mhoram

After digging into this issue a bit deeper and trying more strategies I still come to the same conclusion: The Nom-O-Matic 5k is only for a very narrow missionprofile useful. So here is a hopefully better description of how I did my calculations. If anything is not clear, feel free to ask. I made the simplification that supplies and fertilizer are not bound by containersizes, but can be of any size. General observations that are required for the calculations below: Comparing the life support containers shows that all of them have the same total mass (including dry mass) per supplies or fertilizer of 0.0012 ton per unit. Each Kerbal needs for survival 0,00005 supplies per seconds. Each Kerbal year lasts 2556.50 hours or 9203400 seconds A Nom-O-Matic 5k Greenhouse can support a single Kerbal and stretch the supplies to last twice as long A Nom-O-Matic 25k Greenhouse can support 4 Kerbals and stretch the supplies to last twice as long A Nom-O-Matic 25k Agroponics can support 4 Kerbals and uses up fertilizer at a rate of 0,00001 units per second and Kerbal while keeping the amount of supplies at the same level The mass of a Nom-O-Matic 5k is 1.5 ton The mass of a Nom-O-Matic 25k is 4.5 ton Lets compare the following 6 strategies: 1. Bring enough supplies for the whole trip The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is: m = 0.0012 ton * k * x * 9203400 * 0,00005 2. Bring a Nom-O-Matic 5k for each Kerbal and enough supplies that lasts for the whole trip with the Nom-O-Matic 5k Greenhouse The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is: m = 0.0012 ton * k * x * 9203400 * 0,00005 / 2 + k * 1.5 ton 3. Bring a Nom-O-Matic 25k for each 4 Kerbals and enough supplies that lasts for the whole trip with the Nom-O-Matic 25k Greenhouse The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is: m = 0.0012 ton * k * x * 9203400 * 0,00005 / 2 + ceil(k/4) * 4.5 ton 4. Bring a Nom-O-Matic 25k for each 4 Kerbals, a little bit of supplies and enough fertilizer that lasts for the whole trip with the Nom-O-Matic 25k Agroponics A little bit of supplies I assume to be enough to keep life support running, meaning that a small container should be enough. Fertilizer gets used up at the rate of (Kerbals * 0,00004 / 4) units per second to keep the amount of supplies at the same level The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is: m = 0.12 ton + ceil(k/4) * 4.5 ton + k * x * 9203400 * 0,00004 / 4 * 0.0012 ton 5. Bring a Nom-O-Matic 25k for each full 4 Kerbals plus a Nom-O-Matic 5k for the rest of Kerbals, enough fertilizer that lasts for the whole trip with the Nom-O-Matic 25k Agroponics plus supplies for the Nom-O-Matic 5k A little bit of supplies I assume to be enough to keep life support running, meaning that a small container should be enough. Fertilizer gets used up at the rate of (Kerbals * 0,00004 / 4) units per second to keep the amount of supplies at the same level The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is: m = floor(k/4) * 4.5 ton + floor(k/4) * 4 * x * 9203400 * 0,00004 / 4 * 0.0012 ton + Modulo(k,4) * (1.5 + 0.0012 * x * 9203400 * 0,00005 / 2) 6. Bring a Nom-O-Matic 25k for each set of 4 Kerbals, enough fertilizer that lasts for the whole trip for the use with the Nom-O-Matic 25k Agroponics plus supplies for the Nom-O-Matic 25k Greenhouse for the remaining Kerbals (not handled by the Agroponics) Fertilizer gets used up at the rate of (Kerbals * 0,00004 / 4) units per second to keep the amount of supplies at the same level The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is: m = floor(k/4) * 4.5 ton + floor(k/4) * 4 * x * 9203400 * 0,00004 / 4 * 0.0012 ton + Modulo(k,4) * 0.0012 * x * 9203400 * 0,00005 / 2 The Imgur-album contains a graph for the mass requirements of each strategy. It also contains a combined plot. Further a graph showing which strategy needs the least amount of mass for each #Kerbal - Duration combination. The grahp showing the best strategy shows that the Nom-O-Matic 5k is only useful when a single Kerbal is on a trip for a duration of 6-18 years. I feel a bit sad that it is only of such a limited usefulness. The last graph in the album is the same calculation with the following change: The mass of the Nom-O-Matic 5k is reduced from 1.5 ton to 0.55 ton. In this case the Nom-O-Matic 5k is useful in much more circumstances. So I would like to suggest to change the mass of Nom-O-Matic 5000 from 1.5 ton to 0.55 ton. (The 0.6 value of my previous post has been superseeded, because the newly tested strategies interfere with it) Further results: - Mixing Nom25k and Nom5k makes never sense, because the Nom25k also has a greenhouse. - Using the Nom25k Greenhouse alone is not useful, because it is worse than using the Agroponics Gnuplot-Script for the pictures - - - Updated - - - @Felbourn: Thanks, but please consider the previous chart as outdated.

