arq

100m/s is still a little fast, in my experience. Laythe is tough because of the thinner atmo (though Duna is harder yet). Try to go as low and slow as possible for awhile to burn speed. Below 60m/s should treat you much better. EDIT: I don't really know what speed is necessary for flight on Laythe (maybe it's actually slower because of the lower gravity?), but I have a hard time landing above 70-80m/s even on Kerbin.

As much as I *want* a new aerodynamic model, I suspect it won't be changed until well-after career mode gets flushed out a bit more. Since that's their current push, I suspect money and missions are probably close on the horizon. Also, some part rebalancing is long-overdue. Actually, of all the things they could do next patch, this would take very little time (only a few hours, maybe a day or two) and would be very welcome. I'm tired of using the bulkier Mk2 Fuselage because it is lighter and carries more fuel than the Mk1.

After reading this thread I had a fun time spending an hour just building planes around a single SRB, launching them up, then gliding them back down to the runway. Kind of like the Natter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349.

Huzzah! I'm not alone, then!

Usually "Muen", with the short "u", but occasional more like "monday" Anyone else pronounce Laythe more like "late-hey" or "lay-tay"?

I will also place a vote for alignment needles. They would make this tool incredibly powerful.

My system, too, if I'm counting tanks. That said, the x32 has 3200 units of fuel (which I often and incorrectly like to call Liters), the t-800 has 800 units, and pretty much every 2.5m and 1.25m tank is named for its capacity. So I also often use the capacity (useful for space tankers especially). For example, my Tanker 672 carries 67200 units of fuel (or 21 of the x32 tanks). And with literally dozens of design iterations, I managed to put those 21 full tanks (plus few RCS tanks, NRVs and a few other bits) into orbit in a single launch...

I've done some work with asymmetric payloads, but I just added extra fuel tanks on radial couplers to get the CoM nicely centered.

There is a mod floating around called MissionController (though I think it was last updated for 0.20, but it may still work in 0.21) that had some of the framework for this. You should take a look at it. Plus it was made so that missions were loaded in from external files. I see no reason why this couldn't be made so that you can press a button and it will generate a random mission for you. It even had some basic stuff for random missions, where it would pick a random Kerbin orbit and make you send a probe there.

Honestly the no-man's-land suggestion is one of the better ones I've heard for this topic as a compromise between orbital stability and n-body physics. But I agree with the OP, it's perfectly possible to calculate the nbp in KSP, but I'm not convinced that n-body physics would be a meaningful and positive ('fun') change to the game. It adds little depth to the actual gameplay, just something that would be fun to mess around with for an hour or so and then would be forgotten (at the expense of a massive and time-consuming restructuring of the code) except for the occasional anger caused by an unanticipated destabilization of an orbit. Maybe in the future a mod will make this possible or Squad could do it, but there is so much left to be done since the game is still in ALPHA. I would much rather we get a better aerodynamics model, personally.

45deg is optimal for a ballistic trajectory in the absence of drag, but with drag (especially altitude-dependent drag) in the equation, the optimum moves slightly. I would expect slightly more than 45deg to be more efficient, as then you can spend more time in thinner atmo.

Look into asparagus or onion staging (I use onion, which is slightly less efficient but much easier to build) if you want to put heavy things into space. Actually I would recommend Kerbal Engineer Redux or Mechjeb to get the readouts of TWR and delta-V if you want to go about building efficient launchers. You want a TWR around 1.7-2.2 (lower is okay in the last stage) and about 4500dV to get to orbit. So if you can design a launcher with those stats and whatever payload you want on top (not counted in the 4500), it should get it to LKO. One of the above posters suggested that 4400dV would get you halfway to Mun. The user is likely using FAR, which changes aerodynamics dramatically and reduces dV to LKO. In stock 4400dV is just barely enough to get to LKO. A carefully designed and flown launcher could maybe do it for 4200, but likely no less, and most require 4400-4600.

You want a rough intuition for understanding of TWR and delta-V for design, but that's about it. Things like phase angles and the Oberth effect that help to make more advanced interplanetary stuff more efficient, but aren't strictly necessary. A precise computation of any of these is never necessary (except maybe for phase angles), just a brief intuition for what they mean. Anything that does require computation, like phase angles or delta-V, has mods that will take care of that for you (Engineer Redux, Protractor, Mechjeb, etc).

Max power is the max thrust the rocket engine can provide. If your thrust-to-weight ratio (Thrust/(Mass*9.81)) is <1, your rocket will not leave the pad. Ideally (for most-efficient launch), you want this number to float in the 1.8-2.5 range for getting off Kerbin, but it doesn't matter much once you're in orbit. Min power is 0 for all engines except solid rockets. Once you activate an SRB, it burns at full power until it runs out of fuel. ISP is the 'efficiency' of the rocket. Rockets are least efficient in thick atmospheres (at sea level) and most efficient in vacuums. Don't worry about what the number means (I never do), just know that a higher ISP will get you further for a given amount of fuel. Also, the atmosphere thins out very quickly, so by the time you hit 5-10km the vacuum ISP is all that really matters. Propellants are what the rocket burns. All rockets use the 0.9/1.1 mix at the moment, same with fuel tanks. The only exceptions are the airplane parts, which use liquid fuel/intake air, and ion engines, which use xenon/electricity. Mass was not listed by you, but it is actually very important. There is a 'correct' rocket for every job. Even though the NRV has double the ISP of any other rocket, it weighs a lot and provides very little thrust. This makes it poorly suited for a launch stage and too big for small orbital stages (less than a few tons). An engine needs to push both your rocket and itself, and the more massive they are the harder this is. Ultimately, the two most important stats for your rocket are TWR and delta-V. TWR is really important for getting into orbit or landing with rockets, though it matters little once you're actually in orbit. Delta-V is very important, it says how 'far' your rocket can go, in terms of how many m/s it can accelerate with the fuel it has. You can look up the equations for delta-V, but I won't go into that here. But know that it takes roughly 4600dV to get off Kerbin. If you are really interested in these stats, try the mods Kerbal Engineer Redux or Mechjeb, as they will calculate these and lots of other parameters of your rocket (doing this by hand is very tedious).

