Bobnova

OK, I'll get those things for you, not a problem. Oops.

How do you propose that distance be measured? Have you done it yourself?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/24898-Challenge-Submission-Guide

OK here we go. The rocket consists of: 1x Aero nose cone lvl3 = 3 1x RC001s lvl8 = 8 2x FLT-800 lvl4 = 8 8x Cubic Strut lvl8 = 64 1x LV-N lvl7 = 7 4x 48-7S lvl5 = 20 4x Delta-Delux lvl5 = 20 4x TT18-A lvl4 = 16 Total: 146 (Holy crap cubic struts are expensive. I may have to do this again with a different mounting system) Only relevant mod is FAR, which decreases dV to orbit from ~4500 to ~3300 at the cost of requiring nosecones and wings for stability. No mod parts used. Not much left once Kerbol escape is managed, 2 units of fuel is it. A slightly better launch profile might leave 8 units, probably more like 4.

36 kerbals lifted off. A few had mishaps on the way down, I counted four explosions but I'm not sure how many were pods and how many were the little blue couplers I used to bomb whatever the kerbals were heading towards before they got there. A bunch more were removed from the game for being >2.5km from the pod I was controlling and having a PE <30,000m. Looks like 7 actually managed to get to the ground without crashing into something or getting edited out due to 2.5km draw limit. Fun challenge

That assumes that Oberth is the vector math done earlier, rather than a change in the fuel's energy due to velocity. Two different effects.

It's a good trick without KE or something along those lines. I got into orbit, but it was a pretty awful orbit. I messed my gravity turn up something fierce. To be fair that's at least half because I wasn't using KE, which I usual rely on heavily. Definitely an interesting challenge.

I kind of doubt that the KSP engine models the kinetic energy change of the fuel, personally. Or even the kinetic energy of the fuel in the first place. Or even the energy of the fuel, really. If you want to have doppler effect in a game, you have to code it. It's not there by default. Photons are not being simulated, nor are sound waves, nor are any other waves. No waves = no doppler. Nor is the hall effect, as there are no electrons in KSPs physics model. The Leidenfrost effect certainly isn't in KSP, as temperature is barely modeled, let alone state transitions. The underlying physical framework of the universe is not what KSP is running! KSP is running a simulation, there's a very large difference. Not only that, but it's running an extremely simplified simulation. The planets don't have gravity for the same reason the real universe does (unless the "real universe" is a simulation too of course), nor do the atmospheres exist for the same reason or in the same way. Same goes for water. Same goes for electricity. Same goes for fuel. That's a doozy really! Fuel is not burnt in KSP, and there is no exhaust. The engines exert a push of a given amount in a given direction when they are running, to do so there must be a positive value in variable X. For every Y milliseconds the engine runs at Z throttle, it lowers the value in X by Z * whateverTheEngineLowersTheFuelByAtFullThrottleAtThis"Atmospheric"Pressure. There is no chemical reaction, there is no expansion chamber, there is no exhaust. You can tell easily that this is the case by the fact that KSP will run on a single CPU core. Ever tried to do a liquid flow analysis on a consumer PC? Actually simulating those particles takes a hell of a lot of resources. Far, far, far more than a single consumer CPU core can manage in real time. KSP is a wonderful game and I love it deeply, but don't confuse a game-type "simulation" with an actual model of the underlying physical framework of the universe.

Sadly the maneuver node's burn time estimation doesn't take the rising TWR as you burn fuel into account, so this won't work. You might be able to use Kerbal Engineer though, it gives you a calculated dV of your current fuel load. If you burn what KE says is 1000m/s of fuel and gain 1010m/s velocity, say Hi to Oberth. KE does not change those dV numbers based on your current speed or location, so it at least is definitely not Oberth Aware. Personally I'd be extremely surprised if the devs put Oberth in. You could always ask them.

Nothing is stationary, and everything is stationary. As always, it depends on your point of view, or frame of reference to be pedantic. It's all relative

This is interesting to me. The prograde one is too, but it makes more sense. I feel like this equation is ignoring that if you raise your AP or PE speed you're going to have a serious effect on the other one, too. To use KSP as an example if you burn to 0m/s in Kerbin orbit, your PE is going to be in the atmosphere (or the ground, if we use an airless body) and a hell of a lot faster than 1000m/s. Using 0 is problematic (to my mind anyway) due to multiplying by it. I guess computing orbital energy after smashing into a planet is sort of silly on my part though. Seems like the PE would still have a higher velocity even if you didn't drop it all the way into the planet though. (It ignores the change in mass due to fuel too I think, but I'm willing to ignore that. Maybe it's a solar sail) Time for me to launch something into Kerbin orbit and start running the numbers I guess. I really appreciate you taking the time to lay the equation out in a simple enough way for me to understand! EDIT: And for narrowing it down to Kinetic energy. That's important.

