Spricigo

Yes. You let the cosine loss occur while focusing in reducing gravity loss. While in a gravity turn you let the gravity loss occur while focusing In reducing cosine loss. Something to notice: in a constant descent trajectory the resulting force (thrust - weight) is aligned with velocity. You use 'just enough' of your thrust to counteract weight and any extra to reduce horizontal speed. Another point of constant descent ftrajectory is that while you velocity is high enough (orbital) you are constantly falling and missing the ground(orbital freefall) . Ideally you are in a trajectory with a periapsis barely above the ground and all your thrust will be used entirely to kill your orbital velocity at the periapsis. Requires instantaneous deltaV expenditure, thus impossible in practice. What you do is come as close as possible to this, dealing also with the 'details' like terrain and piloting errors.

I'm guessing there. But assuming he is relying on those engines in the lower part for takeoff, he don't want this unaligned thrust causing pitch down. Or maybe he just reached something that actually fly* and is concerned with the effort needed to find this "equilibrium" again if much is changed. *even if only as in is such a abomination that the ground rejects it. (no intention to disrespect your creation. Just sharing how I feel with my attempts with the same concept, my abominations)

Well you put arguments and examples and we replied with counter-arguments and counter-examples. Unfortunatelly we didnt reach a common understanding. But asking us to ignore all the discussion after it happened becuase you dont care...Sorry, but I care. Not if I'm right or wrong, but if that is a opportunity of learning something and I'm losing it.

Nonetheless there is a misconception from your part. The oberth effect happens even without a oberth maneuver. As I said early they are related but not quite the same. And while @kryxal may be incorrect invoking Oberth*, the vessel is indeed falling a gravity well to perform the later burn at higher orbital speed . The Oberth effect its the fact a given change in velocity result in a increased change in knetic energy if the starting speed is also increased. As explained here , here and here). It can be better visualised with this graph (kinetic energy vs velocity) or this image Its not magic, nor even changing the the movement itself. Im talking about a mathematical 'trick' that let me describe someting as if happening in the reverse order of events called Time Reversal Transformation. Its using -t instead of t in the equations of motion and ending with a correct mathematical description because of some symmetries. (in the case the fact that a landing looks exactly like a liftoff in reverse). That is also the situation Kryxal describe, a liftoff with an engine generating fuel (negative consumption) But , since I indeed said something incorrect, let me rectify myself: if you do a time reversal transformation some variable don't change (even variables) while others change signal/direction (odd variables). Velocity its a odd variable, if you do a time reversal transformation you end with -V instead of V. *Notice the error there is not that Oberth Effect dont plays a role. The error its the force, or rather the orientation, you are considering. Divide your thurst T in two components: Ty in the direction of movement (horizontal) and Tz perpendicular to the movment (vertical). Tz will only chage the direction of your movimentl not change the intensity(no change in kinetic energy), wich means that Tz have oberth effect = 0 ** However you are using Tz to counteract you weigth W so it also dont cause any change*** in the intensity of the velocity, only change in direction. W also have oberth effect = 0 ** ** Ok oberth effect its not a quantity. What I mena by "oberth effect = 0" is "it dont produces a change in velocity that causes a higher increase in kinetic energy compared with a object in rest" ***an aproximation... if your're not Niel Armstrong.

Without further detail I'm inclined to agree to this. Depending on how each part recovery will be handled (stage recovery /independent landing on runaway /whatever) and how each part fly/land may allow something different.

I'm afraid we started a quoting war: So wikipedia starts the oberth effect article defining something related but not quite the same. I suggest we find a better source if we'll furthers argue about what is the oberth effect. about working in reverse: If we reverse the direction the time is flowing the time dependent variables, like velocity, are also reversed, that is, our landing turn in a lift-off, the acceleration will be prograde and the velocity will increase.

A 'simplified' version of what @Kryxal said: From a lower orbit, perform a maneuver that make you reach apoapsis at the required altitude, over the required area and then circularize. The relative position(angle) between the target area and the maneuver node need to so both orbits 'synch up'. He kindly provide a particular case that works, but you may also calculate from the astrodynamics equations if you are facing a similar, but not quite equal, transfer.

Including Electric Charge to 'fuel' your probecore?

