually get the 2000 m/s we need when we fly the mission as we planned it.

I totally agree with that. Another good reason to learn how to do it by hand is because there are times when a mod simply can't provide the dV information needed. This often happens when there is some unusual or complex sequencing involved. For example, suppose we are going to recreate an Apollo-style moon mission in Real Solar System. We know that the maneuvers the service propulsion system must perform require about 2000 m/s. However, half of that is performed with a fully fuelled lunar module attached, and half is performed with no LM attached. If we design the command/service module to give 2000 m/s without the mass of the LM, then we're under-designed. If we design the CSM to give 2000 m/s with the mass of the LM, then we're over-designed. The answer lies somewhere in the middle and the only way to figure it out accurately is to perform the calculations my hand. A mod like KER just can't do it.

I agree that it is not exceedingly difficult to get the information, but it is certainly inconvenient. And getting the information to plug into the equation is by far the more time consuming part of the process than is solving the equation, which was my point. Like you, I started using the mass indicator in the map view. I'd send my rocket out to the pad, switch to map view, note the mass, and then revert to the VAB. Then strip away the first stage, and do it again to get the starting mass for the second stage. Ditto again if there was a third stage, and so on. Then I'd have to add up the propellant mass for each stage. There is nothing especially difficult about all that, but it takes time and it's sure not what I consider to be fun. And we haven't even mention the situation were we have a liquid core with strap-on SRBs. First we have to compute the combined Isp, then we have to compute how much liquid propellant is remaining after the SRBs are jettisoned. I did all of that for months before I finally surrendered and said screw it and installed KER. I think it is a really good exercise for somebody to figure out how to do all of that. I'm all for learning. But once somebody learns it, it seems rather pointless to have to go through the grind time after time. I love math, but for even me having to do all that detracted from the enjoyment of the game.

Solving the Tsiolkovsky rocket is the easy part, getting the numbers to enter into the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is the hard part. The VAB tool that comes with the stock game provides the total vehicle mass only. It doesn't break it down by stage and it doesn't give the propellant mass. To get the stage breakdown we have to start disassembling the rocket stage by stage and note how much the mass changes. The mass is also given only to the nearest 0.1-ton, which many times isn't precise enough. And the propellant mass must be added up by hand from the contents of each fuel tank. In other words, it's a real pain in the neck to do it without using something like KER. KER not only computes the dV, but it also adds up all the bits and pieces that goes into the calculation. It's the latter part that is the biggest convenience and time saver.

Congratulations. With a little more practice you'll be an old pro. I'm sure that helped. With the configuration shown in your image, I'm not sure you would have been able to do it. In the future, when you are designing your vehicle in the VAB, strip it down to just the part that will perform the docking and figure out where the center of mass is. Place your RCS around the vehicle at that point. Furthermore, if your vehicle will be docking with partially depleted fuel tanks, you can dial back the amount of fuel and oxidizer to the amount you think will be remaining. That way you can see were the CoM will be at the time of docking. (Don't forget to return the fuel/oxidizer to 100% after you've located the CoM.) You can be off a little without causing a problem, but you want to be as close to the CoM as practicable. You definitely want to avoid having your RCS out on the ends because that will induce too much unwanted rotation.

