Technical Ben

Yes, I do agree it's nuanced too. So in a FTL ship universe, they probably would also not use such weapons for fear of MAD. I've a draft sci-fi story on DeviantArt with some ship designs which uses this exact story line. Imagine Firefly/Serenity universe but spanning multiple star systems with FTL drives. Then a "One hour war" happens where a group uses FTL drives aggressively, and from that day, no one, due to social/cultural/emotional reasons ever risks it again, until one day... And as you say, things like planets being gravity wells, and small craft being hard to track (at the light year ranges), makes most FTL drives impractical compared to local skirmishes (again, see real life where drones are used instead of blanket carpet bombing). IMO the Last order were chasing a dead dog, and forgot to put shield to max (engines were maxed to chase), probably had shields down to activate the "Hyperspace tracker", and lots of other mistakes... but the film/writers were really poor at communicating this (see the opening scene as the opposite, where Poe gets the one up on them by actually surprising them).

IMO you don't need a reason why Hyperspace ramming is not used. In real life, nuclear bombs were dropped in war/actual aggression only twice. In 100 years or so, only twice. For there to have been one or only two hyperspace ramming incidents in all of the (current storyline) history of Star Wars, well, that I can actually believe. On the story/plot/world building/character feelings level, those involved show that the Last Order is pushing far to hard, and risking a new out right MAD (mutually assured destruction) war, which they probably were trying to prevent/avoid from the other films (and prequels) where it's about subterfuge and getting a hold, without an out right unwinnable or devastating war. But they pushed too hard, and unleashed the Kracken of space attacks. Everything else? Yeah, stupid parts of the film (a few scenes are worth saving, but IMO the hyperspace ramming is brilliant, just needed decent dialogue leading up to it, and not the trash "we know best, you're all idiots" plot we got). Even Holdo could have been great, *if* handing off to Akbar, and Akbar + Leah handing down the reigns to her etc, and she takes on responsibility, fixes the rift between her and Poe, Poe also learning to use teamwork (so a growth for him)... or whatever, do the opposite, make them go rouge or traitor... but anything would have been better than the trash soap opera they gave that episode of Star Wars. That's why I have deep respect for the actors and the set designers, the animators and the storyboard writers. Because they did a great job. Provided the best. Then one or two head writers/directors/focus groups/meddling investors seem to have trashed all that hard work. Also, the interesting thing about Dune is it skirts the line of plausibility. While the lore/stories to the "technology" are fanciful, the base understanding (causality breaking time travel worm hole creating cats as FTL drives) borders on known physics with just enough "it's nature that did it" to leave you questioning if it's just a quantum fluctuation in their universe that allows it all.

I see no problem in KSP with the star systems being different "levels". Fit up a craft with the DV + tech + life support (modules only?) and once correct and in a transfer orbit press "go to next level" and the game adds 100s of years to the game timer, loads you in on an approach trajectory, and removes the crafts fuel transfer costs... Everything would still be "simulated", but it removes the need to sit there waiting for a craft to get to it's position, and the need to crunch all the numbers in the process. PS, one way to mitigate the "emptiness" of such a gameplay mechanic, is to load out the ship, but "track" it's progress in a mission control room. Instead of simulating the entire transit, you would view an orbital graph or bar graph of "progress %%%" or somesuch. Then players could continue at Kerbin making missions, or fast forwards to any point. IMO I would assume the devs are gonna load in/out each star system as a separate level, perhaps even permanent progression in game (moving from one to the next, prevents returning, like level 1 = Kerbin/sol, and level 2 is a new system, and no return to Kerbin, a totally separate colony). Unless they just load in/out resources and craft between systems. "Magically" appearing after the transit time has elapsed. One way to allow returning to "Kerbin" from other star systems is to setup a "turns" option. "Turn" one, play all gameplay in Kerbin system. Then make an interstellar craft. To travel to another solar system, the game asks you to press a button for the transit, it then says "all craft in Kerbin will be saved on current orbits, any craft not in stable orbit will be lost, are you sure?" then say "Gameplay will be advanced 100 years, you can return to Kerbin, but will lapse 100 years each time you swap between star systems" and finally "All Kerbals go into deep sleep and hibernate while you are in the other star system". Then in the new solar system you are in "turn" two. This way, you could switch/transport/play between star systems. Perhaps both modes could be used? Load/unload systems concurrently when not transferring craft, and timescales would be around the same. But when transits between solar systems, advance 100 or so years ahead in game.

It could depend. If you have active tracking via cameras or lasers, you can just use motors to align the rings/petals and grab in (or mechanically just "nudge" the two craft together ). If wanting a passive system, magnets could work. Problem being, small iron/magnetic metal chips could start to clog the mechanisms, and this would probably be decided to be more risk and danger, than just taking it slower on approach and doing it some other way.

I guess you could also use mechanically moved and tracking "arms" to bring craft together, as the ISS/space shuttle already uses/used. Either an arm, or a multi directional adjustable port, that then pulls the craft in, making small adjustments to their angles. https://www.internationaldockingstandard.com/ As you can see, it has a large degree of motion and adjustment to help meet/match up different angles.

