The Silent Majority

I think that money will be harder to come by than science, as it will have to be continually refreshed (I hope) Can you specify "lowest common denominator," do you mean people not willing to learn how to play the game in the traditional way (IE launching rockets and exploring)? Because I know people who like to just mess around, and I don't see whats wrong with that.

This my opinion as well, if they cost enough, they will be used for none but the largest payloads, and since contracts (and I would assume, basic costs) are coming in .24, they will probably be fine then. Why? or to be more specific, when money is introduced, will the cost still be irrelevant? If you mean in sandbox, then there are already parts that outclass others, and if you don't put restrictions on yourself, then you are playing without any reason to complain. (I hate it when people make this argument, but in sandbox, and this case, I think its justified) I play both, just for reference. For the people who say that you can use it for anything, I disagree, I am still going to use the LV-N (or Ion now) for interplanetary stages, why use the new engine for that? Disclaimer: I do think they should tweak the LFB and the tech tree, but, taking the next update into account, I don't think its too bad.

Is the K-25 not the quad-clustered engine? If not, I meant to say that one. Au contraire,on the actual SLS, they are 4 separate engines, I do understand why SQUAD clustered them, I was just saying that having those would be nice. (RS-25's if you want to look them up)

I do agree with the "premade feeling" though, especially the liquid boosters, though I have no problems with the other tanks and engines (though I wish we had gotten individual K-25's, realistic or not, contradicting with my statement on the "real life" factor of these parts earlier) I'll stop spamming now, sorry.

not unless you track them

^^^^^ Imagine what Whackjob will do with these

That was the joke... (you're probably making a joke that's flying over my head here, if so, sorry)

why cry (not actually, referring to the emoticon)? wasn't that a complaint?

Personally I disagree, I enjoy the new pack, (though admittedly mostly because I have playable frame-rates now). Concerning the Ion engine and l-v1, that is incorrect, the LV-1 was buffed as well. With the asteroids, just don't track them and they will disappear. Why is it incredible that giggleplex did it? He is a great builder, especially with shuttles (IMHO) I do agree that the SLS parts are overpowered compared to pre .235 parts, but they are very realistic. it's also nice to have them as they are though, if only because they are overpowered. (again IMHO) (I do enjoy challenge, trust me, but sometimes I just want a nice, easy launch) The costs have always been like that, so why complain now? (as I understand it, money is coming in .24)(this may be incorrect though) The SLS tanks have an 8:1 (I think, haven't done the math) fuel:mass ratio, making them less efficient than pre-patch tanks. Of course, you are free to your opinion (that sounded less condescending in my head, sorry, really don't mean it like that ) Have a nice day

According to him, it should be done this week though

Sure, here you go: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--There_Ain%27t_No_Stealth_In_Space "The Space Shuttle's much weaker main engines could be detected past the orbit of Pluto. The Space Shuttle's manoeuvering thrusters could be seen as far as the asteroid belt" "This is with current off-the-shelf technology" I will see if I can get some scientific papers on this for a bit more credibility (though this website appears to be trusted by most forum members, then again, this is the internet) If I don't get these other papers in the next week, i'm sorry, a little stressed now and I barely have time to make these posts. Seret, nevermind, I read your post as saying below the horizon. My mistake (and a stupid one too) Though I still cannot find the discussion within that thread on IR. (I may just be missing it I missed your post)(believe me, normally I am a fairly good reader, that was just stupid of me) I did skip every other page of the argument with that guy who thought photons have rest mass, so it may be in one of those.

Yes, finally have playable framerates, on kerbin and off. THANK YOU SQUAD

I was wondering how long it would take for this challenge to crop up I may do it if I find the time.

Thanks for the link, thought I had read that one, must have bookmarked it and forgotten. In terms of physics and Napoleon (specifically the vertical envelopment), a whole new dimension opened up in the early 1900's, therefore I don't think this analogy is a great one (though it got the point across very well). Unless, of course, a 5th dimension opens up, or we figure out how to manipulate time (I know this sounds like pseudoscience, just purely hypothetical) Thinking about this a little more, I agree that we cannot predict the technology of 100 or so years too accurately, therefore I concede to your points. Thank you for enlightening me. Mazon, I seem to have put stealth to simply, while I implied that finding someone would be easy, (which, with the sensors I was envisioning, would be easy barring any advances in stealth) (then again, we could see the orbiter's engine of the space shuttle from Pluto currently). I do agree that once someone finds you, unless their sensors are shutdown, it will be very difficult to hide again. FYI I know the thread, but haven't read the part on IR detection yet. (so I may edit this later to coincide with that information).

You sir, are an evil genius. Though the OP might find his ships as debris next time he logs on.

While I am neither as well, what you called weightlessness is free fall, therefore it is at engine shutdown, but it starts (?) when the engine shuts down. Hopefully someone more qualified than me will come along and correct me if I am wrong. I would also think that at stage separation there would be a brief moment of free fall (depends on the vehicle of course).

Can I please have link to that discussion? It sounds interesting. Also, when you say hiding in the ground clutter, do you mean making the spacecraft appear as an object on the surface? If so, that is what I meant by misinformation (sorry for not making that clear). If not, please explain, as I currently cannot think of any other definition. Concerning the time frame, yes I was assuming a significant amount of time in the future, though I don't think that one can just throw out the weapons and tactics described, as physics is probably the best known scientific field. (imo)

Stealth may not really be possible in space, misinformation yes, stealth, no. The spacecraft will always have a thermal signature much greater than the surrounding space. In terms of weight, I was assuming that they were built in orbit, so launch weight would not be a concern. I agree that aircraft are a much better comparison though. My case for ships that can get hit once without getting destroyed, is in ranges where agility/maneuverability is not a factor. Also, is the ship that the OP talking about carrying humans (not that a human carrying warship makes sense) or not? If it carries humans, it would be much more important if the hull were breached and that is where armor, if any is implemented, will be more important.

Doh! I didn't even take into account signal loss. In general, assuming a battle at long distances (say, 5 light-seconds or so) wouldn't it be more efficient to have a lighter ship that could accelerate faster and have more Delta-V? again, this is assuming delta-v is a factor and that at long ranges, the ship can detect any non-energy based weapon (by this I mean specifically lasers) in time for the computers on board to react, less armor would also allow for more active countermeasures. I would think that heavily armored ships would only really be of use in a close situation, such as the one described earlier, as there would be little to-no time to react, even with computers and relatively slow missiles/kinetic weapons. Again, i'm hardly an expert, if I am incorrect somewhere, please let me know.

Hello, I was once like you (as in a week ago ), good to see you have joined us.

I'm surprised nobody has said this, but ignoring whether shields would be effective or not, using radar would probably not be effective as a detection device. Passive sensors would be twice as fast, do to not having to send and receive the radio waves. (if this is incorrect, please let me know) (also ignoring analyzing software delay time, I am assuming that computers will be powerful enough that this is minimized)

I don't know why, but that picture makes me happy.

Quick! capture it. Learn its secrets!

WOW, just wow... Well done

Indeed fellow carbon based life form, indeed