I try to shift-tab sometimes for Steam, usually with undesirable consequences.

I use Kerbal Engineer Redux for this info. It gives you terminal velocity calculations for your current altitude, so you can simply follow that up. Note that above roughly 15km you need a massive (and unrealistic) TWR to follow the optimal ascent speeds (people always seem to forget that).

4 T45s are heavier than a Skipper (actually they weigh as much as a mainsail), and that's before the weight of the quad-adapter. The thing that determines dV is the ISP and the wet and dry mass of the vessel, the engine adds to both the wet and dry mass. A heavy engine requires higher dV to compensate for the mass that it adds to the vessel. Low engine mass is why the Ant engine is so efficient (dV-wise) with a single Oscar-B tank, despite the abysmal ISP. With any very small vessel (less than a few tons), the NRV is a terrible choice because it is so darned heavy. Almost every engine has some situation in which it provides the highest dV.

Actually, in 0.21.1 (released very shortly after 0.21), they added torque to every probe core, so now every ship (non-debris object) has reaction wheels. For most probes, the probe core torque is usually sufficient. If it is so much heavier that the torque is insufficient, the mass of a reaction wheel is usually not too detrimental.

I'm currently having an issue that the build engineer doesn't update as you make changes. Replacing the part and even leaving the VAB and re-entering won't force it to recalculate the ship parameters (or even add stages), though it did remove a stage properly once (and then did nothing after). The only way to refresh the display is to exit KSP and relaunch. Anyone else seeing this issue with 0.6.1.0? EDIT: It seems others are having the issue. For me it happens from the moment I add engineer, or at least within a few seconds after.

Make sure your rocket is symmetric and that you have electricity for the SAS control (solar panels and maybe batteries). Those are the most important parts for maintaining control. Also, start with simple rockets. It tales surprisingly few parts to actually get to space (IIRC Scott Manley has done Duna missions with <10 parts). For instance, try putting a command pod, T800 fuel tank, LV-909 engine, stack decoupler, x32 fuel tank, x32 fuel tank, x32 fuel tank, and mainsail engine together in that order. Then, add 4 of the smallest (non-deployable) solar panels and a few batteries on the top half. I haven't run the numbers, but that setup should be more capable of getting to orbit. It may actually have too much power on the bottom half (resulting in Rapid Unplanned Disassembly), in which case try removing one of the x32 tanks and replacing the mainsail with a skipper. Make sure to enable SAS (the 't' key) to help keep it pointing where you want. EDIT: Goodness the design I listed above was excessive... Actually it requires much much less than that to reach orbit.

Many engines (Mainsail and LVN, at least) typically get *some* level of overheat at full throttle. However, for me they usually stabilize in the 40-80% overheat range. The overheat bar needs to get full (or very close to full) in order for an explosion to occur. With the x32 tanks I have never had a problem with engines, but I've been traveling so haven't played as much since 0.21. So with the x32 configuration, is the LVN overheating to the point that it explodes, or just filling some of the overheat bar?

The Jumbo x64 tanks have issues because they are so large. The physics engine doesn't treat them properly because the ends are so far from the CoM, and the heat dissapation doesn't work as well either. I also find they are more prone to Unplanned Rapid Disassembly than two x32's. I just use 2 x32's wherever I want an x64 and it tends to work much better (and usually the LVN's won't overheat in that configuration).

Maybe it's measured in delta-V? So the part alone could handle a 150m/s impact, but if it was only 10% of the mass of the vessel it could only handle 15m/s?

Woooo update! I was worried you'd abandoned us! This mod has become essential for me now. I can get by without many of the others, but I'd be lost without KER! Thanks for all your hard work, Cybutek!

At 25km you should be able to go much faster than 1200m/s. You should fly horizontal for longer to pick up speed on the jets. At 25km you should be able to get to 1300-1500m/s, in my experience. I try to limit myself to 1 LVN because they are so darned heavy, and you usually don't need more than 1 since SSTOs tend to be lightweight. Another note, I have recently found aerospikes to be inferior to T30's for SSTO rockets. They are heavy so they have a rather bad TWR. The issue is that at 1500m/s at 25km, drag is *very* significant (especially because your jets usually have much more thrust than your rockets). The most important thing when switching to rockets is to gain altitude quickly to reduce drag. Any efforts to gain significant speed below roughly 35km are wasted fighting drag (every 5km reduces drag force by a factor of 2.7). Thus, engines with high thrust and good TWR (like the LV-T30) that can power you up to higher altitudes quickly are most useful for SSTOs. Above 10km, the ISP gets very close to the vacuum level, so the high atmospheric ISP of the aerospike (its main strength) is completely wasted in SSTO configurations where they are not used until 20km+. For reference, my Minmus landing and return SSTO awhile back used 4 turbojets, 9 intakes, 2 aerospikes, and 1 LVN, though next time I do it I'll use something other than aerospikes.