Reusables

The problem is that I may lose commnet connection when I need to perform important burns. Any crew can do the burn with a command pod, but probes have hard time doing that. I don't have docking port Sr. as it needs expensive level 3 R&D. Also I'm already pushing the weight limit of the 4-passenger shuttle, another 0.5t will make it cost more fuel than 12-passenger one! + 2-4 crew shuttles are spark-powered. Hatch is one problem, and control is the other. I occasionally got out of CommNet. Also I found that . Looks good! Though, I don't have the round-8 tank. What tech node was it in? I like the configuration, too. But the smallest 2.5m tank already contains too much fuel.

You can get a 140t lifter with 3 Mammoths or a Mammoth and 4 Twin-boars. This is reusable TSTO version, but you can dispose of the first stage if you want. And 110t interplanetary ship(including payload) with 6 nervs and 42t liquid fuselage gives 3.19km/s of dv with 0.33 TWR. The burn won't take too long with 4x physics warp. (About 3 minutes burn for 2km/s) Gravity assists at Tylo/Laythe makes it easy to be captured at Jool and nearly match orbital velocity with Vall. Ideally, you can get into Vall orbit with 2.4km/s of dv. Using ore mining on minmus, you can shave off extra 500~600m/s of dv. So 2km/s is sufficient in this case, which can be achieved with 90t interplanetary ship(including payload), 5 nervs and 25t liquid fuselage. The TWR is similarly 0.34.

Even better! Thanks for more detailed explanation In the case, one can just mark it as the point where the theory can't cover. Like high speed region for Newton Physics. It is actially quite plausible explanation. This is just the case that it is highly unlikely for this issue to be an exception of the theory. Also, some conflicts like singularity is a big crisis for a theory. Do you know how black hole is treated when it's discovered in theory? Usually, these defects have to be explained in any way. What... I don't get how people get to these conclusion. So I can never examine anything, and should never try to convince things myself? Even though I try to make it clear that Earth is round, those tries to confirm this for many circumstances is just wrong, right? I'm done, think however you want.

How science advance part was just my opinion. And yes, one can always get up with rational explanation. In my opinion, it gets rejected once it's not plausible for many people and causes other complex problems, but this is just my opinion and might be controversial. Though without any explanation on an anomaly, it can't remain as scientific theory. Otherwise, what's the difference between pseudoscience and science? I know the distinction between then is kinda gray, but there should be at least one criteria for the distinction. Is it just that science is done by scientists, while pseudoscience isn't?

The explanation that I wanted This is my explanation as well, I tried hard to avoid saying it by myself. Now I think I induced this one.. Thanks for clarifying with bridge situation! Actually I got the bridge case previously, I wanted explanations on airplane case. Sorry that my question was unclear. Yeah, this is it! There are so many other factors shadowing this effect. Sorry that I needed a complete explanation here, I think that's how science works. Much more detailed and accurate explanation! Besides, planes in KSP which has CoL and CoM nearly matching will pitch up because of this effect as well. I experienced this one. Right, I think this is another reason. In KSP, it's hard to make a plane which is aerodynamically stable (holds near-prograde) I'm concerning about WWI planes. Would they have some kind of autopilot? If you mean the lift from circumfugal force, then it is not relevant with this question (planes not pitching-up) Or did they experience that their pitch tends to go upward? Well, Read the title, I *expected* to get plausible explanation for this one. It was shame that what I wanted was actually my own. But certainly, I'm not saying that Earth is flat. Also, scientific theory doesn't work when there is a single counterexample which can't be explained. Even if there are so many reasons that why Earth should be round, the theory 'Earth is round' is rejected once there is a relevant example which can't be reasonably explained with it. That's why I asked for the explanation for this case as well. And I think this is science. By the way, anyone with better questions which could be challenging for 'Round Earth'? I want to try to give explanation.

Fairings?

Right, the curvature should be noticeable in relatively small scale like that. Many airplanes fly further. So now, please provide a complete and plausible explanation for this issue.

I mean, it holds its attitude relative to Kerbin system not the solar system without SAS off. So revolution of Kerbin won't affect it. And the same effect should appear on Earth as well. It's smaller on Earth, but it doesn't immediately mean that it is unnoticeable. Many planes fly at least a third of the circumference of Earth, yet they won't notice any pitch-up effect. Consider that only 1 degree of pitch change is already significantly noticeable.

I'm asking why IRL planes follows that. They will want to hold their attitude as well.

It's similar with that, but I focused on kerbal airplanes: they won't retain their orientation as well. (Rather, gets pitched-up) So what's the difference between Kerbin and Earth? As far as I know, the attitude is calculated based on kerbin system under low orbit. It's good approximation for the real world counterpart, which works with this part as well.

