How to calculate ksp Videos

+Wernher Von Kerman why u stop m8. u helped me so much when i started in 18.4

+Wernher Von Kerman :O He's alive! Also your videos are/were awesome!

+Wernher Von Kerman why u stop making videos

;)

Lol

+powergamer332 also, towards the end of the video, when you got the delta V, would that mean the first steps were unnecessary or did I miss something?,

+Michael Mennuti ah thanks. I'm not the most versed in physics, yep see?

+Vince O ISP is just the speed at which the fuel leaves the rocket. Having four blocks means that four times as much fuel comes out in a given span of time, but the speed of the fuel from each block is the same. You end up with higher acceleration for a shorter amount of time, but the ISP doesn't change.

+JandCandO how does that help me understand these numbers?

+blakeyboychar Add more boosters.

+Brunico 3 this is elemantary calculus taught in 11th grade

+Brunico 3 A lot of basic physics equations they have you memorize (like 1/2at^2+vt=d) is stuff you can trivially derive with calculus. But since you don't know calculus you have to memorize the equations.Newtons Method is a pretty obvious next step to what Scott was doing. The Wikipedia article on it looked confusing, but if you can find a good video explaining it, the concept is fairly intuitive, and a really logical stepping stone from algebra to calculus. (vs. just memorizing all of calculus's rules)Sorry to necro this comment and rant, those were just two of my favorite parts of calculus 101.

+HohHoch That's a great thing, I wish I could get there faster; I have to go through high school which means math which I've already self-taught myself which means lots of boring times.

+Thure Christensen Lucky you. I'm majoring in computer science and have to go all the way to calc 3. D:

+Regnor Surely you could use the combined data from the max height, the force vector input, the deviation from expected path due to the force of photons colliding with it, the compression of the muffin for the same reason, the bounce height, the compression on impact, the proceeding bounce data, the pieces of muffin that fall off and their actions/movements,the shadow cast by the muffin and the position and very slight change in position of the shadow relative to the muffin of that shadow, and likely other data to calculate the mass and radius of both the Earth and the Sun and maybe the Moon, potentially the energy output or brightness of the sun, the Earth's year length and day length, the current position of the terminator on the Earth, and bounds of more data. This is all purely hypothetical of course, and I only vaguely imagine the ways in which these things would be done using infinitely precise visual measuring instrumentation.

+yaksher  It's really not something that should be explaine through youtube comments. //tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcI/VolumeWithRings.aspx+Baptiste Bachelard "You don't use calculus in computer science" was <not> the point I was trying to make. I was just saying, that while calculus is a really powerful tool for a lot of things, you can still find a field of expertice where it isn't used. As such I used myself an example in that in my particular branch of computer science I have not used calculus

+yaksher And you would have to do it in a vacuüm and have extremly precise measuring equipment and now the exact local gravity variations and........

+Regnor Unless you know the mass of the earth and moon and position of the sun and and the moon, and your elevation

+Vedvart That's not math, that's just... impossible.

+Thure Christensen You haven't truly done any math until you've thrown a muffin into the air, let it hit the ground, and then calculate the mass of the sun with that knowledge.

+yaksher Take the integral and then... something

+Thure Christensen Thats not that hard, right... right?

+Thure Christensen my cousin is struggling in programming because he's not that great at calculus...

+Scott Manley I guess it depends on the kind of software you're developing. I'm not saying calcuclus is useless, I'm just saying you can probably do without it if you have to :)

+Thure Christensen And I work as a software developer and have used calculus often enough that I find it a fantastic tool.

+Brunico 3 It depends on what you want to do. In computer science I havn't used calculus once

All these replies are basically telling me that I am screwed in math for the rest of my life.

+Thure Christensen Ye I always hated those exercises in calculus.

+Brunico 3 You haven't truly done calculus until you've calculated the volume of a function rotated around it's y-axis :P

+Brunico 3 I would say it's more applicable to physics instead of calculus. KSP actually helped me pass my freshman physics class. :D

+Scott Manley Great! But unfortunately I will be stuck with dividing polynomials for now...

+Brunico 3 Not quite yet.... but maybe I'll do a bit of derivation as a follow up.

+dylloop I have been playing a long time, I never remember needing that much delta v for the mun.

not broke just outdated this video is from 2 years ago and alot has changed

when i did this same experiment in the college i need 27ml of HCl 0,1M to finally get the yellow color

SPOIL: This has absolutely nothing to do with common ion effect.

Good question. Same confusion here.

Ah, good. I was going to suggest Kerbal Engineer Redux for you. Or, you could just launch random rockets and see how far you get. :) The reason I introduce the equation is because you can use it to work backwards and calculate your maximum payload for a given mission - something neither the DV calculator nor Engineer Redux will do for you.

Thanks!

First, adding more engines only hurts the delta-v given the same Isp - it's just more non-fuel mass (in the case of adding another LV-T30, it would just add 1.25 to the mass but nothing to the rest of the delta-v equation). So, if at all possible, minimize the engine mass you're carrying while maximizing the Isp. More engines are only valuable if they allow you to carry more fuel.Check out my next video for more info on these calculations - I do an optimization demonstration starting at around the 20 minute mark in the video. I build what I consider to be an optimal crewed 18 ton rocket. Incidentally, a single LV-T30 should be able to launch any 18 ton rocket - they didn't choose 18 tons as the limit on a whim.

Cool, thanks man! I gotta try them

Yes - there are at least two. There's Kerbal Engineer (//forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/18230) and MechJeb (//forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/12384). They both also provide tons of other features and information. I prefer MechJeb because of the look of the interface.

+Pineapple 1.2 to 1.4 at launch off of Kerbin is about right - the real question is how high your TWR gets before you dump your first stage. Also, remember that it's unlikely that you'll lose more than 1000 m/s of delta-v just with a low TWR, as long as you get off the ground. A 6k d-v craft with TWR 1.2 is preferable to a 5k d-v craft with TWR 1.4.

+Tyler Raiz I would love to know all you may wish to share about TWRs and which considerations we should be giving when constructing ships : ) For launching from Kerbin I try to look for around 1.2 - 1.4 for take off, and anything over 1 for atmosphereless bodies. However, I have no true understanding as to what is the real ideal TWR when launching to optimise fuel usage when taking into consideration specific impulse, weight and TWR...if you get my meaning. Obviously having 6k Dv with a TWR of 1.0 is going to be worse overall than 4.5k Dv with 1.3 when launching... But what is optimal?I think you're the man to explain that ]: - )

You mean the best TWR for launch from Kerbin as opposed to the Mun, for instance? I know I have the calculation for Earth written down somewhere, so I could probably generalize it for different bodies, but the result it gives is between 3 and 4 when disregarding the atmosphere and stress on the vehicle. Most rockets hit that during the latter half of their first stage, but don't lift-off at that TWR because otherwise, once fuel is spent, the TWR will end up much higher than 4. I'll try to cover TWR in general since I haven't done that properly yet.

Glad you liked it!