Nich

@RocketSquid Career teaches you how to be efficient. Although on normal the difference between a minimalist design and a slapped together design is 100000% profit margin vs 90000% profit margin. Hardly worth the effort currently. I have argued that hard needs upgrade cost turned way down with contracts paying much less so that a well designed rocket makes 10-15% profit and something that is slapped together loses money or just breaks even. I have always found rescue contracts and station contracts are my bread and butter. Kerbin orbit station, Mun orbit station, Minimus Orbit station with a couple rescue contracts and I am sitting at a million funds and can do just about anything I want.

I have a BS in aerospace engineering and I am still learning after playing 4-5ish years. Still have not recovered rocks from eve or even been to the Joul system. I really have to stop optimizing and restarting every time a new version comes out. Oh and then there is realism overhaul/RP-1

I would have to go with about a 6-7/10. I feel the creators did a really good job getting the game playable. Imagine trying to play without SAS, manover nodes, nav ball, prograde vector, op reaction wheels or center snap nodes. The last couple updates have been amazing for stock play ability but they may have actually increased the learning curve slightly. I have not played the tutorials in forever but I dont remember a tutorial for reading the nav ball or a tutorial for working the manover nodes. They could even add a separate tutorial for advance manover node techniques for getting past the limitations of the current system.

There are lots of problems. First is the L4 and L5 points have inverse gravity. The gravity gets stronger the further from the center you are. This might be doable but would require a custom physics engine most likely. The L1, L2 and L3 points would require something like a pringle gravity field. I am guessing the main problem with Principia is multiple crafts in orbit the game crawls to a standstill. You could do a reduced SOI where anything in a rather low orbit around a body gets 2 body and after say GEOish altitude the game switches to N body.

@Opus_723 I have not played with Kentipia (i believe) but it should have all the Lagrange points as they are not really a thing they are just the result of taking account of all the gravity's at once. @Richy teh space man That was the exact article I was thinking of. This got me thinking what would a transfer to the moon look like if you locked the reference frame to the earth and the moon. I am thinking something like this. After thinking about it probably more like this Wish I remembered my frame reference math from physics

A couple years ago I read about "space lanes" or "space highways" where you basically use n body physics to transfer from body to body. I think it was something about using the L1 lagrange point you could transfer and capture at the moon for less dv then the transfer burn required by 2 body physics. The disadvantages were they they were very slow (7-12 day transfer to the moon I think). In the example I saw they transferred into a high moon orbit because that is very expensive from a 2 body perspective for less total dv then a minimum homan transfer to low PE (3142ish). However depending how you hit the L1 point I dont see why transfer to a low PE would be possible and I think you would have less hyperbolic velocity. However the dv savings are small, like 10-15 on transfer and 30-40 on capture from LEO to LLO. Has anyone heard of these before and know the proper name? I wanted to do some research on how these could be used for transfer to mars.

I have been thinking of adding canards at the front but rotating them down 15 degrees to give more control authority when I enter at 35 degrees pitch. Would want to trim them level or even a bit nose up before takeoff.

I thought this used to work with rockets. Pretty sure I have had to thrust prograde to slowdown on multiple AERO entry vehicles. Flight control surfaces have never been able to handle flying backwards as they would constantly correct in the wrong direction.

If you watch much RP-1/RP-0 on youtube you will see everyone loves making LES. So out of solidarity I have continued to waste mass on them in my rockets. Well yesterday I had a main engine cut out 128 seconds into flight. It was supposed to be a 140s stage. I had designed the the craft with 10,200 dv plus 800 dv for on orbit manouvors. So I figured I could abort to orbit riding the verners until it was safe to stage. After about 15 seconds the verners exciede their control authority and the rocket pitches up to 25 degrees and FAR starts to rip apart the vehicle. You know how joints start to shimmy. I panic and try to remember how to abort. By the time I find the backspace key main tank had just exploded and just after I pulled way second stage blew up. Honestly it was the most exciting thing to happen to me in a long time. Kerbal survived but decided to take a 9 month vacation even though I had another rocket on standby to complete the contract. Everyone else is training for the Mercury program so it looks like I will complete this contract just a month before the dead line but I can't take anymore contracts for 9 months until this is off my back log. (I messed up and took 6 interplanetary contracts that will not complete for almost 8 months for the shortest to Mercury.)

I have built some nice rockets in the 40-60t range. I made a cheap tank 2 type RD 107 at 68t that launches 1.68t LEO cheaper on the 150t pad cheaper then my balloon/balloon 60t version on the 60t pad. Now I am really struggling to find a good use for these engines on the 150t pad. I cant not seem to make a good 2 RD-107, 1 RD-108 version of a launcher. I keep making a first stage that only has 2m20s so the RD108 feels like a waste. If I under fuel the RD-107s I lose Dv because their TWR is so much better then the RD108s. It feels like these engines really don't work well until you need 15+ tons to LEO on a 2.5 stage 400t monster. My 1.5 stage 320t monster can really only put 4-5t into LEO. I love these engines but I feel like the RP-1 designers put the pad limits at really uncomfortable spots for them. I would have preferred a 70-80t pad 2 for high orbit contracts, uncrewed flybuys, crewed moon orbit (with some care), 1 and 2 man orbiters, skip pad 3 and go straight to pad 4 at 400-420t for uncrewed moon/mars/venus landings, small stations, possibly maned moon orbit

My closest near miss was 1.5km I cant believe it has happened to someone twice.

