UmbralRaptor

It\'s more or less unbounded once you hit Kerbol escape. If you go fast enough, the altitude widget will continue past gigameters to tera, peta, exa, zetta, and finally yotta. If you get it to rollover again, the counter resets. edit: 1000 YM being ~106 billion light years. You\'re unlikely to need more distance than that. =P

The 68 years thing is an overflow error (2^31 seconds). Once you\'re on a Kerbol escape, you\'ll keep going as long as the game runs. (Forever barring crash bugs or additional errors)

Where\'s the RCS tank?

Intake stuff (including fans) are currently in the engine CFG files. No idea if it\'ll stay that way.

Will updated pages from N3X1S\' version of the wiki be copied over?

Assuming you\'re directly dividing the thrust values by the craft\'s mass: Kerbin: ~9.80665 (call it 10) Mün: ~1.634 Minmus: ~0.785

I\'m not sure if there\'s a formal method. I just compare the velocity at where I want to start burning, and the velocity at that point in the transfer orbit. usually with orbital energy or the Vis-visa equation.

What semi-ninja said. Both orbital energy and the vis-a-vis equation will work. Only for circular orbits. For elliptical orbits, average the two apses together to get the semi-major axis. (Just keep in mind that KSP gives altitudes, rather than the 'actual' apoapsis/periapsis figures.) The figures are in the right area. From what I\'ve flown, efficient ascents tend to LKO be ~4300-4400 m/s. Less efficient ones may be 4500-5100 m/s. The descent figure also sounds about right. Timing for launching into Minmus\' orbital plane is slightly hard at the moment, but the low inclination (6°?), means that there are times when you can reach it from a 0° orbit. (eg: with a fresh persistence file)

Please explain. I can understand the 69,078 m limit being the game setting the atmosphere to zero once density/pressure is at 1e-6 sea level, but what about 70 km exactly?

Also, it can be nice for finding other parameters (?V needed for a transfer burn, eccentricity, gravitational parameter for an unknown body, etc)

A local college is holding an event for seeing it here. 8)

If you want to squeeze every last meter out, 69,078 m. Precision errors may push you into the atmosphere, so 70 km is safer in some cases.

The temporary wiki has 0.14 parts. I\'m currently unaware of any detailed information on the new 0.15 parts. edit: I\'m pretty much the only person adding non-API information to that wiki at the moment. If you find detailed operational information about the parts/physics model, please share.

Assuming togfox is wrong, accidental realism from landing on rough terrain? edit: in more detail, that\'s a somewhat heavy lander (~11.2 as shown), and the landing leg attachments aren\'t very strong. Using extra legs is often in order.

0.8.5. My forum registration date is from a day or two after I started playing. Yep. :stirpot:Now who remembers how hard it was to get NovaSilisko\'s 18 mass unit mun into orbit back before struts?

In addition to what sal_vager said: Start small -- you should be able to get to orbit on 2-5 tanks (the LF-T500 tanks, specifically). this thread may give some ideas

I\'m guessing that struts and/or vertical snap (toggleable in settings.cfg) will help.

Maybe he\'s thinking of the mission plans that involve a Venus flyby? But yeah, Hohmann ellipses tend to be the most straightforward. For another option, 'spiraling' out with VASIMIR or a more traditional ion engine? Unfortunately, information about long duration low thrust trajectories is somewhat hard to find (and apparently requires math skills well beyond what I currently have).

Is this fast enough? (stock, 0.13.x) On a less silly note, mach numbers aren\'t yet meaningful in KSP. The current drag model makes the speed of sound in Kerbin\'s atmosphere effectively infinite. Also, you can get some remarkably fast rockets in atmosphere. They just tend to have excessive drag and/or leave it quickly.

I can\'t find the nosecone in NovaPunch parts. Deleting that, I\'m finding this too tail heavy to control off the runway. So I decided to rework it: (Less mass and more lift in back; simplified but similar design) 14 km altitude and 400 m/s speed should be doable before you\'re forced to eject the jet parts. Maybe more. edit: Er, intakes don\'t do anything yet. (It\'s interesting to go into their CFGs, and note that they all have a part type of strut...) edit 2: at 14 km on Kerbin, the atmospheric density/pressure is down to 6% what it is at KSC, so it\'s not *that* bad...

So, I ran through some design iterations: I now have a submission in the I hate myself (er, minmalist) category: 17 parts, takeoff weight as equipped is 8.78.* Flying it to orbit is remarkably unfun. It does at least have an incredible TWR, and handles nicely once empty. Remember to throttle down during ascent. There\'s not enough fuel for much maneuvering, but it can glide a fairly long ways. *It would be 10.78, but landing gear are massless.

Top:F-22 Middle: MiG-21 Bottom: A-10 Thunderbolt And not, say, MiG-1.44, Su-7, and A-10? Because it seems confusing for an F-22 to have canards, and a MiG-21 to have swept wings... ??? Not the best but close. B-57 Canberra?

Looks like my glorified rocket approach is... iffy. It needs the drop at the end of the runway to get airborne, is barely capable of a 70 km orbit, and has a L/D of ~2 with empty tanks and below ~2 km altitude. It cannot safely ditch on water. Land capability is currently unknown. =/

It\'s still nice to see confirmation on the numbers. Also, while the main wiki is locked, there\'s a vaguely up to date one available hosted by N3X1S.

If you\'re starting with a fresh persistence file, you can treat it like a münar transfer. (Just with a higher Ap) More generally, if you\'re doing the transfer orbit at the right time (yay, off-plane intercept), or your parking orbit is coplanar with Minmus\' you can just do the burn prograde at Minmus-rise thing. Minmus\' SOI is slightly larger than the Mün\'s(!)