MarvinKitFox

Yes, it does. In vacuum, the Merlin 1D-vac delivers an ISP of about 340 At sea level, it tests out at about 230. This despite the fact that the Merlin1D is actually a sea-level engine, optimised for sea level operation, with only a few incidental changes made to the Merlin 1D-vac to make it a bit more efficient in space. The 1D-vac is *not* a designed-for-space engine. for comparison, a Merlin 1D gets 311 in space, and 282 at sealevel. Note the pattern? In KSP the same pattern persists. An engine designed for sealevel operation has decent ISP at pressure, and only slightly better in space. An engine designed for space has *abysmal* sealevel ISP, and good space ISP. On the KSP scale, the Merlin 1D is something like a smaller Mainsail in performance and role. I.E. decent launcher, tolerable boost-to-orbit, sucky but usable for space) (Actually, take a Mainsail and divide by 9. SpaceX is only really using a smaller engine because they are *way* easier to manufacture than one monster)

Polar orbit maximum eclipse duration is very very slightly shorter than for an equatorial orbit of same size, worst case. reason: Kerbin is exactly round, so its shape does not affect eclipse duration. By not orbiting in the same plane, same direction as Kerbin around the sun, your eclipse is not artificially lengthened by Kerbin's motion around the sun. In addition, you will tend to encounter eclipses only for a very brief period (about 3 days, or less) twice per year, when your orbital plane is aligned with the sun. If you *really* want to get the shortest possible eclipse period, and almost as infrequently as possible, then you want an intermediate altitude retrograde orbit, inclined about 20 degrees. The low-ish, retrograde orbit reduces maximum darkness time by a few seconds relative to prograde orbit. The inclined orbit reduces occurrences of eclipse to only twice per year. Of course, if you **really** don't want eclipses, just park your satellite just outside Kerbin's SOI, and exactly ON its orbit. Due to KSP's patched conics approximation, your orbit will never get disturbed and your distance to Kerbin will remain quite constant.

If you push hard, you can max out the tech tree with three launches. At absolute max difficulty. It does involve quite a bit of tedious repetitive contract work though...

Maximum benefit would be a teensy bit into the atmosphere, but friction will *very* rapidly overtake the added gravity benefit. Aim for 100km, and don't sweat it if it turns out to be 98km. By the time you hit 90, all gains will have been lost already.

Each science store can only contain one copy of a each unique science experiment, but unlimited combos that differ. Possible science stores are: The instrument that generated them, Kerbals, and man-able Pods. One solution: Strap a spare science container to your lander. My favorite one is Bill, in a command chair in a service bay. Science store that is lightweight, and doubles as an emergency repair toolkit if needed. Or maybe use Bob, and have him clean out the instruments after use, allowing multiple goo reading from one cannister. Better yet, bring both! for a total mass penalty of only 260kg. Get Triple redundancy on all experiments, plus your support staff get training free of charge.

EVE, coming from a Kerbin transfer orbit: about 73km will suffice to just capture you, putting you in a highly eccentric orbit without burning anything off other than *deployed* solar panels. From this orbit you can easily go to Gilly, or do a handfull more aerobrakes to enter a lower EVE orbit. Anything below 70km will put you in a closer eve orbit, but requires attention to heat shielding. Below about 63 km is attempted suicide.

Polar orbit: the basics. Firstly, polar is a bit more work. Build your rocket to be about 10% more oomph than for a basic west-east orbit. (the planet's spin helps on an eastern launch, does not help for north) When launching, launch in the normal curve, but instead of heading to the east(90 degrees), aim just west of north. Say about 4-5 degrees west of north. Keep to this heading until your navball switches itself to "orbit" mode at about 35000m, then adjust the aim to true north. As for the biomes.. Most are obvious, but two are sneaky. You can find Tundra at the edge between icecap and grassland, in odd blotches. Not very large. You can also find tundra between shore and grassland! In very tiny little strips. There is a patch of tundra near KSC even. And don't forget about the Badlands. These are the very broken-up terrain on the far side of the planet from the launch site, surrounded and interspersed with highlands and some mountains.

Right there is the magical combo! Put a manned vehicle in low orbit around any body. Now Eva out, and and do an EVA REPORT. Note that the report is specific to the biome you are orbiting over. re-enter the pod to store, or right-click the pod and deposit the report. Repeat for each biome! This works better if you have a polar orbit, as there are bits (Icecap, tundra) that are mostly found at the poles. Kerbin alone has 9 distinct biomes, not counting the fiddly semi-biomes of the spaceport. Also strongly consider investing in the ability to surface sample. Then whenever at the end of a mission you land in some interesting new terrain, you can not only do a crew report from the pod, but also an eva report from the surface, *and* bring a sample of the surface along for study. Science Science Science! Also Also.. remember that each science type can potentially be done in each situation. So measure on the ground at launchpad. Measure on the ground after mission. Measure in the water. Measure in high orbit, and low orbit, and flying high, and flying low. Admittedly it is a bit tricksy doing an eva report while flying through the clouds at mach 3, but imagine the science if you manage to pull it off!

Very nice, but where's the thermometer to measure, and the aerial to transmit? Rule #2 says "*ship must contain a thermometer, and antenna. We want to know how hot it gets!" Still, I didn't think *anything* could survive that low!

I think it is the proximity of so many Nukes, something was bound to mutate. Just be glad your pilot isn't like Bruce Banner and turned into a green skinned.......... erm.. never mind.

The competition is really heating up out there! Those are some really hot designs. Are you going to fire me for bad heat-related jokes? Or just flame a bit? ;-) Ok, so now we have set the bar. How far can we lower it? So far none of the designs had anything really in the way of special heat-proof design or materials. If you were to take a gigantor solar panel on that ship, and point it *exactly* into its own shade... Would that heat or cool, hmmm?

