UmbralRaptor

Anerobic SSTOs have significantly (about 1/3) less payload than their multistage counerparts, which does a good deal to balance any increase in recoverability. Jet engines need a nerfbat, though. 70% payload fraction is just silly.

ÃŽâ€V is change in velocity, and it acts as a size-independent measure of maneuver difficulty and craft performance. The rocket equation gives you how much a given craft has. For the amount required with various maneuvers, I'd suggest looking at the Vis-viva equation or various ÃŽâ€V'>http://bit.ly/1qAmN1K]ÃŽâ€V maps

I appear to have been somewhat misrepresented -- this is a property of matter, not space. (And the energy and distance scales are such that barring a rather strange case you can treat space as flat...)

Assuming a sufficiently ideal system that is truely isolated from the outside world, 0 K means that you have minimized a system's internal energy and entropy. In a classical system this (I think) means no motion, but quantum weirdnessâ„¢ means you can still have some. (A classic example being that Helium must be under a fair amount of pressure to freeze, no mater how much you cool it.) Oh, and about "degrees Kelvin..."

0.0937 tonnes outside of craft, 0 inside or on ladders. That said, what happens when the kerbal gets off the ladder? (Ladders allow for interesting phantom forces)

So very much. The summary gets the relevant information without sitting through the annoying and/or dull bits.

It was funny/seemed like a good idea at the time. At the time was summer 2011, and was somewhat annoying before the Mün was released. Circa 0.12-0.16, you could have someone say "Kun" and have no idea if they meant the star or a moon... Krantzberg syndrome.

If we're going for the how much ÃŽâ€V a rocket has... 4.5 km/s (really 4.4 - 4.7 km/s for typical mostly liquid fueled designs and orbits) is about the actually expended ÃŽâ€V. This amount is generally closer to the vacuum amount for ascent in general, though you'll have to make some guesses about intermediate Isp values in multistage rockets. (or run simulations or due tests and take notes) That said, the equation itself is simple enough. Just keep in mind that for a given stage in KSP, g0 is 9.82 while g is 9.81. ÃŽâ€V == Isp * 9.82 * ln(wet_mass/dry_mass)

The simplest (if somewhat inaccurate, depending on how you fly) method is using one of the many ÃŽâ€V maps out there. A more thorough approach involves digging into Hohmann transfers, the vis-viva equation, and when to patch conics. Technically inclination changes also.

0.13 doesn't have mods per se. There are (or at least were) parts packs, but the whole dll-based mods thing wasn't introduced until 0.14...

Fusion is the power system of the future. And the past 50 years suggest that it always will be. Polywell seems to have died, NIF "succeeded" if you interpret the numbers one way (another way would be that they failed on multiple levels), and ITER is still ages away from maybe working. Lockheed-Martin's announcement is so lacking in details, that it's hard to say anything useful about it. So for the time being, the safest approach is to assume that it's mostly or entirely marketing. Fusors as neutron sources notably?

Not sure why this needed a bump, but... 0.90's Mk3 plane parts will mock you. They have mass ratios slightly better than the "normal" stock tanks (9.333 vs 9), which makes the numbers look slightly better. Not enough to matter, but better.

Because ÃŽâ€V maps are ultimately simplifications of a complex process. And if they're old enough, they might date from when Moho had an atmosphere.

Far too early. Given the feature list, they'll have to work rather hard to get 1.0 out by the end of this year.

I'm guessing that AngelLestat is slightly misremembering things. Next attempt: skyhook or some related momentum transfer system

Aldrin Cyclers, maybe?

Scientist. But engineer will have to do.

Going by the upgrade costs on the wiki, 9.8 million funds * your monetary penalty percent

Turbojet/RAPIER - Airbreathing engines need a major rework. 48-7S - It's a direct upgrade from the LV-909 in most cases, and the cost mechanic is the main thing keeping it from being an upgrade to the LV-T30. Plus the way it obsoleted the 24-77 has never been well addressed... Technically the KR-2L (and KS-25x4), but we appear to be wandering towards buffing engines to that level of performance. I'd still like to see the KR-2L and KS-25x4 be significantly higher thrust than their size 2 counterparts, but with more modest TWR/Isp advantages. edit: ...no. Have you tried building smaller? The awkward layouts of landers are already a somewhat hidden drawback. Likewise. I'm slightly sad that the KSPX LV-NB wasn't made stock. A size 1 ion engine would be interesting, but keep in mind that the current one already has VASIMIR level (if not higher) Isp, and several orders of magnitude better TWR. I would mainly like to see electricity consumption and solar panel electricity consumption scaled to make designs more convenient.

More expensive, less payload, and lower flight rate are pros?

Large payloads (comparable to some Protons and Titans), and a uniquely large payload down capability. I can't actually say re-usability because the shuttle helped turn that into a joke for a generation. Maybe if it had actually pulled off the promised 50-60 flights per year... edit: I suppose the lack of a CEP for landing was nice.

The values shown in game in map view / tracking station are wrong. Sometimes trivially so (Kerbin), other times dramatically so (Jool). The actual top of the atmosphere for (stock) planets/moons is scale_height * ln(1e6). Rounding to the nearest meter: [table=width: 500, class: grid] [tr] [td]Body[/td] [td]Nominal Atmo Height (km)[/td] [td]Actual Atmo Height (km)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Eve[/td] [td]90[/td] [td]96.709[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Kerbin[/td] [td]70[/td] [td]69.078[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Duna[/td] [td]50[/td] [td]41.447[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Jool[/td] [td]200[/td] [td]138.155[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Laythe[/td] [td]50[/td] [td]55.262[/td] [/tr] [/table]

I suppose we should feel bad that no one has said Hubble. Still not changing from Voyager 2, though. >_> Giotto! Hyugens!

Are there supposed to be pictures with the formulas? There doesn't seem to be anything, even in the page source.

Voyager 2. Granted, it was just flybys, but of 4 planets, and the first encounter for 2 of them. Plus there's the ongoing interstellar exploration aspect... Pioneer? Gemini? STS? (okay, most likely Apollo, but...) edit: Mariner 11 is hilariously appropriate.