Arugela

Couldn't you burn the glass initially at higher heat with the rocket held down and then use lower heat so it doesn't melt afterwords. Or use some other combo of glass and possibly ceramics combined. It may only need a thing layer at first. That or simply get/make a kiln and heat it up and cool it before launch. I think melting the glass in the rocket would be cooler though. Glass can be rather thick and stick so it might not drip while cooling. or you could probably control the heat so it doesn't get all over the place. I don't see why you can't do a messy burn to let it just get to melting point and then cool it before trying to get a lower heat greater thrust burn for launch. Or burn it a few times slowly to build up the layering. Or is that impossible?

What if they mixed the playdough with sand so that the heat, assuming it's enough, melts and cools into glass in a way to make a solid structure without melting the playdough fast enough. Do an initial burn/stage to melt the sand and then cool it to let glass form. then launch at lower heat. Then as you go higher you can increase thrust and heat as the atmosphere cools until space!

I'm betting if anyone ever tries to terraform they find the planet always tries to go back. And they have to endlessly maintain it at massive expense. Or the only way to maintain the terraform involves moving the planet and ends up causing so many problems it's never feasible. Or by terraforming properly it means the planet moves itself causing the same issues.

That could be a fun way to measure light speed. Has anyone done test where the bounce lasers back and forth and measure compared to a laser in a straight line to see if light speed has any inconsistencies or other characteristics? You could split one beam and make half the laser go straight and the other one hit the end target after taking detours. Maybe even multiple beams at different lengths/trajectories.

I was hoping that was not an issue with a 1080p monitor.

What if instead of changing the whole game. They changed it so multiple physics options were available to load per craft. You could simply make it so the craft has a notation as to which physics to load on runway/launchpad. Then you can mark it in the VAB/SPH and make different craft. Or if needed have different saves with different options for which physics on start. It would be easier than replacing one type as far as player end. And it gives more options to players. Has anyone nagged unity to make more physics available by default. I bet all games would use them. The argument about not adding more because existing customers not using more is a bad argument because they technically just made games based on the engines abilities at the time. So, of course they don't use more!

Why do people insist nothing can move faster than light?! All that would do is make it hard(er) to see things....(possibley) In fact it would only increase the odds the idea is wrong because it's harder to measure. That is no different than when people believed you could not go faster than sound. It's baseless. And not being able to see things does not mean it cannot exist because you can't measure it... I've actually heard that line before. "If it can't be measured it's not science so if you can't see it at faster than light it can't exist." I'm not kidding! Dark matter is either something stupid from a current theory and very easily non existant for an endless number or reasons. Or generally correct but likely to be a whole heap of other things that people do not consider because of something like thinking light speed can not be broken. It's all just ideas too dependent on modern theory instead of viewing the theory as a theory and viewing more possibilities beyond and viewing things in a more proper way. You don't judge a theory on if it's been measured. That is not science. That is just confirmation and relatively useful to how much you are thinking out at once. You use proper reasoning. You view it on it's current merits by analysing the logic making it up. Those two things don't work the same way. One is infinitely more productive than the other. Thinking only the most simplistic things from what you have, "measured," it not good science. It's rather simple minded and actually takes away from scientific discovery. You should be much broader minded and apply any measurements to a much wider field of ideas. Then you also have more things to measure. You don't have to get an answer from a measurement. But you don't waste it as much if it's in a bigger pool of thought and applied to more things. For instance. Restricting theory to light speed because someone proposed it and other said we believe in that is moronic(This is the case whether anyone admits it or not.). They should be testing all sides at once and much more vigorously.(or at least exploring the ideas more. god forbid they do this and find more possible solutions to even current theories by cross analysing the potential of the current thought sufficiently.) There are no where near the range of ideas out there that should be being explored. And god knows how much it has to do with awful academic environments revolving around money instead of proper thought. In fact taking the general logic stated as the problems between specific and quantum mechanics you run into a similar problem. The purely logical answer is potentially that they are not meshing up because, assuming nothing wrong with the specific theory, is a whole lot of little things in quantum mechanics being measured as one thing or vice versa. And instead of thinking it out more to reduce the logical problems from the current thought they wait to, "measure," it and then try to find a new theory. This is slow walking ideas. It is completely irresponsible and lazy. If you think it out more within the idea structure proposed, forbid farther, you get more out of the measurement because you have more thought out to confirm potentially(AKA compare to the measurement at hand. Let alone come up with more things to measure possibly even more efficiently as happens magically when you spend more time thinking more out ahead of time. It's a wonderful part of human habit.). The theory side is not that hard if you're not lazy. But the ability or desire to think it out all the way is shrinking at an exponential rate.

