kurja

Aaah! So obvious! Thank you!

I should admit I don't really care about the kerbal at this point, I'd just like to test the vehicle's ascension capability now that it's there.

sorry but that's not helpful.

So, I ever so slightly misplaced one of the ladders on a rocket I built, so now Bill is standing on Eve surface, next to a fully fueled and prepared ascent vehicle.. that he can't get into. It takes hours of gameplay to get such a thing on Eve, so, at this point I'm willing to cheat. I'd like to at least try and see if my lander can get back into orbit: is there any way to magically transfer the kerbal back into the lander can, or is there a mod, cheat or something that would enable me to control the ship without a kerbal in it?

Exactly so, looks like I misunderstood your post.

What parts would you need for asparagus that you won't need for onion??? Fuel lines are required for both, and that's pretty much it. Probably wouldn't make so much sense without decouplers but those are there too.

1st person IVA transferring between modules would be cool but what about docking ports, those things can be placed almost anywhere, I suspect implementation would not be simple and easy? edit - hm op already mentioned this, it seems

srb's do not use liquid fuel either

They do? Oh shoot, I must have been looking at drag figures or something. Hm according to wiki large one weighs 0.2, small advanced stabiliser & reaction wheels weigh 0.5. But.. large one weighs less? That makes even less sense. I'll rephrase then - why would I use the small one?

I've been meaning to post about those large sas units - why should I use them? They weigh more than the small reaction wheels but provide exactly the same torque, so why not use the smaller ones instead..?

So you have the same velocity in both directions... in you very particular frame of reference. Awesome! Now take the direction in which the surface moves into account. ... no, I'm taking xkcd's and jwilhite's word for it and going to sleep, fare well.

ookay, so velocity of A when moving left is the same as B. Why not. So horizontal surface velocity of A in that scenario is nil. What is the horizontal surface velocity of A when it moves right to D? Hint: it's not nil. They can fall at the same rate all they want, this whole insane ten page argument is about difference in horizontal speed that is due to rotation of a planet. We've been through this, speed at which an object falls matters squat for it's horizontal speed.

No. Just.... No. Draw a couple vectors, will you. Your chairs or whatever are falling in different directions, yes they are falling at the same speed in a particular frame of reference but on impact their horizontal surface speeds will not be identical because the surface itself is moving. Seriously. Draw a picture. Those often help.

I suppose these points were pretty much covered by others already but since you're quoting me I'll respond anyway. 1) I can't calculate off the top of my head the time it takes to descend, fortunately someone else already posted with the numbers. Please do elaborate on how this matters at all? As far as I can tell the horizontal surface speed does not care if your descent takes a minute or a day. 2) It's exactly the same with the ascent, only in reverse. At launch, you have some initial orbital velocity but zero surface velocity!!! Thus to reach an orbiting velocity, you need less dv if you accelerate in the direction where you - the surface! - is already moving. Exactly the same with landing, you need to reach that same position as at launch, when you had some orbital velocity but zero surface velocity. Go in the other direction and it'll cost you more dv. edit - Oh, and it's not like all other bodies in the KSP system could exist in reality, think of the sun. It's way too small. And then there are these green little beings on their home planet where the only built structures are at their space center....

Your point being? In ksp Kerbin, Duna, Eve and Jool have atmospheres, Moho and Dres have slow rotational velocities (as do all the atmosphereless moons in the ksp universe). That leaves Eeloo. No-one said that it would be a huge difference in dv, just that it's there. edit - btw, what's your take on ascending off of planets? If surface speed does not matter, it should be the same if you launch east or west from ksc, right?

On a body that hardly rotates at all, the difference is insignificant. That does not mean that there is no difference.

Mun rotates at whopping 9 m/s, your altitude difference alone contributes for a much larger difference in fuel consumption.

What Steven said. What did you think that deceleration due to aerodynamic drag is doing to your speed? Not changing it? Also, you didn't mean to seriously suggest that your speed actually changes when the navball changes modes?!?

your horizontal surface speed is not zero. Try landing that way...

Now you're just changing the facts... if you're going 2m/s and the conveyor is going 0.5 in the same direction you are moving faster than the conveyor, not the other way round. Your relative velocity is 1.5 m/s, and that is how much you need to change your speed. When the conveyor moves to the opposite direction, it's 2 + 0.5 = 2.5 m/s, which is again how much you need to change your speed. 1.5 does not equal 2.5. As for your second version here, if conveyor moves at 2.5 and you're moving at 2, then your relative speed is .5 (and that's how much you need to change it). BUT if it's moving at the same speed in the other direction your relative speed is 4.5 which obviously is not the same.

No. I have to use 1050 m/s dv for one and 950 m/s dv for the other.

No. 2 = (2 + 0.5) - 0.5, like it says there, equals two which is not zero

Atmosphere would rotate at the same speed as the surface, so if you already had 0 surface speed upon re-entry, nothing would happen, right? I suppose if you made the orbital speed zero, then entered atmosphere, we should see horizontal acceleration from drag..? Maybe.

Questions? Yes. Why won't your example actually work? In your example, you have cherry picked unrealistic values to give the result you want - when does anyone approach a planet at orbital speed lower than the planet's rotation? Try flying at 1000 m/s with conveyors moving at 50 m/s: your relative velocity to one is 1050 and 950 to the other. Different delta vees needed to come to a halt, you see. (edit: also, in your example, if your relative velocities are 2.5 and 1.5 like you said, those are the amounts by which you need to change your speed to come to zero, not 0.5 or -0.5..)

Which is funny because I just contradicted your claim. Surface speeds are different for clockwise and counterclockwise orbits. Just accept it. Or better yet, try it yourself and see how it is. Just get two crafts on opposite orbits with same altitude and thus orbital speed, then check their surface speeds. Are they the same? No, they're not. Unless you're saying that horizontal surface speed does not matter when landing? Forget newton, forget friction, just look at the surface speeds.