MarvinKitFox

In the good old days (~.23) I lobbed an even 43Kt in one launch. It actually got to orbit, at a speed of more than 8 seconds per frame.

That's like complaining "Whats the use of my car's airbag? When I ram into a granite cliff at 315mph the airbag does nothing!"

About the only time throttling down would be a good idea is if your rocket is very close to the speed of sound, and you have a low-ish TWR. Then it is more efficient to dawdle around at mach 0.90 for a bit before accelerating again to pass the trans-sonic region, rather than bulling your way through mach 1.0 with too low surplus thrust. With planes, this is quite noticeable. With rockets.... not so much

Absolutely nothing has changed to orbital mechanics, once you are out of the atmosphere. Any change you experience would be due to pebkac. (problem exists between keyboard and chair)

Yep. uhu. whatever you say, bub.

Well, if you really want to be pedantic..... 273 degrees Kelvins is about -0.15 degrees Celsius Zero Kelvins is known as absolute zero, the point where it becomes impossible to extract any more thermal energy from a system. However the atoms and electrons still move merrily along, only at the lowest quantum energy level they can achieve. P.S. It has been quite proven that absolute zero is absolutely impossible to achieve in less than infinite operations. The best you can do is get close to it.

Method 1: works fine, but burns 2 * 1000 + whatever you need to maintain altitude while u-turning... bad idea Method 3: Good grief!! You need to be build out of Fuel of Awesomeness to consider this! Method 2: Yes A bit of a boost, increasing apogee altitude and reducing apogee velocity, is the way to go. It also increases your Apogee altitude, thus reducing the "hover in place" cost of a u-turn. The higher you kick your apogee, the better. For best results, kick your apogee to infinity-1 (or a good approximation thereof) With a starting orbit speed of 1000, this will require a kick prograde to a velocity of sqrt(2) * Vstart = 1414.21m/s. = Burn of 414.21/s from a start of 1000m/s With apogee at basically infinity, your velocity at apogee will be basically zero. Apply the same zero twice as a u-turn. At perigee, apply another 414.21m/s of braking, to reenter your perfect circle orbit in the opposite direction. Total cost: 828.42m/s.

Sure you can add maneuvers! You just do not yet have access to a nice graphical interface that lets you plan them. To have that, you need to build the appropriate facility back at the space center first. Until you have a tracking station of suitable level, you will just have to do those maneuvers by the seat-of-your-pants method.

Run this though experiment: Your car, on a full tank of gas, can drive 300 miles. How much further will you be able to go, if your brother drives his identical car alongside yours on the same route, and you get into his car when yours runs out of gas? (remember there are no gas refills along this route!..)

The reason for people not using the ION engine is very long and complex. Here it is... Players are Impatient. That's it. That engine is by far the best in the game, but it forces you to sit under acceleration for dozens of minutes at a time. Also, of course, they are completely useless in any situation where a good TWR is needed. Such as takeoff, landing, etc.

It may look the same, but Aerodynamically, it is quite different. Exact part specs have changed, too. Even a rough-and-tumble rocket design feels this, and designs have had to be tweaked a bit. A fine-balanced low-margins enterprise such as a SSTO spaceplane will need significant redesign.

Owch. So you feel it normal to start off a exercise program by running a competitive marathon? Because SSTO is a rather high achievement, that one should only really try when you understand the tools, rules and capabilities of your systems. Familiarise yourself with the new physics rules, and the new partsets, before going nuts on such a challenging act as building a SSTO. 15 Degree angle-of-attack, at sea level, at hypersonic speed? Ok, so you are basically ramming into a granite cliff, and wonder why your paintjob is getting scratched? Based on this meagre info, I'd say: 1) You have too little wing, and too much engine. 2) The "too little wing" above may actually be too little control authority? 3) You need to ascend to a decent working altitude at subsonic speeds, before hammering the throttle.

Based on the supplied images of your craft, your problem is that you have mounted the umflagulator in transverse to your retroencabulator. . . Please provide image for a question like this. There is nothing inherently different about the nerv engine, but the type of joints used, exact placement, direction of fuel lines, etc.. all can affect the outcome.

So strap a stick of dynamite to your head, and link the trigger to your KSP. If jeb dies, you die.

According to Merriam-Webster, and Oxford and Cambridge dictionary definitions. up to: adverb used to say that something is less than or equal to but not more than a stated value, number, or level: Tech tree: wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Technology_tree The tech level 5 researches cost 160 points. first stage Tech centre only allows researches up to 100 points. In your spoiler image in the OP, you have researched tech levels 0,1,2,3,4 not 5

Under standard English grammar rules, this statement means that level 5 also needs to be unlocked. Unlocking level 5 *requires* that the research facility be upgraded. Mission impossible.

Actually, you have answered each of the objections yourself. In KSP, the delta-v needed for a Mun trip does not justify doing a LOR moon mission. It almost doesn't justify using separate Mun lander/ascent stages! KSP engine TWR are *abysmal* compared to Earth analogues. KSP tankage mass ratios are even worse! Using an Apollo-style lander will make a lot more sense when you need to go further, do more. For example, a manned Tylo mission virtually demands that you use a separate orbiter and lander, and that your lander/return vehicle be multi-stage.

You are pushing a brick, using a wet noodle. You need to stiffen that neckpiece a LOT. What is worsening your problem is that your control center is in the top bit, so when your rocket is bent is it greatly exaggerating the control correction needed, causing it to not only correct but over-correct to an even worse position. And what worsens the problem even more is that you have WAY too much (yes, too MUCH) control authority at the rear. Multiple steering fins, *and* a gimballing rocket motor. so: 1) can you not redesign so that your rocket uses a wider, stiffer method of connecting your second stage to payload? Without the hourglass neck your aerodynamics will also be smoother. 2) If you cannot re-engineer the neck, then at least add 3-4 struts between the two pieces. Struts as far out as possible, and true vertical. 3) replace the active fins with passive fins. Limit the engine gimbal a bit.

I beg to differ! You have an error in the 17th digit. Or was that the 24th? And I am 100.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% sure of that!

To change KSP from an arcade game to a *nice* challenge. 1) add RemoteTech. *with* comms delayed by lightspeed. 2) Add life support. TAC for example. Just these two changes turns the game into a good fun challenge, with reasonably realistic limits and efforts. As for the money situation... imho it is "broken" at present, along with the whole contract system. Fun, yes, but so unrealistic as to be useless.

Um. Yes but mostly no. The frontmost plate will catch all the heat just fine, but with a tolerance of only 2000 kelvin, it will blow rather soon unless you have a *big* conductive heat drain from it. Note that only exterior sources are considered for radiant heat. One hot panel of the ship will *not* cause another part in line of sight to heat, unless there is a conductive path to it.

Crew....costs? I'm assuming that there is some sort of fee involved in buying a new kerbal into the space program? I wouldn't know. My current roster has Jeb, Bill and Bob. and 23 fanboys rescued from deep space.

Great Job LordCorwin! This is the first design that actually puts some thought into heat dissipation, not just resistance. And the improvement in performance speaks for itself.

If you want realistic probe landings, then install RemoteTech. With communication delay. You land a probe on Duna, and tell it to throttle up. 25 minutes later, the throttle goes up!

I guess the best way to get an SSTO's assent is to buy it flowers. Although chocolates may work too. If however you need to improve your SSTO ascent... well, you're on your own, I'm a rocket man.