I just had a 560ti die on me(Half die at least). I'm looking to replace it. I think with the recent event's I sadly can't get an RX580 or 570 as they are not worth the price. I'm looking at a GTX 1060. I've seen it as low as 189$. The only issues is I'm not sure how to tell what the motherboard clearance is for my board for video cards. Is this listed anywhere in general? I'm not sure if the manual has this or not. The card I'm looking at is: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/pny-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb-gddr5-pci-express-3-0-graphics-card-black/5656036.p?skuId=5656036 I can also get a smaller one but I wasn't sure i wanted a higher clocked one assuming the lower clock might last longer and use less electricity http://www.bestbuy.com/site/evga-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb-gddr5-pci-express-3-0-graphics-card-black/5622835.p?skuId=5622835 I have: Fedora 25(OS) GA-970A-D3 ATX motherboard (Rev. 1.0) Phenom II 1100T 2x4gb DDR3 1600mhz ram Asus 27" 1080p monitor hard drives The PNY is 9.5 inches long. The EVGA is smaller form factor like my current 560 ti and I know it would fit. So, I've never had to worry about card length until now. And the PNY saves 10 dollars. Anyone know what is best to get. I'm not sure on the difference between brands or anything. I think I noticed the EVGA is VR ready(NVM, so is PNY version) but the PNY is stated as linux / freeBSD compatible... I think the 1060 is also lower heat and energy consumption if I'm not mistaken compared to the AMD cards. Anybody up on video cards atm? I ideally would wait for the new vega mid ranges but sadly my card had problems and I could not wait this long. Edit: I just noticed they are sold out. Does anyone still know what is better besides that little fact! >< Is anything else likely to come out and drop prices more any time soon?

Well, you could try either and post it. We would technically need a comparison regardless.

They didn't give him a suit to fix the COM! ><

Not sure what the answer is or what the OP was going for:TLDR atm. But the first thing to do is not try to come up with a theory. It's to analyse the current theory for what it is. Usually that is a simple math function being treated as more than it really is. Then you need test things base on more complex premises. This is what is lacking in modern science. And I mean the physicist and people running the equipment like the colliders and other test equipment. They do not understand the scale of what they are testing(or ignore it) and massively simplify and use very fanciful/simplified ideas. They have no chance of finding out the answer with their approaches(potentially by design). You have a 99.9999% chance the premise of any modern theory is completely over simplified garbage the guys making it up simply can't or don't do the math to put in context of the next step. They then waist massive amounts of money to test nothing and get nowhere. What they need to do is get themselves to the point they can get their theories to a level of complexity to reality(wich is measured in massive magnitudes of complexity.) and then test the theory and move ahead a massive magnitude more with what they find. Current theory is all basically slow rolling theories as little as possible to fuel their egos or grants or pocket books(in the case of lectures and side money). It's not science. They are con artists. They do not know how to do real work. Current, "science," is just slow rolling out formulas to make money and get center stage like video card makers release video cards. It's for nothing but increased profit. It has nothing to do with trying to advance understanding. It's all about them! Just like everything else today. No intended statement about your theory though! It's just that how modern, "scientific theories" are made(from actual scientist), dark matter is a big potential and/or openly known simplification on modern sciences part. It leaves a lot of natural problems with basing anything on that type of modern "theory" like dark matter. It naturally makes it so you have to presumes to much about it when it could in itself too easily be nothing. which makes theorizing harder because the info in front of everyone from scientists is so low level and bad. Particularly certain commonly known and publicly seen, "scientists." Or any of the scientist that spend their whole lives in essence staying in the cool kids category and debasing anyone who disagrees with them and stops real scientific advances from happening. Those who are sadly slowing down open and full debate in one way or another for their own purposes.

