Falkenherz

@virtualgenius: which mod parts are those? Here is my operation, the Navitas, all in one: Ore concentration is only 4.32%, each of the two drills mines 0.002159/second, amplified by a level 1 engineer to 0.019428ore/second, which is ~70 ore per hour per drill. The Lf+Ox conversion rate of the ISRU is faster than what both drills dig out. Thus, the operation will generate ~840 ore per Kerbal day, thereby refilling the vessel in roughly 8 days (if you let in mine during nighttime by not accessing its physics bubble).

Here is a an "amphibian" vehicle.

Thanks, was not sure it would hold up to standards in this thread. A few enlarge-able screenshots are contained in my blog.

Perfect! Thanks!

From Wikipedia: Does this also apply to a braking burn, when I want to lower my apoapsis, or is then the Oberth effect actually inverse, i.e. I expend more energy at this periapsis in order to loose kinetic energy?

Omniscient class, a mid-tech, self-sufficient long range spacecraft. - Luxurious interior for four crew, including centrifuge-induced gravity for the outer four space appartments. - Easy to re-configure as mass-passenger transport vehicle. - All scientific equipment plus ore mining capability included. - For efficient short-range operations, attach dinghy of your choice to the central-aft docking port. - Eco-certification, no nuclear driven parts, using Poodle engines exclusively. - TWR of 0.45, Minmus landing tested on prototype, Duna landing certification is pending. - dV of 4550m/s for either safe returns or high energy transfers; might be reduced, according to which type of dinghy will be attached. Ideally suited as a base of operation on all foreign planetary systems. Needs low grav astronomical object in order to maintain self-sufficiency via mining.

These are my current career mode spaceplanes which are the backbone of my economy. Mk2 tech level, no fancy Rapier or LV-N available yet. 1. White Goose, adapted to 1.03/1.04. Simple, mid-tech, passenger&fuel craft, with a crew of 10 and some fuel as a payload for refueling duty. Drone flight possible. 2. Firebird. Simple, mid-tech STTO launch system for all kinds of satelites. Some fuel reserves in LKO. Combine with tourist or rescue missions to reap income in career mode. 3. Fuel Dragon. Mid-tech, "yes bring lots of that fuel pls", drone spaceplane. (about 2880 LF+according oxy, some monoprop).

Let me add my small example to the spaceplane discussion: http://falkenherz.blogspot.de/2015/07/a-nice-combined-satelite-deployment.html For me, spaceplanes are a large part of the fun. And they can look super cool!

Cool, cool. But unfortunately, it does not add much to the "endgame". I still wonder what to do once I have opened all tech and visitied all planets. Currently, since the release of 1.0 I am still with largely Mk2 parts, taking my time. However, this means that my motivation to just restart a career will be not very high. The colonisation mod is very attractive and I wish Squad would pool their resources into something like this.

I was indeed looking for that figure of 600 km because I did not find it until now. I can now properly plan an instand-reversible suborbital trajectory. Thanks to you all for the very useful information!

I know this has been asked a few times, but the treads I found did no give a full answer. - Which distance to the sun counts as being in suborbit? - How to achieve the cheapest momentary suborbit which I can inverse immediately? So far, I only found a retrograde ejection from Kerbin at about 6,000m/s deltaV. - I can do those 6000m/s with a LV-N, if I can time the long burn times correctly. But how? I noted that if I burn >6 minutes, the whole orbit shifts while I accelerate and the deltaV prediction from the maneuver node is not necessarily accurate anymore.

Thanks! I would never have been able to deduce a formula like this; no idea why this works out like this! The only thing I understand now is that this formula probably does not apply for the rocket fuel tanks when using an LV-N.

@Slashy I am now that far that I am trying to reproduce your steps in my spreadsheet. Sometimes I have the impression that the main reason which scares me away from Math are the abbreviations, so I try to formulate the data a bit more explicit therein. However, I do not understand the value "maximum acceleration". It must work different to the TWR which I am used to eyeball? How much should I have in space (I use 0,5 TWR)? Also, I do not understand step 3. What do you mean with "tankage"? Where you get the figure 9 in your formula from (Rwd-1)(Mp+NMe)/(9-Rwd) and how is this formula deduced?

Thanks for your help and, no harm done; I will be away now on holdiday for about a week, anyways.

Look here, for dV requirements outside of those transfer windows.

Hm, I just get error messages trying to reproduce your euler-formula in google spreadsheet. How about a link to a demonstrative google spreadsheet? Here is my first small rough incompetent try; I opened the sheet for read+write.

There is already a thread about the jets. I was sceptical, too, but since I added a bit more thrust and adapted my ascend profile to a much flatter one, my spaceplanes now bring almost double their previous payload into LKO. Just give it a try. Ofc it is annoying having to readapt designs every other patch, but I hope these kinds of tweaks remain rare.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the mission design seems to be very narrow, basically a more detailed "satelite"-mission contract with some (elsewhere useless) gadgets. I don´t see much sense in making parts stock which have a very limited purpose.

Lander can, adaptor, Hitchhiker: lightest 5-man cockpit ever! Mk1-cockpit instead of lander can looks better with just minimal weight increase. The Mk2-Appollo-style cockpit cannot compete, being only 3-man and still heavier.

Heh, your last point got me, thanks. I hate never knowing if I found the most efficient setup!!!! I used to play EVE Online and had quite my share of spreadsheets. In fact, I learned a great deal about spreadsheet´ing while playing that game... ah, happy times...

Thanks! Very helpful!

Very helpful, thanks! Goslash, I read your post in the other thread but as I said, I am a bit math illiterate: "e^(DV/9.81Isp)-1*mass" just kills my brain. What is "e"? Eyeballing this expotential function is hardly possible, but sure, those are very helpful steps indeed for preparing a spreadsheet! Is the engine mass part of the "defined payload"? Would it thus be a rough eyeballing to say: Isp times 10 is the practical max deltaV; deduct increasing chunks from this total value per ton of "payload" (includes engine mass and dry tank mass). For eyeballing the "increasing chunks", I am still missing a handle.

Is there a way to eyeball the theoretical or a practical maximum figure for deltaV? Like, for TWR its mass times ten equals trust means equilibrum. I can still grasp this, but I fail to estimate something "asymptotic".

Some thoughts on rover design are in my latest blog entry. I decided for this model, it has about 2600m/s dV and all science experiments aboard. Pilot via Octo, put a scientist in the cockpit. On the blowing wheels issue: Use landing gear wheels in the front; they are indestructible and will cushion most hard blows while going fast.

See, this is something I do not understand. When I stack fuel tanks on an engine, there clearly are diminuishing returns on the deltaV, up to the point where you don´t get much increase any more. Why is this then?