fjarandag

* The ideal mass is infinitesimal. i.e. If your throwing speed (relative velocity between expelled object and source) is 100 m/s, and your Wet_mass / Dry_mass == 10. If you throw a single 9 ton container retrograde, the container will have previous_orbital_speed - 10 m/s and your empty ship +90 m/s. Whereas if you throw infinite/many objects of infinitesimal/tiny mass, then Tsiolkovsky/rocket equation is aplicable and you will get 100 * Ln(10/1) = +230.2 m/s * However, presumably if projectile mass is smaller, thrust is smaller and energy/thrust is less efficient. You might be too old/exhausted before you complete the process. * Maybe the question is not the right one. Everything depends on how much DeltaV do you need. ** If you needed for example 250 m/s, then you know you wont do unless you are able to throw cargo at 250 / Ln(10/1) m/s. If you are unable, consider that salvage ships might do something more meaningful with your stuff. ** If required throwing speed is affordable enough, you might consider throwing bigger chunks of cargo at lower speed to reduce manoeuvre time/etc * Maybe you dont need to throw stuff overboard. Exploiting kerbal physics, you might accelerate/deccelerate raise/lower your orbit by slowly spinning and moving your Center of Mass prograde/retrograde /radial out/radial in. As Scott did with fuel pumps ( ) but with cargo.* Also, throwing so much debris into orbit might make you kondemned to keelhauling by a kerbal kourt.

I feel it is not so different to 0.90 and before. 1.8 TWR is still a good choice, just throttle back when you are near trans-sonic. Now I use 250 as the new terminal velocity until i am above the 10 km. The problem is not so much efficiency as the insane torque that will make your rocket flip over. TWR < 1.5 will mean more time in the thick atmosphere, thrusting far away from orbital prograde/spending a huge fraction of your fuel just to defeat gravity. 1.2 TWR is a hovering slug. For cheap satellite/orbiter launchers, I would rather go for 3 insane fleas at bottom stage (>= 3 TWR), to get my weaker LV-T45 up to a decent 150 m/s. Side SRBs work best for the mass limit, but lateral separators are more expensive than the booster themselves !

Not sure if it's the best place to make one or two suggestions regarding Mobile Labs: #1 I would make the MPL an experiment of its own #1a the dynamic of taking its time makes sense #1b An exponentially decreasing output per biome would make sense (infinite science might be awkward, if some mod wants more science or a player gets stuck there might be better solutions than a built-in cornucopia). #1c Would be interesting to have specific-purpose labs in specific location for missions/extra science (e.g. deploy the Hubble telescople), even to unlock specific tech nodes/abilities #1d Those labs might need resupply (physically, with new stuff from KSC) in order to get more science. #2 I would make the MPL as a refiner for samples/experiments you bring back to Kerbin (pack better the samples, select better samples). #2a Being the rationale to do in MPL something you must do IN SITU, not something that might be done elsewhere. #2b In that sense I liked it better when the Materials Lab and the Goo was reseted at the MPL and just there. That operation might need special instruments/supplies (fancy containers, reactives) that not even a scientist in her EVA suit might be carrying. #2c Might make sense to transmit about a sample without sacrifying the sample. Current situation brings an interesting game decision (to transmit or not to transmit), but also brings awkward hacks (landers with duplicate/triplicate/quadruplicate experiments) or an extra pod just to store more copies of the experiments). I dont know if in 1.0 with the new tech nodes you can unlock everything with just the 2 moons (like Scott did with 2 launches) and the extra MPL tech output will be of any use. Anyway, as I swarm Mun and Minmus for science, the MPL output is negligible and I have better use for Bob and any other extra scientist i might get. So sorry I think MPL's have become a bit useless except for harder modes (need more science) or role playing. And of course the fact that the way experiments are restored now is more to blame than the new functionality for the MPL.

