Razorforce7

I'm a vegan and consequently get a low sugar intake since I use to never buy processed food of any kind. I wasn't always Vegan and had a habit of eating quite a few bacon burgers during my life and other such non vegan fattening dishes. Since I became vegan a healthier lifestyle direction was to be expanded by quitting sodas among other unhealthy foods. Since then I have developed a distaste for refined sugars in any product. It gets a over sensitive sugary and fake food taste. I sure can swallow it like a redbull for instance but it's all very grose now. Not saying you should do what I did. But your taste buds resentisize if you quit intense flavours like sugars. If you can quit all those sugary products including what you put in your tea or coffee theres a good change you won't like sugar anymore like I do.

Am I the only one who is confused by this? 1:A engineers report criteria? ............. WhErE !? or what are you getting at? 2: Craziest ship? ................ waaaaht do you mean? You should start defining your own version of "crazy". I think Miley cyrus is crazy, but apparently some baboons idolize her. I see alot of crazy designs outside this thread. But it isn't always everyones collective opinion that a build is crazy. Is this supposed to be a challenge or sharing each others "crazy" builds?

Currency value is based on many mathetmatical variables in real life. Let me stress the word many. Request/demand, inflation/deflation is the tip of the iceberg although definitely the main factors in this. We don't know all in real life variables unless your a financial expert with both current and historic knowledge about finances. And these Variables in the Kerbal space program are unknown. So I take it your asking about my gut feeling? I'd say 1 fund is $0.0000001 USD.. That way I can easily fill my gut and buy the Kerbal Universe and be supreme ruler over all green goons. Only if they accept Visa or MasterCard

@LukasKermanEuhm, do know that since version 1.2 of ksp we got something like "autostruts" You have to activate the "advanced tweakables" in the ksp game settings which allows this feature in the SPH and VAB by right clicking on a part. With autostruts you should avoid the need for the "part" strut completely. Only on some designs would you now need additional part struts, like if a autostrut itself isn't strong enough. This almost never happens unless your building something giant. Because this idea is both a very insignificant thing and unnecessary in the presence of the autostrut function I don't think this will reach the list of updates. But since it's a rather minor request I dont rule this idea out completely.

That^

Pictures please. That way we will be better able to help. You can't destroy struts. You can only destroy struts by destroying the part to which it is attached to. And that specifically means the part that you first attached the strut to (not the part you dragged the strut towards) This could be the Cupola module. That means you need to destroy the Cupola module to destroy the strut, which defeats all purpose. What do you mean by "thermal vanes"? Radiators I guess? Whatever you mean it is generally easier to crash parts of your craft then to burn them due to the hassle of pointing your engine in the right direction.

NO! Atleast not in general. But very heavy partclipping that involves torque buildup on joints that have parts clipped through those points are a part recipe for the Kraken attack.

Got a Ford Mustang Cobra? (2000) With wings? And realistic sound. @MatuchkinSeems obvious with so much stuff sticking out. I also think you must be pretty high to come up with that and put it on the road in the first place. And being high + driving is a bad combo for most police officers.

I agree with Red Iron crown's method. Another one is that if you have more pitch then roll control with the active Elevon that you place that Elevon farther back/front compared to your CoM. That will lessen the pitch authority. But above is purely to meet functionality. I do find it a pro on some of my craft to have this option. Whether I can drag Elevons closer inward or from back to front to distribute roll/pitch authority it is not always aesthetically preffered. Some of my planes have way more Roll control like CaptainTrebor mentioned. Moving Elevons inward may solve it all, but it may then look like crap. This idea will prevent that.

You would have to be susceptible in being the naive blindman and act in a form of mindless self indulgence to take such e-mails seriously. If a complete stranger offers you drinks, sex with his wife and perhaps the world itself he actually wants something that you have. What I find the most annoying about this is that similar scams are often carried out by youngsters. Atleast things like internet fraud and other service scams have been reported in my home country to be carried out by 16 year olds and some even younger. The transparant leaks in software are vast. And everyone these days carries some form of "internet of things" on their wrist, neck or in their pocket. So your in danger, pretty much everywhere you go. Also I never click e-mail links with titles of similar nature. I know it's not meant for me and all e-mails that are meant for me seem transparantly obvious based on the title and who send it.

