NovaSilisko

I finally preordered. Yeah, it took me that long... =P

Actually, it already works like that.

That, or take it slow and hope to god you aren\'t going too fast.

Either that, or you plunge into a lake of liquid mercury! I do hope Harv takes kindly to this idea. ;P

Probably not in the first release.

It can perform the TMI burn for a light spacecraft such as that (but, as I\'ve learned five times in a row, that spacecraft isn\'t enough on its own to land)

It\'s two seconds of relatively high force.

I think I got the balancing worked out, now. Also, I made some stage-separation retro-rockets:

You changed it. It was March 1 when I looked at it.

Weren\'t you making Zond? :l

Because of gravitational influence with the other moons. The same applies to the Earth-moon system - there\'s occasionally bits of fluff getting caught in orbit for a few months.

Oh lord...

I know... That\'s what I used to get the volume of them initially.

All right. Just tested a falcon-heavy sort of setup, and was able to get a fully fueled second stage into orbit with the same payload. This upper stage was able to perform TMI using only half of its fuel...

CM, decoupler, SM, parachute, 4 RCS blocks. Total mass 1.5 units. Note that this vehicle is an equivalent of the Falcon 9. For lower capability vehicles, I\'m going to make smaller fuel tanks (like the Fregat stage)

Don\'t go there. There IS no definition of 'kerbal'. The community decided it meant 'inefficient and explodes all the time' which is stupid as hell.

Well, it wasn\'t working with lower values. I\'ll tweak it based on this increased density, now. Edit: Got the benchmark payload to an 88 km circular orbit using just about all my fuel. Now to see how it scales... Hopefully good. For a basic crew vehicle with a few Kerbonauts, science equipment, and a LES, this should work great. If it needs larger payloads? Attach some SRBs.

This is why people are quick to shout 'cheater'. By assuming that it\'s impossible to carry enough fuel for a kerbol visit, and making a cheat part to do just that. It implies a lack of will and effort to them. (I\'m not saying this is what you\'re doing, but...) However, it\'s certainly possible to carry enough fuel for a kerbol trip. You just need to make the vehicle as light as possible, and efficient as possible.

I am stunned at the quality of your first models. I am not worthy. For comparison, my first model for KSP: An ugly, disgusting, and awful, 18-sided cylinder with some bits on it.

I\'m assuming a monopropellant with the density of water and an Isp of ~350s for the main engine, 450 for the upper-stage engine. Of course, if I kept the 1m tanks, and added 1.5m and 2m tanks... Also, if I multiply the amount of fuel (and the weight) of the tanks by 1.5, I think I should be able to get good results. For the new balancing, there\'s going to be a cost of 1 dollar (or whatever the currency is) per kg of fuel. Maybe in the future, fuel costs could fluctuate with the kerbal economy...

Because nobody voted.

No. The Titan II was 3m. 1.5m might be good for KSP, but I don\'t know if it\'s worth invalidating everything else just to stay with realistic values.

I think it stems from Kerbal rockets being 1m in diameter. It might just be too small for realistic values to apply.