Sathurn

Oh, I full realize that was why we did it. But in hindsight was it worth it to the economy, with all those fringe benefits to pay the cost we did. And if in hind sight throwing huge amounts of money to put a man on the moon was worth it, why not go for broke and put a few men (or in this age of political correctness a few women, after all 3 years without women would be bad) on Mars.

Wthout the "race" we never would of gotten their at all. Which why we should forget the unproductive idea of peaceful exploration, and start going first come first serve.

Moar spin, moar gravity, moar sickness. Moar arm, moar gravity, moar expensive. must find balance.

I'm not talking about prestiege. I not talking about "science". I talking about real econimic growth of a nation. So was the Apollo Program worth it? And if it was, why did we renounce are claim to space. No competition means no mars landing. I would bet that if the "no territory in space treaty", don't know the real name, was renounced we would have over one hundred people prospecting on mars in less than a decade.

While a paint studio might be a nice feature. The colors currently seem realistic. Real space craft are painted white, or unpainted for a good reason, to minimize solar radiation absorption or save weight. And having all the different textures in ram would be a game killer.

Since we don't seem to have a reliable way to calculate lift, (that we know of), how far forward of the COL do you typically put the COG?

I tried building in AOA by making the front landing gear taller than the back. But my plane just run off the end of the runway, or jump in the air spinning. I have not tried rotating the wings so they have a built in aoa though. I don't have a joystick on my laptop, so my controls are all or nothing. Unless there is a trick I need to know.

yeh, real planes have a cog forward of col, so that when you "stall" the nose falls restore flying speed over the wings. So far anything with a forward center of gravity just stays on the ground for me.

I beginning to think being an actual pilot is a serve handicap in KSP. I for the life of cannot make a jet plane much less a space plane. I realize the aerodynamics is a place holder, so .... How does 1.6 lift of the swept wing equate to needed flying speed? Does the game use "stall speeds" and how do you calculate them? How do you make a plane take is both light enough to fly, yet heavy enough not to flip over at it's early conveniences. (I think pilot error is a large part of my problem)

Ok, here my 2 cents worth. Once your close and using nose docking for learning at least, point your ship at the target and turn on sas. Switch ships and repeat. Now using whichever ship you want translate towards your target 'h', at a speed that makes you comfortable. DO NOT ROTATE YOUR CRAFT, leave SAS on. As your approach use the 'i','k','l','j' keys to keep the TARGET marker in the middle of your nav ball. Use the prograde marker to figure out which way you moving. Use 'n' to slow down, and if your bumping with out docking turn off sas.

Does "full" thrust mean full thrust, or can I use 75% from the launch pad, as not changing thrust at all.

I mount one seraptrons facing straight up, at the bottom of the object being drop, directly opposite the radial connection point. The off balance location help rotate the top way form my craft.

With an accuracies of 99.88% Blue sets the bench mark with 3236 points. .00055 .00065 3240 * 0.99945 * 0.99935=3236 One question though how many parts?

After reading the article on warp drive many post up, I find warp drive to be plausible enough to be included in the game at some distant point. I do not believe warp drive would "break the game" because, to this math novice, it could be self limiting. Warp drive would compress the space in front of the craft, such that a craft traveling at .1LS (light speed) could in space compress at a ratio of 2 to 1, effectively travel at a speed of .2LS. Increase the compression of space to 10 to 1, and the craft traveling at a "relative" velocity of .1 now travels at the effective velocity of 1LS. Since moons, planets and stars compress space already I would find it plausible that warp drive would not work as well (or at all) near large objects therefore not usable in system, thus not breaking the game.

Do landed ships contribute noticeably to lag? And I do mean a lot of them like a user made city?

Bigger is better and that was sort of the point of this challenge, but balance is also needed. The obvious solution is to have divisions, light part count/heavy part count/unlimited. Any other problems with my challenge before I update the first post?

Sorry for being unclear. The score is for the Liquid fuel (but you still have to have the oxidizer). As for the math 50 tons 105 apoapsis is 5% error 95 periapsis is 5% error So: 50 *.95*.95=45.125 Which I realize is not quite the formula above, but it is what I intended. the amount of fuel was to be in fuel units. as displayed by your resource list.

The objective is simply to put as much Liquid fuel and oxidizer as possible into 100k Kerbin orbit with one launch. Because of computer performance issues part counts do matter. If I get more than 5 entrants I will break the score board down into classes based on part count. Competition classes Light-weight: < 100 parts Middle weight: < 200 parts Heavy weight: < 400 parts Unlimited class: no part restrictions. Ships Must have: The ability to dock (or else fuel delivery is pointless) Liquid Fuel Oxidizer Scoring: Amount of Liquid fuel (as displayed by you resource panel) in orbit, times (1-the percent error in the apoapsis), times (1-the percent error in periapsis). Secondary scoring: Fuel efficient design: Not sure how to score this one. I was thinking fuel in orbit divide by total weight at launch. LEADER BOARD STOCK (Mech Jeb, Kerbal Engineer, or other information and auto pilot mods allowed) 1. Blue, 3236 points 2. 3. 4. 5. Mod (I will post them, if you claim them, but please try to stay away from "cheat" mods) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. edited: for clarity.

Try this Put the fuel tanks together with the COG right between them, or use a bigger single tank (still with the COG in the middle of the tank).

your right, but on a heavy lift the srb just don't seem to make that much of a difference. but I'm a noobie. Just succeeded in an Apollo style Mum mission. 3-man comand module, two man mun lander. docked to the top at lift-off. My first stage had 5 jumbo tanks and 21 motors (lv-t30). Which worked better than 5 mainsails. Although without asus I could of never flown the thing off the pad with the lag on my laptop (157 total parts)

Ok I get the arguement that, kerbal is scale to make "Easy", so real world tanks would be over powered. I get that this is "kerbal" rocket science. Yet, I agree with the op on the SRBs. The SRB need a boost. I don't use them because the don't seem to help. In fact it seems to me they barely lift there own weight when compared to LFR. (totally personal opinion, I don't feel like doing the math for a game) Only SRB I use are the serptrons to get the parts away before they can hit my rocket.

I don't think the Russians had to worry about hurricane force winds at their launch pad. While takes all day to move it, it can be back in the VAB before a hurricane can strike.

I trying to practice docking, and I seem to be using up a lot of RCS fuel. How many RCS tank do you guy have on your orbitals? Does SAS reduce the firing by the ASAS? How many thrusters do you use?