@MinimalMinmus I would love to add to this that the Mars terraforming project estimation of a millenium is based on... Absolute and full global collective economical, labor, political, social, scientific and industrial direction over all global activities in a moments notice and to be maintained. In fact, it is to be maintained at said effort for the duration of the longest living civlizations in history. A thousand years or more! That is what the mathematical estimations are based on that portray those time scales. They don't take in estimation what Kim Yung Un, Basshar al Assad or Donald Trump will do tommorrow. Whether we achieve said level of civilization for said duration that will maintain all summarized attention points and be executed with near maximum efficiency is very far fetched. I believe it will take 100's of thousand years until all collective assets are in place to allow a venture such as planetary terraforming. But theoreticaly it could be done quite fast. Which is not something I would expect whatever is theoretically possible. But I'm promoting all the way ofcourse.

Making no claims as to 'no' or 'yes' But everything that Razark said. Time will tell. I believe there is liquid water on every moon of Saturn. Heck, I even believe every natural sattelite has atleast a pocket of liquid water present even in the grottos on Mercury (I'm serious 'assuming there are grottos on Mercury') forget Venus....... or the Sun. But heck again, it's me believing. I hope Nasa promises to acknowlegde my beliefs to be true. But then again, it's Never A Straight Anwer. They could tell mickey mouse lives on Mars and somepeople will belief it.

Not sure what you have available. But I would first recommend THIS or alexmoon's planner online. Two answers. 1: No inclination at all. You go to Eve first and use a gravity slingshot to both lower your 'Pe' and change inclination around Kerbol to match Moho's (this takes the least Delta V) 2: Based on earlier attempts I've directly send my craft on a east/southeast heading (starting at about 110degrees) That still required a inclination change though. THIS can help you with gravity assist planning like that needed for Eve in case you've never done gravity assists before.

@Jeb federationNot sure what evidence in the court of law has to do with the theory of evolution. I respect all viewpoints on what one may believe. Many answers to how life came to be are unanswered. But again, playing "creator" can be done in "spore" ironically as I have mentioned it earlier. Also it's "Kerbal Space program" dedicated to being a analogue of current human space travel technologies. If that is not the grandeur you are looking for the next thing to do is promote a game to it. Or find one if it already exists.

You shouldn't use LF/O tanks (Liquid Fuel + Oxidizer) at all when using LV/N's. You have dedicated Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3 liquid fuel only tanks as you can see here A interplanetary ship with Nervas should only have liquid fuel tanks without any oxidizer. Unless you need it to land with a secondary rocket engine at any of your destinations ofcourse. If you carry oxidizer tanks then I'm not surprised your mising the greater benefit. Just watch some youtube videos. I'm sure you'll see that most of the people have mostly/only liquid fuel tanks on that stage. How you build your vessels is also a decision of your gameplay style. A terrier can get everything to any place just like the LV/N does. It's just that with a terrier as interplanetary powerplant you'll need to scale up your rocket considerably to get the same mass to the same place. Because of the Delta V benefit your far more likely to be able to haul your LV/N back to Kerbin where it can be recovered. In which case LV/N's are costless.

@Jeb federationThis is probably possible with a entire different game engine. Planets in KSP are static in their appearance. This is true in terms of surface graphics and atmosphere. You can't mod a plugin that re-adjust these environments based on effort dedicated to terraforming because it simply isn't possible. A planet is just a statically rendered object in the game. They'd have to be precisely coded to a dynamic model based on your specific terraforming criteria. Which requires a different game engine and a vast effort by the developers of KSP. Terraforming on any sophisticated level probably involves many, I say "many" megabytes of code. This is why a specific game genre is dedicated to one, perhaps a few smaller things. Terraforming seem a very big leap, I'd classify it to needing a whole new game to begin with. And that is just my opinion, the fact is that it isn't possible, end of story. If it were possible it would definitely be MOD and not stock worthy. Terraforming is like doing what nature took billions of years and do it artificialy in a moment notice. I'm sure in our pinnacle of evolution that will one day be possible. But it doesn't match KSP and It's Not 10.000AD science and infrastructure. Basically your making something on the basis of a theory that doesn't exist. Which I'm not neccesarily against. But doing something as profound and difficult as a terraforming mod that has no scientific basis on which to render your game models is quite vague, even for a mod. And like I said, impossible in KSP. How many game years is terraforming supposed to take anyway? It should atleast take a few thousand years I guess. You'll need better timewarp 4.0 for that one.

