Temstar

Sometimes there are good reasons for puller configuration rockets but: Is not one. The thing is you want to get rid of your engines during ascent, not holding onto them. As your rocket get lighter you gain excess TWR. By ditching engines you trade that excess TWR for more delta-V.

I keep Jeb and co safe in a space station until the really important missions come up. Then I send a crew return vehicle up to retrieve them and start the mission with them.

It's language. Most early writing tools and ink based. For a left to right written language the right hand has a huge advantage because by the time you go to a new line and run your hand over the previous written line the writing would have (hopefully) already dried, thus causing no smudging. A left handed person writing a left to write language will run his hand immediately over the text after writing it and cause serious smudging issues. Direction of the language is a lot more random though, ancient Chinese for example was written top down then right to left in vertical columns because it use to be written on stripes of bamboo stringed up into a roll.

I've always figured Alan Shepard as Jeb. What with people describing him as an "educated daredevil" and playing golf on the moon.

Hmmm it's kind of hard to explain. Can you show me a screenshot of how your struts are done? It will be easier for me to provide advice that way seeing how yours are different from mine. I once wrote up a guide on asparagus staging rocket design. It's probably worth a read: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/28248-Is-asparagus-the-best-staging-system-%28might-contain-science%29?p=346702&viewfull=1#post346702 With Zenith it's actually slightly different from that method. I start out with a set of core stage engine layout I want to build (hence the II, III, IV, V, VII, IX and Nova's 12). Then multiply that by 100/22 to get the total thrust of the rocket including the boosters. Then divide that number by 1.7 * 9.82 for the total weight of the rocket. Then times that by 15% to get the payload weight. So basically the same process as that guide above, but in reverse.

Wooah Scottiths, that looks uncannily like the base I'm planning. Down to details like the power towers and tracking station and fuel tanks. I guess great minds think alike. Except mine has two launch complexes with crawlers for handling ships on the ground: I used a rover that attaches below each pieces for construction:

120km orbit? Is this a Mun landing? It seems pretty high, I normally start powered descent from a descent orbit somewhere between 10-20km. Manual precision landing is actually not that hard, I say about the same difficulty level as docking and same as with docking you get better at it the more you do it. It's a lot like flying a helicopter and that's certainly possible.

If you open up the .craft file, at the very top of the file there is a line that says which building the craft belongs to. You'll always return to this building after a flight if you don't go to space centre or tracking station. Change this line from SPB to VAB to set your rover's home to the VAB.

How precise is mechjeb 2 these days anyway? Previously it didn't achieve that precise of a circular orbit. I routinely achieve a AP/PE difference of less than 50m by hand, is that considered precise?

Grissom was so deeply involved in developing the Gemini spacecraft that the other astronauts referred to it as the "Gusmobile". This turned out to be a bit of an ergonomic problem since they designed the spacecraft's seat according to Grissom and he was just about the smallest of all the astronauts and 14 out of 16 of the NASA astronauts at the time (Mercury Seven + New Nine) couldn't actually fit inside. So they ended up having to redesign the seat. But it did turn out to be an excellent spacecraft with some features that not even the Apollo spacecraft had. For example it has a powered 4th gimbal for its guidance suit so it doesn't have the problem of gimbal lock. All throughout the Apollo program people worrying about been beaten by the Soviets where suggesting all sorts of mission using Gimini, including a Gimini lunar fly-by and even Gimini moon landings (LOR or Direct Ascent).

Glass is a pretty weak structural material so to get a layer with the same strength as the ship's hull you have to use a very thick piece. The extra strong structure around the glass is also pretty heavy. Mercury capsule was originally designed with no window because of weight concern and the astronauts had to fight tooth and nails to get that tiny window installed. The Soviet's circumlunar Zond spacecraft also had no windows so the Cosmonauts would have spent 6 days going to the moon and then back without ever seeing the outside.

So what's your least favourite engine? For me it's a tight contest between the Poodle and Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount. The big white radial at least has the gimmick of radial mount and large gimbal angle, even though pretty much in all cases you'll just end up making your own engine nacelle and use in line engines due to Mark 55's poor Isp and lacklustre TWR. But the Poodle. Where is the niche of the Poodle? For deep space engine LV-N's fantastic Isp makes it the preferred engine even if some engineering is required to get around its awkward shape. If a short profile engine is really needed you're still better off clustering LV-909. And if a short profile is not needed and you want to avoid LV-N (say an Apollo style service module engine) then LV-T30 is usually a much better engine. 20s less vacIsp for 1.25 ton less? That's a hard offer to turn down. Poodle's gimbal is pretty useless given that small spacecrafts that might use it tend to have plenty of maxRot from command pods and have no need for additional steering ability while burning anyway.

Part of the problem is everyone have different definition on what is considered "heavy lift". I personally define it as: Light lift: <10ton Medium lift: 10-36 tons Heavy lift: 36 -100 tons Super heavy Lift: 100-200 tons Ultra heavy lift: >200 tons For people who don't care for building booster rockets and only interested in payloads I designed this rocket family for reliable payload lofting: Zenith rocket family

Awww come on man, the name is right there on top of that window! http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/18230-0-20-Kerbal-Engineer-Redux-v0-6-0-3

If the goal is to lift a whole range of big payloads to space then you're better off with rockets. SSTO spaceplanes typically don't carry much payload if any and even the larger cargo SSTOs designed to carry payload have some pretty strict requirements on both payload mass and dimensions. If you attach a load only slightly off from the original design payload in terms of mass or dimensions you will throw the COM of the whole craft off and make the combination unairworthy. This is opposed to rockets which simply have a maximum designed lift capacity to orbit. As long as you stay under this lift capacity of your carrier rocket and the COM of your payload is reasonably centred the rocket will be able to place your payload into orbit regardless of how high or low the COM of the payload actually is. Once you have a range of rockets for different payload capacity you can just stay with them for the rest of your space program. Every time a new payload needs to go up just weight it and attach the appropriate sized rocket underneath and you're done. You can't do that with spaceplanes.