Also simitry does not always work especially if you are putting symmetric parts on symmetric parts. you could try taking off and putting back on. Also make sure something was not put on with mirror simitry by accident.

I seem to be missing the early controllable core. First controllable core I have is the ranger block 1. Which mod does that come from? edit. found it but it is labeled Non RP-0? Also my probe cores seem to be messed up. When I do to the config page it is just blank.

@OHara Actually I think that was the last bit I needed. Total mass of the stage is already known and I will be using 3D graphing to solve the M1/M2 and M2/M3 ratios. I think I can use that bit you gave me to find the dry mass of M1, M2 and M3 using. M x TWRliftoff/TWRengine = Mengine and (M - MPayload - Mengine )/1.03 = Mfuel and Mfuel x .03 = Mtank

@Snark Ha ha sorry spread sheeting. I am planning an RP-1 play through with procedural engines and I am putting together a spreadsheet to try and optimize my 3 stage rockets. I am just stabbing in the dark here trying to figure things out and this was my first hurdle. I have not played with it yet but I would guess engines have a fixed TWR as you re scale them. I am pretty sure procedural tanks have a fixed structural mass ratio as well. My major constraint is total mass of 20t, 60t, and 150t with as much payload as possible for each pad.

I had an answer but forgot that Required TWR includes the payload.

I feel like it should be really easy but I am struggling with the algebra. If you know; TWR of the engine Structural Mass Ratio of the tank Payload Desired starting TWR of the stage You should be able to find the mass of the stage

I am pretty sure @5thHorseman had a couple very entertaining KSP series under the name HMV plays.

I see your not a fan of uphill runways. Probably could have saved you 100-200 dv Still nice flying. I had to bring a craft into eve backwards like that. Never fun.

I accidentally posted this on the RO thread but it should probably be here Has anyone thought that when you are tooling you should be able to buy a range. IE I want to buy tooling from 2m to 2.5m dia and lengths 4m to 20m is more expensive but cheaper then individually tooling a 2x4, 2x15, 2x20, 2.5x4, 2.5x20. This way if you want slack you can tool 1.9 to 2.1 dia which would be priced equivalently to what we have currently. I dont enjoy doing the math to oversize a tank so I can under size it for now and stretch it later. I am also a little pifed that if I have tooling for a 2x20 tank I should be able to make any tank under 20m on the same tooling but if I want larger then it would require new tooling. If it is a matter of tooling being occupied then you shouldn't be allowed to have multiple of the same tank an a rocket without purchasing tooling for each tank. I have also though if you buy a tank 4 in 4mx30m you should get a 4mx30m 3, 2, and 1 for free or min tooling cost. I kind of feel that when upgrading tooling from say tank 3 to tank 4 you have to pay full price. I could see tank 4 being at the same level as balloon. I could see the argument for making a Tank 1 on balloon tooling but I also see balloon tooling being too specialized for making tank 1. Also I think someone needs to take a look at the R7 verners. First they need a test flight config. Second their TWR and ISP are ridiculous. Put one on a balloon tank as a kick stage and you can send a decent probe on a direct mercury/Jupiter flyby for under 60t launch mass. Their mass may be fine but as a non stoic turbo pump exhaust I would expect a vacuum ISP of 200-250, not 319. I cant seem to find any info on them.

I have always found reducing thrust to 10% at separation makes the boosters behave much more nicely and not take out the center stack.

Has anyone thought that when you are tooling you should be able to buy a range. IE I want to buy tooling from 2m to 2.5m dia and lengths 4m to 20m is more expensive but cheaper then individually tooling a 2x4, 2x15, 2x20, 2.5x4, 2.5x20. This way if you want slack you can tool 1.9 to 2.1 dia which would be priced equivalently to what we have currently. I dont enjoy doing the math to oversize a tank so I can under size it for now and stretch it later. I am also a little pifed that if I have tooling for a 2x20 tank I should be able to make any tank under 20m on the same tooling but if I want larger then it would require new tooling. If it is a matter of tooling being occupied then you shouldn't be allowed to have multiple of the same tank an a rocket without purchasing tooling for each tank.

he he updating fixed my issue, broke a lot of other things. Perhaps time to start over :O

I saw someone make a Moho transfer vehicle for 4-8 kerbals with only 8 or 16 ions and something like 27 km/s dv

I am having a weird issue as well with 1.3.1 RP1. I am attempting to go manned orbital but command pods lack tech for food water and O2. Same with service modules. I have SM2 unlocked but I skipped SM1. Is there another node needed for life support? Edit; never mind updated my game on ckan and a previously empty node now has it.