Blue

Nice ride there bro.

Imgur albums have a 5-character ID code. Yours there is kLz3z , in the URL. Put the ID code into the imgur tag. [imgur]12345[/imgur]

Probably build a Microwave Power Station, or Mirror network in Kerbin Orbit.

It looks like you countersunk a down-facing large plate adapter using probably a cubic strut, and then attached an FL-T200 fuel tank on top of that node while clipping inside the X200-16 Fuel tank, and then on the very top node of the FL-T200 attached a nuclear engine. It's sure pretty, though somewhat impractical unless one has a way of mounting it as a payload without causing the nuclear engine decoupler shrouds. To be honest Vinsent10, it has thusfar gone without saying in this thread that if you come up with a decent technique that isn't very easy to 'visually disassemble' just by looking at it, then you would normally post instructions or provide a craft file.

I like how in Aegeas's micro-jet, the Kerbal is just facing the fire like "...this is my life now."

Should've taken a better picture. This is a 26 ton rover on Tylo. This is an identical model at the KSC.

I build my largest interplanetary ships as a single transport unit (which is launched with its tanks dry and then refueled), and then rendezvous the payload(s) into position for departure. The Philadelphia family of interplanetary ships is about as old as my ownership of a copy of KSP (since late 2011). It has no real maximum payload weight, as long as whatever it is, is balanced. On the launch pad, it weighs a little more than 45 tons empty. Fully fueled, it has 12000m/s of deltaV when carrying only itself, and 2500m/s when carrying a 100 ton payload. This is a Philadelpha-V carrying a Tylo lander. An important feature of its high payload capacity was being able to do quadruple-large port docking.

No, I'm sure these are all enough. A direct-recapture of solar escape is hard enough-- as if comet-eccentricity wasn't sufficient.

I believe the requirement of Delta-V for an Eve departure is... 8000 km/s from the highest altitude point (7 km alt.), and it increases by a scary function for every additional meter below it. With generous rounding, that's double the Delta-V of an SSTO from Kerbin, not even mentioning the higher gravity. I've been around for a few years, and last I heard, it's physically impossible within the part constraints of the game.

I'd have to say Astropapi1's Concealed Command Seat inside Stayputnik is pretty clever for keeping size down. Notice his little feeties.

The very concept of it made me think of this This is so weird and useless and useful and impractical and practical that it crossed the line enough times to blur it out of existence.

(23923 meters / 20) + 663 m/s = 1859.2 Score for my first shown attempt. (25055 meters / 20) + 693 m/s = 1945.8 Score for highest attained, despite being the result of a lack of actual control of the aircraft. At this weird point I began consuming more power than I received, and the batteries drained. When this happened, all incoming power was routed directly to the engines and stability control for the flaps, so I continued to accelerate and more-or-less maintain attitude, even though technically I wasn't in control. This went on until the engines shut off from fuel starvation.

One launch to land every celestial body in the Kerbol system would be an extraordinary vehicle. In fact I don't think I've even ever seen such a thing. All of its components together would require at least 15km/s of delta-V!

It won't let me. What you posted in code is literally the exact same syntax I had on my post.

To search for more truth in the cosmos, and affirm what we already know to be true, about that which is truest.

Whenever I talk about why Gravity gets details wrong, I preamble by saying it's a orbital mechanics primer in comparison to even the recent Star Trek movies because the license taken with speeds and relative motion are proportionately much smaller. In Gravity, the ISS and Hubble are at their closest 200km apart, twice as far as what's stated in the movie, and on completely different inclinations. For these reasons, it takes nearly as much energy to change orbits from one to the other as doing an entirely new launch (if one is only using the space shuttle). Now, juxtapose if you will: In the climax of Star Trek: Into Darkness, the Enterprise faces off against that black dreadnought ship in medium lunar orbit. They exchange fire; the dreadnought is crippled but Enterprise is damaged as well, and begins listing. Then the Enterprise suddenly plummets towards the Earth, and they're only able to survive by pulling out of the fall literally at an altitude of less than 200 meters. The distance covered by the Enterprise in this "listing" due to being shot, is going from medium lunar orbit, to nearly sea level on earth, in less than 20 minutes of real time. This means that by being shot by the Dreadnought, the Enterprise accelerated to about 250 km/s (0.008c, or 8.63 million kilometers per hour) seamlessly, without being noticed and completely by accident. In Star Wars, it is not unusual for vessels the size of small islands to be able to accelerate in excess of 2000 g-forces- a force which is compensated for by devices usually not much larger than a small fraction of the vessel's full size or energy demand, which is so robust it never actually causes a problem as seen in any of the movies. In Gravity, for the sake of the audience's viewing pleasure space debris is slowed down to a speed necessary to make it possible to see (because usual free and random intercept speed of debris is many times the speed of a bullet, making it too fast to be seen). In almost every movie with them, lasers travel at speeds slightly less than the speed of sound, to make visible light beams and darts of "pure energy" fling around like dramatic space arrows. Gravity earns its merit through the details that weren't thrown away for the sake of drama. Don't crucify it because Hollywood thinks the general public is so stupid: crucify Hollywood.

