UmbralRaptor

e^x is an exponential equation, or an inverse logarithm using the constant e (approximately 2.71828). Aside from simple cases like an integer raised to an integer (eg: 2^3 = 2*2*2 = 8), no one does exponents purely by hand -- using a calculator is much less hassle.The 9.81*Isp is a consequence of the rocket equation, and how we measure fuel efficiency. Isp is a figure of merit, and 9.81 is a unit conversion factor. (For additional !!Fun!!, KSP uses 9.82 rather than 9.81. But the difference is small enough to rarely matter)

Like Seret and GoSlash27 said, invert the rocket equation. For simpler craft, it's possible to generate an optimal (maximum payload for a given ÃŽâ€V and TWR requirement) design simply from knowing the engine(s) used.

For max altitude of a suborbital rocket? This would be the Goddard Problem, and because of drag is not amenable to analytic solutions. I'd lean towards finding some rule of thumb designs or messing around with numeric simulations. Some previous discussions.

Unfortunately not in stock KSP at this time. I'll have to point you at MechJeb, Kerbal Engineer Redux, or the like.

tree.cfg Was not a thing in stock KSP. I can only assume that you were using Treeloader. It appears to still be compatible with 0.24.2.

Probably a critical shortage of control authority initially. Since you say you don't have any movable wings, I'd switch to all-liquid lower stages, and include some LV-T45s or Skippers. (The Skipper is actually quite capable now) (Note that with stock aerodynamics, nosecones below the center of mass reduce craft stability)

Almost certainly this. The image shows a non-zero pitch input.

Far from an ideal design, but it works for bootstraping a Mün mission from a mere 20 !!SCIENCE!! From the earlier posters, it looks like just under √22K is neither here nor there. Larger tanks would reduce costs some, and staging would allow for carrying instrumentation beyond a single Kerbal and/or doing crater hopping. Launching to Minmus would allow for perhaps as much as 1 tonne of goo/material bays, or hitting a few different landing sites.

Definitely leaning towards bug. It looks like the info panel that was introduced in 0.20 has always said 200 km for Jool's atmosphere, even though it's been 138 km since 0.17. edit: well, this is interesting... (In other words, OP found a bug.)

Assuming you mean rotating parts, hold shift while pressing Q, W, E, A, S, D, etc.

The problem is that this is (to an extent) where an obvious gameplay choice differs from real life. Certainly, some things might be only to order of magnitude, but the mass of anything with a moon would be known. Atmosphere can be usefully estimated by spectroscopy and occultations. (Occultations also give diameters of anything too small to be resolved into a disk)

In stock, a Kerbal can sustain unlimited g-forces. Mods like Deadly REentry change that. I don't suppose you have any pics of the mission?

Bleah, this is not off to a good start. I like the idea, though not necessarily the categories. (If primarily because none of the lifters I use conveniently fall just under one of them). In general, I would also be interested in other sizes in terms of √/kg, and what ones require the least science.

I wouldn't be surprised if the O-10 is great for skycranes. Or perhaps a tunable SRB alternative. For a Kerbin-based SSTO, I expect that 1 FL-R1 tank will get you ~0.3 - 0.33 tonnes into LKO, for a decent but unspectacular payload fraction of 8-9%. Well, decent before the 48-7S was buffed. Let alone the ARM engines, and the re-balancing of 0.24... For landers, it depends very much on design details. If you're not doing something that demands a Kerbin-TWR > ~1, you're likely to get far more ÃŽâ€V out of an LV-909-based design.

You'll need to play with the filters in the upper center/left part of the tracking station display to turn on debris visibility. If a part is out of physics range, not landed, and above 0.01 atm, it's destroyed. has found workarounds (notably, not dropping stages until you're fairly high).

You can hit Kerbol escape with any craft that has ~7 km/s of ÃŽâ€V. Certainly it's been doable off and on with single stage craft since 0.13. Two stage craft? Every version, and often quite tiny ones. I bet you could get similarly impressive distance with probecore + FL-T400 + 48-7S + a bit of massless power (OX-STAT panels and/or radial batteries). Well, there's the slight issue that you used two stages, so got a high TWR and mass ratio to offset the low Isp. The good news is that for getting actual payloads into orbit, the Vernor and O-10 aren't particularly overpowered. Though as the thread starter shows, the b0rked TWR allows for some shenanigans.

