ARS

@DAL59, Did you copy your post 5 times?

Uuuum... This is a bad science in itself, actually. In real life, there would be some major limitations to this kind of weapon and real-life applications have even been discussed in military circles. Some of the problems: 1. In order to secure a whole planet, you'd have to mine space three-dimensionally in order to be effective. In fiction this is often not done. Earth's ocean and sea terrain contains a lot of inlets, natural harbors, bays, straits and other types of terrain that make natural choke-points where the use of mines is a practical way to deny or substantially delay passage to unwanted ships. No such barriers or terrain exist in space, and so such a barrier may be easily circumnavigated. Even protecting a very small moon with a density of one mine per every few thousand cubic kilometers would require massive numbers of mines and logistical support to successfully achieve coverage. While not completely impossible, the same logistical resources would be of better use in improving detection and interception/quick reaction capability, or outright constructing more battleworthy spaceships. Can be justified if there IS a conveniently narrow pathway to barricade, such as a local entrance to Hyperspace or the Portal Network, or if the object to be surrounded by mines is fairly small, such as an asteroid base. 2. Laying mines takes time, and for every increase in target area's radius, the number of mines you would need increase exponentially. To cover large or even moderate areas could take hundreds of years, even if it only took a few seconds to lay each mine. Unless if the mines have potential to locate and approach, or shoot, their targets from massive range, thus ensuring blockade functionality despite low minefield density, or can be all released in a single spot and relocate and organise autonomously. As for the matter of quantity, this can be explained by having automated manufacturing and minelaying facilities operating over lengthy time periods, or have the mines themselves be self-propagating machines. 3. Sea mines are deployed under water, greatly complicating the task of detecting and clearing them. Space Mines, however, are completely exposed, and easily detected since spaceships have to be able to detect debris of sufficient size to cause damage by impact. Unless there were some sort of mitigating factor (sensory disruption, cloaked mines, etc. - which in itself, a whole kind of bad science since there's no stealth in space) space ships could just pick them off with long range guns/ lasers/ missiles/ decoys/ whatever. May be partially justified by the fact that, unlike enemy ships, they can be inert, dormant and undistinguishable from generic space debris until they're close enough to strike. 4. Everything with mass has gravity. In space, little things that are relatively close to each other tend to clump up — this is how planets and stars are born, and why there are no movie-level asteroid field density. The mines would need some way to fight or negate the effects of gravity on each other that also wouldn't run out of fuel. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if they're not close enough to clump up, they will tend to drift off, and potentially become hazards to navigation. Oceanic mines are moored to the sea floor; space mines are not.

Lasers can't be used for indirect fire. When firing laser, it needs a direct line of sight with the target, potentially exposing it to danger. As long as we have artilleries, which can be used to lob shells over obstacles, I don't think laser is gonna replace the entire weapons of the future

I built a hovercar. Pretty fast for a car that skimming at 100m/s above the ground I think I'm gonna send this antigrav rover for my next exploration to aid kerbals in moving around

Exactly. On the other hand "blaster" almost never "blast" the target (it's almost always laser gun), despite the name (literally) means "the one who blast" (it does sounds more badass than ray gun, though)

