Aanker

I just want to point out that to my knowledge, for most (atmospheric flight) fighter jets, the limiting factor nowadays isn't structural strength but crew squishiness in the face of G forces. Of course if your craft is a drone you could do a bunch of interesting things without worrying about that.

Yes, you can have ideas and "hypotheses", but in the interest of discussion they must be verifiable/testable, which means we need access to your reasoning behind the assertions, not just the 'conclusions'. I'm sure if we calculated our own numbers according to tried and tested formulae, we could compare them with yours and maybe see that your conclusion was wrong (or right?). But we wouldn't know why until you post your calculations. This is a forum, the purpose of which I would presume to be constructive discussion, and that's not possible if all that we are getting are claims (the quintillion c thing), not arguments (like the entire calculation).

The result isn't that sensational, at least at face value. The experiments should have been carried out in vacuum conditions with many more controls than what were actually used. Because of the media attention however, and maybe the possible implications, we should keep evaluating the 'device' through tests to finally confirm or (more likely) dismiss it.

This is said with the reservation that I am not familiar entirely with Venus' history and most is based on what I've heard or read on multiple occasions. Either Venus rotates too slowly, perhaps as a result of an impact at an angle early in its history that effectively de-spun the planet, or there is limited to no convection in Venus' core. The latter could be either because the entirety of the interior of Venus is too molten and uniformly hot to prevent any meaningful convection currents from forming (as in - for instance - there is no way for heat to escape near the crust, so no mantle material gets cooled, and so nothing falls back down) or because the core is actually solid. In the first scenario, plate tectonics on Earth have ensured that there is always a way for the built-up heat in the planet's interior to escape, whereas on Venus, the thick atmosphere and lack of oceans may have prevented plate tectonics altogether - thus trapping heat. One interesting theory that I came across building on this genesis of Venus' greenhouse effect is that the lack of ventilation through the crust actually leads to cyclic global resurfacing events. Basically, the molten interior of the planet eats away through the crust until it erupts through massive lava flows. Since that cools off the mantle somewhat, it takes a while before the cycle repeats again. PS. Here's one study on the subject (it's old but I couldn't be bothered to search for too long ) http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEUQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.queensu.ca%2F~tjb%2Fhet618%2Fnathan%2F94JE00388.pdf&ei=gsrTVOvPCpLUoATr_ILQDw&usg=AFQjCNGzdp2pSs-FeH3hO8GlCwkLp5-W1A

Although I'm no expert on the subject, I don't think it's just about the sun, or where we are in orbit. You would have to look at the cumulative picture of the strength of the magnetosphere, how vigorous plate tectonics would be, the adaptability of life on the planet to compensate for changes in radiation etc.

CO2 has been much higher in the past, yet the Earth (and life) endured. One interesting theory I saw regarding Venus especially was that the lack of an adequate magnetic shield would have let lighter elements - including hydrogen and oxygen - escape into space, whereas heavier molecules like carbon dioxide remained. Thus with time, potential carbon dioxide sinks like oceans disappeared due to the combined effect of heat applied to the surface and the lack of shielding from the sun.

It's so boring to read pessimist replies and predictions when the world is already full of self-perpetuating doom and gloom. Either propose good alternatives or move out of the way for entrepeneurs and inventors who are interested in attempting new things. So, SpaceX might fail. Whoop dee fricken do. Let's give it a shot and not try to kill it in its infancy by smearing it with limitations. I have a feeling the predicted launch costs or payloads are not entirely realistic. But I'd be damned if I dismissed the idea of more accessible and cheaper space travel because of that 'feeling' alone. That's about as much a fairytale argument as claiming it's doable within a week's cutting and pasting in kindergarten.

To be fair though, military research helped launch the Space Age (V1, V2), and many of the first NASA astronauts had backgrounds in military aviation. KSP depicts the evolution of a space program, and since militaries undeniably have been involved in the real-life analogies of that development then I think it would only be fair to include them to some extent.

Hello there! Great mod, I'm just having problems landing aircraft because it seems even minor impacts can cause damage and dysfunctionality in parts like landing gear (and the modules that they happen to be attached to).

First off, here's a dramatic introduction to the "LV-1", an armoured personnel carrier (well, it can actually only carry one Kerbal at the moment...) with maximum mission flexibility: The intakes are only aethestic, the main vehicle is protected by six RTGs situated in the rear compartment and well protected by armour. This is the actual vehicle though, without all the stuff that could disqualify the airdropped version (esp. note the differences in the comparison image between the airdrop and regular non-airdrop versions):

Ah alright, interesting story anyway (with the B9 aerospace parts)! The reason I wanted to keep it to stock parts was just because of that, inventive wing configurations and such.

I don't know what's going on here, but for all intents and purposes that aircraft would pass, unless other circumstances (such as the aircraft being taken from someone else?) reveal themselves later on. If everything is in order, excellent! Either way, I would need to know the takeoff speed and the maximum speed at 100 meters of altitude!

