Gaarst

Not impossible, just somewhat unfair and [I]extremely[/I] grindy, especially at the beginning. Good luck anyway !

Not my concept, but still... [IMG]http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/space-shuttle-launch3a.jpg[/IMG]

[quote name='oriramikad']Cmon guys -- this thing can go 350 m/s, and I just slapped it together in 15 minutes. It only has 5 parts! What's so hard about breaking 300? (I tried vector engines, but they ate up fuel too quickly and were hard to control.)[/QUOTE] [quote name='Jodo42']4. Vehicle must survive the run intact unless staging events are required. Vehicle which stage may or may not be accepted onto the leaderboards and will be reviewed on a case by case basis.[/QUOTE] Seeing you F3 menu, a lot of parts have been destroyed, more than 5 by the way. Try with a controllable boat and jet engines.

My first entry here, with my second SSTO spaceplane ever, all versions included: Temperance Completely stock. It is powered by 2 Rapiers and 2 Whiplashes, 36t at takeoff (20t with empty tanks); it can carry 10 Kerbals to LKO, including 2 pilots. Also contains a probe core, batteries and solar panels which allow it to be flown unmanned. No airbrakes: it doesn't need them for reentring as it does not overheat during reentry as long as you keep some angle of attack. [imgur]SyghQ[/imgur] Landed in the desert, I could probably have aimed for KSC with good accuracy if I didn't mess up my deorbiting burn. Total mission time was 4h40m, with 8 or 9 orbits. Smooth flight overall, max G-forces endured were 3.1g during ascent, 2.5g during the reentry manoeuvres to avoid the ocean, and 4.1g because of the bumpy landing.

[quote name='Choctofliatrio']Alright, thanks. Does giving reputation reduce your own?[/QUOTE] No, there is no way you can lose rep (except if a moderator takes it away from you, but unless you cheated it, this is not going to happen). Some time ago, negative rep existed in the forum; but after a dark story involving the Nemesis of one of our beloved moderators, it was removed...

Made my 2nd SSTO spaceplane ever, the first one was Sunday... I think I'm becoming addicted. [spoiler=1st spaceplane, posted here a few days ago: Courage][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nWpg72Y.png[/IMG][/spoiler] I named it Temperance, it can take 10 Kerbals to LKO (2 pilots and 8 passengers), and bring them back down to Kerbin safely with more or less accuracy (mainly because I can't fly a plane other than up or down). Also contains a probe core and solar panels, for unmanned missions, which take all the space in the cargo bay: so no payload other than crew. Quite manoeuvrable, although it lacks some pitch authority, but it remains very flyable. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/IHNLuKC.png[/IMG] [URL="https://www.dropbox.com/s/87k26a12o1ses1w/SSTO%20Temperance.craft?dl=0"]Download link here[/URL]. Action groups are: 1: Toggles Whiplashes and switches Rapiers' mode; 2: Toggles bay doors; 3: Toggles solar panels.

[quote name='Endersmens']Top 100. That's brilliant, Kuzzter. There are no ranks like the bars on the new forum, just a number I believe. Top 100 would work though, and it would make things easier. Anyone protest?[/QUOTE] I think a top 100 will lead to competition, especially for those around the 100th place, who will seek more rep to be in the top 100. I hope this will not happen, but if it does, conflicts will arise and I don't think this would be a good thing for the community, especially if reputed users fall into that "race" for more rep. This is a very pessimistic view though, and I hope that it won't happen, but we have to think about it.

[quote name='Shpaget']Why would it explode? Also, the Sun contains 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Even if Jupiter with its moons just disappeared, it would have negligible effect on the rest of the system. BTW, does the goo come in neon green?[/QUOTE] Actually, if Jupiter disappeared that would be really bad for us: most asteroids in the Asteroid Belt are kept in their place by the gravitational pull of Jupiter, without it they would be less stable and end up crashing on our heads. Also, interesting fact: the barycentre of Jupiter and the Sun is outside the "surface" of the Sun despite the mass difference between the two.

[quote name='Deadpangod3']We could just not destroy the planet in the first place. Why are you destroying a planet? What did the planet do to you? Just let it be a planet and do planet things. :sticktongue:[/QUOTE] But what if "it's coming right for us!" ? :huh:

[quote name='Endersmens']Kinda...bland. Although it might have to do. Any other suggestions? Should we keep the number at 500 though? The list is getting huge. It could be better to up the lower limit. Although that wouldn't really be all that fair either. Gah. Decisions suck. :P[/QUOTE] I think a 596+ group would be a very good way to make the group list smaller... :wink: Why not keep LGG in memory of the soon-to-be-old forums ?

[quote name='KAL 9000']Yes, I considered that. We have them manufacture tiny amounts of antimatter inside them. Then, when we trigger self-destruct, the turn off the magnetic confinement fields stopping the antimatter from interacting with normal matter. BOOM![/QUOTE] At that point, sending a big chunk of antimatter directly on the planet would be easier. [quote name='sal_vager'][U][URL="https://i.imgur.com/8N2y1Nk.gifv"]Hit it with another planet.[/URL][/U][/QUOTE] [s]Is that a simulation for the creation of the Moon ? Or just a random planetary collision ?[/s] Nevermind, just watched the end of the gif :P

Last one is the most recent. Format is: "zKACBACKUP" + year + month + day + hours + minutes + seconds + "-persistent" Last one is 4 days old though...