I didn't make it very easy on myself, but I managed to achieve "hard mode" status. My design was intended only to land on Mun or Minmus, not return. It was a simple design that performed very well. Here's a picture... Landing gear were excluded to save weight. My intent was to just do a "touch and go", that is, touch the surface, take a screenshot, and then quickly fire the engine and return to orbit before toppling over. However, I found that after landing on Minmus Greater Flats, the rocket stood on end quite stably. Here's a picture... After landing I saw that I still had 1018 m/s Δv remaining. Rather than waste it, I figured I might as well see if I could get it back home. I had neither a heat shield nor parachute, so this wasn't going to be easy. If I didn't burn up first, I'd have to perform a soft landing under engine power. Getting back into orbit and performing a return burn was no problem, but that's when I realized I made a major blunder. I was headed for a nighttime reentry and landing. Rather than reload and try again, I decided to take my chances and soldiered on. Reentry was a close call. All three of my solar panels overheated and blew up. My engine (the critical part) could handle only 2000 K, and, as I watched the temperature rise, I didn't think I was going to make it. Luck was with me though as the temperature maxed out at 1988 K. With disaster narrowly averted, I now faced the most harrowing part - the landing. Since it was nighttime, I couldn't see a thing. I was flying totally blind with only my velocity and altitude indicators to guide me (thankfully, KER gave me altitude above terrain). KER was also telling me that I was about to land in a mountain biome. Could things get any worse? I did a quick calculation and estimated that, in order to kill my velocity, I needed to fire the engine at full thrust when 850 meters above the ground. When the time came I hit the button and prayed. I don't know how fast I was going when I hit the ground, but I blew off the bottom half of my rocket. Miraculously, however, the upper part, including the probe core, survived. Here's a picture the next day after the sun came up... It probably shouldn't have happened, but some how it did. I don't know if I was lucky or good.

Other than kicking the souposphere to the curb, I really don't see that the game has changed all that much. What has changed is the players. The old days felt different because we didn't know anything and were fumbling about. Every new accomplishment and discovery was exciting because, well, it was new. We can try to play the game like we use to, but we can never unlearn what we've learned and go back to being newbs again. Those days are gone forever because we've outgrown them. That's nobody's fault, it's just a fact of life.

Δv readouts come with some mods such as KER or MechJeb. What the readout does is it tells you the amount of Δv your rocket/spacecraft is capable of producing. You need to make sure that your vehicle can produce at least as much Δv as it will take to complete the mission you plan to fly. Determining the amount of Δv you need is generally done using a Δv map, such as this one. Let's say you want to orbit Mun and return. According to the Δv map, this should take 3400+860+310+310 = 4880 m/s. If you build a vehicle in the VAB and your KER readout says it can produce 4500 m/s, then you don't have enough to complete the mission you want to fly. You have to start redesigning you vehicle until the readout gets up to at least 4880 m/s (and preferably a bit more to give you a safety margin). If you get your readout up to, say, 5000 m/s, then you should have a vehicle capable of orbiting Mun. Of course you also have to learn to fly efficiently. If you do things poorly, you can waste a lot of Δv. If you are doing something for the first time and are not entirely sure how it will go, you should probably carry a large margin to play it safe.

One thing that I notice is that your RCS thrusters are way up on the front end of your ship near the docking port. This is going to make it very difficult to translate in a controllable way. With the arrangement you have, firing a thruster is going to cause you to rotate. There's nothing you can do about that now, but next time place your RCS near the ship's center of mass. This will allow you to translate without rotating. Then, if you are slowing drifting left, right, up or down, you just fire a thruster to null the motion.

@NastaseRaul0, I'm just curious, have you ever seen an actual total solar eclipse? I've been fortunate enough to see three. It's a pretty awesome experience. For those of you in the United States who may not know, we have two total solar eclipses coming up that will pass right across the continental USA, in 2017 and 2024. If you can, I recommend you make plans to see at least one of them.

One of the things I find most interesting about space flight is the mathematical part of it. The fact we can take paper, pencil, calculator and a few equations and compute what will happen before we ever do it, I think is really cool. I like the feeling of having mastery over what I'm doing, rather than feeling like I just got lucky. Isaac Newton is my hero.

That looks really cool, but it really can't happen. From Kerbin, the Sun has a larger apparent size than Mun, therefore total solar eclipses would never occur. Solar eclipses from Kerbin would be annular.

Xena (informal name given to Eris before it was classified and officially named)

Nassau

I enjoy the exploration part of KSP as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I have to wing it. I like to plan out my missions and design a craft that will accomplish my goals most effectively. I get a thrill out of landing on the surface of some body I've never been to before and watching the sun rise and set. But I also get a thrill out of successfully completing a mission just as I planned it with only my safety margin of fuel left in the tanks. There is no reason a person can't enjoy both.

Youngstown

Sinope

Murmansk

Fixed it. Thanks.

Oxnard