UmbralRaptor

Oh, hai. I'm one of the groganards who's been playing more or less continuously since 2011 that you're worried about. I'm actually completely fine with a switch to a more realistic aerodynamic model. My main concerns would be things we can expect Squad (or at worst the modder community) to address: 1) Will the VAB (and/or inflight instrumentation) give me the tools to understand the aerodynamic effects? 2) Will I have the parts to properly deal with it? (I think this pretty much means something like pFairings) 3) Will sufficient consideration be given for how this alters the difficulty? (Currently this means more care is required in ascent paths and structural strength, but mass ratios are pushed from ~3-5 to below e.) This is pretty much my attitude. I'm not worried about losing pancake rockets (and expect a more realistic model to leave some parallel staging as perfectly viable. If it works for the various R-7s, Atlases, Deltas, Titans, STS, and Energia...)

I would suggest looking over some of the ÃŽâ€V maps. For actually finding a craft's ÃŽâ€V, mass ratios are more important then raw propellant numbers: ÃŽâ€V = 9.82 * Isp * ln(Wet_Mass/Dry_Mass) It looks like you're treating it as 2 stages, which makes things slightly more complicated, but given the initial mass (check the map screen) should be calculable. Assuming that you're firing the KR-2L and Skippers separately: [table=width: 500] [tr] [td]Stage[/td] [td]Isp[/td] [td]Wet Mass[/td] [td]Dry Mass[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]4[/td] [td]350 s[/td] [td]See map screen[/td] [td]Wet_Mass4 - 128[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]3[/td] [td]380 s[/td] [td]Wet_Mass4 - ~160.1[/td] [td]Wet_Mass4 - ~304.1[/td] [/tr] [/table]

Like most things in KSP, because it's there. In principle, an airbreathing design can (in stock) be 70% payload, though very few are anywhere near that. Also, SSTO != airbreathing, though it's the most commonly used.

That's not the stock solar panel performance curve. Please give a list of all mods you are using.

Just use 3x the panels you would at Kerbin, and you'll have enough for Eeloo's apoapsis plus a small margin. Barring massless part shenanigans, this is likely to be lighter than the equivalent amount of batteries. If you already have the craft layed out, and are using the massless radial batteries, just multiply xenon by 18 (as the PB-ION engine consumes 18 units of electricity for each unit of xenon).

Well, glad that it's fixed.

Just so I'm clear, nothing happens on throttleup? If not, what happens when you right click on the engine?

I'm not sure how the sizing/mass selection is actually done. Just that that part exists. Sorry.

The primary problem is that the new engines are greatly better (TWR, Isp) than the previous ones, but not significantly bigger (thrust, mass). The point where the ARM engines become more efficient is with payloads of only ~10 - 15 tonnes, meaning that there's no real reason to bother with multiple Skippers, let alone Mainsails. And of course, the LFB can be dropped into a rocket in place of a Mainsail + orange tank combination... So if the KR-2L and quad KS-25 were made much higher thrust (with a proportional larger increase in mass), they would be balanced. The LFB is somewhat more complicated, since it's still size 2. I'd lean towards removing the thrust vectoring, making it less flexible but more powerful than the Mainsail. A somewhat related problem is that the size 3 tanks are worse (mass ratio wise) than the size 1 and 2 ones. Sure you could stick an S3-14400 instead of 2 oranges on a Mainsail, or an S3-7200 instead of a single orange on a Skipper, but the higher dry mass means that you would see no real payload gain, despite the extra fuel.

edit /KSP/GameData/NASAmission/Parts/PotatoRoid/part.cfg On the line "category = none", change none to one of the part categories (Propulsion, Structural, Utility, Science, etc) If you want to use it in the campaign, you'll also need to change the TechRequired line.

Silly answer: Ed Keith's innovative asparagus stalk. Serious answer: Delta III (9 SRBs and a giant fairing).

Yeah, reversing the rocket equation to generate stages is a good idea. I should probably update my notes to include ARM tanks, though.

Less is more. In general, it makes more sense to do a direct ascent mission, rather than an Apollo style LOR (moreso given the part limitations of the demo). Keeping payload mass down is also a good idea. What I used for a Mün landing when I was last messing around with the demo: The general lander layout (a "toyota corolla") is good, though you might want to use 2 stages in the launcher instead of 1 to provide more margin. How do you typically fly your ascents and/or how do you plan to get to the Mün?

Pretty much this. If you're playing Gratuitous Space Battles, carriers are a reasonable choice. If you're in a situation that has more realistic physics, it tends to come down to missile buses vs giant lasers unless you find a way to keep the action in low orbit or on planetary surfaces. (And if you make things too realistic, all the action takes place on the ground.)

ÃŽâ€V (and by extension mass) is more important than size. It's completely possible to do impressive things with the size 1 (or even size 0) parts. Easier in some ways, given the various inefficiencies in the size 2 crew modules and engines. The size 3 engines offer impressive performance (especially for launchers), though the tankage leaves something to be desired. edit: You're in career mode? I wouldn't bother getting anything on the propulsion branch past fuel lines. More instrumentation will do wonders.

Minimum ÃŽâ€V != max payload. Sure you need a higher mass ratio, but even with lower Isp engines, you're only looking at ~4.3 to get to orbit. The really blatant example is SSTOs, where throwing more fuel at the design may increase your ÃŽâ€V requirement from 4400 m/s to 4600 m/s, but increases your payload by 30-70%. You might even see higher payload fraction, as those heavy engines are now less of the craft.

It is 204/11.01 ~= 18.5 s, if you got that from the appropriate source. I'd check to make sure you're counting all tanks. I am not familiar enough with KER or your craft to know where KER is getting its numbers from. Pics?

Yep, the constant g0 is based on units, and never varies based on location. The 9.82 is just what I've gotten from checking the resources tab with various engines. It is not clear why this is the value, rather than 9.81 (typo in the source code?). But nonetheless...

The rocket equationFor KSP purposes, you want Isp*9.82*ln(Initial_mass/final_mass). You can find the initial (well, current) mass of the craft in map view. For final mass, I would subtract the fuel and oxidizer masses (mass being fuel units/200) I'd lean towards just radially connecting the tanks to get larger lower stages. (Pic is of a craft with demo parts, but you effectively have all the tech. Shame it runs critically low on ÃŽâ€V if you start hanging goo pods or material bays off of it...)

How are you doing on electricity? (Does it run out?)

The Kerbal LV-N seems closer to an older generation NERVA. Hence the lower Isp.

Yes, there is. (Not mine, but I think someone else on the forum generated it)

He's most likely bugged. Any change that saving/reloading or restarting KSP will help? Does he show up as debris in the tracking station?

Generally as calculated, 0 potential energy is at infinite distance from the parent body, so something in orbit will have negative potential energy. Ditto hyperbolic orbits, though a goes negative for bookkeeping reasons. Also for both, E = v²/2 - µ/r. Which hopefully makes the tradeoff between kinetic and potential a bit clearer.

Yes, if only to solve that annoyance of having to reach for a calculator. Though there is the possibility that what I've done in Excel is far more in depth than what Squad would implement...