Actually the maths is not particularly difficult http://www.rocketmime.com/rockets/qref.html * However finding the correct values for drag coefficient and air density is not trivial. Also, due imprecisions both in the calculation and in flight, you may not reach the predicted altitude. * pretty often Rocket/Plane modellers offer some knowledge we can use in KSP. If you are the type that like to know why/how something works use that source to your advantage.

incidentally: I know that wikipedia it's not exactly the best source out there, but... Deceleration its just negative acceleration. If nothing else Oberth is capable to do his trick because under the conservative forces the same equations will describe the motion if we invert the direction the time is flowing. Now if you ask me which is more efficient, continuous descent or gravity turn. I have no idea, didn't check the maths or tested it. However I would like to point that there is some confusion among the various concepts: Suicide Burn: maneuver where all deceleration is executed as close to the ground as possible. Continuous Descend: approaching the landing site with a gentle and continuous angle. Gravity Turn: maneuver that use only the gravity to steer a vehicle. I think there is no question about the suicide burn, no matter what kind of approaching we are doing it will be better if we burn as close as possible to the landing(impact?) point. Continuous Descent vs Gravity Turn depends on how much gravity and/or steering will affect the efficiency.

Actually you seems to describe an upgrades order very similar to mine; yours: Mission control, Astronaut complex, Launchpad, mission control, tracking station, R&D?. ... ?? mine: Mission control, R&D, Astronaut complex, Launchpad, mission control, tracking station... Granted that playing in normal settings allow me to be much less concerned about the cost of upgrade/launches but seems we give similar relative value for upgrades. (and coincidentally we both rely in rescues and satellites early in the game also). Nonetheless all those are nice to have but not mandatory, as the cavemen have demonstrated. May one get it as soon as possible? Sure. It will helps with the game progression if you have? Yes. Should one feel it's a requirement before the game truly start? Absolutely not. In this sense I really don't see a disagreement, just a further consideration that the upgrades can wait a bit until you need it (which may be sooner or later depending on the playstyle).

The problem with the 2nd reversal its that you are travelling in the opposite direction of the planet, so the tendency its to have a bigger relative velocity and expend less time in the planet's SOI. Its not the case that you cant get a good encounter, but getting a bad encounter is much easier. well, for me its the speed one that was out of question from start, my rescue ship is not very expensive (while cutting some cost may be possible). But after 50year I still need to lower my orbit to rendezvous with Burbarry Valentina

I don’t think you need to clarify, since we are mostly saying the same with different phrasing and a few nuanced details.

Is that the case where a piece of debris end in a orbit such 50kmx150km? And since its on rails it don't get slowed by drag? It something that annoy me a bit, the 'need' to delete it. On the other hand, I have some LV that leave debris in a long suborbital trajectory, so flighting to the destruction, and I delete it anyway because I'm opening the tracking station for whatever reason.

well, you really don’t need, but things like EVA report and surface samples are nice to have anyway. Also each upgrade its and extra micro-biome at KSC Personally I upgrade Mission Control and R&D first, while I'm "launching" vessels that are just a bunch of parts attached to a pod for those landed part test. The contract system tend to offer more of the types of contracts you complete and less of the contracts you decline or let expire. So the mileage may vary, but I decline several contracts I don’t like and accept all rescue mission so I really have hundreds of rescued kerbals.

The chances of not getting enough of a type is pretty slim after the 100th rescue. Also it's still simple to go outside and rescue a few more.

congratulations. BTW 44year and counting

Actually, once you dock two crafts toghether they will get the "fabrication date" of the oldest. Refuealing with a old tank will prevent to complete the contract with your brand new station.

where is the dry CoM?

Does "stranded in orbit" counts as hovering ?

Some players will pursue that last bir of optimisation, some will just carry the extra fuel/engines that makes the optimisation unnecessary. Most will do both, according to the mood.

For money making purposes I start with part test, then rescue and satellites. Somewhere along the way money it's not a problem anymore. As a bonus I also have a lot of astronauts and relay satellites.

Actually the intended use was so balloons can be left mid air. But it works in any craft.

Let's be honest . We are crazy, we know it and we are fine with it.

@AeroGav have you considered/experimented using tilted probecores for holding x° above progade?