UmbralRaptor

That page doesn't seem to cover the (4 * surfaceGravity * scaleHeight) / terminalVelocity, though. Maybe if I try integrating the drag over a distance with some sketchy path length assumptions...?

Any idea where Amagi82 got the values for drag?

All planets are on rails, so no.

If your pack includes it, I'd be tempted to go for an NK-33, RD-170, or RD-180. The similarity to an Atlas V is completely intentional. The rocket equation comes down 2 variables when you're looking for ÃŽâ€V: Isp and mass ratio. As it's a ratio, the actual value is the same for a 1 tonne stage and a 1000 tonne stage if they have the same Isp and ÃŽâ€V requirements. (Though obviously the latter requires more raw fuel). eg: In a stock game, you'll need a craft with a mass ratio of ~3.2 - 4.5 to reach LKO. Alternatively, one can talk about what percentage of a stage is fuel/oxidizer, though I find that less useful. The achievable range of mass ratios in a given stage tends to depend on your fuel tanks and desired TWR. Typical stock tanks have mass ratios of 9 (FL-T, Rockomax) or 8.2 (Kerbodyne), though practical stages will likely be between 2 and 7 (due to the mass of engines, payloads, and miscellaneous bits). In real life, hydrolox designs run ~8-9, and kerolox ones ~12-14, though exceptions exist.

A quick (but not very good) method would be to add it to ResourcesGeneric.cfg (in /KSP/GameData/Squad). If you want to make a new resource for a mod to distribute, you will want a new Resources.Generic.cfg file under /KSP/GameData/Your_new_mod_name/ But if you just want more variety in fuels, something like what Roastduck said with the RealFuels mod.

The ion engine page on the wiki should cover question 1. For question 2, the ion engine is much like any other engine in terms of fuel consumption. For question 3, xenon gas (in the same tab as the ion engine, and relatively near it), and any electricity source. Solar panels are best.

Prograde is greenish-yellow, retrograde is yellowish-green. More seriously, it's an intermediate color.

Gigantor is not an engine. Did you mean the quad KS-25?. In which case, that's not too surprising. High Isp, high TWR, and can survive 20 m/s impacts. I'd argue that the engine selection involved some trying. Certainly since my last post in this thread testing with aerospikes (good Isp and impact tolerance, though not TWR) yielded a craft with a 7.35% payload fraction.

I'd argue that if you're taking more than a Mk1 pod or 800 L worth of LF+O, you're in the mass range where the LV-N comes out ahead. But, the LV-909 makes for easier lander design, so... The LV-T30 is sneaky like that. No one expects it to do the Poodle's job better than the actual Poodle.

The LV-909 is the Skipper of lander engines. Intermediate thrust, not the most efficient, but very conveniently sized. (See the endless "Toyota Corolla" variants for examples)

Specific impulse can be though as pound*s of impulse (change in momentum) per pound (yes, weight) of propellant. The pounds cancel, leaving seconds. Arguably, effective exhaust velocity is clearer.

The fuel consumption figures in the VAB make bad assumptions (it gives the results at 1 atm), and might as well be wrong everywhere but Eve. It's best to pay attention to the Isp figures, with a focus on the vacuum side. Notably, the LV-N will become more fuel efficient than the LV-909 at 0.837 atm (891 m on Kerbin). And the LV-N will have a higher Isp than even the aerospike at a mere 1717 m (0.71 atm) As for the why of Isp, it's a measure of fuel efficiency. For KSP purposes, ÃŽâ€V == Isp*9.82*ln(wet_mass/dry_mass)

Stock KSP's aerodynamic model is a bit weird. All parts contribute to drag no matter the location. As best I'm aware, the force on a given part is .0049 * pressure(in atm) * Cd(as seen in the VAB) * mass(yes, really!) * v^2. The nosecone does add to the overall drag on your rocket, but in a non-obvious way. Most parts have a drag of 0.2, so the nosecone experiences less. This will slightly raise your terminal velocity (not enough to matter usually), and move your center of drag. If the nosecone is ahead of the center of mass, you'll get a slightly more stable rocket. If it's behind the CoM (say, on a booster), you're likely to see slightly reduced stability.

Make the rocket tall and thin to minimize drag. If you must have horizontal staging, add nosecones. Avoid exposing any upper stage engines. Add panels if needed. That's not actually bad advice. Lots of people have too much engine / too little fuel in their early rockets.

20% payload fractions were just about doable with SSTOs based around the pre-Isp LV-T30. (call it 0.13 - 0.15.2) Probably moreso with the 0.15 aerospike. 0.16 Was... special. The 0.17.x aerospike probably would have topped out around 13-17% for an SSTO, so I would expect 20% out of an asparagus design. Certainly a launcher of mine from that era that used jets as boosters hit ~33%. I guess one could count 0.18 - 0.21 as "real engines" (The 48-7S post-buff allowed for... interesting things).

Kerbals can be added in the lab before launch. Or after if you want to rendezvous and/or EVA.

Determining the mass of Minmus. Both before and after it was spun up. Getting the post-nerf aerospike fixed.

I use them fairly regularly for lofting small payloads. But most of the designs are distinctly uninteresting (1-2 tanks and an engine). The only interesting uses are 1) demonstrating that you can hit polar orbit with TL0 parts and no booster shenanigans in campaign, and 2) looking for ways to make a reusable VTVL. The latter tend to have poor payload fractions (5% starts to look good), but given how many jet SSTOs struggle to take a single pilot to orbit...* My favorite would probably be this: (internal designation: Shantak 1U) It has various clever design features that have been rendered obsolete by recent versions of KSP, though. *Because of design issues. A well designed airbreathing SSTO can hit 70% payload fraction.

As others have mentioned, you can fake a stationary orbit by sticking a craft in the same orbit as the Mun but just outside its SOI. Stationary orbits for Minmus have been inside its SOI since 0.17.

3-way tie between Bill, Bob, and Jeb. But then, this was 0.13.x

I'm not following, especially given the notable gravity losses for TWRs below ~1.5. (The outer stages would "drag down" the core into this range, giving especially bad losses for the first few kilometers.) I suspect a more practical difficulty is sizing the stages and/or engines appropriately. But perhaps if we can see an actual craft...?

The basic asparagus layout tends to be good for S1 vs S2, increasingly off of optimum size (for the total amount of fuel) for later ones. As best I'm aware, an ideal rocket would have the same mass ratio in every stage if the engines operated at the same Isp and TWR was a non-issue. In practice, other factors mean that lower stages tend to have less ÃŽâ€V than upper ones. The mass penalties for staging (especially asparagus-style) aren't that large in present KSP, but were a major factor in 0.15 and earlier, which lead to some seemingly paradoxical results.

Well, the first Mun trip (...in 0.12?) had no landing provisions, and was just lowering my orbit until I hit a hill at ~500 m/s. For the first real landing (in 0.13, natch)? Mis-estimated the suicide burn requirements, and impacted the surface at ~100-200 m/s. The first successful landing saw a similar death upon Kerbin return. (The craft was under-chuted) Later missions were generally without incident. (Provided I didn't make the mistake of dropping down on the night side)

The Mun is in a perfect equatorial orbit, so you could target it. edit: ack, ninja'd!