CavemanNinja

I don't know much German, but i can tell you that coffee is Kaffee not kaffen. Also, I don't know how coffee is spelled in a compound noun, but it can't be that different. Try poking around the interwebs (and don't trust google translate!)

@Flixxbeatz it's easier to make a SSTO out of a wingless set of jet engines and some small rocko's than it is to make a SSTO out of wings, jet engines, and a low flight path.

That looks like a probe body if i'm not mistaken, so you should try radial parts.or, alternatively, you could use a cubic strut/rockomax radial attachment point and attach them onto the part radially to create a hardpoint.

The Mk3 spaceplane parts and a coming soon aerodynamics overhaul makes this game complete to me. There ain't no arguing with someone who doesn't care about the result of the argument. Besides, what do silly titles and connotations like "beta" and "release" matter anyway? On a different (and less frivolous) note, congrats to Squad for taking their time in and doing it right, Love you guys!

Penny for your thoughts: Even if it isn't infinite, does it matter? At the current rate of technological advances, we'll probably wipe ourselves out before we have the chance to prove it's not, and even so, since the universe expands(or did) faster than the speed of light, we'll need something along the lines of an Alcubierre drive to even think of reaching it's edge, and that's when it's had several billion years of a headstart on us. The way I see it, it's better to delude yourself with the infinite probability theory than to think we could reach the edge of the universe. Speaking of which, what're the chances do you think there is another me writing up another post just like this on a forum about sending little green men to space in ridiculous contraptions of rockets? That's not even tackling the problem of dark energy/matter, which would make things a lot more confusing when talking about the size of malleable material in the universe with which probability could go hogwild. Cheers, Caveman

Wrap it up, I'll take two! Exceptional idea, will be participating if i can scrape out the time

What are you talking about revan, this thing is a work of art! I try to make a VTOL half as good as this and I come up with this weird duo cockpit tilted-into-each-other pile of madness that has six legs and a ridiculous ladder to get up onto it... Props to the Cake

Personally, I think these fit under a newer category of vehicle, a "hypothetical long-range wingless VTOL", simply because they're propelled by a compound of both plane and rocket propulsion systems. An over-powered hovercraft, if you will. I think you're all thinking in the wrong way here, applying it to RL, because this would be extremely awkward to do in real life, because of planet difference sizes and the weight of rocket fuel, ergo jet engines never even coming close to pulling along rocket engines and fuel capable of making orbit, dropped jets or not. Of course, this is just my humble opinion and nothing should be taken personally

EDIT: you good now, they loaded up

For you, it looks like a phase angle calculator might be best, at least as far as i can tell. Hereitis this is the nicest one I've found, hope it's helpful!

oh, i see. Basically, you want a lifter that can lift itself and a copy of itself at the same time. Thanks for the clarification!

I'm confused about the object of this challenge. Is it to stack a launcher on top of a lifter, which is put on top of another orbital lifter, etc...? If so, I do believe I made a carbon copy of this challenge about 2 months back. And if not, would you mind explaining the premise to me? (with pictures maybe?) Thanks, Caveman (no hard feelings fellow kerbonaut )

First: Post your own attempt, and even though it's only a design submission thread, always prove it's possible. Second: Rules, scoring system, etc? Third: might wanna read the challenge submission guide, as always. (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/24898-Challenge-Submission-Guide)

Necro, much?

Personally, I've been trying this almost non-stop since about may, and I've concluded the following: To achieve orbit, you can't afford to have extra weight, which is the definition of a wing in a near vacuum. I won't even mention the brick wall associated with high altitudes and high gravity bodies for lift-driven craft. So, in aggregate, you either need drop tanks or dropped wings to reach the altitude necessary for orbit around Eve (with ions, at least), negating the point of an SSTO. (on a side note, will people stop making eve ssto challenges?)

Landing gear's massless once retracted, happily.

Interesting challenge, to say the least. Maybe make an efficiency scoring system, and you might want to attempt Jeb's level before proposing something so absurdly difficult. Still though, cool idea and judging from your signature I'd say you've got enough experience to do Jeb's level I doubt anyone will want to lug a class D asteroid into solar orbit, gravity assist(s) or not, just sayin

This is absolutely one-hundred-percent real USDA beef amazing awesomesauce craziness. Gonna have to bring in my friends to support this.

Trollkowski OP, plz nerf

It can't be... Is the king of rock back!?!

Dude this is seriously awesome, you need to do more bodywork and helicopters!

What planet are you scanning? this makes a difference.

Very nice body work. I'm curious to see how you'll handle rotors, while still making it look right. Cheers and good luck!

I feel it's several elements of the following which constitute the reason ksp players need/use wings. -They give significant upward lift for SSTO's, allowing them to carry much larger payloads. -(some) Roleplay -In-air control and finally, the challenge and allure of a nice looking wing design. They certainly evade me! -Caveman.

Resources. Nuff said