This is something I do when I'm bored. It's a fun way to analyse number patterns and possibly decimals. I used to have a guaranteed way to get a fraction from a decimal but I have since forgot. I'm attempting to remember it. It may have involved subtracting values from dividing by 0.9 or similar and finding the answer. I can't remember. But here is one of the other things I like to do sometimes for fun. Number line evaluations! Take any number sequence. Write it out and apply a basic function to it(or any function). In this case I will find the difference with no negatives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Between those lines on paper write the difference: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 From this you can extrapolate the difference is X+1.(And in as simple or as complex a way as one desired. Explore all the possibilities.) Now try a different function. Division: 0/1 1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6 6/7 7/8 8/9 9/10 Find the difference or any other desired function. Difference:(with negatives) -.5 -.166... -.083... -.05 -.03... - -1/2 -1/6 -1/12 -1/20 1/30 to be continued... Difference of numberators: (no negatives) 4 6 8 10 X+2 with negatives: -8 -18 -32 -50 Difference: 10 14 18 x+4? or 26 40 82 Keep trying combos. Any single logic followed far enough(Even farther than demonstrated here preferably.) usually does something interesting like go back to the original number sequence, another known number sequence, or shows some other aspect of the original sequence in the process. Example of fractions: (I remembered how!) ( .166... is 1/10 plus 6/90=15/90=1/6) x/9 is always x repeated infinitely(.x...) in a fraction. use x/9 or x/11 or similar to increase decrease and subtract from base fraction to get a simpler fraction and add. (0.083... 8/100+3/900=75/900=1/12) Continued: Difference of difference: -.3... -.249... etc. -1/3 -1/4 etc. (1/11+10/11=0.99...=11/11=1<-proof!) 1/110+1/1100=0.009...+24/100=0.249...=11/1100(=0.01)+264/1100=275/1100=11/44=1/4=0.25!<-Proof Note: 1/111 adds extra zeroes! ;p (0.009009... fun math trick!) Likewise, 1/99=0.0101.. and 1/9= 0.111...! Multiples of 9 and 11 are easily combinable.(likewise any other paired combos!) You then analyse the results and extract answers about various things in the number line. One fun one is unknown/questionable factors like 0/1 or 1/0. dividend of the dividend: 0/1/1/2 1/2/2/3 2/3/3/4 3/4/4/5 4/5/5/6 Difference of the dividend of the dividend: 0/.5=0? .5/.6... .6.../.75 .75/.8 .8/.83... ? .75 .8... .9375 .96 ? 3/4 8/9 15/16 24/25 x-1/x where the next variable is x+ 5 then 7 then 9 aka the odd number sequence. x+2 Difference of Numerators: 4 9 16 24 5 7 9 If this goes on endlessly does this mean 0/1/1/2 = 0/1(applied the logic wrong! ><) 2/3? AKA 0/1=.5*.6...=0/1=.3... or multipying on each side by 1/0 you get 0/0 or ?/?= 1/3(not sure on this one) You could go on to use a flipped difference to do the same thing so you have 1/0 instead of 0/1 and see how it comes out: (But I'm not sure of the implications) 1/0/2/1 2/1/3/2 3/2/4/3 etc. ?/2 2/1.5 1.5/1.3... etc ? 1.3... 1.125 ? 4/3 9/8 <- same logic flipped upside down! 1/0=1/0<-=- Proff!!1 Now that is some maths skills! Can you get proper 1/0 in this logic? It found either another method of finding reciprocal fractions or the same way put into different values! >< Does this mean dividing by and 0 equal something more geometric or related to 3rd fractions?! You can do things like the Fibonacci sequence with this and possibly analyse things like pie or e if you wanted to experiment with decimals over fractions. Or you can extrapolate a known fraction from pie or e for a known fraction to do math with it. IE You can simply take the 0.xxxxx and find difference between the numbers and do like fractions to analyse aspects of the decimal number or try to turn pie into a quantity of fractions or similar. Note: On the 0/1=1/3 thing. I don't normally do double division as it may complicate the answer. I'm not sure off the top of my head what a double dividing would accomplish mathematically. But simpler formulas do produce that type of analysis correctly. Possible example of analysis of decimals: Take Pi and write it out in decimal form to some distance. apply a function to the numbers as related like 1-4 or apply a function to each number like Xpi. IE pi times 1 pi times 4 or use e instead and then find difference difference of the given values on one or more levels to extrapolate some aspect of the number. That is probably a bad example but you can still take bad examples and find interesting things given the correct combo. Pi: 3.141592654 ignoring the whole value(3.): 3 3 4 4 7 4 1 1 etc. 0 1 0 3 3 3 0 etc... 1 1 3 0 0 3 etc. 0 2 3 0 3 etc. 2 1 3 3 etc 1 3 0 etc 2 3 etc 1<- need a longer sequence at this point. Or find a known fraction in decimal form and subtract to see if it produces a decimal that can be turned into a fraction. Not saying it will instantly find an answer but with enough familiarity someone might be able to find something interesting. Edit: If you think I spelled pi wrong, just remember, pie is just pi by a factor of e(8.539734223..). It works out! >< (Yes, I'm kidding! I'm too lazy to find the misspellings atm. Or I decided to leave them in.)