@SlabGizor117 The re-entry flame effect is not a good indicator to decide if you run into atmospheric Delta-V drag losses. If your rocket is really pointy with a small base radius and lots of aerodynamic cones it will lose little due to drag well within the boundaries of the re-entry flame effect. The less aerodynamic your rocket, the steeper your ascent curve must be. Many of the least Delta-V to orbit rocket launches are those with the most shallow ascent profiles. Some of them burned with the overheating gauges nearing their maximum on ascent. So that should say something. Then all what depends is the heat tolerance of all exposed parts. You should use the most heat tolerant parts on the outside and the parts that aren't should be concealed in cargo bays. Ofcourse a least Delta-V rocket design is usually not to best for mission specific purposes. But it does prove my point. This also means that ascent profiles differ based on design. So theres no specific answer to your question. It depends on your rocket.

Be carefull when using rigid attachment though. Any heavy stack of weight that is connected to 1 joint will break under the weight if the rigid attachment point involves part holding that connection. The same goes for wings falling of under earodynamic loads. How to strut doesn't seem to make to much difference. I did find that on very large craft it is good to have some strategic parts autostrutted to "root part" But I can't define "strategic" specifically because that depends on your vessel. I use autostrut for almost any part. usually any part when it involves 3.75m, Mk 3 size or larger.

There are so many variables in this that there are many answers. I think on most ordinary designs a twr of 1.4 through 1.5 is recommended. However, this is completely different for spaceplanes. They usually only require a TWR of atleast 0.66 (preferably more). That is about twice as much to lift of the ground, atleast when given a rather averaged looking wing design. On some designs I put wings flat on the radial surfaces of my fuel tanks. I do this on reusable rockets. TSTO or simply a 2 stage recoverable rocket which has said wings surfaces on the first stage. This first stage also has alot of TWR (around 2 through 2.5+) Due to the wings it can curve quite sharply at higher airspeeds through thinner air as long as I keep the speed not to slow/fast. So with all that extra thrust I can still guide my ascent curve. Only thing to make sure is that all your parts have high heat resistance (which most wing parts do anyway) Higher TWR is always better for least amount of Delta V to orbit. But with a least delta V design you usually have so many engines that your total dead weight in orbit is actualy higher. And since more weight is more fuel and parts which in turn cost most funds the range of 1.5 TWR with the available engine types is quite a well estimated and average statistic when taking all aspects in consideration. There are alot of pics on this site about different rocket designs. Some will perform better over the 1.5 thrust range and some under it. But anything below 1.2 for a rocket seems unlikely to be a efficient design, no matter what it is your launching.

@Jeb federation Excuse me, but your on the wrong website. You need a community dedicated to the game "Spore" In there you can terraform until you collapse from the effects of Hypersomnia. Happy terraformingmy apologies if this is not what your looking for. You sure won't find it here though.

In light of this discovery. Why can't we all agree and say out loud "aliens exist" Ice, water vapor, water had already been discovered to exist beyond Earth. All other elements is same story. In case biological life as we know it did originate on earth it had hundred millions of years to spread beyond Earth (it must be everywhere) And if it didn't originate on Earth..... same story (it must be everywhere) Or MUST we neccesarily have a organic tissue sample to say that it is so? Like

It won't be possible like Alshain said. It can only be a static infrastructure which defeats the building idea behind this. Also what would it be good for? Terrain collision with asphalt or grass in KSP is similar. So what traction benefits would a rendered road system provide? If it actualy were to be a dynamicaly build road system (meaning by the use of parts) it would involve part + part collision calculations. Part + Part collision is bumpy and fatal. And while I'm sure the asphalt parts will be optimized for collision with i.e. wheels and gear it is not as solid as terrain itself and can actualy be a kraken recipe. Oh, and we got something like landscape relief. How are road pieces to be puzzled together if every patch of surface has its own angle? But good try:D

What I think should be added to this is that if you right click i.e. your engine (or anything else) it should have a small top menu that you can switch from "single" to "All action group" and "all stage" *engines* (*anything*) The "single" is obvious. It means any change to engine thrust, gimbal or whatever is that one single engine (or part). "All stage" option will change the same setting to all engines that are part of the stage to which those other engines are assigned. "All action group" changes the settings to all engines (parts) on that action group. This way you don't have to open a new window for every engine and set them manually. And yes, adding to that the ability to type the value in.

