Starhawk

It's not. A prograde equatorial orbit is most efficient to get to because Kerbin's rotational velocity is all added to your eventual orbital velocity. If you try to get to orbit turning West rather than East you need about 350 extra m/s of orbital velocity relative to Kerbin's surface. It would take the same delta-v to reach the Mun from orbit in any case. There is no advantage to being in a retrograde orbit in this case, or indeed in any case other than the need to match a specific retrograde orbit. (i.e. satellite contracts). Happy landings!

The green outline effect was also used as the border of the temp gauges, I believe. That is where the leak is as I understand it. Happy landings!

In your settings panel you can edit your profile. There is a field for 'Custom User Title'. Happy landings!

This is the green outline of parts when selected. It is quite visible in game. Yes. Happy landings!

Hello Kyle, and welcome to the forums! Greetings from western Canada. Happy landings!

I am just so loving this! Keep up the wonderful work. Happy landings! p.s. And yes, that last panel in the previous installment was truly exquisite.

My numbers for a single stage solution came from using Meithan's tool and setting the atmo to 0.3 as a guesstimate to cover the small portion of the flight done at higher pressure, and using 1.4 as the minimum twr. That gave the number of 85.14 t for a single stage solution with 3800 m/s and a 10 t payload. For the multi-stage solutions, I set the lower stage twr at 1.4, and the upper stage at 1.1. I haven't had the time to verify the numbers and may not get a chance until Sunday. But something seems odd, that's for sure. Happy landings!

Welcome to the forums GehringGame! The Fan Works section has a subsection called Mission Reports. That is probably what you are looking for. Generally there is a good audience for the many interesting mission reports. Happy landings!

Well, you totally got me. I was wondering how Jeb was planning on bringing that behemoth down safely. That is beautiful! Happy landings!

This tool appears to do exactly what I was describing earlier. Iterate through all possible given solutions for a specific set of starting parameters and order the list based on the selected criteria. And, yes, it's a very nice tool. I do not understand. From the ideal situation, I would expect more staging to be better in general, until the losses from decoupler mass/increased engine mass outweigh the gains from dropping unused mass. For my simple test case my goal is to move 10 t to Kerbin orbit. I'm allowing a total dv budget of 3800 m/s. Meithan's tool says my best single-stage solution is a Mainsail with 70 t of fuel tanks for a total of 85.14 t. I tried two different splits of the delta-v budget. 1. Upper stage 2000 m/s Skipper + 14.6 t of fuel tanks + payload = 27.6 t Lower stage 1800 m/s Mainsail + 36.4 t of fuel tanks + payload = 70 t 2. Upper stage 1500 m/s Poodle + 7.8 t of fuel tanks + payload = 19.6 t Lower stage 2300 Mainsail + 43.8 t of fuel tanks + payload = 69.4 t I would generally expect more stages to be better up to some point. Happy landings!

Interesting. That's the general direction my intuition was pointing before I wrote the long post above. It is an interesting problem. Other, more mundane, tasks are calling on my brain at the moment. I think I'll try and look at a couple of test cases when I have a bit more time. Happy landings!

It seems to me that this is more algorithmic than formulaic. Maybe that's due to me being more programmer than mathematician. It gets tricky right away when I start thinking about it. In general, how do you find the mass optimal two-stage solution for a given dv, payload mass, and starting twr? There will be any number of solutions depending on how you split the total dv budget between the stages. With multiple stages, one would also have to specify a minimum twr as well as a starting value. The only way that I see is to iterate through the list of engines, run the numbers, do the same thing for the second stage, and total the mass each time and compare. OK, so then we have to try the same thing for three stages... How many stages should there be? In the ideal case, with no staging equipment needed, and the stages being any size we like, we would have an infinite number of stages. This would allow us to constantly throw away mass we don't need and keep the flight truly optimal. The reality of the possible sizes of the stages is very different from this ideal case. And decouplers have mass as well. Hmmm... Maybe I'm overcomplicating it. Happy landings!

You could use Meithan's Engine Charts to quickly get some parameters for single-staged vs. non-staged vs. multi-staged solutions. That might be simplest. Other than that, I'm not sure. In the past, I've tended to try building things different ways in the VAB and see what the results looked like. Meithan's tool has removed much of that for me. Happy landings!

Ever since I bought the game, the store has always had the previous version available for download. I believe Steam does as well, Happy landings!

Hello, and welcome back. The areodynamics have been completely reworked to be more realistic. This includes a much more sophisticated model for drag. Thermal systems and effects are now part of the game. Heat is conducted and convected as well as radiated. If things get too hot, they explode. Resources are part of the stock game. Scanners, tanks, a drill, and a resource converter have been added. Kerbals are assigned as pilots, engineers, or scientists and gain experience as they roam farther. This improves their skill level. All engines have been rebalanced. Many, many, many other changes. Happy landings!

You could try disabling SAS once the thermal effects start. Happy landings!

I was tempted to vote 'No, seriously. Are you off your meds or something?'. However, I've already seen a few people using exploits they've found. I'm sure they also like the bugs. As for me, not so much. Happy landings!

There was a challenge a little while back called the 'Fastest Small Step'. I managed to make Duna in 23 days. Others did much better. Happy landings!

Meithan, there isn't enough rep on this entire forum (or even the whole internet) to give to you. I only looked at the new version for a few minutes. It's wonderful. This has already become an essential tool for me. Thank you. Happy landings!

Hello TheCrafterESP, and welcome to the forums! There is a great deal of interesting stuff to learn, do, and see around here. Happy landings!

I've never tried to make a shuttle replica, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I would try to configure the lifter so the wings are as low as possible. They should be as near the bottom as you can manage. Happy landings!

Hello RoadBlock. Welcome to the forums! I don't know who ChrisPBacon82 is, but there are a lot of people in the community who build all sorts of things. That includes a crowd that is heavily into replicating real-life craft and missions in KSP. These forums are very extensive. Have a look around, and you should find the sort of thing you are looking for. Happy landings!

Hi Naji Mac, and welcome to the forums! I'm sure you will enjoy the community. Many of us also play KSP. Happy landings!

It takes time for volunteers to update the Wiki when an update drops. This one contains vast amounts of new content, so updating everything will take time and willing people. I haven't heard whether the PhysicsSignificance flag does anything in the current version. Happy landings!

Thanks Meithan! I had missed the fact that that chart had SP mass added. I think adding 100 kg mass is a very good way to set a baseline for comparison with other engines for small-mass payloads in vacuum. Happy landings!