Technically, in many version of KSP you could do cloud cities, but it's at about 500-1000m altitude... Not sure if you still can. But if you pile enough wings you can basically endlessly stay afloat. I think they, "fixed," it, but I don't think they completely fixed it! ;d Not sure if you could accomplish one at 20k or somewhere useful for kerbin. Might be able to make a cool alt landing pad though. At least for Vtols. Maybe have it fly around and land(if possible) and mine or drop down a vehicle to mine on a tether if you use mods. Could you do similar on Eve? I think a reusable first stage normal space plane would potentially be better though as it could land back on eve refuel and then wait to reconnect to a new craft to launch up to appropriate height for take off.(one time cost endless re-usability) might depend on mods or if you're using stock. My normal SSTO's off kerbin are usually higher thrust but I don't know if they are high lift or medium lift. But lift endlessly helps with fuel because it forces the nose up higher so you make more out of your thrust. So that at minimum could be beneficial at some level to see if you can get a slightly lower trajectory plane off eve using higher ISP than a mammoth and possibly get a better likewise circularization for LVN's. This might help get less fuel if done well and make it more efficient and maybe help get a slightly better payload. Or that is something I'm wondering if isn't a possibility. It might need to be done perfectly to get any benefit though. Or do something crazier like helicopter or floating cities if possible. The steeper angled ascents are endlessly better on fuel relative to straight up ascents when it comes to actual circularizing at top(unless that is not beneficial in this case). If there is a happy medium or something this could make it easier to get payloads back to Kerbin if you can make it match the weight loss from a rocket. Maybe allow simply larger payloads. At minimum better than current space planes off Eve. I think I always miss the obvious other thing. If you can get a small ship with some payload off Eve you can always go to gilly as a target instead of Kerbin. This allows refuels and possibly smaller end stage payload design as far as fuel goes. I do this a lot with designs for miners off kerbin. It is probably the most efficient for eve also. It gives some more design possibilities at the least. I just always forget about Gilly as a refuelling option. And unless there are issues finding ore to mine, Gilly is the ideal of ideal locations for refueling! So, you don't need to design for kerbin return. Just gilly refueling. Either with mining or an on location mining setup. Then you just have to do gilly to kerbin. And some the equipment to get to kerbin, if the delta V is greater(I forget) than Eve to gilly, can be docked on refueling and reusable to make up the difference and then reattached for a kerbin to gilly drop on the return. The other advantage of wings is it allows lower fuel return stages for getting back down to eve afterwords. And you could leave as much on gilly as possible and try to maximize weight. Of course is it better or cheaper than rocket dropping. I would imagine it's probably cheaper at least because planes are more reusable. Mismatched node attachment sizes currently create lots of excess drag atm, correct? On top of massive drag from any uncapped node still?(forwards or backwards facing) AKA they have successfully forced universal use of connectors and caps on nodes at all location for efficiency under current game.

