UmbralRaptor

*grumble* necromancers... If your mass ratio can go on to infinity (as Jebbe was assuming), then yes, so can your ÃŽâ€Ã¯Â¼Â¶. You'll need × stages, though... The effectiveness of a gravity assist is roughly inversely proportional to your hyperbolic excess speed (relative to the body's SOI). That would put an upper limit, though ÃŽâ€Ã¯Â¼Â¶ from gravity assists is unrelated to the ÃŽâ€Ã¯Â¼Â¶ discussed back in 2013. (It's from the raw rocket design, and is ignoring gravity wells, etc)

6-7 asparagus'd mainsails. If 6, I recommend any liquid fuel engines on your payload fire for additional thrust/Isp. eg: from an old fuel tanker design:

The J-2 clone is a better Mainsail, really. Though from what I can tell, the RS-25 clones are more impressive in Isp if not TWR. (The booster version, however, is silly.)I wonder if they'll be tweaked.

From the stream the other night. Looks like a normal Isp curve to me.

I'm leaning towards a heliocentric rendezvous. The combination of an orange tank and an LV-N will give you at least a few hundred m/s even for a 1000 tonne asteroid. The craft as a whole need not be more than 80-90 tonnes (launchable by 6 asparagus'd mainsails) From what I saw, the masses run from a few thousand to under ten tonnes, so an adequately large craft won't be a problem. Pushing away one that is going to hit Kerbin is easy enough. So is pushing a class A (or maybe into whatever orbit I want. Larger ones will require aerobraking and/or a Munar flyby, which should prove... interesting... edit: note that a capture orbit has minimum ÃŽâ€Ã¯Â¼Â¶ cost when as eccentric as possible (so, ~70 x 80,000 km for Kerbin)

Of course, getting the fuel pumps to work as well as they do in KSP is non-trivial...

For an airless world, you can get useful numbers with relatively few approximations. eg: Tavert's charts. For back of the envelope calculations, you can just work out the relevant orbital speed and guess at gravity losses based on burn time. In principle one can put together a formula for ÃŽâ€V requirements on a world with an atmosphere. In reality, it wouldn't be solvable analytically, and you would need some numeric approximation.

It's still overcomplicated, and with KSP's limitations will make stage 1 expendable.

It's still the same, but the LV-1 is notably lighter. If TWR isn't a notable issue, the LV-1 is surprisingly good for low mass rockets.

Delete stage 2, integrate stage 3 with 1. Stock jets are good enough to get you into 75 x 30 km orbits.

For two objects that grossly differ in mass, you usually only find the mass of one. Mainly by some variant of Kepler's third law: T² == (4À²/µ)*A³ For two objects with vaguely similar masses, you want to consider that they rotate around a common barycenter, and use the difference in distances from that to find the mass distribution.

In settings.cfg there is: UIMODE_STAGING { primary = Insert secondary = None group = 0 switchState = Any } UIMODE_DOCKING { primary = Delete secondary = None group = 0 switchState = Any } Can you change the secondary to a joystick button?

4000 - 6000 m, on or just below the prograde marker until I get an exoatmospheric apoapsis. Then coasting and circularization burn. (stock aerodynamics)

The weak force (of holding onto ladders) violates some conservation laws. Clearly a more fundamental physics is needed.

Between Duna and Jool, with Dres in the middle. You know, like the real thing. Though having some vulcanoids or cubewanos would be cool.

Not sure that was worth bumping the thread. Anyway, if you're looking at using RCS as primary propulsion, I would also recommend looking at the LV-1.

The changes in 0.23 mean no beamspam, but I wouldn't be surprised if 2 was still doable. Especially now that Minmus has biomes.

The timestamp says July 23, 2011. So 0.8.5 most likely. The pic was from my realizing that the grass was huge (perhaps 1 m high), and Kerbals might be rather small...

Lift can affect ÃŽâ€V requirements (increasing them outside of infiniglider abuse), but can't be directly included in the rocket equation. For efficient stock spaceplanes, it's about having lots of intake area, a good TWR, and a wing layout that lets you fly with a low AoA. Beyond that, the lolhuge effective Isp and suspiciously good TWR of the stock turbojet does wonders.

In terms of mass ratios, Mk2,3, etc fuselages > rocket tanks with drained oxidizer > Mk 1 fuselage

MechJeb's ÃŽâ€V recorder, and noting burnout altitudes, mainly. They're very much rules of thumb. More detailed examinations require numeric simulations of ascents, and I'm actually unsure of how to best do that.

For a (Kerbin) SSTO: 0.2 atm (Call it 0.21 if you're at the low end of useful TWR) For a (Kerbin) 2STO where both stages are relatively similiarly sized: 0.5 atm for the first stage, ~0 atm for the second. (may need adjusting)

Kerbal Excel Program, sadly. I spend so much time designing craft that there's relatively little flying. Actual craft are surprisingly small, and tend towards stock.

Can you show us your calculations? For a craft that masses 21.41 tonnes full, 13.41 tonnes empty, and has a 390 s Isp, I get: ÃŽâ€V == 390 * 9.82 * ln(21.41/13.41) == 3829.8 * ln(1.597) == 1791.8 m/s

Er? Hasn't it been 0.5 kN since they were added? And somewhat more than half the TWR of the 24-77. Using 12x 24-77 will in some cases (<6.5 t payload with an FL-T400, <5.58 t with a rockomaxx -8) get you more ÃŽâ€V than 2x Mk 55. Not than sub-Mainsail Isp is anything to brag about...