avan

Eve is about the same size, and I think Nova said it was slightly smaller.

Actually, there is an interesting discussion here at the end about the timescales (even if the ring's didn't exist (which the Cassini observations suggest, though the evidence only supports that no dust-particulate rings exist; not rings formed of fewer but large objects), if the moon were far enough out, it could sustain ring material) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Rhea (this was with regards to Nova's post)

Considering the addition of the lava planet (is Charr the official name? Nova's most recent post would seem to indicate not-so, since he didn't use it), I presume that liquid properties will be coming eventually, though what, if any, would be implemented for 0.17? (Regarding Eve/Lava-planet/Kerbin/Ocean-moon, though the last two just have water I think)

Will Eve's mercury oceans have different properties implemented in-game (ie, liquid mercury is significantly more dense than water) than the oceans found on Kerbin in .17? Or will they (At least for now) act like the water oceans? Also how large is the spud-moon's SOI?

Totally answered; it was in fact the topic of the prior discussion - the answer is yes, there are gas giants, but with a preliminary implementation (currently only 1 implemented so far IIRC)

Apparently the glitch dated all the way back to... early C7 releases (the stock winglettes didn\'t have enough lift/mass I think to invoke the glitch, but when C7 made higher-lift components, it became possible to create SSTO turbine ships which only needed a small boost to get off the pad and then could spin up to ludicrous speeds in the lower atmosphere; enough to reach orbit, or even the mun) I also made a number of glitch gliders (horizontal takeoff) to try to glide my way up to the highest altitude possible. Based on my extrapolations, the theoretical maximum height for that tactic is around 17km. (The 'Magical Turbine' uses a completely different strategy and application of the glitch, which is to spin up and increase the force-lift which in turn increases its forward velocity which in turn increases the force-lift, and so on, allowing it to shoot straight up off the launchpad)

My point was actually regarding glitches/balance of the game\'s parts, as opposed to the competition.

I\'ve actually gotten higher than what is in the screenshot here, though because of the nature of this plane (read on/view images), getting beyond 10000m (Getting to 10000m is pretty easy, getting to 5000m can be done at accelerations that can put a good number of rockets to shame: it has absolutely no assistance on takeoff, for the record) is something of a chore, and it gets exponentially more annoying the higher you go. Theoretically, you could get up to ~17000m, based on an extrapolation of the change in height between each dive & return. I was going to try to just get to my prior record of over 15km in this plane (which I had done previously, before knowing about this thread, mostly to see how broken the glitch was: it could have gone further, but I got bored), but my keyboard jammed and I lost control and fell back down to 10000m before regaining control. I didn\'t want to go through the process of going back up again... so I just decided to settle for the 13330m as posted here (among jets, it would land in 3rd place, by a tiny margin); it was a sufficient altitude to prove my point. So why is this plane so annoying to get beyond 10000m? It is powered by glitchy control surface physics, not engines. In fact, it has no engines or fuel what-so-ever. Yet it manages to remain competitive with the standard jet engine. I\'m not sure if that speaks more volumes about jet engines or the control surface lift glitch... Highest screencapped altitude: As you can see, no engines:

I\'m going to delete that old video and try uploading a new one later, once/if my internet starts behaving. Anyways, here is my 3rd one, specifically designed to see how far I could scale down my design without losing stability. If I can get the first video working, I\'ll try to get a video of this one too.

Tried to upload a video of my first one, not sure when (if ever) it will finish processing (since I believe the upload failed, even though youtube *says* it uploaded, and I can\'t figure out how to re-upload it) Here\'s the link, can\'t promise it will be functional though: Kerbal Space Program (KSP 0.15): VTOL-I spaceplane Created a much larger VTOL craft (simply for the sake of trying to scale up the design), though it was large enough that when combined with cam studio, it became very difficulty to fly due to stuttering, so I just screencapped it instead.

Given we now have part rotation, I decided to try and make one using nothing but stock parts. Since there is no engine rotation, manually micromanaging the individual engine pairs is necessary. The RCS thrusters are mainly there to improve ease of landing. The reverse thrust engines were mainly added as part of an experiment to be able to approach a target at high velocity, then decelerate and land using little space and time, and then be able to take off again. I haven\'t really tested it thoroughly, and so have yet to manage the taking off again part (tried twice, first time: loss of over half the engines and structural stuff, second time: loss of a wing and engine). My computer is having issues with cam studio, so no video (yet). Taking off and flying are both very easy, though landing is trickier, and I find it works best to initiate landing at an altitude of ~500m This is actually pretty much my first try\'s design; the only real difference in the first version was no RCS (or RCS tanks), and less-than-optimal balance.

The Aerospike does have the issue that you can\'t attach anything under it, unlike the LV-T30

Derp, just realized it replaced all the ??? with ???... will fix that now.

I was wondering if anyone has all the specific physical data for it, like exists for the Mun and Kerbin? Also, what are the highest mountains on it, relative to its \'sea level\' (0-altitude)? [The following list I just copied/pasted from the Mun\'s article on the wiki, and removed the data values] Equatorial Radius: ?? km Mass: ??x10^?? kg Surface Gravity: ?? m/s^2 or ??G Gravitational parameter: ?? km^3/s^2 Escape velocity from surface: ?? m/s Rotation Period: ?? hours; Rotation: ?? degrees per hour, or ?? m/s Theoretical Selensynchronous Orbit altitude: ?? m; Selenstationary Orbit velocity: ?? m/s Orbital Characteristics Parent Body: Kerbin Semi-Major Axis: ?? km Velocity: ?? Orbital Period: ?? hours, ?? minutes, ?? seconds Sphere of influence: ~ ?? km or ?? body radii Inclination: ?? degrees

Well, I\'ve had massive sub-orbital debris plumes from rockets that are so part-overloaded they kill my workstation when flown... fortunately I could just fast-foward until the debris cloud cleared, though launching a few more of those rockets in succession resulted in 2 of 3 colliding with the debris from the prior attempts (first exploded due to autopilot causing all the boosters to go flying off and rip the rocket to shreds; next three were all manually controlled, but two were hit by debris and suffered cascading failures)