The maths from zarakon are right. Given a throwing speed of v, and the rocket equation (notice that a rocket engines launch particles/gases at high speeds), DV=v*Ln(Initial-mass/Final-mass). GoSlash27 is also right, a mechanical artifact (like a long bow, or a ballista, or an sling, or a golf club) might achieve more throwing speed than a biological arm. I read an arrow from a long bow might be as high as 66-100 m/s. Therefore a ship of 10 tons, might accelerate in the vacuum up to 100 m/s throwing around 6.32 tons of arrows from its cargohold. Another limiting factor is how much energy is available for the operation (stretching a bow, loading an spring, swinging a club spends so much energy). The max throw speed might not be the best energy / (speed * mass). In other words: If throwing at double speed consumes three times as many snacks, the best solution might depend on how many snacks you have. Your own debris might also be a concern. Since you will be ideally impulsing at a given point of the orbit (looking for gravitational slingshot), you might be performing one/few launches at the optimum spot every orbit. If you throw one object from an orbit, the resulting orbits of you and the thrown object will be different, but will coincide in the throwing spot. If the resulting periods happen to be armonic, then the object will hit you after so many orbits. Hopefully, the expelled object might collide with the surface, or you might happen to doing a few throws every orbit (not just one at the very precise instant), so you might be a bit higher every orbit at that point. In a bad scenario, the resulting orbit might be a 2:1 armonic, and although you might raise your apo several meters, the impulse spot will just stay 1 inch away, and you will have arrow striking at you at 100 m/s the orbit after (hope it is a blunt hit).

They make nice side boosters for an LV-T45 (which only has 17 tons thrust at ASL). They don't burn for long, but that initial push makes a big difference. The lateral separators are more expensive than the tiny booster, but i see them survive the fall often.

2000 dv looks as if you where going straight up and then turning it into an orbit. There are plenty of videos and tutorials out there much better and comprehensive than a forum reply. Just google "Kerbal gravity turn".

IMO liftoff stages are a lost cause in stock game. Even if you attach a parachute to a booster you discard at 500m, it is almost impossible it touches land safely before you travel too far and it is discarded. Use a mod for that if you mind so much. Middle stages can be separated before you circularize your orbit, and you might have time (I havent tried that on version 1.0. Anyway watching a reentry and adding parachutes for an engine and a few tanks falling far away from the KSC seems hadly worth it). The orbiting/trans-Munar stage is easily recoverable. If you separate once reentry trajectory, it wont fall too far away from the main vehicle. I even do not separate and use the 909 engine as a reentry shield and put the pod and the science between the engine and the fuel tanks. Looks silly, but works better for stability and overheating than a conventional setup.

I use a reusable rocket #payload: okto probecore, 2 mk1 pods, parachutes #engine: LT-45, 6 tons of fuel, 2 parachutes, 3 tail fins #Optional: Nose cone, science if you plan to visit new places #Parachutes: adjust to 0.5 atm and 350m, if you dont want to be admiring landscapes forever. #Just burn straight up until getting 75 km apoapsis. I burn the remaining fuel on reentry at 40 km and separate the engine off the vector. #When pods land, switch vessel and make sure the engine touches down safely

1.0 . New aerodynamics, and (maybe) some wrinkles still to iron. #1 It is realistic that your vehicles will "want" to flip over if your Center of Mass (CoM) is backwards. This happens both at lift-off and at reentry. Be sure to check the CoM at the VAB. Notice empty fuel tanks and experiments have lower density. Relocate items in rocket stack at will. #2 There was an issue in 1.0.0 with the PhysicsSignificance in HeatShield1.cfg which affects the flying attitude of returning capsules. It is corrected (so is other stuff) in 1.0.1. #3 Since we are talking about Mk1 pods. If you activate debug/physics/heat and look at the numbers, there seems to be some tendency for the convective heat flux to skyrocket if you are aiming at the wrong direction at the wrong time (too fast and not high enough, as if it was accounting for some gigantic angular drag and there were no protective shockwaves). Idk if that is fully realistic, but inestable pods will be prone to blow up from overheating, or conduct too much heat into sensitive neighbors (like probe cores). I had a few tourist ships doomed because of that.