Specialist290

A few tips: If you're calculating the delta-v for multistage rockets, you need to calculate it for each stage individually, including the combined weight of the other stages "on top" of your current stage as part of the payload. Then you add those together to get the combined delta-v total for the whole rocket. For asparagus staging or droptanks, each iteration of dropping tanks technically counts as a "stage" for the purpose of the math. Again, Atomic Rockets goes into a bit more detail for that. Also, if you have multiple engines firing at once and some of them have different Isp values, you're going to want to find the mean Isp for all of them. I don't remember the equation for that offhand, but it's a bit more complex than just dividing the total Isp by the number of engines. Those are the two things that tripped me up when I was learning the equations myself. I can understand your reluctance to use mods, but I'd advise that you use Kerbal Engineer myself while you're learning, although if you're adamant about not using it then don't feel like you have to. Do the math out longhand yourself first, then compare your results with the totals that the Engineer gives you. They probably won't be perfect matches, but if they're pretty close, then you can satisfy yourself that you know what's going on. If they're way off, then either you probably didn't account for staging correctly (again, remember that for asparagus staging, each time you drop a set of tanks you need to start the math all over), or you're getting the order of operations wrong for the equation (which means you should have paid attention to your algebra classes ). That's what I did -- I worked out the math myself before I even put the Engineer chip on the rocket, until I was satisfied I understood the equations.

One method you could try is just to build a lander around the rover in such a way that the rover just has a short drop to the ground. (I probably could have done that better with a normal rover by using just one fuel tank and attaching the rover to the bottom, but the kethane sensor (mod part) was already taking up that node and couldn't take anything on top.) Another way you could do it is by copying the Lunokhod profile and putting the rover on top of the craft, then drive it down using a ramp of some sort. I've also seen rovers slung to the side of a normal lander that just drop down to the surface, though you'll need some sort of counterweight on the other side as well to keep the lander balanced.

Quite so. Everyone should try extreme spacediving at least once.

Impressive work as always

Actually, I think the translation keys (as well as the rotation keys, for that matter) are mapped the way they are because that's how it's done in most flight simulator games, where the keyboard directions correspond to the joystick directions. The "up" key is the same as pushing the joystick forward, which pitches the nose down, while pulling back on the joystick / pushing the "down" key brings the nose up. I've never had problems with the default scheme, but that might be because I used to play a ton of Red Baron as a kid.

If you want a good explanation of why the factors in the rocket equation matter (including what, exactly, delta-v is), I'd highly recommend checking out this page, which explains the things you'll want to know in pretty simple terms. Wernher Von Kerman also has a fantastic video on delta-v (although he still apparently hasn't finished anything beyond the first part). As for thrust: Once you're in a stable orbit, you can basically get away with as little as possible, since the only thing that really matters for orbital maneuvers is the total delta-v change, regardless of how long it takes to make that change happen. For taking off from Kerbin (and landing on / taking off from other worlds), however, you want to make sure at a bare minimum that your engines can provide enough force acting to push the rocket up ("thrust") to overcome the force that the gravity of the body in question exerts in trying to pull the rocket back down ("weight"). The number that measures this is your "thrust-to-weight ratio" (often abbreviated "TWR"), and can generally be figured out in a few easy steps: 1. Take the maximum power values of all the engines that will be firing on takeoff, and add them together. This will give you the total thrust for your first stage in kilonewtons. 2. Find the total mass of your rocket in tonnes. (It's assumed that the mass values for all parts in KSP are given in tonnes -- or megagrams, which are exactly the same measure, if you're anal-retentive about making sure everything is in proper SI notation.) 3. Plugging these in to Newton's second law (Force = mass * acceleration, or F=ma) and solving for acceleration will give you the initial maximum acceleration your vessel has. (This value will go up in flight, because burning fuel reduces your mass.) 4. Once you have that value, divide it by the surface gravity value for the body in question. (Kerbin's is 9.8m/s^2, same as Earth). The final value will be your rocket's TWR. 5. If your TWR ends up being less than 1, then you can either reduce the weight, add more engines, or use more powerful engines, or any combination of the three. Then redo the equation until you're satisfied with the results. Hope this helps

Seconding that; it's your connection. Your sig shows up fine on my end.

Nicely done! It would be nice if the values under 1 atm were scaled logarithmically rather than linearly, though, as otherwise the far right end is a bit hard to read. Impressive work nevertheless.

I'm using the data I got from the wiki, which admittedly might not be perfect. When I'm in the neighborhood of Jool with one of my upcoming missions, I'll check on that myself.

