mhoram

What is the TWR of your ship? If it is too low, you will lose a lot of Delta-V to gravity. Regarding the ascent path for Eve, fibonatic made some calculations about them: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/46194?p=1407898&viewfull=1#post1407898 But be aware: the ideal ascent path depends a lot on the rocket configuration itself.

In my experience there is no simple formula to calculate the payload of a lifter. Factors like ascent path and TWR-distribution have a too big influence on it and they can not be calculated easily. The payload capacities of my own lifter families I got by a lot of expermenting and testing. If you take the reverse approach (building an asparagus-staged rocket for a certain payload mass), Temstar's rocket configuration guide might be helpful for you.

@awesomedawson1992 Welcome to the forum! Try this one for SCANsat: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75854-0-24-x-Ideal-SCANsat-Altitudes-v1-0-Aug-16 Did not test it myself however.

This question pops up time and agian. Best answers from different point of views so far was in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60189-What-Is-Delta-V

This is correct under the assumption that you do only a single departure burn. If you allow two burns, then higher orbits can be Delta-V wise more efficient (in the meaning you need in total less Delta-V for getting to an intercept-course with the target planet) Starstrider42 made some calculations on the fuel consumption for two-burn departures: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75542-Should-I-build-a-refueling-station-at-the-edge-of-Kerbins-SOI?p=1074426&viewfull=1#post1074426

If you intend to optimize the altitude for "lowest Delta-V to target planet", the charts in this thread will help you: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75542-Should-I-build-a-refueling-station-at-the-edge-of-Kerbins-SOI?p=1072850&viewfull=1#post1072850

Also the Mod "Landing Height" replaces the altimeter-information in the GUI. And "SteamGauges" provides additional GUI for altimeter readout.

I have to disagree. In the real universe it is the same: plane changes get cheaper the farther away the apoapsis is.

It depends on what you mean by efficiency. If you want to get the fuel into orbit with as low costs as possible, then SRBs are a good way to do that. You can find in this thread reference points how good your lifter is: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/87211-0-24-s-Cost-Effective-Lifters-Challenge If you aim to improve the payload fraction (Payload mass divided total rocket mass) 15% and more can be considered good. For top payload fractions (around 20%) have a look in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55615-0-22-0-23-0-Payload-Fraction-Challenge If you want to reduce the number of trips, then build bigger rockets. Super-massive payloads Show Off Your Largest Rockets! What's the highest mass you've ever put into Kerbin orbit with a single ship?

The parts in a ship are organized in a treemodel: - there is a single root part - every other part has a parent part to which it is attached to So it is impossible to create circular structures in the VAB. As addition fuel lines and struts contain information about - the part they are attached to (source) and - the part they are linked to (target) When a ship is split in two (via undocking or decoupling or other means) fuel lines and struts are cheched if their source and target part are on now different ships. In that case their connection is removed during the undocking or decoupling process. There is a bug around that causes struts between stages to have an impact on decoupling forces (but I don't know the current status on this).

Try this one: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Science

@numerobis Thanks for these treasure troves. I will definitively look into them.

I don't know about that. The previous finished just 9 months ago and the parts did not change that much which means that the results will be in the same range. And with career-mode the focus shifted away to cost-efficient lifters. If there is enough demand however, I would be willing to host a new payloadfraction challenge. Glad you like them. Be aware that I did not test them yet in v0.25.

A while back I stumbled upon a website that tried to help with building rockets. One could configure the payload mass, Delta-V, TWR and number of stages. The Java-Script on the website tried to iteratively find the ideal combination of tanks and engines to fulfill the reqirements. Unfortunately I can not find that page again. Does anybody have by chance a link to that page? And I do not mean Blizzys Engine Cluster Calculator. Edit: Found it

Tavert created a few rockets with the help of optimizers. Have not seen the code he used, but here is one of them. You might find these interesting: http://blizzy.de/asparagus/ and KSP Optimal Rocket Calculator For orbital maneuvers I aim to have a minimal (Kerbin-Sealevel)-TWR of 0,2-0,5. For landing on airless-bodies I aim to have a (Local-Sealevel)-TWR of at least 2 - if it is lower, it becomes a pain, but is doable. About Escape burns: It depends on where I want go and if I want to do a two-burn-escape (first burn: to a highly elliptical orbit within Kerbins SOI, second burn: escape). In all cases I try to keep the duration of each burn below 5-6 minutes. The longer the duration gets, the more inaccurate the burn and the worse the usage of the Oberth-effect get. An idea for the TWR-Input: have you thought about modelling it by two input parameters, namely TWR at launch and TWR at circularization with a linear interpolation?

If you want to restrict yourself to non-jet engines only, you can find some inspiration in the Payload Fraction Challenge that features designs with payload fractions of over 20%. One of my old designs, the Tangent 18 can lift 180 ton while the ships total mass is below 1000 ton. Also my Lopac 18 can lift 170 ton with a total mass of ~1000 ton.

You might experience this bug: http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/23jh7a/ksp_takes_an_age_to_load_up/cgxoet3 Also during the time I tried out creating an addon, I used a virtual Ram Disk (ImDisk Virtual Disk Driver) on which I installed KSP. This requires however to have a decent amount of RAM, but speeded up the loading time by a factor of 2-3. Also putting KSP on an external USB-3-stick helps with the loading time.

Best depends on what you want to achieve. If you go for efficiency, then taverts "Mass-optimal engine type vs delta-V, payload, and min TWR" thread can help you select the best engines. But other factors like thrust or mass might be taken into account. And as a general rule, the higher the ISP of an engine, the better is its efficiency.

I did not do the calculations but the formula for Angular alignment on this wikipedia page should help you get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit Have you thought about the following idea: Plan to encounter the Mun while it is in the same plane as Minums. That way you can use the gravity of the Mun in order to do the planechange and do not depend on exact timing for Minmus being on its ascending or descending node.

I believe this works as intended in stock KSP - thrust also depends on altitude. Have a look at this thread for graphs and descriptions of thrust curves: Fuel consumption as a function of atmospheric pressure

It seems like both, "Duna Alpha I" and "Duna Alpha II" lost a KR-2L engine in the central stack of the lifter. That is why they veer off. Try the following: - remove the changed Lifter from the 160-ish ton craft (including the structural panel layer) - add a pristine Lifter subassembly to the bottom of your craft - add struts from the structural-panel-layer to your craft - launch I just tried this with "Duna Alpha II" and this got rid of the described problem directly after launch (and also removes all the then-unnecessary reaction wheels).

A) The wiki-pages of each body contains information about the surrounding SOI radius. For Kerbin look here: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbin The SOI radius can also be calculated according to the formula given in http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Sphere_of_influence In order to avoid the SOI of Mun, take an orbit that does not cross an altitude of (Altitude of Muns orbit around Kerbin +- SOI of Mun).

Have a look at this Post of the "How to calculate lift?"-Thread where L/D ratios are given: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/29788-How-to-calculate-lift?p=606231&viewfull=1#post606231 It might be however that the numbers are no longer valid since the time of writing.

Have a look at my Lopac Lifters. Lopac 8 and larger are designed with a layer of thrust plates that you could use to attach 4 or more landers on top using the docking port.

Not exactly what you asked for, but close enough: Pinhole Marksman Challenge