I have found that flights need to be done in the right order for FMRS to work as intended (and turn off auto recovery if needed). So for your flights, turn off auto recovery. Launch the main rocket/flight. This main rocket/flight needs to be the "main mission" that you fly/use continuously as the return point for FMRS, until you are happy everything is in the correct position. Make sure KSP has correctly set the root parts/separation (any error will mess up FMRS tracking, for example my latest rocket for some reason accidentally went to stage 1 as the "root/core" instead of stage 2 which reaches orbit). So, for example, a 3 stage rocket, which has a reusable landing first stage, a space plane second stage, and an orbital third stage, needs the requiring: Main "Core/Root" part being third stage orbital probe/core. On first separation the *first stage* should separate and *detach* falling back to Kerbin. On second separation the *second stage* should separate and *detach* falling back to Kerbin. The third stage gets to orbit. If this works correctly, there should be *no craft switching before the point of reaching orbit*. Then you can switch to (for example) the first stage, and land it *using FMRS menu*. Then *Return to the main craft using FMRS menu*. Then you can fly/land the space plane *using FMRS menu*. Then *Return to the main craft using FMRS menu*. Then once at the orbital craft, and confirming both stage 1 (lander) and stage 2 (spaceplane) are saved/active in the FMRS menu (or recovered), you can close FMRS as the craft should be merged into your one save. If you switch using KSP GUI/map/keyboard at any time, you may mess up the FMRS log or merging. The above use of FMRS works every time for me, unless KSP messes up which probe core to switch to, or I use the KSP save/GUI to switch craft by mistake. PS, if using only aircraft, I'm not sure how FMRS "saves" in atmosphere, but KSP added saving in atmos, right? So it should be possible to return to an aircraft, if not using an orbital 3rd stage. Or perhaps put a "fake" 3rd stage on there, of just a decoupler and a probe core. Set it as "root" and FMRS can use it to track the main mission for you?

Thanks. I was getting this too, and having to rebuild my saves a couple of times. Now I know, I'll use quicksaves/manual saves a bit more. Could not figure out what was causing it.

Doesn't SS already have enough thrust for most aborts it's self?

That sounds quite interesting, for quicker turnarounds of crewed launch/transit. Have an orbital fuel dump/depot, but due to boil off, only refuel it last min to rendevouz with the crew ship.

Just use lasers in orbit/on the ground to provide ablative propulsion from some moon rocks you pick up on the way. I mean, this is Elon, right? No idea is too strange. XD

Mine does that. It means it's happy. Or angry. Or annoyed. So take it as a warning!

Yes. The cat is more likely to trip me up. And possibly the "bad cold" I had earlier in the year was my dose and recovery from this. Glad little to no cat -> human transmission.

Nooo! The first reports were that dogs could not get it, then that cats were unlikely. Then when the reports on tigers getting it, I was hopeful it was an outliner. Now my cat is out to kill me... in a few more ways than normal.

Finally! And when I say "finally" remember, I have been trying for years... and I think SpaceX may have beaten me to it... in real life (many times over!)!!! https://imgur.com/HNrjkfn PS, 100% stock, except for MechJeb helping with landing, and me giving it some encouragement.

And the bit where it dies on paper/plastic after a few hours (results may vary).

Elon gets distracted and pulls a train network with a jetpack and totally forgets about rockets.

Just leave it in orbit, and use tanks to refuel/plug in... it's a tug. (Rendezvous with low orbit, then use it to boost up to the ISS and/or the moon. XD )

It matters if I want to use Falcon 9s as my "shuttles" for planetary landings (disposable/reuse stages) for my Sci-fi. Elon is doing me no favours if I cannot predict the results... my sci-fi will all be wrong if I they go and build different craft after all this. XD I estimated shuttle designs (skylon) and small rockets (falcon 9 style). Now he's gone and done a massive thing (witch would be single stage to orbit on anything Mars or smaller, and in my Sci-fi, I'd not expect any earth like planets to be worth it, as terraforming would take thousands of years, so the smaller planets become more desirable for smaller gravity wells). Also, with multiple and quick turnarounds, they could launch a second, and transfer crew. The only reason this was not done for the shuttle was timescales and prohibitive costs. If costs and timescales come down, any faults are eaten up in the profit margin (and SpaceX survives or goes bankrupt on it), where as for "all or nothing" scientific expeditions, risks are kinda different.

I got the reference too... wait, there's a second season? Or are you from the world that has 2 seasons. XD

what actual.... ffffff.... WHY? OK, scary freaky creepy stuff on SpaceX? They gone right out my good books. Confirmed evil mastermind about to kill everyone!

I would assume that is just built on the same chassis to match the in game Cyberpunk as some sort of in game advertising? The design, not "real life". Though might give away the structural design for the truck. No wait... did I wake up in the wrong universe again? Or is this one the one where Elon does go insane and makes Tesla trucks with Sharks with lasers on their heads for taking over the world? Oh well, 24h till I get another chance to jump back to the "good" universe, where KSP was never made in Unity in the first place...

I logged in 20 mins after launch to see... I missed the live launch. I'm wondering, if these get to shoebox size (or a bit bigger, solar/antenna depending), what are the de-orbit/kessler situations for them? Is it like the sea, where the particles hang around for ages, polluting, or would it disperse quickly? Would we end up with launch windows in a similar way aircraft do (though for aircraft it's for the runway safety, but for orbit it would be to find the gaps in starlink to get through safe ).

Hahahahaha. Just got to the episode in Space Brothers where they talk about destructive testing (pushing to the limits) and how the media/top brass don't always understand it. Topical.

Just drop a forklift on the first landing. You ever seen the self stowing forklifts on the back of trucks? They use their own lifts to deploy, then use the lift to get the rest of the "cargo".

Yeah... Not always the best writing moments IMO. The ship I posted above has no weapons, as IMO in space any weapon that hits the target is a MAD (mutually assured destruction). If you don't hit the target, then yeah, it's okish. Simple defences against debris/asteroids etc, but no attack weapons on civilian craft except some possible small fire stuff (like cruise ships currently have to put off pirates ). Today most air/sea combat is pretty much get into range, obliterate anything near it? If it's in range, it's pretty much scrap?