Beautiful! Regarding VTOLs, basically what I was going for was lift from wings, but the "horizontal takeoff" requirement may have been too non-specific. Regardless, excellent entry and interesting way of keeping the fuel tanks in place.

Excellent! I'll get a medal/ribbon up if anyone is interested. I also like how you can actually drop the fuel tanks ingame! There we go

Most impressive! Yes that's enough evidence (I originally intended video but that's perhaps a bit impractical). I'm curious, what's the liftoff speed and maximum line speed at 100 m altitude?

Yep, the "inspirational" aircraft you see in the image managed to pull off one fully fuelled tank with nonoptimal engine number and lots of waste mass (only non-stock part were two F-86 wings from Firespitter which I could have done without). With a more efficient structure and more engines it should definitely be possible. I'm making my own reference aircraft right now and nothing is showing behaviour that would be impossibly difficult to overcome. More importantly, the challenge is constructed so that if two full tanks aren't possible, then the one who manages to pull off 1 1/2 (since there are many configurations on those similar-sized fuel tanks!) wins, etc. PS. Boom! There we go! My reference aircraft completed 2/3rds of the challenge, the landing was a bit of a fail however (but that's just a matter of structural strength and not having the brakes activated when touching down...). This is definitely doable. PPS. Yes, this is 100% completable (I pulled off the landing on the second attempt, used up a lot of runway to stop the thing). It clocked in at 405 parts and had a maximum speed of ~150-160 m/s at sea level, takeoff speed is about ~120 m/s. Let's see if someone manages to beat that! (higher max. speed and lower takeoff speed)

It actually only says stock parts, so theoretically you could use, say, Ferram Aerospace, however I would need to make a separate winner's list for those who use that modification.

The Herculean Airplane Lift Challenge Do you even lift? Above image is only inspirational. The plane itself would be disqualified per a number of rules, see below. Stock parts and/or FAR only. Everybody loves the orange fuel tank. Large. Volumous. Orange. The orange fuel tank only has amazing strengths. Not surprisingly, the Kerbal Space Program relies heavily upon these monstrous constructs, and to increase the production rate, new factories have been built in distant lands to supply the KSC with orange fuel tanks. The problem? The orange fuel tanks have to be transported. Because rapid utilization is key here, they also have to be transported fully loaded with fuel. The Kerbal Air Transport Authority believes that the best way to transport orange fuel tanks is through the sky, aboard a plane. Thus, they have submitted design specifications for a cargo airplane, most important of which is that it must be able to lift at least two fully fuelled orange fuel tanks. These fuel tanks cannot be an inherent part of the airplane, indeed, they may only be attached to the rest of the plane through docking ports and EAS-4 Strut Connectors. Aircraft that achieve this (or more) during a filmed or photographed demonstration win the challenge and may be selected for further development. The full list of design specifications: 1. Only stock parts. FAR usage is allowed. 2. Must be able to transport two fully fuelled orange fuel tanks. 3. The orange fuel tanks must not be an inherent part of the airplane. They can only be attached to the rest of the aircraft through docking ports and EAS-4 Strut Connectors. The fuel tanks themselves may or may not be connected. 4. The aircraft must be able to take off horizontally from the runway with the orange fuel tanks fully fuelled. No VTOLs. Overshooting the end of the runway is not permitted. 5. The aircraft must be able to land with the orange fuel tanks still fully fuelled and stop entirely intact, on the runway. 6. The aircraft must be completely reusable: everything that goes up with it must come down with it on landing. (7. Any stock engines are permitted. Rocket assisted takeoff is permitted) Demonstration rules: 1. Take off from the KSC runway. No overshooting! 2. Climb to an altitude of at least 2,000 meters. Fly out to at least above the island airbase, turn, and 3. Land on the KSC runway. The cargo must still be aboard. Be careful, no parts may fall off! The demonstration must be filmed or photographed (as of this edit please make certain that you show that the orange fuel tanks are fully loaded; on runway, at takeoff from runway, ascending from runway, flying at an altitude of at least 2 km above the island airbase, approach to landing, touchdown/rolling on runway, stationary on runway). Provide data on takeoff speed and maximum speed at an altitude of 100 meters (see below.) Good luck!´ Scoreboard/Winner List Entirely Vanilla Aerodynamics: Winners are not ranked, but naturally fewer engines used (think maintenance costs), lower takeoff speed and a higher maximum speed at 100 meters (for roaring past the tower) are desireable traits. Don't worry, my reference aircraft has already been handidly beaten in all these cathegories. Kasuha - Herr Kules x8 standard jet engines, quadwing, 80 m/s takeoff speed, ~107 m/s max. speed at ~100 m altitude the_bT - TT P230-78 Jacul x6 standard jet engines, biplane, 75 m/s takeoff speed, ~100 m/s max. speed at ~100 m altitude Armchair Rocket Scientist - ARS' Cargo Airplane x8 standard jet engines, biplane, 80 m/s takeoff speed, ~100 m/s max. speed at ~100 m altitude Scoreboard/Winner List FAR: Winners are listed here