UmbralRaptor

I\'m saying that a real-world object with this mass would be quite cool. Possibly enough so that the dangers of getting too close would be more like those of a gas giant, than a star.

Looks like a good tutorial and a reasonable starting point for getting to orbit. 'Overpowered' meaning too much thrust in some situations?

Welcome to the forums. The last I saw, the download link was actually for 0.16 (despite showing 0.15).

It\'s ambiguous -- Kerbol\'s mass is only ~9x Jupiter\'s. Potentially this means that the \'real\' limit would be atmospheric drag, rather than radiant heat.

Are you still using the big LV-T30s when you have the instability issues, or or do they happen after you\'ve staged? (If the former, I suspect a certain amount of drag-related wackiness. If the later, it\'s lack of control authority in the upper stages, probably fixable with some vectored thrust.)

Interesting hidden feature. *makes note on the wiki* idkfa

For a relatively low number of stages (also asparagus staging or cases where each stage is much larger than the ones above it), 3-5 tanks per engine is good.

Engine Isp is 30-60% lower in most cases. Eg: 0.15 and earlier LV-T30, T45, and 909 engines had an Isp of 579 s. The Mk 55 radial engine has one of 330 in vacuum and 280 s at sea level. Size 1 parts are the same or lighter than they were before, though size 2 parts may be heavier. Given current fuel bugs, you can get surprisingly far on low throttle settings.

I don\'t understand the question -- could you draw a picture of the rocket and what sort of fuel flow you want?

Just copy the .craft file from /KSP/Ships/SPH/ to /KSP/Ships/VAB/ It\'ll load fine in the VAB.

Togfox: calculate the mass flow for each engine, and add them up. eg: for 2 of the same type, multiply what you got for one of the engines by 2. For 6 Mk 55s around an Aerospike at sealevel connected to standard (200 u/tonne) tankage: Fuel consumption: Mk 55: (80*200)/(280*9.81) ~= 5.825 u/s Aerospike: (250*200)/(390*9.81) ~= 13.069 u/s Total thrust == 80*6+250 == 790 730 kN Total mass flow == 5.825*6+13.069 ~= 48.019 u/s Overall Ve == 790*200/48.019 ~= 3290.393 m/s == 335.4 s 730*200/48.019 ~= 3040.490 m/s == 309.9 s Okay, glad its cleared up.edit: corrected numbers. *glares at the math error*

Such games already exist.

Define 'in-atmo' flight? Does it require jet engines, or just enough wings to glide around, or zip around on rocket engines for a minute or two if you don\'t feel like going to orbit? If the latter, I\'ve been working on a minimal spaceplane: Here it is in the hanger. Given the very low mass and lack of ASAS, not mounting a vertical stabilizer makes sense. GLOW is 6.62 tonnes. (8.12 if you count the landing gear, but since the physics engine seems to ignore their mass...) In the required 100 km x 100 km orbit: This feels wrong. I have no idea how I\'m getting to orbit on only 3081 m/s of ?V. (Total craft ?V is 3546 m/s) Deorbit burn done. It turned out to be overkill, but this thing glides like a brick. Looking west over the mountains. That dot in the background is Minmus. KSC: So close and yet so far. (The distance is from another craft on the launchpad) Out of altitude -- gear down. Whee? Enjoying the scenery. By waiting and doing a silly-long rolling stop, I got much closer to KSC. Deorbit burns are still somewhat unforgiving, though.

The stack decoupler is failing under the weight of the rocket above, causing the the lower LV-T30-2 and aerospikes to be uncontrollable. I\'ve taken the liberty of adding some struts and rearranging the fuel flow in the lower stages. You might want some ASAS, though?

I\'m confused now: Did it burn ~10 tonnes, or ~33 tonnes?

@PakledHostage: Yay! @Endeavour: In principle, yes. In practice, I\'d be tempted to ignore it and just pretend there are additional atmospheric ?V losses. Especially since how much it impacts your available ?V depends on your ascent profile, so unless you feel like doing line integrals... @Absolution: I get: Isp1 == (2000*7500) / (62*82.51) ~= 2932.1959 m/s Isp2 == (373*3000) / (14.17*33) ~= 2393.0198 m/s ?V1 == 2932.1959 * ln((132.79/(132.79-82.15)) ~= 2826.716 m/s ?V2 == 2393.0198 * ln(42.96/(42.96-9.96)) ~= 631.187 m/s ? ~= 4129 m/s For the 3497 m/s, I\'m guessing you did 2392.34*ln(42.96/9.96)?

