Search the Community

Jool 5 Delta-v Chart NOTE: This is based off of my flown mission but can be used to plan other missions to Jool. This chart is nowhere near perfect, but it should give you an idea of what to do or how much to build. I know circularization is not a word but I am trying, I am meaning it as making you orbit less eccentric. If you have any questions please ask me or someone else in the Jool 5 Challenge's main page listed here... The Chart Itself Action Rough Delta-v Requirement (meters per second) Launch to LKO (Inefficient launch) 3000 LKO -> Jool Transfer 2000 Jool Capture (moon assist) to Low Laythe Orbit This can range ALOT but I managed to do it with around 1500 Low Laythe Orbit -> Low Tylo Orbit Transfer 1400 Low Tylo Orbit -> Vall 800 Vall Capture 415 Low Vall Orbit -> Pol 800 Pol Capture 500- Including low Pol orbit circlularization Low Pol Orbit -> Bop 200 Bop Capture 190- including circularization Bop to 79,000 kilometer Jool parking orbit 660 Jool-> Low Kerbin Orbit 4110 FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BASE A MISSION OFF THIS CHART - Do not base a mission only off of this chart, this does not include landing amounts yet - If I were you I would ensure that you have more delta-v that I have shown to be safe, especially for Jool capture as the moons are not always lined up to help you - I am basing all these values off my submission to the challenge (shown below).

So I've seen these optimal engine charts for helping select the best (set of) engines for a mission/craft, based to the TWR and Delta-V requirements, and (tried to) use them extensively to design long range missions and the like. Until I noticed that these are all horrifically out of date! https://meithan.net/KSP/engines/: for KSP1.1.1 https://imgur.com/a/OS6bk: for KSP0.23.5 So I am looking for some up-to-date charts, some tips on an at-home version of meithan's chart, or failing that, contact information for meithan so I can help update his web-app.

This graph is different from those I have done in the past. It differs in that all types of engines are presented here (previously I left the SRBs out of the load tests since their propellant mass was limited when compared with a liquid propellant engine). Also previously, all engine load tests relied on an arbitrary 50/50 ratio of propellant mass to payload. This time I capped the liquid fueled engine propellant mass ratio to that of the SRBs; all engines having a starting TWR of about 1.2. However, to complicate things, the game does not impart the same propellant mass ratio to SRBs when launching with a TWR of 1.2. As you will see in the chart's 4th column, there is a range of propellant mass ratios, and some of these were derived. The Kickback and Thumper propellant mass ratios are about 39% of the total ship launch mass when the TWR is 1.2, however all the other SRBs have lower ratios when launched with the same TWR. My percentage for radial SRBs (Sepratron) is based on the use of 3 radials when testing these engines. You will also notice that I equated various size/ diameter liquid propellant engines with various size/ length SRBs. This is how I determined which propellant mass ratio to be alotted to each liquid propellant engine. I feel that this is justified, since in real life larger rocket engines are allotted more propellant than smaller ones. Also, since some "engines" are actually multiples of smaller engines, I equated the Twin Boar to two "small" engines (in terms of perceived diameter and bell nozzle size), the Mammoth as four small engines and the use of 3 radial Thuds as 3 small engines. Accordingly I adjusted the propellant mass ratio for these engines. Another change is how the air breathing mode engines were tested. This too is arbitrary, in that their launch mass and altitude allow them to achieve flame out, which is a measure of their operative range. The Juno and Wheezley altitudes are at their maximum loads but while the "flameout" sound effect did not play, the fact that these engines did not use all the jet fuel means that they became sufficiently oxygen starved. Unused fuel became part of the payload. For engines not exceeding an altitude of 150 meters (launch altitude in this case), the total mass is the approximate minimum mass of parts and propellant required for a particular engine to operate in space. You will notice that some engines are listed more than once, tested in various ways or modes. I hope to use this methodology when testing the stock engines in KSP version 1.1. Please comment suggestions or concerns or questions below. This is a work in progress and the intent of the graph was to compare the diverse set of KSP stock engines for practical applications, on a single graph. Below is the same graph without the Mammoth engine results, which gives us a somewhat zoomed in view. The averages for all are retained.