All these calculations are Real Life calculations though, there isn't a single SOI for real life. They may or may not have anything meaningful to do with KSP. The "Oberth Effect" in KSP was specifically programmed in, so unlike real life there really is a definitive answer to both what exactly the calculation is and what your speed is. Taking an orbit around Gilly and an orbit around Phobos as KSP and Real Life examples, your orbital velocity around the parent body is going to be rather lower than that body's velocity around its parent body. In KSP it's simple, the Oberth effect happens because the Devs made it happen, in the way the Devs made it happen. Why it happens in real life? That's something different, and that's where my question on what reference frame all these calculations are using comes from.

Faster in reference to what? I feel like this discussion is missing something, namely that even in a perfectly circular orbit around Earth (Kerbin, whatever) your speed relative to galactic rest is changing. You're going around something that is going around something that is going around something that is going around something. If you're orbiting the moon, add another something. So, which rest frame are we comparing our velocity to here?

You can use 64bit numbers on a 32bit CPU/OS/etc, it just takes longer to calculate using them. That's what a "double" is in C if I remember correctly, a 64bit floating point variable. A "long long" is a 64bit integer.

I landed rescue mission number 4 on Duna, got my science and Hadbald to the lander/lifter, which ran out of fuel ~70m/s short of orbit, used the RCS, ran out with 60m/s to go, used Hadbald's jetpack to get him into orbit, switched to the return vehicle, went to bring it down to pick Hadbald up, and discovered that I'd forgotten to provide a power source and it was dead as dead. F9. Now to plan rescue attempt number five.

You forget, this is the internet. If you go read some youtube comments your optimism will quickly be shattered into moar pieces than you can count

First use of "moar" on the forums, also the first use of "moar boosters". 30th July 2011, 12:47, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/1243-Sprite-XT-1-Super-Heavy-Launch-Vehicle?highlight=moar

I designed, launched, crashed, redesigned, launched, crashed, redesigned, launched, crashed and gave up on mission #4 to rescue a Kerbal from Duna. The first rescue ship worked perfectly, but it wasn't in a close enough orbit around Duna when I switched away from it I guess, I moved to my Jool probe that was arriving a few in-game hours later at Jool (bad timing there) and watched the Duna craft break duna orbit and fall back into a Kerbol orbit. Thankfully the resupply robot made it to him, so he's not going to starve/freeze/etc. any time soon, but the conjunction is correct for another rescue attempt. I had some New and Awesome ideas for it, but they don't seem to be working especially well (read: at all). Time to redesign, again, I guess. Update: More or less the same vehicle for the transits to/from Duna as the failed designs, same lander, new lifting setup. This new setup is what I've been using on interplanetary things lately as it allows me to use four nukes without needing to hang them off the side or having them blow their neighbors up with the housings. Works great with FAR, too Artsy sunrise picture of the lifter, cause Sunrise. Second one is the actual transfer/rescue vehicle. Yes, my gravity turn was awful.

Here you go: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/moar

Lots. I tend to send at least twice the calculated amount, in case my Duna landing is less than gentle. I have a Kerbal sitting on Duna waiting for a rescue ship to show up right now actually

What I've seen is that the peak temperature is lower with a very shallow angle. Also heatshield damage/consumption seems to be lower as well. The only negative I've found so far is if you don't slow down enough and come back out of the atmosphere and are still going fast enough to escape (or have limited life support supplies and can't last till the next orbit). I'm not sure where heat over time comes into things, being at 1000°-1200° for a couple minutes doesn't seem to do any damage, while being over the part's heat maximum even briefly destroys it. EDIT: Please note that I'm talking purely about KSP with DE, not real life.

If I recall correctly it's about 500m/s, assuming you aren't trying to push something. I hope Dillan's close to orbit already!

The Place Anywhere RCS port can be used as an engine easily enough. It's not exactly long on thrust and the throttle control is only marginally better than a SRB, but it works I'd definitely like the monoprop tanks in Control.

Gentle aerobraking is key, don't dive in. Ideally your aerobrake will take a long time and end at least a third of the world from where it started. I like to aim for half. If you do it right you don't even need heatshields.

Install a universe replacer/modifier, Alternis Kerbal or something like that. Then start a new career mode. Put FAR, DE, and TAC Life Support in too. They change eeeeeeeverything. Also, it'll be done when it's done. Nobody who knows anything will say anything. Are you familiar with the term "NDA"?