If your robots are made of whatever a planet is made of (rock, iron, nickel, or hydrogen or methane...), and able to withstand the pressures and temperatures inside a planet then why not ?

[quote name='Jodo42']Added as the current leader. I'm surprised and impressed by the simplicity.[/QUOTE] At that point the challenge is not getting to that speed: put wheels on that boat, and I'm sure it can go supersonic. The real problem is the stability: to get faster than ~250 m/s, adding engines is not enough.

About the breathing, Isp in seconds is essentially the effective exhaust velocity divided by the surface gravitational acceleration at Earth. So whatever way makes you expell air the fastest gives you the best Isp. Now the dV: The average vital capacity (the maximum amount of air you can expel from you lungs) of a grown man is around 4.5 L. That is around 5.7 g or 0.0057 kg of air at standard temperature and pressure. Suppose you sneeze really hard (but only air is expelled) and expel this air from you lungs in one tenth of a second. You get an air flow rate of 0.045 m[sup]3[/sup]/s. Suppose the area of your mouth wide open is about 40 cm[sup]2[/sup] or 0.004 m[sup]2[/sup]. The speed of the air is then v = 11.25 m/s. Plug this in the rocket equation: dV = v * ln(m[sub]0[/sub]/m[sub]1[/sub]). Your average man is 70kg, so: dV = 11.25 * ln(70 / (70 - 0.0057)) = 0.9 mm/s So about 1 mm/s of dV you can get by breathing really hard, this is not much... For the whole body, I guess it depends on the way you use the molecules contained inside it. Lots of chemistry and biology involved there, and I'm only a physicist :P

[quote name='prophet_01']I always wondered what happens if you do the following: You have 2 reaction wheels next to eachother and let them spin up (x-axis), in opposite directions so they cancel each other out relative to the sattelite. The wheels would build up a maximum momentum while the sattelite remains stable, right? Then you stop one wheel. As a result the sattelite rotates on the x-axis. The second wheel however just continues to spin. Now you 'rotate' the second wheel by 180° (y-axis) so it ends up with the same orientation as the first wheel. You stop the second wheel and rotate the sattelite further on the x-axis. To counter the rotation of the second wheel on the y-axis, you could use a dummy weight which rotates 180° the other way around. Would that work? Or am I missing something? Could that reduce the amount of RCS used on a sattelite?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure I understand either, but because of conservation of angular momentum, if you have no external torque acting on your ship, you're going to end up with the same result, no matter how much you spin your wheels before or the number of times you change their rotation direction. Only thing that matters is the total angular momentum: as long as your your "final state" has the same angular momentum as the initial one, then it works; otherwise it doesn't.

No, 1.0.5 is the easiest version for spaceplanes since 0.15, considering it is the only version in which I have managed to make a working SSTO spaceplane. :P

And there we go again...

Same boat as above, this is my highest speed with the ship surviving the run: 252 m/s on the F3 menu, screenshot at 251.1 m/s [img]http://i.imgur.com/nHHBQzd.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/rUFHG5R.png[/img]

After over 3 years of playing KSP, I finally managed to make a SSTO spaceplane! In honour of this great accomplishment, I named it... SSTO 1, because I am imagination (actually named it Courage afterwards) [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nWpg72Y.png[/IMG] [url=https://www.dropbox.com/s/nau84t5xfwmxwhf/SSTO%20Courage.craft?dl=0]Download link here[/url]. Only action group is 1: toggles Whiplashes and switches Rapiers' mode.

Pushed water physics and SAS to their very limits with this thing, that went up to 263.0 m/s ! [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/aySO2tX.png[/IMG] Unfortunately, it is extremely unstable at this speed and always ends up crashing into the water. Best I did with recovering it in one piece was around 220 m/s. Will do another run with more screenshots. Edit: I just used HyperEdit to put the craft into the water.

No need to build a craft in orbit first, you can land on Moho and get back to Kerbin with a reasonable rocket (mine was ~700t at launch). If you're conscious that Moho is a dV black hole then there shouldn't be any major problem going there. I'd suggest trying to orbit a probe there to get an idea of how much dV you need. Also know that due to its orbital inclination, the dV required for going to Moho can change drastically from one launch window to another. But I think transfer window calculators take that into account, so if you use one it should be OK. Having some spare dV for Moho is usually a good idea, even with a good launch window. This is valid for any destination, but the actual dV used for Moho is unpredictable. Oh, and nukes worked fine at Moho in 1.0.4, even without radiators, so there shouldn't be any major issue with them in 1.0.5. Again: if you're prepared, then going to Moho isn't that bad.

Whenever it is a bit colder than usual -Scotland

Launched a new satellite in RSS: Pandora 1. It is part of a wider program whose goal and nature are classified: officially Pandora 1 is an observation satellite, put in high Earth orbit. Upon cleaning the launchpad, the space centre crew measured slightly higher than average radiation levels... [img]http://i.imgur.com/HkWEp5v.png[/img]

[quote name='3viL_M0nk3y']after skimming the first few pages on this forum section I didn't see anything about adding a stock dV display[/QUOTE] Strange, this is suggested once every few days, if not more. Each time the majority of people agree, but it is never implemented.