In light of a collective desire to have atmospheric propulsion on Eve I say "aye" to any new propulsion method. In light of a poor attempt to magicaly transform Jet engines into something fictional to meet the desire for having such propulsion I say "nay" And I am going to bring up the "science behind" this idea. Not to convert you from the core idea of having atmospheric propulsion on Eve, in fact I'm encouraging you. But I will attempt a reconsideraton of yours on what kind of propulsion this should be. I'm not trying to convince people not to have their fun with a mod like this. If it entices you to have such a engine for Eve then go for it. Forget I ever replied and sorry for my post its length. But in light of what I'm going to discuss I would recommend to go for atleast a theoretical propulsion design rather then a fictional hybrid jet engine for Eve. Because it makes no sense whatsoever. Given the temperature and atmospheric conditions at Eve I can only think that explodium is a raw naturally occuring hydrocarbon. Hydrocarbons are filthy in their raw form. They do not burn in a clean and controlled fashion, your engine will choke itself in case it does give you any ignition hicccup if it were to be fueled by it. But it will never get to work because unrefined hydrocarbons are volatile, sticky, explosive, corrosive and unfit for controlled engine combustion. Any raw material present is impure by the very fact that it is raw. Its why you bring your car to ExxonMobil instead of a oil well. It is why water is purified in your local water treatment plant. Also, explodium is present as lakes and atmosphere. So there is precipitation of explodium in the atmosphere. Meaning that the layer of combustable explodium is limited to the lowest part of Eve's atmosphere. And I would expect any such engine to choke itself from 8km altitude and quit alltogether at 10km. Also, last time I checked turbofan combustion chambers have their fuel injected, not their oxygen. If oxygen is to be injected then how could it guarantee proper chamber combustion when the chamber is expecting compressed oxygen to be ambient within the chamber itself? How can you disperse oxygen to be ambient within a high pressure chamber that is designed to compress and exhaust as much ambient air as possible? It would require a very sophisticated system that automaticaly injects the proper amount of oxygen before it is compressed in the turbines compressor. Which needs to happen at the same pressure (which is high even in front of the compressor) It also needs to happen very accurate or your engine will simply fail due to oxygen starvation. How would that then be possible? Also, oxygen requires heavy pressure tanks to be stored. For that reason I don't think it will fit any aicraft design since they'd be easily to heavy. This engine would have the following miracle properties. *Ability to feed injected oxidiser before it enters the engines compressor and have it computer controlled so that the engine keeps combustion stability at every turbine speed. *Ability to refine the explodium fuel as it enters the intake (which requires a secondary intake) Because you need to store it first to refine it onboard. *Very limited use since explodium is mainly liquid and only exists as a narrow lower band in the atmosphere as it is the densest gas available. So realisticaly your engine should stall only a few kilometres above the surface and fail completely by going any higher then 10km altitude. Carrying oxygen around is much heavier, a secondary intake and refinery is even more heavy. A modified heavier jet engine (if at all possible) is even more weight. The point in case: You will never get of Eve's surface. This is like suggesting a alcubierre drive. Atleast from that one we agree it's fictional. Since a Eve jet engine is the same ballpark I wonder why you don't simply theorize a fictional engine to begin with. Instead of something of which we know it can't be done. Or atleast not successful and for any existing purpose.

I'm not a engineer or a scientist, not even in my hobby so don't ask me any questions. But I have read this thread and I do have to say a few things. Doing what your doing with limited education in the areas of expertise necessary is insane. You need a team. Just like Nasa has one. Even if you only send a gps up there. It's metallurgy, electrical engineering, engineering, digital/software expertise, mathematics, physics, chemistry, aerodynamics, ballistics and so much more that I left out. And in all areas above mentioned you have to make 0 errors to guarantee complete personal safety (not taking into account your crew) Because one error in your cooling, mixture or metal composite and KaBoOoOmM! However, it must be added. Completely unorthodox and out of the box ideas have had their success in the past. How insane it may be. I really think it is possible for 1 person or several to build a rocket in their basement and get it to orbit. I reall think that is possible and I'm sure someone will do it within the next 1.000 years. But reading your comments I have a persistent clue that your not that guy. Unless your going to Quaddrupple² your effort and knowledge.