UmbralRaptor

All of the above. Though I'd prioritize Uranus and Neptune orbiters, given the choice.

Isp*g0*ln(M_wet/M_dry). At present, g0 is 9.80665 m/s² You can get your current M_wet in map view. For M_dry, you'll need to subtract the relevant propellant mass. The ship appears oxidizer limited, so I would guess it would run through 2054/0.55 = 3734.5 units of propellant in total. At 0.005 tonnes per unit, that's 18.67 tonnes lighter than the wet mass.

If this allows write-ins, I'm putting in Senate Launch System. Even if Cydonian Monk's suggestion is more original.

Why do people assume that a wiki is not open to contributions?

The LV-1 Ant seems like it would excel for a minimal mass (0.005 mass instruments, FL-T100 or 200) probe. TWR is unimpressive, but mass and cost might be competitive with an ion-based craft for some roles. No idea what to do with the LV-1R, though.

Can get a functional craft != best choice Previously, panels were 50% effective at Jool, and >1/3 effective at Eeloo's apoapsis! (and in the case of the OX-STAT and OX-4L/W had higher base power)

[table=width: 500, class: grid] [tr] [td]Part[/td] [td]Power[/td] [td]Mass[/td] [td]Power/Mass[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]OX-STAT[/td] [td]0.35[/td] [td]0.005[/td] [td]70[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]OX-4L/W[/td] [td]1.64[/td] [td]0.0175[/td] [td]93.714[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]SP-L/W[/td] [td]1.64[/td] [td]0.025[/td] [td]65.6[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Gigantor[/td] [td]24.4[/td] [td]0.3[/td] [td]81.333[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]PB-NUK[/td] [td]0.75[/td] [td]0.08[/td] [td]9.375[/td] [/tr] [/table] Uh, as far as panel performance goes, a pair of gigantors should be able to run an ion engine out to Duna. You'll need to get spammy (5-6) OX-4s to run an ion engine full out at Kerbin.

Not just bug fixes, but features. eg: * Solar panels now use the proper inv square from FI's solar flux. * Added Part temperature gauges/highlighting (toggle with F10). * Part temperature overlay can now be toggled with F11 * Part aerodynamic forces overlay can now be toggled with F12

Very shiny, but we will poke holes in any problems we find. * Lowered heat production on LV-N. But a quick check of the CFG files shows that it went from 240 to 432. o_O Emissivity is up from 0.8 to 0.83, though. Anyone (regex?) in a position to do detailed tests?

In principle, yes. However all available data points to no. As best we can tell, we're in a flat universe with a positive cosmological constant. This suggests that the universe will expand forever with the Hubble parameter increasing somewhat to a moderate constant.

How about the ion engine? Panel requirements are quite modest at 0.2 - 0.4 KU.

That's... ah... an interesting transfer. Why is your periapsis down at Moho? (That it's not a Hohmann ellipse is probably a big part of the high encounter speeds)

A huge chunk of the KSP playerbase alreadys fits that description, so meh?

Those are... really high speeds. Are you running a realism mod perchance? Failing that, can you show picture of your approach in map view? With stock KSP, those would be some seriously hyperbolic orbits. As for one last thing, what is the navball set to? (In terms of orbital/surface/target)

A pair of Moon images from November 2009 with a Canon PowerShot SD 1100 IS: The night one was possible in part due to CHDK letting me mess with the exposure time manually (ISO 80, 1/320 s). It was cool figuring out how to get the exposure and focus right, but with an angular scale of ~20"/pixel at max zoom, detail is impossible. (The realization of how much $$$ I would need to spend to get decent images killed my interest in astrophotography) michaelsteele3: Photos, not photoshops.

Reusability lowers rocket costs. (And this is typically asserted as universal. Despite the caveats of things like STS, Buran, Pegasus, X-33, X-34, DC-X, that the Falcons have *not* demonstrated it yet...)

s/new and scary/long awaited and awesome/

Well, a standard approach is to start with the rocket equation, Kepler's laws, and the Vis-viva equation. The first one for rocket performance, and the second and third help to get a handle on various requirements for orbital maneuvers. For lifter classes, it ultimately depends on what sorts payloads you want and where you want to put them. I'd also argue that for upper stages, 1.5 g is nice to have but far from necessary once you're in orbit. Or even for the last 500-1000 m/s on getting to orbit.

Reminder: single ring asparagus works fine in FAR, and without extra changes, launches from Kerbin and Eve will get free payload (or can easily be shrunk) due to the reduced ÃŽâ€V requirements.

I have to echo the others. A reflector will get you more scope for less $ (and most likely easier ergonomics), so unless you have a specific reason for a refractor...

Steam has relatively few good free games, but lots of good cheap games. In the mean time, signing up for Good Old Games will start you with a few free games, and quite a few dos games are now free

The most straightforward approach would probably be to put your vehicles into a spreadsheet and play around with payload values until you hit the minimum (reasonable) ÃŽâ€V for various missions. (multistage craft usually don't lend themselves to analytic solutions, especially when you need to consider TWR constraints.)

Almost certainly a unit conversion issue. Especially since you mentioned abstracted units but are using the MKS value for G.

Pastebin works in the short term. If you already have a gmail account, Google Drive. For complete overkill, github.

Ask a general question that requires lots of details and is actually several questions, get a general answer that will allow you to get to all of them, but will require a lot of work on your part. This may come across as a bit rude, but it's really a question that will require digging into several different parts of orbital mechanics. So...