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)

The data for stars/planets/moons/etc are not odder-accessable yet, afaik.

I happen to use a lot of modded parts, though they were pretty much all from the aforementioned list of mods balanced to stock or less; I just wanted nice-looking parts that behaved realistically, and to give me a variety of aesthetics to choose from. (I\'m both an artist and an engineer XP ) There are two exceptions (of being on that list), specifically mechjeb & some custom super-strength struts I added specifically to avoid the all-so-irritating frame-1 physics glitch (where the physics sim goes bonkers because of the extremely low frame rate while a massive missile is being loaded into the game) that would sometimes cause my rockets to blow up on the pad on the first few frames. While it didn\'t entirely remedy the situtation (some rockets would blow up nomatter what, I think due to illegal placement of parts in manners that would cause them to clip ever-so-slightly into others), it did fix a good number of my designs. I primarily use mechjeb to be able to access stages, satellites, and other such stuff after they have detached, since it classifies them as flights as opposed to merely debris. However, the autopilot is also really good for routine launches of smaller, simple craft (the autopilot has severe issues with large rockets; I can usually get them out of the atmosphere with anywhere from no to low difficulty, yet the autopilot will lose control below 10km, or simply cause the whole thing to disintegrate), and getting them into precise orbital inclinations, mainly for doing things like launching low orbit probes and whatnot.

Because of the way LOD works, I don\'t think that it would even render when viewed from the ground, even if you made a part with a gargantuan mesh and placed it just over 50km alt.

Wow, thats both worse and more awesome than the huge debris plumes that the SRB-overloaded ships I was firing off to see if I could collide with Kerbol (mostly to see if it had a terrain mesh & could be collided with. Latter is true, former is false as it turns out - I must now attempt a landing!). Anyways, with an early version of the ship, I made the mistake of allowing mechjeb to try to pilot it; like on every massive ship with small peripheral SRBs that I\'ve let it pilot so far, it shook the outer boosters off, which then collided with boosters further in and caused a chain reaction of structural failures, and created a massive sub-orbital debris plume 30-50km in altitude. The next two launches blew up due to crashing into the debris, ending up adding to the cloud. 4th launch finally made it through mostly intact (though it did lose two SRBs in a collision), but I accidentally hit the spacebar on an upper stage which had not completed its burn, and so I scrubbed that one. So on the 5th launch, I decided to just wait 24hrs for the next launch window, by then the debris had all landed. I\'ve also had a lot of close encounters with my low-orbiting munar orbiters (at various altitudes between 4 and 10km) and my munar landers (As well as one ascent vehicle from a lander).

Hmm, so it looks like others have had odd collision issues too. Specifically I was finding that I would get really strange wobbling behavior on the couplers (like they were trying to force out all the upper stages to the sides or something). 3 meter components seemed to glitch the most frequently. I had a similar problem with the large multi-split tanks. The 5x3 however tended to be by far the glitchiest. Strangely enough, the very first time I made a missile with these parts they worked just fine, but the subsequent relaunch (realized I forgot to install a parachute & went back) and everything after experienced collision glitches. Of note, I\'m stuck on version 0.14.0 due to the patcher issue. Hopefully it is merely a version issue, as .14.2 comes out soon