Let's go with a min TWR of 1.7 for the start of Kerbin ascent. Given the above, let's assume we don't use the Swerv, but instead the Skipper to make it fair when things get balanced. The next best is 1 Skipper engine, then 1 Labradoodle engine, and so on. Let's go with a min TWR of 1.2 to allow for easy circularization around Kerbin.Īssuming 2400 dV is appropriate, the best engine for this payload is 1 Swerv (obviously broken when there are no costs in KSP 2 early access yet). Given a reasonable choice from above, this stage can assume about 15.85t payload. The next best is 1 Terrier engine, then 3 Spark engines, 4 Twitch, and so on.

Let's go with a min TWR of 0.35 to allow for better mass efficiency.Īssuming 1650 dV is appropriate for an aerobrake return to Kerbin, the best engine for this payload is 1 Nerv (obviously broken when there are no costs in KSP 2 early access yet). Given the above, this stage can assume about 8.3t payload. The next best is 3 Spark engines, then 4 Twitch engines, and so on. The line jumps are from the mass of adding another engine to reach the dV within min TWR.Īssuming 1340 dV is appropriate if we using the orbiter stage to return, the best engine for this payload is 1 Terrier. Total mass of vehicle (payload+fuel+tank+engine) on the vertical. The lower the Total Mass, the better the engine for a given dV. At least a minimum TWR of 0.7 (on Kerbin) should do fine. This is assuming typical 3 Kerbal capsule and not much else for a 4.6t payload.

I set up a Mun Lander example and I also have the same example done with KSP 1 engines to compare to here: Mun Lander Stage The lowest line at that dV is the best engine configuration considering total mass. Once the payload and min TWR is set, you look at the graph and find the dV you need for that stage on that mission. The payload weight and the minimum TWR are specified for each visual. They represent how much mass the payload+fuel+tank+engine(s) end up being if you combine enough of each engine to reach the dV on the x-axis. The following charts are not flight profiles. Goal: Minimize the final mass of each stage. This is how I plan my missions in KSP, and now that we have the engine stats, I've already begun. I have 3.5GB of data now thanks to the information released and a python script.

SRBs are going to need some kind of resource update to make them attractive.

Vectors are still pretty good, despite the nerf.

Darts move away from being an OP sustainer to being a strong first-stage contender for small payloads.

Disclaimer: I assumed the new fuel for them is the same density as KSP 1 liquid fuel, so that might change things.

The NERV is still a great orbiter (ignoring any cost that could be implemented), but the SWERV is unrivaled now, and even shows up as a sustainer choice (again, ignoring cost).

Even with the debuff, the Terrier is going to be a Mun mission favorite again.Typical stage masses have not changed much.KSP 2 - KSP 1 Comparison To Get The Juices Flowing Send us a message with proof, and we'll give you some flair to show it! Disable header animation Enable header animation Δ | Support/bug reports | KerbalAcademy | ConsoleKSP Last contest's winner: forteefly1998! Have you developed a mod? See this page for more infoĬommunity Teamspeak Server Refrain from submitting images that involve real life space disasters that resulted in loss of lifeĭon't post/discuss mirrors or torrents of any version of KSP See the discussion on misc posts for more info No posts unrelated to KSP or memes and image macros. Please remain kind and civil at all times

Kerbal space program mun lander