The Isp of the Mk 55 is lower than the Skipper. Or the Poodle if you're at least 1257 m above Kerbin's surface. Actually, with the Poodle TWR buff, it might be the better lifter despite that... In 0.18 - 0.23.5, I think my preferred description for the Mk 55 was "Isp of a Mainsail, TWR of an LV-T45." (This is also why you shouldn't use them to augment thrust) The gimbal range is more of a toy than anything else, as the largest engine doesn't have TVC is... the LV-T30. Career modes do little to help, considering that you get the generally better LV-T45 earlier, and the Mk 55 costs as much as the (also generally better) LV-T30, but you need to mount at least 2 for symmetry... I would like to see it either made into a thrust augmenting engine (very high TWR and low cost, but otherwise poor stats), or the gimbal made useful (say, by upping it to 5+ degrees, and removing TVC from some of the larger engines).

I can confirm that the KR-2L wasn't nerfed. It had 280 s Isp at 1 atm in 0.23.5. I'd still argue that the ridiculous TWR was in fact balanced (or almost balanced) by the poor Isp and tank options. Confusingly, however, it has "PhysicsSignificance = 1" in the part.cfg...

But the example has a 290 s engine with higher dV, and a Kerbin TWR >1! Yep. The variation in mass ratios is why I'm only interested in the FL-R1 case. Everything else traps you in terrible mass ratios. Also, just so we're clear, the Probodbodyne LFO tanks are better than all but the largest RCS tank: [table=width: 600, class: grid] [tr] [td]Name[/td] [td]LiquidFuel[/td] [td]Oxidizer[/td] [td]Wet Mass[/td] [td]Dry Mass[/td] [td]Mass Ratio[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Oscar-B[/td] [td]5.735[/td] [td]7[/td] [td]0.136[/td] [td]0.025[/td] [td]5.44[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]ROUND8[/td] [td]10[/td] [td]12.2[/td] [td]0.078675[/td] [td]0.015[/td] [td]5.245[/td] [/tr] [/table] The high TWR likely allows for much hilarity, but I don't expect a replay of the replay of the 48-7S. If anything, the 24-77 and SRBs (when money isn't an issue) are in danger. If you need that many Oscar tanks, you probably want an FL-T100 instead.edit: I need to block out some SSTO designs. But provisionally, I expect ones built around the O-10 and FL-R1 to have payload fractions of 5-7%. (Actually pretty unspectacular)

I think you mean the LV-1?

Initially I was expecting the O-10 to be grossly overpowered with that TWR. But, the Isp and mass ratio limitations mean that its rather unlikely to replace conventional engines. Performance is fairly decent when compared to SRBs, though its obviously much more complex and expensive. [table=width: 500, class: grid] [tr] [td]Name[/td] [td]Thrust[/td] [td]Wet Mass[/td] [td]Dry Mass[/td] [td]Mass Ratio[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]12x Vernor, 1x FL-R1[/td] [td]240 kN[/td] [td]3.76 Mg[/td] [td]0.76 Mg[/td] [td]4.9474...[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]RT-10[/td] [td]250 kN[/td] [td]3.7475 Mg[/td] [td]0.5 Mg[/td] [td]7.495[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]16x Vernor, 2x FL-R1[/td] [td]320 kN[/td] [td]7.28 Mg[/td] [td]1.28 Mg[/td] [td]5.6875[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]BACC[/td] [td]315 kN[/td] [td]7.875[/td] [td]1.5[/td] [td]5.25[/td] [/tr] [/table] The Vernor offers some interesting options, but if only an engine could be toggled between throttle and RCS... >_> edit: And of course for any craft where the Fl-R1 is too much mass, but the FL-T100/200/400 is okay, the LFO engines will completely dominate the Vernor in ÃŽâ€V. Yes, even the LV-1. edit2: come to think of it, the ROUND8 and Oscar-B have slightly better mass ratios than any of the size 0/1/radial monoprop tanks...

The LV-N, or the 4x KS-25. Though I suppose that the science lab and RAPIER might be surprisingly expensive.

Normal fuel tank: attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0 Oscar-B: attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0 I'm guessing that this is why?

Excellent, thank you.

Since others have covered why the LV-N is good, I'll just want to clear something else up. The VAB fuel consumption figures make assumptions so iffy that they will mislead you in the vast majority of cases.