Wcmille

I had a breakthrough I wanted to share. Here's my current algorithm: Create a list of all reasonable engine combinations for the number of stages specified. Add a small amount of fuel to the stage which will benefit the most from the fuel, without going over the TWR limits. If all stages can no longer have fuel added due to TWR limits, the design is a failure. Report all successful designs. I used to calculate the best stage by looking at the incremental dV for each stage like this: F = mass of fuel modules, including the fuel and the leftover dry mass. s = the dry weight of all the other stuff which is not fuel (engine, payload, etc) r = The wet to dry ratio of fuel tanks, which is usually 1/9 in KSP. dV = 9.81 * Isp * ln (wet/dry) = 9.81 * Isp * ln ((s+F)/(s+rF)) Gravity cancels out across all the stages, so we're left with this for the incremental dV for each stage: d/dF Isp * ln((s+F)/(s+rF)) = Isp * (s-rs)/((s+F)(s+rF)) This *almost* works, but doesn't account for higher stages removing dV from lower stages. I realized that we can subtract away the loss of dV from other stages by taking a partial differential of dry mass instead of fuel! That looks like this: d/ds Isp * ln((s+F)/(s+rF)) = Isp * ((r-1)*F)/((s+F)(s+rF)) So when you are looking for which stage to add fuel to, the full calculation for each stage is the incremental gain minus the incremental loss for all stages beneath it. Instead of incrementally adding fuel, I need to use the Newton-Rhapson method to solve these simultaneous non-linear equations, but I'm still (re)learning how to do that.

I was trying to make sense of the "FindOptimalStage" function in kspcalc.js Could you walk me through the algorithm for that function?

Here's a paper that I think is what I'm looking for, but the notation confuses me a bit. Looking to convert the solution to an algorithm. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0607412

What do you think about making the passenger lights blink if a crew report is possible, consistent with other blinking science modules?

Not sure what you mean by serial? As opposed to asparagus? I'd think any high dV rocket would be using a single NERV (or DAWN).

Thanks for the response. I was hoping for colored, iconic pictures. Also, looking for the kerbal planets, not real-world.

Yes, I find departing from Mun to be tremendously helpful in saving dV. You can get about +600 dV for a high-speed maneuver by "dropping" from Mun. Drop tanks often improve dV, cost, and mass at the price of thrust. I find them to be most helpful on the heaviest stage Here are links that suggest a mathematical solution is possible: https://mikegrudic.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/optimal-rocket-staging/ https://rocketsim.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/performance-and-optimization-multi-stage-rockets/

@GoSlash27 Does your spreadsheet assume always 4 stages? Here's an example of the class of problem I'm trying to solve: Build the lightest-weight chemical rocket (no ion) possible to send 10 tons of payload 18,000 dV. (any number of stages)

Hey there, I wanted to work on my own designer for optimal stages. Anybody know of the algorithm to calculate optimum fuel sizes for a given payload, engine weight, and Isp? I'm aware of Optimal Rocket Calculator, which doesn't handle NERV or DAWN engines. It also doesn't handle drop tanks. I think Optimal Rocket Calculator also uses brute force.

Is anyone aware of a good set of flags for each planet/moon (e.g. Duna, Minmus, Dres, etc)?

In my current career game, once I'd almost finished the tech tree (only leaving a couple of techs I don't use much), I did: Science=>Money at 50%. Once I got enough science to finish the tree, I was pretty good on money, so I'm switching to: Science => Reputation at 100% and Money => Reputation at 50%.

Squad, Thanks for including these into 1.3.1!

I don't see a downside in autostruting. It doesn't seem to affect mass, and improves the rigidity of the craft. Feels like entering a cheat code. What's the intent of this feature?

I was able to see Jool from KSC in sandbox with a 1920x1200 monitor. Following @blakemw's idea, here's how I did it: I put a command cupola on the Launchpad of KSC. I set my target to Jool. I fast forwarded time (a lot) to put Jool in opposition. I fast forwarded time to put Jool just overhead in the NavBall. I switched to IVA mode, then zoomed in all the way. Jool appeared as a single, unaliased pixel surrounded by aliased pixels. Skybox pixels don't increase in detail with zoom, but the celestial models do.

I wonder what the maximum IVA magnification is. Asking about game time that screenshots were taken, because surely Jool is best observed when it is in opposition.

What game date/time was this taken? What mods were necessary? Was this taken from KSC or elsewhere?

Thanks for this. I've never tried to look at Jool in opposition, but I'm assuming that it can't be seen in stock if the image you are showing would really be that large. Can we conclude that the celestial bodies get clipped? What is the algorithm? Is it simple distance?

Which celestial objects are visible from KSC with the naked eye (aside from Minmus, Mun, and the Sun)? Is it possible to see Jool at night?

I am also experiencing this problem with large bases and stations. It cannot be fixed by turning the SAS off; I'm confident this is a bug that needs to be fixed in a patch.

Maybe the answer is to have Mountain refueling stations that service an SSTO and suborbital planes that can shuttle travelers from the mountain to anywhere on the surface (and back).

Does "Return to Kerbin from a Fly by of Duna" mean: Enter the Kerbin SOI (Fly by) Orbit Kerbin Land on Kerbin Also: How sure are you? Why?

I thought it might be useful to provide thoughts about how to make great suggestions. I'd love to revise these thoughts based on the suggestions of others. What makes a good suggestion? 1. Provides Revenue. Rule #1, the idea has to be able to make money. Game developers have to eat too. Any suggestion, particularly ones that will be expensive to implement, has to provide a plan for how it will result in making money for SQUAD. Example: Ideas like new languages and new platforms provide clear revenue pathways -- these are new markets to attract new users. How does your idea do those things? 2. Be Novel. Suggesting ideas that have already been suggested aren't useful. These are well-known to SQUAD. 3. Adds Complexity Appropriately You can't make the game more complicated for beginners. It's OK if the game becomes more complicated as play progresses, but this is a complicated game for most people, and expanding to a bigger audience is how the game will make money. It's OK to add "option complexity" Examples: "Load and Clear's" CommNet and KerbNet are a good examples of adding appropriate complexity, because signal strength doesn't really matter until the game is well underway. Life Support is a better concept for Mods, because it adds complexity right at the beginning. 4. Be Fun There is a category of suggestions that increases realism, but probably doesn't increase fun (for most people).

Also see this discussion: There are several problems to solve: 1) Landing. Landing with full tanks means a high ballistic coefficient. I never solved this. Landing with empty tanks means you need to either refuel with a drill and ISRU that you carry or that is provided by something on the surface. These will either limit you to landing somewhere that has ore, or you need something with wheels. 2) Sub-orbital Flight I like mammoths; an SSTO is going to be bigger than a staging craft. You want to get out of the soup as fast as you can. There is tremendous d/v loss at low altitude. Aerospikes only seem better to me if you are willing to stage. 3) Orbital Flight It might be possible to get high enough that you use something like a NERV to go orbital. You could also get "caught" by an orbital ship that does a rendezvous and then accelerates to orbit again. This would be very daring. The main problems are fast rendezvous, and a connection that doesn't break due to fast acceleration. I suspect this orbital ship is very, very large.

The technologies in KSP are all historical -- they exist in some form or fashion (even things like the Dawn drive). To my knowledge, there are space tourists, but there has never been a space tourist who went on an EVA.