DDE

Climb was good too, apparently. Maneuverability... thank Marx for having a country big enough to turn that thing around.

Unlikely. Starting with around the time the MiG-31 was ordered, fighters have been giving up maximum performance values (velocity, altitude) in favour of mid-altitude maneuverability, range, electronics and stealth.

Well, that at least avoids the usual trope of "abrasive astronauts nobody'd have let into space in the first place".

@MaxwellsDemon, space programs have a thing for that.

...probably because this designation has been used for four unrelated MiG-29 variants and the MiG 1.44?

No... we're the ones that sold 'em! Well, let's see - were any actual military fighters outfitted like that? The RCS replaced the freaking radar. Sure, there was talk of peroxide rocket "superperformance" systems, but logistics of having tens of thousands of gallons of peroxide on aircraft carriers killed it even before afterburners showed up.

Which? I'm guessing you're referring to the National Interest article describing it as a 5++ or 6th gen fighter: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mig-41-russias-wants-build-super-6th-generation-fighter-20064 The author fails to cite any sources, and for good reason: they appear to be pulling info out of their own rectum. Yes, the Russian military has claimed to be "envisioning" 6th and even 7th generation fighters with near-space or even orbital capability - but then it's the same military that has funded psionics and a 'special type' of radiation that instantly turns diesel fuel to goop, as late as 2004. And The Diplomat has previously claimed that T-14 Armata will receive nuclear shells, so the press is just as capable of spewing repurposed bovine waste. However, the statements for MiG-41 PAK-DP are rather tame: prototypes by 2020, with the primary feature of Mach 4-4.3 capability. As to propulsion, they could be betting on Energomash's pulse-detonation rocket program and its 10% ISP increase.

One of the reasons to throttle down is to keep acceleration under control, especially if you have strap-on boosters which, when almost empty, cause your TWR to go through the roof.

It was more than an idea; it'd been test-fired and flight-certified. It was Glushko's way of getting hydrolox-like performance (400 sec, only 8 sec fewer than the RD-401 ammonia nuclear motor) without hydrogen's deep cryogenics.

High-detail textures fail to load on approach to Mun, slightly more detailed textures pop in in grid squares directly underneath the craft. Observing additional visual anomalies only at a certain angle and around a certain region, but these remain even with SVT removed: Log: https://1drv.ms/t/s!AmlSZuL0ax7C4BI7PBmTJ1VPX2mv Modlist:

No supercriticality, no WMD.

Depends on the text of the document being argued over. E.g. UNSC resolution 687 defines them as

It only expressly prohibits WMDs. Lasers aren't WMDs.

@SchrottBot, CPU 27%, Memory 68%, Disk 11%. Although it's not unlike Windows. I think it's associated with the glitch I've previously observed, the one that produces a very blocky Minmus among others when you zip around with Hyperedit.

Formal bug report as follows: high-detail textures fail to load on approach to Mun, slightly more detailed textures pop in in grid squares directly underneath the craft. Observing additional visual anomalies only at a certain angle and around a certain region, but these remain even with SVT removed: Log: https://1drv.ms/t/s!AmlSZuL0ax7C4BI7PBmTJ1VPX2mv Modlist:

Actually it looks a lot like your 1.1.3-era crater wall textures, just not properly loaded and over-the-top washed-out. And it looks like your screenshots at a distance. Just for a screenshot, here's a surface landing: So, guess I'm back to chasing bugs.

*sigh* To avoid any further confusion...

That's them. Was faster to copy-paste a portion of the "settings" file than to boot up the game.

@Avera9eJoe

Hey @Galileo, should the Mun look this bad up close?

As you may notice, this thread is dated two years older than the posts within it; due to a graduation and employment-induced hiatus, I've had to abandon the original plan to maintain continuity with my previous fic, Flight to Independence. Unlike the earlier fic, this one starts in the von Braun days, so at least you won't have to suffer through justifications of an Inexplicable Technology Reset. This fic will operate on a combination of significant amounts of headcanon and rocket science; the Kerbals may be more humanized and less stupid than you're accustomed to. I would especially advise you not to pester me for getting the parts manufacturers "wrong"; DMagic's science fanon, however, is used as default. 1.7.3 install, no DLCs, heavily modded and held together with duct-tape, could provide info on request. Overall program progress

*breath-holding intensifies, distant sounds of the Imperial March*

Copy that, thanks for the heads-up.

Alright, I think it's time I stopped running around flailing. I've almost done everything I wanted, and I currently have two problems. First is getting the clouds on Duna to work. I've got SVE's dust storms intact: And then I have the AVB clouds config, with all dependencies still in place, slide in on top of that: Unfortunately, the clouds still seem really dim (dare I say, Mars-like) compared to their original form in AVP, and I barely coaxed them into existence by dumping both configs into one file. How does EVE play with two different configs? And given how you mentioned making dust storms invisible from orbit, I'm pretty sure I'm barking up the right tree, @Galileo. My second question concerns a subject on all of our minds': eclipses. Thanks, 'Muricaland. I thought it were my shenanigans with Laythe, but turned out there are no shadows on SVE's Kerbin either. Does this mod not support cloud eclipses? I distinctly remember a 1.1.3 eclipse on Duna being pretty thorough. No, I just deleted the redundant of two identical configs: At this point I'm half-ready to give up and just install a lightly pruned Astronomer's. Half-ready.

That was exactly his point. Soviet safety limits of fluorine in the air were much, much higher than for UMDH or NTO, so what are you pansies complaining about? Just line the launchpad with charcoal, see NASA TN D-3118, from which I'm currently blocked due to rampant Russophobia among .mil websites.