I didn't say it had to be pure SSTO. You do not need to get off eves surface with nukes. You can use a rocket to push the levels the LVN is more useful. You can also drop the LVN's. But can you use lift to help make the LVN's get a better payload off. Even if it's only an extra ton or something? It might help it get back to kerbin as that seems to be an issue. And yes the helicopter is an interesting idea. could you do that and get to the highest point of eves atmosphere and slowly build up velocity on the way up with the nukes? Can you use electricity for rotation? I haven't done helicopters yet. Not that electricity matters if you just drop it afterwords. You are only at like 12.6 gravity at that point. So, either very small vehicle or very large parts count!! 8d A lift monster might allow it to stay afloat until reaching higher speeds and getting away from the atmosphere. you could always burst with another engine like vector or mammoth then drop it. Obviously a lift monster on Eve takes less wing space. That being one reason why I think it might be useful on eve in the correct application. I was messing with only using the smallest parts in the game also. I would take the smallest tanks and drop them as you go for more efficiency. But the parts count got out of hand. Or else it might have worked well. Might be applicable. Maybe for a starting stage, but those are obviously less weight efficient per thrust if I remember. Is there nothing about lift that would help get a payload off easier? BTW, terriers are a potentially good match to nukes. They have fairly good ISP and smaller weight and they add thrust vectoring. Obviously not as good thrust to weight overall as a mammoth but you get better combined ISP and can get a smaller version with the nukes at smaller plane weights. 1 LVN+4 terriers might be decent for short term burst abilities then drop the terriers and uneeded nukes. 1 LVN+4 Terriers can do 18 tons(after engine weight 23-5=18tns) of plane at 12.6 gravity per grouping. You might be able to use it as upper stage to extend range a bit. A trick with nukes is to get a higher apoapsis with lower gravity and then circularize at higher altitude. Although I don't know how hard that would be here. Hypothetically if you can find a way to use wings in the atmosphere you can drop some or all of the wings after getting out of atmosphere. But you might have use for them or some of them for better landing on kerbin. 4 terriers and a nuke average 436 ISP until you drop the terriers. That gives a little more flight time or lower trajectory and possibly less fuel usage if used to it's fullest. Hence fast spaceplane. Mammoth is a lower stage lifting engine. It is not optimal for upper atmosphere. And everyone uses it that way like it's a magic engine answer. There are reasons for upper stage higher ISP engines. And, technically, even if the rocket is more efficient in one sense, it might be less cost efficient. So, you could always look at it from the standpoint of trying to maximize return value. Not sure of the specifics though. Or maybe the extra weight is carrying more science containers with research for more science return. Potentially, even, at a better overall price. Surely, there must be some angle where using lift is better than a pure rocket for Eve ascent and return.. You could also use a lower stage reusable mining spaceplane to land after getting the upper stage into proper altitude and re-mine and wait for the next plane. This could make a low cost overall system and possible more efficient than a rocket if the ISP potential is maximized. it would have to be a specialized plane obviously. I'm also wondering if, with the better ISP, you can get a higher apoapsis easier with a space plane design possibly eaking out better overall return with nukes for payloads. But it might require very good flight paths. You will get higher velocity on apoapsis with relatively lower trajectory flights like a spaceplane. So it might help with getting a nuke ship off eve for a much more efficient return once you get high enough. The trick would be maximizing lower and upper stages or likewise to get the best speed and weight off the planet.

