957Chatterton

Thanks everyone for your input! I've decided to go to 100Km. Since I'm dropping fuel to the surface with 7 of the huge tanks from 23.5, it makes sense to save some DV. I've already tested it and it works fine.

So, if I were to land with engines only, is it the higher the altitude then the more precise the landing?

I have searched for the answer to this and can't even find a discussion pertaining to it. Here's the scenario. I have two Orbital station modules around Duna, one core and one fuel. They're at an altitude of about 575Km, not yet docked. I was thinking of descending them to about 50Km before docking. What I'm using them for is a refuel waypoint for my Duna Surface base while mining kethane on Duna and on Ike. I want a low orbit for simply "dropping" a ship into the atmosphere after refueling. This would conserve as much fuel as possible that I'm delivering to the surface base. Is a 50Km orbit really ideal or do I have something wrong? Also, a 575Km orbit is the most fuel efficient orbit for returning to Kerbin after refueling. Excess fuel can be dumped into a refueler around Kerbin for later use.

Okay, I think I finally understand the confusion. Torque modules stacks are too loosely connected.

See? There's a lot of conflict about this. Could one of the devs, as busy as they are, confirm this?

I know this has been answered but the threads I've read contradict each other. Is torque additive? If so, how much per ton?

Okay, thank you. I can reconsider my highly eccentric orbital refueler with this information.

Why does Jebediah put up with us?

I know for a fact that the orbital path of object around their parents itself revolves. For example, the orbital path of the Earth around the Sun makes one full revolution every 12,000 years. Is this simulated in KSP? Over very long games, this may prove important information for determining phasing angles.

I, as the OP, will go ahead and say I've received sufficient reason to back off of high eccentricity. I'll simply use my standard 250Km circular orbit for interplanetary travel. I guess my focus would be perfecting my rocket design. Hell, I'm launching with at least 10k dV, lol!

I looked at it and they're not addressing my central question. I want to combine the benefits of low and of high orbits by having a high eccentricity. This would allow me to burn as a crazy speed while my apoapsis only has a few inched until I'm in Kerbol orbit. Really, I'm most interested in having a flaw in that plan that I'm not yet aware of pointed out to me.

I've rehashed my refueling station design countless times. This time, I'm done but want to know the ideal orbital altitude to refuel at and then set off for another planet. Specifically, I had my station at an 80Km periapsis and 80,000Km Apoapsis. The reason for that was that I wanted to use the Oberth effect while hardly using any dV to escape Kerbin. It's the best of both worlds.

The picture file's broken.

I decided a closer orbit of 250km. I figured I could just as well put a general purpose space station in orbit around every body (over a very long time). 250km doesn't render Kerbin, is easy to rendevouz with, gets more Kerbol exposure for solar power (RTGs are ungainly and heavy), and is less time-consuming for construction. All-in-all, my plan to conquer the universe is well under way! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH-... JEB! DON'T TOUCH TH-... nevermind.

Thanks, Rufferal! I think I'll try 50,000 km. I tried 84,000 but escaped Kerbin's soi.