I was about to submit an older mission log of mine, that used a sun-grazer ion drive to get more than 68000m/s . . Then I remembered that the sun is now *hot*. This will add a whole new dimension to the attempt...

If you want to match real-world parameters, then your Ion drive should use ten times the power, deliver 20 times the ISP, and deliver one ten-thousandth of the thrust. Look to burn times ranging from dozens to hundreds of days.

So all inhabitants of Kerbin share the same last name "Kerman" That's no stranger than Humans! Did you know that almost 53% of all humans have the same first name, "Mr." ? Surely this show that they are deeply inbred and degenerate! . . . Moral of the story: There is a reason the word "assume" starts with those three letters.

"Sadness. Just found another thing that was broke in 1.0 " Let me correct your spelling on that. "Joy. Horrid exploit finally fixed in 1.0"

Tourists are the most rewarding of all contracts!! Why, my most recent trip took a tourgroup to Mun, Minmus, Gilly and Ike. It cost 340000 to launch, and netted me 8.3 million income. All for just ferrying around 23 idiots.

Take your current Altitude, Speed, Angle, Local gravity and rocket TWR. Write them down on a piece of paper. . Look back at the screen, notice how much less that Altitude reading is now. Write down the new reading. reach for your calculator, and look back at your screen as you hear an earth-shattering Boom. . . Now press F9, and use the advice from Red Iron Crown, a couple posts back.

Great job Squiggsy!n You take the lead, for now.

wow Good functionality and stuff, but that is expected. You manage to put it together as ART! These are the most styling little pods I've ever seen, or even dreamt of. on a scale of 0 to 10, i rate them... 17

Umm. You have two of the MKII *rocket* fuel fuselages there, and two FL-T100 fuel tanks. Just what is your actual LiquidFuel and Oxidizer loadouts, on the runway? hmm... I have copied your design as exactly as I can. Fuel loadout: remove OX from side tanks, and 1/2 from rear fuselage. Flying technique.. Very complex! full throttle take off point 30 degree up. When jets die, press space. Also now, tell your pilot to hold prograde. achieve orbit without pressing another button. Admittedly, this leaves me with only about 25m/s left in the tank, at 75kmx75km orbit. If you replace that tri-coupler and 3 engines with one T45 engine, the deltav remaining is about 160m/s, but you need to fly more than just "point prograde" Replace the airscoop with a shock cones and do a bit better yet. Moral of the story: You don't have enough engine to achieve level flight over 22000m altitude, or 1050m/s sustained. But you *can* scoot directly out of the atmo at a 30* angle, at about 1280m/s(at 24km) Difference? Airscoop storage capacity, i think Lasts about 2-3 seconds, while you are transiting from 20 to 22km

Your jet is manned, right? Simply lug an engineer along, and use parachutes for pinpoint safe landings. Then uncrate your engineer, repack all the chutes. Unless the local terrain slope is ludicrous (>30 degrees), you will be able to take-off normally. I find this to be much more mass and cost effective than lugging engines for true VTOL. And it uses a lot less fuel. And yes, the Wheesley basic jet IS too underpowered. Under the new rules the jet engines are very much weaker at very low speeds.

Your original design has a lot of frontside drag due to those inlets, and *very* little rudder for Yaw control. You seem to be always flying as high and as fast as it can go. Still, you say it manages fine until that point. 27.5k, and fuel is about half depleted. While you are using a single monster tank for fuel, most likely to prevent CoM creep due to uneven fuel use, your CoM will still be moving to the rear as the tank empties. With drag remaining front, and mass moving aft, your instability is worsening. With increasing altitude, your rudder is becoming less relevant, also worsening stability. Frankly, I expect that at any point after about 25k alt that if you disable your autopilot and keep hands off the controls, your plane will enter a flat spin. I think it is purely the autopilot and the gimbal on your engines that is keeping it balanced at that point. The small solution is to greatly increase your rudder size. But this will add drag, worsening the fuel efficiency of your endurance flight. The real solution would be to move those very draggy air intakes as far back as practical, and mounting a very low drag nose on the plane.

Picture tells a LOT. You have Yaw control problems, while flying high supersonic but not hypersonic speeds at 27k? Is your wing shape appropriate? You do NOT want to build it along the normal plan for low-flying planes. Nor do you want to use the design for SSTO spaceplanes, as at 28k they are flying much faster and not relying on aero lift any more. Are you flying west or east? At 1450m/s, that's the difference between your plane weighing 7/8ths or 4/10ths of its mass. Single or multiple engine? If multiple, are you *sure* that they are getting enough air? Even ultimately airhogged designs cannot supply their engines max at 28k. . . . All of these can be answered by 2 pictures. one of your plane in hanger, aero tools shown. and one of your plane at altitude, experiencing the problem you face, again with aero display on and resource tab open.

The capsule and its heatsink can take quite a bit of heat (2400K) The parachute burns up at 2000. By spending so much time gaining heat, in a vehicle that has no good way of losing heat rapidly, you effectively baked your pod on medium roast for 2 hours. The pod came out well, but the parachute is extra crispy. look at that antenna of yours. It is also about to blow, as it has about the same heat tolerance as the parachute. Contrary to intuition, the best reentry for a pod that *has* an ablative shield, is to dive in at about 5-10 degrees from the horizontal. The shield will take a lot of punishment, but that's what is is there for.

Judging by the picture of the plane you have supplied, the problem is clearly that it does not have enough wings. Looking at the picture, I cannot see ANY wings, actually. . nor engine. .. . nor picture, for that matter.