I couldn't find appropriate thread for this, so posting it here. Please post some challenging questions for round Earth 'theory', and the explanations. Mine is not quite challenging, but still I found this interesting: Did you know that kerbal aircraft gets automatically pitched up while in flight? With SSTOs or long-range planes, it's quite noticeable and is sometimes annoying. Though, we can't get the similar effect IRL. No pilot says that they actually felt like their aircraft is pitching up, and any cruising aircraft doesn't seem to pitch up as well. So the question is: Why? If the Earth is round, how can't we get any amount of pitch-up?

It's because Kerbin is round. First, did you get that the horizontal direction is relative to the ground? It's not a fixed direction on orbital mechanics, which causes some trouble. In detail, it actually exerts a phantom force - called fictitious force or inertial force. As you move eastward while going up, the ground position directly under you moves eastward as well. This causes horizontal direction to go downside(or fall). Since you are going up, this means you lose horizontal speed - which is horizontal element of velocity. Though this is not actually a loss, as it reappears as a gain on the vertical speed. This is similar with how an object on circular orbit don't fall: Its horizontal direction falls, matching the moving direction of the object. As a result, it ends up going horizontally all the time. Besides, kerbal aircrafts got automatically pitched up because of this effect. Do you know what happens with IRL planes?

I want to join the competition. Retrance ll2 can launch each one in 6000 with enough margin(which is intended to launch 1.9~2t to LKO). So 12000 for two. @Andiron

I think it is not implemented because it's performance-intensive. Unless the city is small, loading the model correctly costs either huge memory space or lots of effort. I'd rather vote for procedural terrain effect, which should be easier.

Thanks! I forgot about the fairing. Looks promising, I'll try it.

Oh my, how could I forget them EDIT: Fixed it.

That sounds right. I'd rather have focused on part count than weight. I'll try making a passenger craft out of hitchhiker container. Would you let me know how to make this look good? I can't get any grasp of what to do to improve the look. Cockpits don't carry enough monopropellent, so I would need monopropellent tank with them. Oh, then I was going for the opposite direction... I might have to redesign it. EDIT: As HvP said, command seats should be great. Currently I don't have one, though...

Wow, so there were modded cabsules parts entirely dedicated for reusability! I didn't realize that. Yeah, it takes extra effort (and probably some piloting). I launch reusable TSTOs just because it's cheaper than disposable ones.

I have the adapter, so I can use the design! Though, I have a concern with the craft: wouldn't Hitchhiker be too heavy? (2.5t compared to 2t) I'm reluctant to use it for something other than station/interplanetary vehicle. Also what about a craft for 2 passengers, how would you go with it? (This one is more problematic for me)

So many of you are reusing/recovering your own crafts! I both recover and reuse spacecraft. Crafts landed on Kerbin gets recovered, while crafts left on space will be reused again and again. Both recovery and reusability need thoughts and effort, (although latter will need some more), so I thought those who do one will also do the other. Besides, do some of you recover your multi-staged launch vehicles without StageRecovery or FMRS?

Uhm.. I mean I need translunar passenger vehicle on space only. Also Mk2 crew cabin is not available on the tech tree for me.

I was trying to make a passenger craft dedicated to space(vacuum) which will shuttle kerbin station, mun station and minmus station. The problem is, I just can't make one which is compact, efficient and looks aesthetically pleasing. Especially with 1 pilot and 2 to 4 passengers, I have to use a mk1 lander can for pilot and mk1 crew cabins due to weight and tech limitation. But their theme looks entirely different, so I can't seem to build seamless spacecraft out of them. How would you go with this? I can't find any examples on this, tried to search 'passenger craft/ship/vehicle' only to find overpowered/big crew shuttle/interplanetary vehicles. To be specific, what I want is a passenger spacecraft with a docking port and has Dv: 1.5~1.8km/s TWR: 0.4~0.5 External Seats, Mk3 Passenger Module and Mk2 Crew Cabin are not available. (I can't agree more that seats should be great choice for nice-looking passenger quarters)

I think upgrades completely depend on playstyle. Personally, I unlock the tracking station first to launch reusable TSTOs. In detail, level 2 tracking station enables spacecraft switching in map view. This is mandatory for my reusable TSTO craft, so I upgrade this first.

Ah, now I got it. So it's somewhat similar to low-TWR hohmann transfer. In the case, I heard that pro/retrograde hold burn costs less dv than pure manuever burn, and I think constant altitude burn is closer to the pure manuever burn. This doesn't apply in this case, right? Please explain how it goes. Besides, is it possible that there is more efficient profile somewhere in between gravity turn and constant descent?

You mean, when you have infinite TWR? Otherwise it'll be highest point of the orbit during the burn.