Sputnik as it really was

[tg626]

I am attempting to recreate what I think was the real profile for the launch of sputnik 1.

Am I correcting in thinking that the core stage of the R-7 made one continuous burn from pad to the 939km x 215km orbit?

If so I'm having a devil of a time getting that orbit on a single burn in ksp and I'm wondering if there are any suggestions? Low power burns make the rocket fly nose up, and ones with a higher TWR that give me "straight" flight (I don't mean level, I mean the prograde marker stays near the nose) leave the Pe too low.

I'm using MechJeb and stock aerodynamics.

[Kryten]

One continous burn, with constant thrust. Only change was booster separation.

[NovaSilisko]

It's funny, technically the core stage of Sputnik's launch vehicle was the first object to enter earth orbit. Followed shortly after by the two fairing panels, and then by Sputnik itself. People reporting seeing it from the ground were in fact seeing the core stage, 90% of the time.

Anyway, on the thread's specific question, a constant-burn trajectory is more difficult in KSP than IRL given the planet "curves away" from you much more quickly than earth, so you have to be more careful with it. I've managed a few single-burn trajectories to orbit using RealSolarSystem, but only once or twice in stock KSP.

[tg626]

Hence the booster being satno 00001 and Sputnik being 00002! But that would indicate the booster wasn't facing prograde when Sputnik was ejected wouldn't it? Just an interesting side note if true.

One big reason for my wanting to do one burn is that with the traditional coast to ap and burn to raise pe stayputnik looses it's charge....

[astropapi1]

Normal kerbin is way too small for stuff like this. Since playing on 6.4x Kerbin I've had constant ascents without coasts to Ap longer than 10s.

[Kryten]

I've done plenty of continous-burn trajectories in stock KSP, you just have to accept you probably won't be able to burn at the most efficient point.