Right ... I will try to come up with a better description or graphic of what I mean.

It tried to find out when the Nom-O-Matic 5000 is useful for trips. This comparison is USI-LS only and does not include infos about UKS. Here is a chart from a mass-efficiency point-of-view: - horizontal axis: number of Kerbals - vertical axis: number of years of the trip Different Colors: - Supplies only is best choice - Supplies + Nom-O-Matic 5000 is best choice - Supplies + Fertilizer + Nom-O-Matic 25k is best choice Currently the following choices are most efficient: - Up to 3 years: bring your supplies only - One Kerbal between 7 and 21 years: Nom-O-Matic 5000 - at least 7 years: Nom-O-Matic 25k - at least 10 Kerbals: Nom-O-Matic 25k - 4-6 years and 1-9 Kerbals: Supplies or Nom-O-Matic 25k So I would bring the Nom-O-Matic 5000 only if I have a single Kerbal on the trip for 7-21 years, which puts the part for me into the category "will probably use it never". In this regard I want to suggest the following change to USI-LS: reduce the mass of Nom-O-Matic 5000 from 1500 kg to 600 kg. (Also tried differrent values, but this would be my favourite) Here is how the chart looks like with these changes: It looks much more interesting: - Up to 2 years: Bring your supplies only - 3 years: Nom-O-Matic 5000 - Single Kerbal 13-28 years: Nom-O-Matic 5000 - at least 13 years: Nom-O-Matic 25k - rest: Mixture between Nom-O-Matic 5000 and Nom-O-Matic 25k This change makes Life support a bit easier, because less mass is needed for some Kerbal-duration combinations. On the other hand it makes Life support planning a bit harder, because the decision which method to use with regards to mass efficiency becomes more complex and diverse. @RoverDude: Don't know if my suggestion fits into your plan with USI-LS but I wanted to share it anyway.

It was the headlander ... It is fully capable of landing on 'the other side':

The ore densities are randomly generated for each new game. The probabilities for each resource-biome-combination are in the file GameData\Squad\Resources\ore.cfg

Kerbal Alarm Clock has a functionality to display the next transfer window to all planets. http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ is a website that can calculate them too.

@Nich: The distance to 62k is getting closer and closer. Thanks for your entry!

Usually I put these components into stock fairings at the top of the rocket http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts#Fairings The are however a bit higher in the tech-tree. For larger components strutting helps against wobbling. Edit: For rockets that have a high drag at the top, it also helps to add wings or control surfaces at the bottom of the rocket.

@Sando Mutt: great entry ... you made it to the top and surpassed the scripted ascents!

@ Gaarst: welcome to the top position on the manual launch category. @ ihtoit: I would like to see your results on that ascent profile.

@sal_vager: cool! thanks for stickying. Also I will keep this challenge supported as long as squad doesn't change the physics.

You can find a lot of inspiration in this 113 pages Post your Rover MEGATHREAD. Also a quick search brought up this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/126245-Rover-Suspension-And-Aesthetic-Tutorial

Thanks for the hint ... I missed that point. It is possible to convert Kepler coordinates to Position+Velocity vector. This is a well known procedure. Here are two documents with the necessary formula: https://downloads.rene-schwarz.com/dc/category/19 and http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93426 (chapter 8) The best documentation of the kOS reference frames I could find is here: http://ksp-kos.github.io/KOS_DOC/math/ref_frame.html But it also does not specify what the Reference Direction is.

An other way to get vectors that are in the orbital plane is to use the current Position and Velocity vector of the ship relative to the planets core. Both vectors are within the orbital plane and can be used for the cross product.