Could you get enough lift to use LVN's to float up slowly? Even if you have to drop LVN's on the way. Or at minimum punching up to a higher altitude with a rocket if needed and use lift plus nukes to hypothetically get a higher payload than a pure rocket? The point is simply to ultimately get higher payload off Eve. No matter how small the gain.

It does not need to be an SSTO. Just a space plane. And if you really want, very little space plane. The point is as much weight off eve as possible. I just think there could be more interesting ideas with heavier space plane emphasis to explore. Technically you can do hybrid rocket and space plane if desired. Especially if it's more efficient.

80KG is 80KG if it is ground down to reduce air. It does not take more oranges(Kg is weight/mass not volume). I'm looking at 80KG of purely oranges. Not measuring a sealed air tight container. The oranges oranges will stay exactly 80kg. But the stuff around it can be more efficient afterwords. This is a real world example. It merely needs to be applied in a kerbal way. (BTW, you can technically reduce air space effectively in KSP. You do so by looking at weight per item or fuel type.) It's not my version of physics. It's reality... This is that real world application I'm talking about. Yes, KSP is simpler than real life. That does not exclude possibilities having been ignored or not taken far enough to reach their maximum! And, practically, Eve being difficult means lots of missed potential as it is harder to try. So, the odds are greater. Hence why it is so juicy(pun intended)!

Except with oranges you can technically change to orange juice or grind them down remove the air space and put it in a smaller lighter container effecting multiple aspects of said container. So bad analogy. Or good analogy... It's not the oranges it's the container. If you can get the slightest benefit from lift and wings you can get more. No matter how small the overall benefit. Can you squeeze a little extra from a space plane somehow? As to physics. It doesn't work that way. the smallest thing missed or the smallest incorrect assumption and it is not true. Even if the physics theory is correct the outlining assumptions may not. And that is being generous. Nobody has fully explored the game. It's too easy to miss something. Hence the benefit of experience over theory. Theories are too easy to get wrong and when relied on push you to not try and find out(As the person who actually originally came up with the theory should have, or you should question it heavily). Experience on the other hand tends to lend itself to finding possibilities. Although not succeeding does not mean you can't. So the point of the challenge. Explore if a space plane design can be made to do better than rockets for getting off eve. Everyone is mocking without trying it. 8p (or at least trying it again in a new way.) What about getting enough lift to spiral up to the higher atmosphere and get off the planet with nukes or lighter engines?! Something a rocket may not be as good at. There must be some more creative approaches. What hasn't been tried. And, BTW, I didn't say it had to be an SSTO. You can drop things! I said space plane. SSTO was just an extremity! The emphasis is merely space plane over pure rocket. Even if it's a hybrid attempt or anything utilizing a space plane as part of the ship. Although it may be more interesting with more space plane than not. Or at least appearing as more of one. That means you can do anything as long as part of it is a space plane. Heck even if it only space planes to land on kerbin better if you want to take it to the limit(it would technically add to the rocket on the way up potentially.). But something like lower stage rocket upper stage space plane off eve would count. It's about maximizing eve ascent to get more load no matter what! I'm just emphasizing any missing potential with space planes. Although, again, it would be more interesting with more space plane emphasis. Obviously you can't take rockets farther than rockets. So space planes is what we have left. so why not explore it. There is plenty of potential as it can be more complicated. Maybe there is an angle everyone missed. If it adds to the ability to get off Eve, it counts!

What about more outside the box. What if you can get one space plane with 1-5 tons into Eve orbit. If that is possible. would it not lend itself more than a rocket to paralleling it slapping multiple together and doing the same with 10? At which point you can customize the engines more for better weight to thrust and remove mining gear from all but one of them. And you have potentially the ability to get off eve and get back to kerbin given relative amounts of fuel after getting into orbit.. If that is possible should you not be able to use one no matter what to get a full trip. As long as you can manage to land it refuel and takeoff without introducing too much lag(I meant drag but both apply) and keep it together on the way up. Assuming you can get a connector that can take the heat etc. I haven't played in a while, so I don't remember heat tolerances of connecting parts. I know struts are decent in practice but it would be fun flying it obviously.

