EdFred

Hook the house (well part of it) up to the generator in the garage. It has enough power to run the furnace, TV, refrigerator and lights in the utility room, living room and kitchen/dining room.

Yes, it was quite un-aerodynamic, it didn't need to be aerodynamic under the old system - and being streamlined wasn't a requirement. It was also created to ascend from Eve's sea level. The first 8,000dV is easy, the last 4,000 is the difficult part. I actually did have one that wasn't so ostentatious, I just didn't document it - since that one above was for the Eve Rocks challenge.

I'm guessing you didn't look at the links in my signature ;)

Thanks. I'm assuming it's still a vertical-ish burn through at least 15k

So, I shelved KSP for a long time since I pretty much did everything in it. But I've started futzing with it again. I see that the 4500 --> LKO is no longer the case, Is there a new list of dV to orbit for Eve and Laythe? Duna seems to be about the same as it was in .90 - but the atmo is pretty thin there to start with. I'm thinking about heading back to the purple dot, but no idea if 12,000 is still the magic number or not.

Thanks. I did the rollback.

So I had a similar thread stared in the KSP General discussion which was closed a redirected here. Is this really not going to be fixed until 1.1? This makes the game rather, um useless for rockets at this point. I have KSP on steam - which autoupdated to 1.05 for me. Is there a way to get a prior version back, because this is pretty much a broken version at this point.

This is what is happening: Lift and drag from invisible places. http://webpages.charter.net/edfred/kerbal/ Screen shots and craft file at that link. I completely remade the craft in 1.0.5 - in fact started a whole new sandbox so nothing was left over from 1.0.x - and it's still happening. Doesn't matter if the rocket is short, or long, I made it longer hoping the winglets would counteract the lift that's well out beyond the nose, and it doesn't matter.

Before the update I had some very simple Mun landers enclosed in an Airstream Shell- one built with 2.5m lifter rockets and a 2.5m Airstream Shell, and one made with all 1.25m parts - and 1.25m shell. Now when I launch these, the rocket flips over every time - even if I attempt to launch completely vertical with no turn, change turn altitude, go slow, go fast, keeping acceleration to under 12m/s/s, with MJ, without MJ, doesn't matter. So, I turned on the aero-forces (F12) and there is some RIDICULOUS drag forces - and it's all coming from inside the Shells. What's the point of the Shells if they don't actually eliminate drag from what you put inside them?

So. Much. Wrong. I can't even begin to start. You either have no clue what you are talking about, or you are just being obstinate. Either way I am wasting my time.

Laie - you could always have the thread locked, and if anyone feels jilted, they can start their own Eve Challenge and review everyone's submissions.

Did you even understand what I said or did you just ignore it?

Buy? What makes you think I bought my copy?

You've read? But not experienced. I *am* a commercial pilot, and everything you keep repeating is wrong. Stall has EVERYTHING to do with angle of attack, regardless of it being a Cessna 172 or an A380. You may have read some things, but you have processed them incorrectly in your head. You think airspeed causes the stall, it doesn't, AoA does. And until you understand that, I can't point out anything, because you already believe yourself to be correct while having no experience. Yes too low of an airspeed can lead to a stall, but it's exceeding the critical AoA that causes it, not the airspeed, and I can exceed that critical angle of attack at an airspeed significantly higher than published. You know you can actually have a stall in a nose down attitude while having an indicated and true airspeed higher than published Vs? No, Probably not, but you can. Climb angle has nothing to do with the stall either, only the critical AoA. But keep on believing what you want, you've already made up your mind. It won't matter what I say you are going to believe yourself to be right, because you read it somewhere, and anything else I say will be a complete waste of my time.

There was so much wrong with his statement, even though it sounds like it's correct, and he may even believe himself to be so, I don't want others to be thinking anything he is saying is right. If two posters you knew nothing about were discussing law and both sounded right, would you listen to the one who watches Law and Order or one who was actually a lawyer?

I get the impression he only has flight simulator experience and no real world experience. No real world experience generally means having no clue what one is talking about, especially when he was so far off in his post. So I'm asking what experience and credentials he has to lend any credence to his statements.

I don't fly an ultralight. What I stated has nothing to do with ultralights. Your previous post is still erroneous. How many flight hours and what training do you have? Flight simulator doesn't count. My credentials: 7 pilot and flight instructor ratings and adding an 8th this year, and a 9th within the next year.

Uh, no. I descend in my aircraft all the time while picking up speed. In fact, I almost always do. And a stall can occur at any airspeed. Stalls are related to angle of attack. There are a number of ways to descend, and you can do so with an increase in airspeed, no change in airspeed, or a decrease in it. But pulling power to engines will not make the plane slow down unless you change the pitch. If you pull power and do nothing else, the airspeed won't change, you will descend, but the airspeed will remain. Put a few hundred hours behind the controls and check back in. * to sum up, pretty much everything in the post above mine is incorrect.

If the autopilot is not engaged, you can certainly shift the CG enough to control pitch.

It's spelled "MOAR", not "MORE"

I would love it if the only places that you could get resources were Moho and Tylo.

What? That airships just like every other aircraft are subject to the same hindrance or help from head/tailwinds? If you have an airship that travels at 100kts (which is over twice as fast as what the Goodyear Blimp is currently capable of) that is the airspeed. Not the ground speed. But let's say you have an airship capable of 100kt airspeed. It doesn't matter if that blimp is 2m long or 2km long, when you fly into a 30kt headwind your ground speed - will be reduced by 30kts. Again, it doesn't matter if the airship is 2m, 20m, 200m, or 2000m long. The groundspeed is reduced by 30kts. Same goes for an A380, a 747, or a Cessna 172. Building it bigger doesn't matter. It's still reduced by 30kts - down to 70kts ground speed. You also made the statement that you can reduce transit times by 50% when heading downwind while only increasing them 25% when flying the opposite direction. Well, lets do the math on that. Lets take our same 100kt airship, and with 0 wind it will take 5 hours to travel that 500nm. At what (ground)speed will it have to travel to do it in 2.5 hours? 200kts, right? 100kts airspeed + 100kt headwind. So the only way that is happening is with a 100kt tailwind. But what happens when we try flying into that 100kt headwind with a 100kt (airspeed) airship. 100kts airspeed - 100kts headwind = 0 knots of ground speed. The absolute best you can do in that situation is to maintain your current position. Your airship isn't going anywhere. Making an airship (or airplane, or any aircraft) bigger or longer does not make it less subject to the forces of headwinds or tailwinds. This is why you are in error.

correct units? km/h vs m/s vs something else

The Trajectories mod still doesn't work for me when using FAR. The error on it is still enough to miss the little bit of land on Laythe. So I dumped FAR and Trajectories.

...not to mention that many solar panels will be quite heavy.