I like the name Kerbol, and yes the kerbals would have a name for their sun assuming they know that all the other points of light in the sky are also balls of fusioning hydrogen like their own sun. Here on Earth that realisation came pretty early, way earlier than modern rocketry.

But then we'll have other people complaining "Why do I get no shroud when I attach 2.5m engine under 1.25m stack? Fix plz Squad."

But if we generate the shroud according to the tank above, how would a Poodle should look like if it's attached to the bottom of a 1.25m stack?

See right there is a challenge. Why accept "random parts scattered in one place" as a base? Why can't a base be modular construction connected together into one piece on the surface? Why can't it have a purpose? This is the prototype of the base I'll be building on Minimus. Complete with two launch complexes to launch tankers and crew shuttles to service crafts in orbit with locally produced fuel.

No this is wrong and this misunderstanding comes from a misuse of terminology: A Direct Ascent moon landing refers to what the spacecraft does on its way back from the moon. As opposed to Lunar Orbit Rendezvous a direct ascent mission will have the Lunar Lander take off from the surface of the moon (via gravity turn by the way, not directly up) and then either enter lunar orbit to wait for the trans-Earth Injection window, or conversely in the later First Lunar Output plan the spacecraft will go from Lunar take off to the end of trans-Earth injection in one continuous burn called "Direct Return". A Direct Injection in context of a moon landing refers to what the spacecraft does on its way to the moon. With Apollo the spacecraft is placed into a decaying Earth parking orbit first by S-IVB, then the spacecraft is checked out and if everything looks okay the S-IVB is fired up again for trans-lunar injection. If the poop hit the fan during the launch and the spacecraft only limped into this Earth parking orbit then drag will bring the spacecraft back down to Earth well before the week worth of on-board supply runs out. As opposed to this use of a parking orbit, a Direct Injection to the moon involves a single continuous burn (aside from staging events) from the launchpad directly into lunar transfer orbit (still using gravity turn, not straight up). This kind of mission profile is a bit more delta-V efficient since no delta-V is wasted on Earth orbit circularisation. It's also more weight efficient because it means your transfer stage no longer need engine reignition and space loitering capabilities. China's Chang'e 2 spacecraft used a Direct Injection mission profile. If you were going to a different planet instead of the moon the idea is the same. A Direct Ejection to a planet involves boosting (via gravity turn) to LEO altitude, but instead of circularising you launch in a way so that just as you reach LEO altitude your phase angle and ejection angle lines up. So you just keep burning prograde until you reach the desired escape velocity. Basically, weather you're going to LEO or Direct Injection / Direct Ejection somewhere, you always start with launch into a gravity turn. Then once you're at LEO altitude you either circularise to enter LEO or you keep burning for longer for Direct Injection / Direct Ejection. You never burn straight up.

If you don't have any luck with a 190 ton lifter you could always put a fuel line in between your payload and a Supernova. The rocket will just burn through some of the payload fuel for that extra bit of delta-V. You will end up with a payload more than 160 tons but less than 190 tons in orbit. Once in orbit transfer almost all the fuel out of Supernova back into the payload leaving just a hair for deorbit burn. Might want to add some SRBs too in case TWR at lift off goes too low.

Oh you're looking at the cost. Yes it's a Skipper thing. Currently engine costs are pretty arbitrary so the cost of rocket and cost per ton to LKO numbers are of academic interest only. Currently a LV-T30, Skipper and Mainsail all cost $850 which is clearly absurd considering their vast differences in size. If those engine cost numbers were true you're pretty much always better off cost-wise building "big dumb boosters" purely out of mainsail to lift payloads.

The number refer to the number of LV-T30 / LV-T45 engines on the centre core. So Zenith II has two LV-T45 for its core, Zenith V has one LV-T45 and four LV-T30 fore its core and Zenith IX has three LV-T45 and six LV-T30. By that naming convention Nova would be Zenith XII and Supernova wouldn't fit since it uses three Mainsail for its core. Zenith I would be too simple of a design to include. Zenith VI and Zenith VIII will have awkward number of engines for their core (Zenith VI would be VII minus the centre engine, VIII would be a 2+6 double cluster).

Hmm, I put Nova on the pad and went away to do something else. 9 minutes later I came back and found the payload have snapped off the rocket, however the rocket itself is standing sound.

Does that refer to one of the Zenith rockets specifically or rockets in general? I did test how well these rockets stand on the pad and it seems like all of them at least with the proofing payload should be able to stand by themselves on the pad indefinitely. Anyway the trick is you got to get as many engines as possible on the bottom flat so that the weight of the rocket is spread out across all the engines. If you have 18 engines and the weight only sits on 4 out of the 18 engines then chances are it will eventually fall over. Worse comes to worst use the launch clamps and lower the rocket so that at least some of the rocket engines are stuck through the floor of the VAB. When you do that those part of the rocket will be sitting flat on the pad and the rocket will have the launch clamps also supporting it. You're always going to get joints anyway, so it's a question of TWR and how to stitch tanks together. If you want exactly two orange tank of fuel and still allow 100% thrust you can always use the Supernova method and stack 3200L tank, 6400L tank and then another 3200L tank on top of a mainsail.