Yes, but you can still use less fuel if you have lift aiding in plane flight. If it aids in upward descent you take less time to get out of heavy gravity or use less fuel and you can use fuel more efficiency. So, no. If you can use fuel less efficiently you can use it more efficiently. lift can help in this. Either way, the point is to try.

But the wings help keep the nose up and make more use of any thrust, saving fuel. It could aid in a fairly fast higher thrust plane. The faster SSTO's usually get better mileage after hitting orbit. So it uses less delta V on the way up effectively. Especially if you consider getting away from the worst gravity faster and utilizing the fuel/thrust more efficiently in a flight. You would still want the best lift and thrust possible for the design. Can't you reduce drag with wing shape and still get good lift and better heat. There are some pretty heat tolerant parts to use for wings too.

No, I'm saying I can use 1900 delta V to go 3200 delta V! 8p >< And that is fairly easy on kerbin with jets and nukes. I'm proposing it might be possible with good wing design and thrust to do something similar on EVE. And wondering if it can be taken further than normal with a correct approach potentially. Not that others haven't tried. Maybe if you focus on it enough you can do something like 50 tones off Eve or something. I assume less though.

You would have to put on a minimal mining rig. And that is why you might do lower levels with better fuel efficient but high thrust items like the Vector.

Something crazy just dawned on me... I can get a space plane off Kerbal with only 1900 DV easy. So, space planes by nature reduce delta v requirements for vehicles on planets with atmospheres. Has everyone been trying to do eve wrong this whole time. It's one characteristic is it has the thickest atmosphere in the game(for a landable planet). Is this a big sign saying use a space plane on me instead of a rocket. If you designed a space plane correctly could you reduce delta V enough to actually start getting loads off EVE and explore it like other planets. It would almost make sense. Space planes are more advanced. Why would you not make the hardest planet for the hardest vehicle to design?!!! It, so, coincidentally has the best atmosphere to do it! 1900/3200=0.59375*6000=3562.5DV How is that not doable with sufficient thrust, even on a potential SSTO to get off EVE?! Is it not doable if you think of maximizing use of the atmosphere and wing surfaces? Has anyone tried this? Has some obvious potential for this been overlooked or not explored completely? I would imagine the best type would be high thrust to weight to get out of the thickest parts as quick as possible. But not enough to overheat and die. You can reduce fuel and or drop engines as you go if you don't want to do a pure SSTO. You would probably want something like the Vector engines to start moving forward. and then go to smaller or more efficient(like poodle?!) as you get up until nukes for deep space. Sorry for not demonstrating first: I would test this in game but I have computer problems ATM and can't... But this is the first thing I'm trying when I get it fixed. That might be while though. But I thought this might be interesting and crazy enough to be worth it. I have a hunch this might be more correct than people will think at first glance. I've played lots of space planes. And as unlikely as it seems to work I have a feeling I'm hitting on something people may have missed. I wonder if it was intended to work this way... Does the atmosphere on Eve and space plane design potentially start to allow bigger loads off eve if designed correctly? I've tried this in the past but I may not have done it well enough. I usually dropped stuff not worrying much about thrust and getting back. But it's just nagging me how easily this could be missed given how little people understand space planes and how much Delta V you can really skim off with a space plane if you actually do the calculations. If you do sufficient wing load and sufficient thrust to weight especially.

It would be fun to turn on scientific tools and record flight data. It would save me so much time. I've always wished they would put this in. And it gives more use to nearly every piece of science and communication equipment in game. Plus it's a lot easier to turn them all on and look at data afterwords than trying to read a layout in flight to test gravity etc. It's so much more convenient to plunge a cheap satellite and record and send live. Plus you can more easily utilize the info from multiple sensors as it's really hard to watch them all while flying. Although this isn't as bad with the newer UI that lets you tag displays and keep them up. I would prefer to sit back and analyse my data afterwords. It might be important to be able to label the data by game version though. Then it is easier to see the results and adjust the application. Not to mention confusing version data and trying to use and design something wrong. Unless it just happens to help of course.