UmbralRaptor

Sun-synchronous orbits are not possible in KSP because they require non-spherical gravity (eg: Earth's equatorial bulge). This is also why they weren't possible in Orbiter before ~2006. For Earth, mapping from a sun-synchronous orbit provides near-100% coverage (depending on field of view, some of the poles might be missing).

What are your shadow settings currently? (Settings -> Graphics)

Kerbal stats just affect their expressions currently. Non-cosmetic stats are planned.

As much as possible, stay within 10° of the prograde marker. Even during ascent. It's not always possible, but it helps...

I believe that this is the post/thread in question

Isp can be though of as how much impulse a given mass of fuel provides. Adding more engines with the same Isp increases the thrust, but does not change how much each unit of propellant affects the craft's momentum. If all engines have the same Isp, just use that; they act like a single giant engine with extra mass and thrust.

Adding more of the same kind of tank does make the mass ratio converge, though.

If we're talking about a single stage, then the maximum ÃŽâ€V is based on the mass ratio of the tankage, and the Isp of the engine. For the LV-N on stock tankage, that's 17,261 m/s. For the PB-ION, 36,108 m/s. The most straightforward way to get more ÃŽâ€V is to make a craft multi-stage, giving you effective mass ratios far beyond the limit of the stock fuel tanks. Though like you said, fuel stations get around it. Only if you drop spent fuel tanks. If you don't, there is an upper limit, no matter how much fuel you bring(!)*digs up a TWR vs ÃŽâ€V chart* Aerospike LV-T30 LV-T45 Mainsail Also, the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation is relevant.

Nominal payload: 252 tonnes (7 orange tanks) GLOW: 3139.39 tonnes It was really a test to see what I could do with a giant inefficient launcher. Technically it failed, though MechJeb could likely get it into orbit. Or I could have transferred a few kg of fuel...

Well, if you're willing to deal with other parts of the flightui changing in size, you can make it larger/smaller in settings...

Was (5x or higher) time warp on or off? you were not using warp (or in physical warp), there are still floating point errors that slowly alter orbits.

If we're allowed to include solids, I vote for the BACC. While not as bad as in 0.16 or 0.18, it lacks the thrust and/or mass ratio to really distinguish it from the RT-10. Of course, there was no reason to use an RT-10 over a BACC in 0.17... If we have to go with LFEs, I would probably say the Poodle, with the Mk 55 as a close second. If you're building giant landers, consider a pair of aerospikes instead. I'm not sure why the 24-77 is on this list, as it's a good engine. Maybe because for lolhuge rockets the mainsail has better TWR and Isp?

"Kerbol" or "the star"

Mainsail-RCS!

If we go with mid-50s Soviet tech, not really -- the low Isp offsets the other gains. Anything modern (Which for the purposes of this means anything kerolox after 1970, higher performance kerolox engines made after 1960, and all hydrolox engines) would greatly increase performance. As would simply improving tankage mass ratios and decreasing mass/increasing thrust of the current engines.To expand on Horent_Brain's comments, consider that KSP engines can reach 1% throttle without much effort, and are fully efficient over the *entire* throttle range. Real rocket engineers would be rather impressed by the Kerbals' pumps.

Originally, the parts were even sillier (The old FL-T250 tanks were 12% structure, and the initial LV-T30 had a TWR of ~10.2. Both were made up for with a Ve of 5682 m/s.). Starting with 0.16, there was an attempt to get somewhat realistic tankage and engines. More realistic ones would make getting large payloads into LKO trivial, but more distant locations might be increasingly annoying, depending on if we have access to hydrogen burning rockets.

I lean towards picking something from *really early* in development whenever someone creates or bumps these threads. Sadly I joined in 0.8.4, so I can't do it perfectly. (eg: 0.7.3 -- no vertical stacking of fuel. 0.8 -- no symmetry)

Something like the third or so launch? Of course, I already knew the importance of going sideways, so it was more a matter of building up to an orbital rocket...

I'm not sure why, but I love the idea of Eve: 1) Being a nightmare to get resources off of. 2) The resources being so useful that it's done anyway.

It's a bug in the heat transfer system -- if an object's center of mass is far enough away, there's no heatflow, even though the parts are in contact. The orange tank is the only stock part that I'm aware of that's large enough for this to be an issue.

*headdesk*

Mk2 cockpit. Low drag, and very high rotForce for the mass.

A simple change for extra ÃŽâ€V would be throwing fuel at the lower stages. It looks like there's a lot more thrust down there than strictly needed, and this would make use of it. Stupid_chris's craft also points to some potentially useful modifications: Consolidating from 6 radial RCS tanks to 1 half-height KSPX size 2 tank would get you significantly more RCS for marginally more mass, and ejecting the command pod on reentry eliminates most of the parachute requirements/reduces the overall mass.

Not exactly:real life fuel costs are ~1-10% of the cost of a launch. However, the *other* aspects of a rocket (tankage, engines, etc) are so expensive that shaving off a few m/s in the design process may help. (or may not, if you end up with costlier parts)

~17-18 N/kg on launch. Upper stages tend to be 12-16 N/kg, depending on how much I'm expecting to have pitched over. After hitting orbit, other considerations are more important.