The formula looks right. And the magnitude fits also. Plane changes of that magnitude can be done more efficiently by 1) rising the apoapsis near the SOI 2) plane change at apoapsis 3) reducing apoapsis This procedure takes however much more time. Here you can find more details: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69036

I hope this picture clarifies what you do. You do not subtract the velocities at different positions but at the locations of your burns.

I believe they can be used on the ground. Easiest way to check: put one on a command pod and test it on the launchpad.

@nunny: Have a look here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96985-1-0-4-WAC-s-Delta-V-Map-continued-OPM-now-included-%28July-4th-2015%29

Have a look at the Delta-V maps. WAC's Delta-V Map Continued A more accurate delta-v map http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Cheat_Sheet http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/125309-1-02-Delta-V-map http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25360-Delta-V-map They have the dV requirements for landing on airless bodies. Usually I take the same number for estimating the dV requirement for launching from the bodies to a low orbit (10km).

I just saw that metaphor updated his dV map and he solved the problem by specifying a range for atmospheric ascent. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/120030-1-0-Delta-V-Maps-and-Atmospheric-Charts?p=1960225&viewfull=1#post1960225

Regarding dV measurement I can see two problems: 1. In Pre-V1.0 times 4500 m/s was the ballpark that fit nearly every rocket, if you had a reasonable engine configuration (low-TWR rockets needed more). Now in Post-V1.0 times the form of the rocket has a much higher influence on the needed dV amount. An aerodynamic craft can reach top dV values while a non-aerodynamic craft will require a few hundred m/s more. Since it should be good style to create aerodynamic rockets, I would find it better to include a value that is targeted at aerodynamic crafts. 2. Measuring the amount of dV needed for the ascent can be ambiguous. Should it be the atmospheric, vacuum, a mixture or MJ-readout value? Using the atmospheric value has the advantage that it is in any case more than enough to reach orbit, but has the disadvantage that you can reach orbit with less dV. For the vauum value it is just the other way round and has the additional advantage that it is consistent with prior dV-maps. Furthermore these two methods are easily explainable. MJ readout has the advantage that it is just right but the disadvantage that you need to have MJ installed to get this value. The notion of a mixture between atmospheric and vacuum dV does not seem far fetched from my point of view. It is a better approximation than either of them, but has the disadvantage that it requires an explanation on the dV-map. A 95%-5% distribution seems to be a bit off. The isp of the engines changes gradually with air density and I would guess that at an altitude of 10-30km the vacuum value is a better fit than the atmospheric one. Usually I eyeball this value at 50%-50%. Another option would be to state a range with the additional text "3200-3700 depending on ..." but this would most likely confuse the readers. For reasonable engine configurations I have the impression that the atmospheric and vacuum dV values have the same ratio to each other, so I would suggest to use the vacuum value for dV-maps.

Yes: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/128509-Goddard-Problem-Maximal-launch-altitude-Challenge It was not about reaching orbit, but about the highest altitude that can be reached, which is regarding drag equally important. Especially have a look at the desctiption in Nao's post.

In my earlier days I used quicksaving a lot. When I started playing hard-mode in Post V1.0 it became much more involved, since every maneuver mattered and a crash-landing could have a serious impact on the Kerbals. So I appreciate the quicksave-less gaming experience. For reverting from Kraken-attacks, I use Jebretary.

A long time ago there was a mod to do just that. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/54998-FScience-Science-Data-Transfer-v0-1 Currently my method is to put the experiments near to each other so that they can be reached from a single ladder, so that I can access them without having to fly around with my Kerbal.

When you watch videos, make sure to know which KSP Version they rely on. In pre v1.0 versions it was better to not use nose cones. The V1.0 update greatly changed the aerodynamics so that bosters now perform better with nosecones (in most cases). Gravitational pull is the reason why your orbit is an ellipse around the planet - without any outer influences, you stay on that orbit. Drag is the reason why your apoapsis gets lower. You would have to test which altitude suits you best. You went to Ike and back ... can't be too bad ;-) I have the impression that the twin boars are too overpowered for the launch: a TWR > 2 is more than needed. Also have a look at the LV-N for the upper stages. It has the best vacuum fuel efficiency (but low thrust and high heat generation). For making statements about the engine selection, I highly recommend to have a look at the Optimal Engine Charts thread.