If the person who submits a challenge wants to allow or disallow certain mods, that's their prerogative. "Harder" does not necessarily mean "better." It's harder to hit a target at 200 meters with a smoothbore musket than with an M16 assault rifle, but you don't exactly see soldiers rushing out onto the battlefield with Brown Besses to prove a point. If I were to see someone climb up the side of a building using the window ledges as handholds instead of going inside and using the stairs, I admit I'd be quite impressed with the feat, but I'd also think that the only sane explanation for such a thing is that he's trying to rob the place. Before we proceed, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I don't use MechJeb. I make it a point of pride, actually. I'm glad that I can do everything that I've done so far manually. But I don't feel any sort of need to make myself feel better by telling the people who do use it "YOUR AUTOPILOT IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD" every time the forsaken subject is brought up here.

I'd say it's a good idea to be selective about who you consider your friends. It's better to have a tight-knit circle of companions who you know you can trust than a large net of "fair-weather friends" who are only around when things are going well (or worse, who turn around and actively profit from your misfortune). Also, people's brains are just wired differently. Some of us are extroverts, who live for social interaction. Some of us are introverts, who shy away from the spotlight when we feel the need to recharge our batteries. There's nothing inherently wrong with being one or the other. Personally, I've always been one of those quiet loner types myself. I enjoy getting out, doing interesting things and meeting interesting people as much as anyone, but I'm often quite content to curl up in a corner with a book or my laptop and let the world carry on as it will outside my little bubble.

For whom does the comparison matter in the first place?

Welcome to the forums! One setup I've seen includes both landing legs and rover wheels on the structures themselves. You land on the legs, then fold them back in and use the rover wheels to get into the proper alignment.

Updated the list with some description tweaks and new additions.

I just want the arguments to stop.

This is the first I've heard of it. Then again, I haven't really been following any discussions on resources lately.

So a while back, I was trying to figure out the math behind aerobraking, and failing at that horribly. I ended up doing the next best thing and made a large handwritten table comparing the altitudes of various levels of atmospheric pressure across different planets. Because it was handwritten, this took several hours. Today I finally figured out how to set up a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that could do all of the number-crunching in about fifteen minutes. Here are the fruits of my labor: This table shows the altitude for a given atmospheric pressure on each planet of the Kerbol system that has an atmosphere, with various points of interest highlighted in different colors. The index altitudes are marked by having their cells filled, as are those that are either in vacuum or "lithobraking" range. Someone with better skills than mine could probably have taken this and turned it into a nice, eye-pleasing graph, but I figured I'd put the info out there in case someone finds it useful.

Unless you've built your probes such that you have a margin of error thinner than a knife's edge, you should be able to get away with setting up your orbits so that they bracket the ideal launch time by a few days at most on either side, giving yourself a few hours between each craft's burns. (In other words, if you have for instance five probes, set them up so that one puts you at periapsis on the ideal orbit right on the tick, then one each something like three and six hours before and after that point.) It's likely that you'd have to perform some midcourse corrections anyway, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to correct for if you get your final escape burn in the neighborhood of your destination. Unless you're a math wizard, though, I'd advise trying to set up the first "kicks" as close to the launch window as you can. If you don't have it already, Kerbal Alarm Clock has a number of nifty features that can help with this. I'm not experienced enough with Protractor myself to really answer that last question, unfortunately.

Or just put the colony underground, or underwater.

I think the Surface tab of Kerbal Engineer Redux (includes much of the same info as MechJeb, without the autopilot) also shows you the surface coordinates of your craft in flight. I don't have that option set on my copy if it does exist, since I don't really use it, but I think it's there.

I can already hear my laptop's CPU sobbing at the thought. Speaking of water, though, it's really good at blocking radiation. Depending on the state of Laythe's plate tectonics, (i.e. if there are any "hotspots" near the surface of the crust like the ones Yellowstone and Iceland sit on top of) perhaps you could build an underwater base next to a geothermal vent and actually have a really cozy setup.

Eve and Duna are probably the two easiest planets to get to, but getting to another planet at all is something to be proud of. Good job! That said, if you're willing to do some experimenting (and maybe a little digging on the forums), you'll discover some tricks that might make your next mission a little easier. If you're interested, there's a thread in my signature that's got all manner of useful information.

Alternately, you could try turning your graphics settings down in the Preferences menu. Pointing your camera away from the planet helps, too, if that's an option. If you've got any other programs aside from KSP running in the background (like Steam, uTorrent, or things like that), turning them off will also help free up processing cycles for the game. I'm on a laptop, so I've pretty much gotten used to expecting lag, then taking countermeasures to reduce it where I can.

I'm on a laptop. Lag is noticeable, but only a problem when launching my larger vehicles, and I'm generally a patient guy.

True enough, but in an emergency, never forget the Kzinti Lesson. EDIT: Crossposted. Indeed, the only real difference between a bomb and a rocket is that the rocket has a hole for the explosion to escape out of before the whole thing breaks apart.