There was a bug in 0.15, where the shadow settings would go wrong. Is this it perchance?

The aerospike\'s lack of thrust vectoring can cause control issues with larger rockets. Then again, between the LV-T45, Mk 55, SAS, Winglets, RCS, and air-breathing engines, there are options. I\'m confused as to why the size 2 LV-T30 has such a poor 1 atm Isp, though. I would have expected it be one of the better ones, though the poor vacuum Isp makes sense. The high thrust, okayish TWR, and thrust vectoring makes it otherwise a reasonable choice for a first stage. (Ignoring the potential performance gains of strap-on SRBs and jet engines) ...though the more I think about it, the harder time I\'m having seeing a role for the size 2 LV-909. The size 1 might be worthwhile on a small Mun/Minmus/future low gravity body lander, where the shorter, lower mass, and higher Isp is more important than thrust. (The thrust vectoring being a toy) But the size 2...? Compared with the aerospike, it has higher mass, the same same Isp, and lower thrust. TVC might be of some use, but is quite small, and a lander using it is likely small enough to be maneuvered by the pod\'s reaction wheels.

If you\'re using 0.14 or later, editing the SFS file (put the spacestation on the pad or runway, quicksave, change the parameters to that of an orbiting body, and quickload) If you\'re using 0.13, you\'ll probably want this mod. Decouplers can be abused with interesting results.

280 s at 1 atm, 330 s in vacuum. Depending on what engines you were using, it might not be that obvious (10-40% difference), but the various size-1 engines do have better Isps.I do agree on the names and painfully low TWRs of the revised LV-909 engines, though.

It\'s hard to work out, but I think there\'s a structural weakpoint somewhere. Decoupling with the engines off and throttling up slowly keeps it from exploding. That said, you do know that you can stack multiple fuel tanks on top of eachother, right?

I\'m fairly sure that the context menu is wrong. In particular, note that the ratio fuel mass from the CFG file to fuel units varies from tank to tank. I just treat them as arbitrary fuel units to be cancelled out as soon as possible: LV-909 == 50 kN/(2 fuel units / second) == 25 (kN * second)/(fuel unit) FL-T500 == 500 fuel units / (2.5-0.3 tonnes) ~= 227.27 fuel units/tonne 25 (kN * second)/(fuel unit) * 227.27 fuel unit/tonne ~= 5681.818 (kN * second) / tonne) == 5681.818 (tonne*meter*second)/(second^2*tonne) == 5681.818 m/s As an example, here\'s a rocket out in flatish space before and after burning 1 tank of fuel: ?V == Ve*ln(Mi/Mf) Solving for Ve: Ve == ?V/ln(Mi/Mf) ?V == 2440.8 m/s Mi == 1 + 0.8 + 2.5 + 2 == 6.3 Mf == 1 + 0.8 + 2.5 + 2 == 4.1 Substituting: Ve ~= 5682 m/s (Which is what I would expect for an LV-T30, T45, or 909 attached to an FL-T500) I\'ve included the SFS file in an attachment if anyone wants to duplicate it. edit: You always use a natural log with this. For converting from exhaust velocity to specific impulse, you divide by a factor of 9.81, and for converting from specific impulse to exhaust velocity you multiply by a factor of 9.81.

Not really thrilled with either of them, but the Galaxy SII supports 64 Gig SDXC cards and more importantly, Cyanogenmod. If you don\'t want to do the CM thing, I note that US Cellular also sells the Galaxy SIII. edit: If you\'re using a 2 GiB data plan, the dropbox account is sort of silly unless you have plenty of wifi access. If you\'re interested in photos, a cheap point and shoot camera (especially one that supports CHDK) will blow the cell phone away. (For starters, phone cameras still don\'t have proper IR filters...) No smartphone has good battery life. Get an extended battery or two if you\'re concerned. Also, Cyanogenmod comes with a decent music player and you can always download more.

Welcome to the forums! I don\'t suppose you could do anything about the audio mixing with the video? (eg: turning up the vocal commentary, but turning down the engine noise) >_> Also, nice use of Holst.

By editing the 'name = ' line in the SFS files. Exactly that. A copy would be more for backup purposes than anything else, though you could save edited versions in /KSP/saves/scenarios/ and load them ingame with control+F10.