elanachan

But the limits do exist, they just aren't well defined, saying there is no end to the atmosphere is like saying there is no end to the SOI of a planet. edit: This would seem to suggest that the boundary I'm talking about would be at the 2,000km mark.

If we were to use the definition KSP uses, space would begin where atmospheric drag ceases.

Well, given that the orbit of the ISS is in a constant (but gradual) state of decay, would that suggest it isn't high enough to truly count?

There seems to be some debate on which planets are in the habitable zone, I've been told that earth, venus and mars are all within the habitable zone, and the reason why venus is in the state that it's in is largely due to the lack of a magnetic field, while mars' atmosphere has thinned too much to support more than perhaps the most basic life forms. For the purpose of what I'm talking about, the habitable zone is band of distance from a star (in this case our sun), in which a planet with ideal conditions could support life (any life) without artificial manipulation. By the way, I know that this is off topic, but I've heard theories that a gas giant within the habitable zone of a star could have the potential to support some form of life, the most probable being microscopic in size.

After making my own station in KSP and looking over the info on the ISS, I'm starting to wonder if it really is in space and not just very high up in the atmosphere. In KSP, once you're above 70KM you are completely free of the atmosphere's influence, which means any orbit above that altitude will stay in orbit indefinitely as long as something doesn't alter it's trajectory bellow that. The ISS on the other hand must periodically raise it's altitude to maintain orbit. This suggests that the station is in fact very high up in the atmosphere and not actually in outer space. According to "official" accounts made by the governments, the karman line which is at 100km represents the boundary of outer space, however this is still within the thermosphere, which extends up to roughly 690km, and then beyond that is the exosphere which is estimated to reach up to about 10,000km, or half the distance between the earth and the moon. If atmospheric drag doesn't completely go away until after you exit the exosphere, wouldn't that mean that with an apogee of 423km and a perigee of 420km that the ISS is in fact a high altitude construct within the upper atmosphere as apposed to something that is truly in space?

Hi there, another user. I just wanted to mention that I had attempted to launch a payload weighing in at 44.89 tons and the VII failed to lift it into an orbit of 100m despite being rated for 62.47 tons. After attaching the payload and enough spacetape to keep it from wobbling around during launch I was unable to escape kerbin's atmosphere with my top speed never reaching 2000m/s. I am trying again with the IX with the hopes that it will do what the VII could not. Edit: I just made an attempt with the IX, same payload, maximum reached altitude at 55.89Km with a top speed during decent bellow 1500. I don't understand why these launchers aren't preforming to specs. I would think the IX would easily be able to handle a payload almost half the weight of what it's designed for.

For the sake of this challenge I would be giving a bias twards people who only use stock parts with the exception of mechjeb, within the stock category I'm not prohibiting anything but I will give a bonus for tower stability without the aid of SAS/RCS. As for your question on if I have tried it personaly, it is on my to do list to see how tall I can make one, however due to my current hardware limitations I cannot expect to get close to the goal of 2km tall as the sheer number of pieces needed is too much for my system at this time, therefore when I do mine I don't expect to be at the top of the leaderboard. The leaderboard will be added to the opening post once people accept, the conditions of who will be ranked highest will be scored as follows:tower height measured from ground to top of tower: 1 per meter stock parts, free standing (no stability control): 20 mod parts, free standing (no stability control): 15 stock parts: 10 stock + mechjeb: 10 mod parts: 5 how thin is the base? (smaller the base, higher the score): base 100, minus 1 for every meter beyond 2 meters (the diameter of the rockomax tanks if I'm not mistaken) hitting the tower with an orbiting spacecraft: 50 did the entire tower fall when hit?: 20 if yes The structure height can be measured by placing a kerbal at the top and bottom of the tower, taking the altitude at the top and subtracting from the base altitude. And yes, as you said, docking will almost certainly be required to build such a structure, however if people want I can add another catagory for the scoring for those that wish to try an un-docked structure. For the most part, I consider this a skill based challenge, though if you want to make a story around your own, you are welcome to.

so has it been done yet?

Surprisingly enough, I seem to recall being able to maintain a stable orbit around the mun at about 2k in the past due to the virtual lack of gravity.

Hey there, couldn't think of another name for this so here it is. My crackpot challenge is to see who can build the tallest column on the mun or other low gravity body with the goal being to reach orbital altitude while remaining stable. Bonus points for anyone who can not only build it up but also topple it over with a ship. The leaderboard will be added to the opening post once people accept, the conditions of who will be ranked highest will be scored as follows: tower height measured from ground to top of tower: 1 per meter stock parts, free standing (no stability control): 20 mod parts, free standing (no stability control): 15 stock parts: 10 stock + mechjeb: 10 mod parts: 5 how thin is the base? (smaller the base, higher the score): base 100, minus 1 for every meter beyond 2 meters (the diameter of the rockomax tanks if I'm not mistaken) hitting the tower with an orbiting spacecraft: 50 did the entire tower fall when hit?: 20 if yes The structure height can be measured by placing a kerbal at the top and bottom of the tower, taking the altitude at the top and subtracting from the base altitude.

I don't suppose someone could post a screen shot of where it is in relation to things now, I keep thinking I could at least see the launch pad from the air but I'm not having much luck with that.

Hey there, didn't know where to put this, so I'm asking here. Ever sense .21 went live I've been trying to find the second Kerbal Space Center again and despite knowing about where it should be, I can't seem to find it. I'm wondering if the major geography changes in the area lead to the removal of the base.

Ok so here's my challenge, let's see if it can be done. The goal is to: 1) Build an aircraft that can travel around Kerbin at the equator atleast once 2) Makes use of the Mk3 Cockpit 3) Must maintain a cruising speed of at least 100 m/s 4) Uses only stock parts 5) Is NOT a space plane (sub-orbital flights allowed) 5.a) No RCS

I'm currently using 0.21, the current version of the airships, KAS and firespitter mods, and for some reason I have no yaw control when attempting to use a craft that makes use of two hecto envelopes. I know it's not an issue with my KSP install as crafts using stock parts for the primary base do not have this issue. Edit: I found the issue, apparently having what's technically a vertically mounted command pod (in this case the MK2 lander can) makes the game think it's pointed straight up when it's actually flying horizontally, which messes with the orientation of the yaw. This was fixed by adding an unmanned pod to the front end and making it the command from location.