UmbralRaptor

It depends on the rocket, really. Switching to more efficient engines (increased Isp) can work, but may have other undesired effects. Adding fuel will improve the mass ratio, but there's an asymptotic limit in KSP, and the extra mass may cause other issues (long burn times, reduced TWR). If the design supports it, increasing the number of stages, or changing stages to use fuel crossfeed can also significantly increase the mass ratio. Even adding boosters may help, though the benefits are usually very minor.

Toss up between the R-7 family and Atlas V family. The former for the long service life and actually seeing something like mass production. The latter for being nifty from a performance perspective, even if they failed to make things cheaper.

You'll want to either change the target object (tab key), or scroll the view in/out (mouse wheel)

There's no stock method, but there are mods for this.

Well, what's your current Math/Physics background? If you've already taken Calculus, I recommend Fundamentals of Astrodynamics. More generally, how familiar are you with the rocket equation and Kepler's laws?

The density of the various fuels (mass in tonnes per unit) is defined and editable /KSP/Resources/ResourcesGeneric.cfg

Clarification request: basic jet or turbojet?

Also, what would multiplayer accomplish that this forum does not?

LFEs win in Isp, and generally ÃŽâ€V. SRBs currently have better TWR and decent (sometimes better) mass ratios, partially offsetting this. There is some utility to them (especially RT-10s) on the pad, though after that...

Yes, if: 1) You've *very* precise and going to Minmus. 2) You can pull off precision levels comparable to real world space agencies, and are looking for a challenge, even though in KSP this can be solved with an extra few dozen to few hundred m/s ÃŽâ€V. 3) All you care about is minimizing ÃŽâ€V to Kerbin escape (so where you end up doesn't matter). Otherwise, not so much.

It's the same as a minimum ÃŽâ€V orbit (use craft design and/or throttle to stay near terminal velocity, begin gravity turn at ~5-10 km, go east, keep your angle of attack down, be horizontal by ~30-40 km.)

That umbrella is insufficiently stabby.

It's hard to say if parts are "objectively" over/underpowered. However, I can reasonably say that the Mk 1 fuselage is underpowered relative to the other jet hulls (too much dry mass/too little fuel), the Poodle is underpowered relative to the LV-909 (thrust should be buffed to 250+. I like 260.), and the aerospike and Mk 55 are lacking in roles. Yes, but no. As KSP jet engines get 15/16 of their propellant mass for free, their actual Isps are 16x what the numbers suggest (typically above 20,000 s)

KSC, then Mün/Minmus, then... we'll see.

Ion engines don't 'burn' their propellant. They ionize it, and then accelerate it through electrical and/or magnetic systems, depending on the thruster. All of the energy the propellant gains is external. Especially since the current stock ion engines have a Xenon-like propellant.

Option 1 is likely out. You can save several km/s by doing a bi-ellptic transfer. Options 2 and 3 vs bi-elliptic are more interesting. I suspect that an unpowered flyby of Jool exists that will get your periastron sufficiently low. Provided you don't lose anything in course corrections (ha!), this could save ~700-2000 m/s. An Eve flyby may offer larger savings, as setting that up from a 70 km Kerbin orbit takes ~880 m/s less than a Jool flyby. For option 4, I would again lean bi-elliptic. For option 5, I wonder if Jool escape would add too much ÃŽâ€V cost. Maybe Eeloo near its apoapsis? At the other end, it looks like escape velocity at the star's surface is ~94.6 km/s, and a circular orbit is ~66.9 km/s. Due to the high eccentricity, I would expect all orbits to start out near the escape one before circularization burn(s). This may have been where Cesrate's 30 km/s figure came from. Depending on the method used, call it 35-40 km/s from Kerbin's surface to a star-scraping orbit. (With the first 4.4-7 km/s forced to use relatively high TWR engines)

Er, an ion at full throttle uses 14.55 E/s.

The PB-Ion is clearly the winner, though 30+ km/s should be doable with an asparagus staged LV-N. The poor mass ratio of the xenon tanks is an issue, but should be workable with a multistage design. You're likely to end up with hour long burns at 4x timewarp, no matter what.A mass ratio of 46 means that a nuclear design is enormously sensitive to payload mass. I hope you don't need to bring heavy instruments. Here's a design that should get ~29 km/s, but starts out at 190 tonnes, and will need to be lifted into LKO. Often ellliptical orbits that take them near the sun briefly (eg: Helios 2, Ulysses), or orbits with earth-like semi-major axes and eccentricities (eg: ACE, Stereo-B, SOHO). The Earth-Sun L1 point sees some use. Mass ratio, not GLOW.

Also, if photovoltaic, how is distance scaling handled? Panels beyond ~2.5 AU generate 0 E/s.

More of misremembering the equation, than cross-multiplying wrong. I had 4À²/µ at the start when I should have had µ/4À².

This question is ambiguous -- are you looking for semi-major axis? Period? Something else? Assuming you want semi-major axis, try Kepler's 3rd law. Specifically, the form T² == (µ/4À²)*a³ (4À²/µ)*a³ T -- period of the orbit (findable in the KSP wiki) μ -- gravitational parameter of the parent body (also in the KSP wiki) a -- semi-major axis of the orbit. Solving for a: a == ((µT²)/(4À²))^(1/3) edit: I got the constant wrong in setting up the equation.

Of course, given how often I have a rocket with 1-3 engines on the pad, minimum gauge is an issue impeding efficiency...

Airbreathing designs really do use a ton of ÃŽâ€V to get to orbit. It just doesn't matter because the Isp of KSP jet engines is >20,000 s most of the time.

Are you using symmetry? (x key) Try editing settings.cfg and setting VAB_ANGLE_SNAP_INCLUDE_VERTICAL = TrueOr use deadbeef's edtools.

My rule of thumb is 100 m/s at sea level, doubling every 7 km. (This should run very slightly behind the actual terminal velocity)