UmbralRaptor

There is no analytic solution; you'll need to go for numeric approximations. Beyond that, we can talk about rules of thumb for pitching over and speed...

The answer is that for a typical lander (or anything below about 50 tonnes), there is little reason to use the Poodle. You'll get more ÃŽâ€V and TWR out of the lighter LV-T30, you can let a command pod provide control authority, and either way you have to use the same size landing legs...

Google has not turned up anything useful. Again, I request a link. Fair enough. While we're at it, can we request altering Isp so it affects thrust instead of fuel consumption? Yeah, I'm fairly sure that they have a drag coefficient of 0.1.

With stock aerodynamics, you're always at mach 0; there are no compressibility effects in stock drag. I believe that FAR will show you your current mach number?

KSP engines have the same Isp at all throttle settings, and your (paper) ÃŽâ€V integrates over the entire burn time, so in that sense throttle doesn't matter. In practice, throttling down is of some value in some designs so as to maximize ascent efficiency in atmosphere. It's tempting to call these designs over-engined. In orbit, the standard maneuvers assume essentially infinite TWR, so again throttling down only helps for control reasons. For landing, intermediate settings are useful, but that's for ease of use. A suicide burn is in theory more efficient. Link to the 4200 m/s ascent, please? The lowest I'm aware of is ~4380 - 4350 m/s.edit to address additional questions: the wiki is a useful discussion of Isp and fuel consumption. For burn time, you'd want starting mass, final mass and mass flow of the engine. t = (initial-final)/flow

Giving two engines with such different thrusts the same amount of fuel isn't really meaningful. If the Skipper weren't slightly underpowered, it would be a clear choice for payload sizes that would require several LV-T30/45. I would suggest giving the Skipper 3x fuel of the LV-T30/45 (so it has a closer mass ratio and TWR), and then running the test again.

Part count, mainly. Depending on craft design, the thrust vectoring, but since you can get control authority from command pods, or running the occasional LV-T45...

1 - End mission from the tracking station 2 - right click on one tank, mod+right click on the other. Note that depending on your OS, the mod key could be left alt (Windows), option (OSX), or right shift (Linux). 3 - My working assumptions involve cloning vats, spores, and/or no notable dimorphism. Personally I'd like to see a bunch of "feminine" syllables added to the name generator, and be done with it.

It's a small difference, but rather easy to spot if you check the ingame numbers. eg:

Looks good for getting the mass ratio of a given stage, though I'd write it as e^(ÃŽâ€V/(Isp*g0)) in the hopes of extra clarity. I'm a bit confused by this as written.A first approximation would be X == (Full_Tankage + Other_Mass) / (Empty_Tankage + Other_Mass) Other_Mass being upper stages, the payload, engines, or whatever. For FL-T and Rockomaxx stock parts you can assume that Empty_Tankage * 9 == Full_Tankage After a bit of Algebra: Empty_Tankage == (Other_Mass - X*Other_Mass)/(X+9) Note the assumption that you know how much that Other_Mass is. That said, I put together some formulas for generating single stages of various performance a while back: (Though it can stick you with intermediate tank sizes) Edit: What is it with you people and 9.81? KSP uses 9.82 m/s² for g0...

If you spend your first 20 science the right way, you have landing legs. Since it's possible to get rather more than this with an orbital mission (or perhaps even a suborbital hop)... As for power, a mere 50 units if you're careful in your maneuvers. You'll need to keep ASAS off most of the time. Transmitting of data will be quite limited, though.

The big thing would be to pick up the (simpler than you'd expect) basics of rocketry and orbital mechanics. Nyrath's atomic rockets site gives a good overview. For specific pieces of math, I would point to the rocket equation and later Kepler's laws. For just getting to orbit, the important thing is horizontal speed; you only need enough vertical to get out of the atmosphere. The overheat bar is merely a warning. If the engines don't explode, they're still fine.

No problem whatsoever. Due to game engine limitations, mass above a part matters far more than width. (See also: why adapters are only of aesthetic use without FAR)

Raptop - Campaign (and before that sandbox) Testium - Sandbox (in honor of the now removed resource)

If you're using stock aerodynamics, ditch the nosecones. They're slightly reducing your rocket's performance. Yes, really. Also, replace the Poodle on the upper stage with an LV-T30. The landing legs will still reach, and you'll see an increase in that stage's TWR and ÃŽâ€V(!) You'll also see smaller gains in the lower stages.edit: Also, running struts from boosters to the lander might make the whole stack a bit more stable on ascent.

It'll work. I could point to design optimizations, but it looks like like it has enough ÃŽâ€V for a Mün landing/return already.

Just to annoy people with SSTOs:

The ResourcesGeneric.cfg file still shows A density of .005 tonne/l (5 kg/l). Do you have any fuel-related mods, and what was your testing method?

The 9.82 is a constant conversion factor to get from specific impulse to effective exhaust velocity. KW tanks have the same oxidizer/fuel ratios as stock ones, but different mass ratios. A typical stock fuel tanks has a mass ratio of 9, while a typical KW one has a mass ratio of 10. But, the values you plugged in for your final (and possibly initial) masses are wrong. You want: Note that you subtract the fuel+oxidizer mass from the initial mass before dividing.

Or to mash it into a single formula: Average Isp == (Thrust1 + Thrust2 + Thrust3 + ...) / (Thrust1/Isp1 + Thrust2/Isp2 + Thrust3/Isp3 + ...) (g0 actually cancels out!)

I can't answer all of these, so: 2) Try hitting tab/shift tab to change focus. Note that you can focus on maneuver nodes, so if you drop one in a convenient location... 3) Struts are actually massless! 4) Because alpha, I suspect. In the mean time: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Key_bindings 6) No.

Don't attach them directly to orange tanks?

So, what happens if you attach fins to the boosters? Or struts (EAS-4, octagonal/cubic octagonal, and conventional massive ones)? Or RCS blocks? >_>

Exactly .09375 tonnes (regardless of fuel state) when outside a pod, 0 when inside.

Arbitrary fuel units, called liters by convention. They could be moles, rather than something volumetric, but liters make sense (aside perhaps from density)... Yeah -- you can also see fuel, oxidizer, etc. densities in /KSP/GameData/Squad/Resources/ResourcesGeneric.cfg