UmbralRaptor

As far as vehicle design goes, lots of asparagus. I'm thinking something like this: (Current GLOW: ~187 tonnes. Exact design subject to change without notice.)

Huh. Is this related to the phantom rotations I'm seeing on some craft in orbit?

The craft seems a bit short on ÃŽâ€V (ignoring the throttle bug in 0.16). Cutting back on SAS and adding fuel lines from the "aux stacks" to the "main stack" would likely help. That said, you'll still need to be careful about how you get to the Mün. Cykyrios's post has good advice on doing so with minimal ÃŽâ€V expenditure.

Odd, there shouldn't be anything special about 6 km. A very long time ago, there were issues with some rockets reaching 5 km due to the floating origin system, but that should be fixed. Would you be willing to post your rockets?

Sorry about the belated response. Yes. The 9.81 in impulse calcs is because of the units used for specific impulse -- when they're listed in seconds, you have to multiply by 9.81 to get the effective exhaust velocity in m/s.@ForumHelper and Chrischn87: for a separate stage, it's the same as a liquid fueled stage, though you'll want to use the Ve figures directly from the wiki, though I don't think that was. For SRBs assisting a stage, You'll need to find the ÃŽâ€V for the duration of the burn, and then continue on with subsequent stages (bearing in mind the partially drained liquid fuel tanks) To find the overall Ve during the burn, sum up all various engine thrusts. Then divide by the sum of all the mass flows (.005*fuel unit consumption tonne/s for any stock LFE/tankage, 0.576 tonne/s for the RT-10, and 0.2 tonne/s for the RT-B20.). Initial mass - (Burn time * mass flow) == final mass for this stage. Hopefully that was clear?

I've been tending towards really boring names that are practically serial numbers. That said, anything euphonious from your favorite mythology (Greek, Norse, Sumerian, Egyptian, Lovecraftian, etc) should work well.

Horizontal velocity, probably around 2200 m/s. Also, map mode (press M) helps.

With the current drag model, there is no benefit at all. Drag is calculated on each part individually, independent of location, what's in front of it, etc.

That should be approximately correct, if the landing and ascent stages do the same thing. If the landing stage just has to get down from a low munar orbit, but the ascent stage has to get back to Kerbin, it may need a higher ΔV. Isp is not thrust, but can be thought of as thrust per unit of propellant burned. Multiple engines with the same Isp will act like a single larger engine with that exact Isp. Multiple engines with different Isps will give the rocket a net Isp in between the various values.Short version: you want ΔV = 400*9.81*ln(m1/m2) ~=2429 m/s

Unfortunately, there's no good way to at this time (it's a planned feature). If you're very careful with CFG editing, it may be possible, but is a lot of hassle.

N/A, as the altitude of a synchronous orbit around either body would be outside of their spheres of influence. If you want where such an orbit would be if it were possible: http://kspwiki.nexisonline.net/wiki/Minmus http://kspwiki.nexisonline.net/wiki/Mun

It works, but you\'ll want to drop the orbit fairly slowly (and keep eccentricity down) to get high precision.

The orange suits are (currently) unique to those 3.

I messed around with the SFS file a while back to make a test pilot. He keeps on showing up now.

Have you remapped the movement controls? If so, use whatever the new ones are, instead of WASDQE.

This rocket has asymetrical thrust, hence the tilting. You may want to use part symmetry (click on the big circle on the upper left part of the VAB screen, or hit X), unless you\'re planning on placing an off-axis load that will make the thrust balanced. That sounds like a PITA, though. If the boosters are placed symmetrically, it flies to orbit nicely:

Initial analysis: [table] [tr][td][/td] [td]Hades[/td] [td]Kerbin[/td] [td]Murs[/td][/tr] [tr][td]SMA (m)[/td] [td]6,832,620,128[/td] [td]13,599,840,256[/td] [td]27,134,280,512 m[/td][/tr] [tr][td]SOI (radius, m)[/td] [td]3.2e7[/td] [td]8.4e7[/td] [td]1.46e8[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Speed (0 eccentricity, m/s)[/td] [td]15,881.4[/td] [td]9,284.5[/td] [td]7,969.4[/td][/tr] [tr][td]1000 km SMA orbital speed (m/s)[/td] [td]1328.5[/td] [td]1879.2[/td] [td]1571.9[/td][/tr] [/table] Continuing with the 0 eccentricity, 0 orbital inclination, and no math errors assumptions: KSC -> LKO 4500 m/s LKO -> Murs flyby 2625 m/s Murs orbital insertion 130 m/s? Spiral in ÃŽâ€V guess 3500 m/s (~2x circular velocity) Σ = 10,755 m/s (likely rather lower, given an atmosphere) KSC -> LKO 4500 m/s LKO -> Hades flyby 940 m/s Hades orbital insertion 235 m/s? Spiral in ÃŽâ€V guess 2650 m/s (~2x circular velocity) Σ = 8,325 m/s Someone with a different mission profile will get different results. In particular, their landings would be much easier, but they would have to fly home. Anyone feel like checking my work? edit: I expect <2x, at least for the easier worlds. Also, it should be possible to do a mun mission with as little as 7.3 km/s.

OKB Raptop proposed initial mission profiles: 0) Determine necessary mission ?V and launch times. SFS abuse may be necessary. 1) My standard 70x70 km 0° inclination parking orbit. 2) Burn at best-guess time for a Hohmann transfer. I think sunset-midnight for Murs and Sunrise-noon for Hades. 3) Perform corrections as-needed (likely once I'm in Kerbol's SOI. 4) 'Standard' slowing down burn to establish orbit. In the case of Murs there's a quicksave/quickload dance so as to determine effective aerobraking altitudes. A low inclination orbit is (oddly) preferred. 5) Slowly lower orbit for the purposes of noting topography, orbital parameters (to find the objects sizes and masses), time warp limits, and atmosphere (if applicable). As this mission is likely to predate upgrades to ISA radar mapping, no instruments will be carried. 6) If possible, perform a soft landing, and at the appropriate time return to Kerbin. This step is not strictly necessary, and if a round trip rocket is prohibitively large, will not be carried out. Followup missions into polar orbits for mapping purposes, and true round trips are planned. Now crunching mission ÃŽâ€V figures.

Since the current KSP wiki seems to be hard to find: http://kspwiki.nexisonline.net/wiki/Celestials

http://kspwiki.nexisonline.net/wiki/Kerbin

Welcome to the forums. It shouldn\'t require an excessively large rocket if you do a bi-ellptic transfer. Actual minimum altitude in the paid version is ~4500-4700 km, before you collide with Kerbol. There\'s not much to see -- Just a featureless invisible plateau below the texture. If you\'re using the demo, you can fall through, with interesting effects.

The Avionics Package is an ASAS with different tuning. Check out their CFG files.

Not as such. If you\'re not moving in intertial reference frame, the planet\'s gravity will pull you in. To a first approximation, you can ignore the planet\'s rotation. In real life, the L1, L2, L4, and L5 points will work. Within KSP, just put something in the same orbit as the Mün, but some amount ahead or behind in its orbit. I\'m not sure if there are inclined orbits that also work.

MechJeb is various information displays and autopilots, available in the addon forum. It\'s compatible with KSP 0.16, but not 0.13.3.

Odd, this sounds almost like a bug. Would you upload a .craft file?