More Boosters

[quote name='5thHorseman']For the same reason that every command pod carries a full tank of monoprop even though I never use it.[/QUOTE] Empty should be the default as with the fat wings.

What's a bit of information I'd find interesting?

Well all I have to add is that if I were rich as sin and looking to flaunt it, I'd rather get a supersonic business jet than a collection of overpriced art. Yeah yeah I know money laundering and all but you can't say [b]all[/b] of art trade is money laundering.

[quote name='Workable Goblin']The first NASA first was rendezvousing with Gemini 7/6A in 1965 (the Soviets had done some "formation flights," but not truly rendezvoused, and they wouldn't until Soyuz 3 in 1968), or flying past another planet with a working spacecraft if you're willing to count robots (Mariner 2 in 1962). Gemini 7 set a duration record that would stand until 1970, too.[/QUOTE] Which dysfunctional Soviet spacecraft went past another planet before that?

[quote name='Ralathon']Or, you know, just bombard Lithium with neutrons to produce He3.... That's a lot cheaper and easier.[/QUOTE] Nah I like Uranus.

[quote name='kerbarara']Thanks everyone! After 10 attempts getting to Dres (It's absolutely my limit in the current tech tree), I arrived and had no power. I... I... I used infinite electricity to rotate my craft just 30º. Shameful.[/QUOTE] This is why it's always a good idea to disable access to at least one battery.

[quote name='Starwaster']I don't think I have anything to add on to what Ferram said but here is some reading material on the subject: [URL]https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/ame/media/Section%20III.4.1.7%20Returning%20from%20Space.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] [quote name='Article']Figure 4.1.7-1. Apollo Capsule Re-entry. This artist’s concept of the Apollo re-entryshows that air friction causes the capsule to glow red hot. The astronauts inside stay cool,thanks to the protective heat shield. (Courtesy of NASA/Johnson Space Center)[/quote] And now I'm confused. I thought heating was mostly due to compression?

I dunno where this "you need radiators for moho" comes from. That's not the case at all. What you need is an insane amount of fuel to come back, something I still haven't achieved yet. 3 poorly planned rescue missions spent the rest of my patience and now I'm done with that particular save while Jeb, Bill and Bob drift aimlessly, forever. ;.; I sent a probe to Moho as its transfer windows come up often so do that if you can, it's not really interesting enough to be worth the Delta V cost. Like just throw probes at it.

You do realize that your formula greatly favors vacuum engines right? For calculating thrust? Something that means the most to lifter engines? It's counterintuitive and unnecessarily homogenizing. It should be obvious that things with low TWR got better TWR and those with high TWR got worse TWR. Things with low TWR have low TWR for a reason and the opposite is also true. Terrier and Poodle are just fine. The same can be said for the 3.75m engines as their TWRs are similar to 2.5m engines and only Rhino is considerably more efficient AND with better TWR than Skipper while having a similar role. The Mammoth is just fine really, it has slightly better TWR and Isp and that's it. The LFB still beats it which in turn comes with its own downsides. I think a good indicator that this formula needs more work is that you're proposing a bigger buff to Swivel than you are to Reliant. The former is already a much superior engine in early game scenarios where you either don't have controllable canards or adding them would skyrocket the price of the booster to begin with. I think you're putting too much stock in gimbal degrees. Not having gimbal at all is a major downside and it should count for something, but having any gimbal at all is generally good enough for control. You're also ignoring the cost aspect here, as relatively minor perks like high gimbal range and surface-attachability can be justified by the high price of Vector; as long as its not stuff like substantially increased TWR or Isp. And well, the bit about NERVA... You really need to think this over man. Tweak the formula to make gimbal range matter less and having a gimbal at all matter more (log it up!), and try to make Swivel/Reliant better. They're really the only ones that need the help.

[quote name='KerikBalm']Lets not talk about "realistics Isp" values in a game where things take about 1/3 the dV to reach as real life. Getting to Jupiter from low Earth orbit takes about 3x as much dV as it takes to get to Jool from LKO. Just getting to low earth orbit takes about 3x as much dV as it takes to get to LKO.... Similar values are found for Earth->Moon and Kerbin->Mun Considering that, it would be more "realistic" if engine Isp was 1/3 their real life values... enjoy your LV-N with 266 Isp... But then it would also get a better TWR (as would all rocket engines), and a lot of the mass of parts would come down, tanks would have much better mass ratios. Forget about realistic Isps (but 340 Isp is quite realistic already as long as your not using lH2... which we don't seem to be using given the liquid fuel has none of the drawbacks of lH2).[/QUOTE] If this were to be done, then fuel would need to be much cheaper and most everything would need to be upscaled. Better wet/dry mass ratios on fuel tanks too. I mean, Saturn V with no payload had 17k Delta-V, how do you even reach that in KSP without ions or nukes?

A somewhat superior solution would be to what? We're on the edge of our seats here!

Take your salt away you're corroding the engines!

We find ones that are very close to their star though.

They need to add giant squid parts now.

Better wheels would be an important step forward, rovers are currently the highlight of space exploration.

What do you make of the Vector then? Anyway most "spacey" things are bound for 1.1 right now, and the increased part count thing will certainly benefit spacecraft the most so just hang tight.

Nobody gives me rep so IDK.

Stop it. Nemesis isn't real, give our scientists some credit. Interesting story but we knew this would happen with Sedna. Let's see about its orbit first.

Download and install Kerbal Engineer Redux. There you'll see your Delta-V, and if the total is around 4.500 m/s or more, you'll make it.

As long as it is fully optional, I'm okay with it. I would like to see more relevant contracts, but then again I've been waiting for DMagic Orbital Sciences to be updated so I couldn't play career much... How is the contract system different? Do we finally get more sensible space station contracts than "build an empty and perfunctory space stationesque thing, fire it straight on escape trajectory and enjoy big bux"?

Well the ET does scale linearly with the payload so just lift more? I guess volume is still an issue.

No, that will take forever! What we need to do is to get a more massive ring than Mars! De-orbit the moon!

Is it intended that launching the Nom-o-Matics without their Fertilizer/Mulch/Supplies filled actually gives them a negative price and makes the whole rocket cheaper?

Now I can play KSP again!

Reliant and Swivel are awful. I don't use the aerospike so I didn't notice if there was a buff to it, but if that's the case, what are the new values? Might be good competition to the Vector.