I wish I had some new techniques to report, but as yet, I don't.

I want more views! Share it with your friends!

The R means Exquisite. I imagine it won't be long before Squad realizes the inevitability that they'll need to implement real arm manipulator parts...

Making the mission come down in seperate parts simplifies things, like how Scott Manley did it in Eve or Bust. Coincidentally I had the same plan, though I didn't execute it with the same as his expediency: A large mission rover, crew drop pod, and a return launcher. Only the return launcher needs to actually be able to leave, which makes it much simpler in terms of engineering, what to do with the other things. (Make them as big as you please, and just leave them on the surface when you're done with them.) Also like Scott Manley, I made my return launcher mobile, on a set of 8 of the largest wheels, so that it could transport itself to a higher elevation and/or more stable ground once it had landed on Eve. The highest point on the planet is a mountain 7km high, which reduces the atmosphere enough that the Delta-V budget goes down to about 7.5km/s to reach orbit.

Can Bill, Bob and Jeb unravel the mysteries of the Universe before they run out of snacks? Yeah I made this because I thought it would be fun-- and it was! Hope you enjoy! For reasons unknown, the video refuses to be embedded on this post. However if you scroll down, someone has embedded it in theirs.

Relativistic Doppler Shift: everyone's favorite flavor! I'm making an animation of flying through space at approaching and possibly exceeding light speed. This GIF on Wikipedia is very helpful But I want to make sure the effect I'm going for is more properly realistic in terms of the viewpoint of the observer facing prograde, and I'm not very well versed in this field. The following are some placeholder pictures, and I want to see if I have the basic principle correct. All numbers aren't actually going to be shown, so they're loose at best. Am I close? What could I look up to find a more accurate representation? Thanks, errybody!

If there were bugs in the simulation of our observed reality, wouldn't it not break the hypothesis to also suppose that the maker of the simulation would also be able to correct bugs if they occurred, or that bugs regularly do occur but are not empirically reliable (i.e. miracles)?

Thanks for your suggestions, guys. Straightening out the landing gear immediately worked to eliminate taxiing and takeoff wobble, despite now in the new revision its wheelbase is narrower than ever. I'll continue working to improve the gear configuration so as to keep it wide and stable, far enough back so I don't get engine-destroying tailstrikes, and still remain compact. I am fairly certain the edit to the rudder will help as well. Though for clarity, the wings never had a modified angle of attack. They were always just dihedral low mountings.

For the life of me I can't get this thing to fly reliably. This small SSTO was inspired and developed from Narcosis's Jian SSTO, using a Sabre engine instead of the Turbojet. While Narcosis's flies in a very stable and easy manner, my version has been nothing but trouble as long as it's near the ground. The primary issue at hand is the fact that it wobbles uncontrollably once its speed exceeds 20 meters per second. If I pull up hard and cross my fingers, perhaps I can get it off the ground, in which case the only safe way to fly it is straight upwards until it's 10km high and going faster than 250m/s (and even before them, it's still pretty wobbly). I'm completely out of ideas on how to fix it. I've tried many different landing gear configurations and shifting the center of mass around as much as I could. There are a couple of things which I remained invariant about, like trying to keep the landing gear within the fuselage when retracted, and trying to conceal the RCS tank by more than half, but I can't get this thing to drive at all.