Some supposedly "futuristic" and "cool" weapons that often appear in sci-fi, but depicted incorrectly or imposeible when observed with real life law of physics: Lightning gun/anything named "tesla": In Real Life, for electric current to flow there must be a difference in electrical potential. There must be negative and positive termini for current to flow between. Not so in fiction. Quite often, it will be possible for some device or some person to simply fire a lightning bolt more or less straight forward toward another presumably electrically neutral object, with no sign of building up charge separation beforehand. It is rare to see lightning weapons or electricity-based Elemental Powers that have electricity behaving the way it does in Real Life. Electric weapons often appear to throw electricity around as if it's a massive object like a bullet, a shell, or an arrow, rather than a system of electrons moving in response to electric potential, and sometimes hitting multiple enemies simultaneously. When this is an actual gun, it can be regarded as a cooler version of the basic Ray Gun or flamethrower. No matter how outlandish the idea is, adding Nikola Tesla as (the inspiration for) the creator will immediately suspend any disbelief audience may have. Science shows like Mythbusters and others have explored the possibility. The general consensus is that it's possible in a couple of ways, but requires so many conditions/ complications that the idea of creating a practical one is virtually zero. There's a device in real life, which is not quite the same, but the closest thing we have for lightning gun: Electrolaser. The electrolaser design has the potential to scale right up. Making an ionised beam of air a significant length just by blasting away with a laser is possible, but currently impractical due to power requirements. Fireballs or any type of energy balls: Fire, in spite of its fearsome appeal, is not known for being tangible or portable. Rolling it into a ball gives it the semblance of a physical structure, and lets you throw it, fire it, bounce it and dodge it at will. Fireballs have a tendency to move in an unusual fashion - possibly hovering or drifting at slow speeds, or by bouncing along the ground. Usually this is treated like a cooler version of flamethrower. What most writer didn't realize, though, it shouldn't be ball-shaped when fired in atmosphere, since due to atmospheric influence, air resistance and gravity, the ball of plasma/ fire should be teardrop shaped. It makes sense being ball shaped when fired in space. Flames on Earth come to a point because the oxygen they use heats up and rises as it burns. If you strike a match in a low-gravity environment where there's technically nowhere to "rise," you get a sphere of hot gases instead. Plasma gun/ rifle (why energy weapon needs rifling?)/ cannon and most plasma-based energy weapons: Plasma is one of the four states of matter, (technically, it's one of six known forms. The two usually omitted are Bose-Einstein Condensate and Fermionic Condensate) a step up from gas where the electrons become so energized that they break free of their orbits. Naturally some people have thought of weaponizing it. Unfortunately, in real life, plasma's properties make it more than a bit impractical, even without atmosphere it spreads out and becomes useless more than a fraction of an inch from the source, making it useful as a cutting tool but not a (ranged) weapon unless you can practically project a magnetic bottle to contain the plasma until it hits the target...which is very advanced technology in its own right. Needless to say, practical ranged plasma weapons are an indication of a highly advanced civilization which makes them appear quite often in sci-fi. Those impracticalities may be why most fictional plasma weapons, almost always heavy guns or cannons, are at most, very powerful but extremely inefficient. There's some experimental plasma weapons in Real Life such as MARAUDER and Shiva Star. MARAUDER notably fires plasmoids at huge speeds (1000km/s or more) in contrast to typical fictional devices... any slower and the plasmoid would pop before it reached its target. It also wouldn't blast its target to pieces, instead fatally disrupting its electronics rendering it useless. Obviously no good on asteroids and other dumb projectiles. The prime reason plasma weapons were hitherto considered Impractical is the fact that plasma dissipates quickly when outside a magnetic containment field. Recent developments, however, have enabled a plasma projectile to generate its own field. While it still doesn't remain stable for long enough to travel any practical distance, this is an important proof of concept that holds significant promise for self-sustaining plasma reactions. Humans being humans, you can bet that the possibilities of weaponizing it will be duly investigated. Ray guns/ blasters: Any gun that shoots light, rays, waves, or something similar. Initially popular during the appropriately named "Raygun Gothic" era of Science Fiction, but back then it was based on pure fiction, as shooting such things from weapons wasn't known to be possible. In short, the ray gun was falling out of favor for being unrealistic. Then the laser was discovered in the '60s. Suddenly the ray gun was brought back from the dead. But even now it's still treated as a cool, but impossible weapon, as lasers in fiction are often used in ways they can't really be. And while other ray guns do exist in Real Life (the US Army has been experimenting with microwave crowd dispersal wave generators, for example), they're still quite inefficient. The term "ray gun" became a cliché even by the 1940s, having strong associations with Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon etc., and from at least E. E. “Doc” Smith's Lensman novels, was increasingly replaced by the more bad-ass-sounding generic "blaster", Smith himself generally choosing to refer to the weapons by their maker just as we would refer to a Colt or Smith & Wesson. They are also popular in family-friendly shows. One odd aspect of ray guns in a lot of fiction, especially animation and comic books, is that despite being much niftier-looking than a stream of bullets, they're actually much less lethal/ harmful to be struck by than a regular bullet would be. It's extremely common for a character to get hit with an "energy beam" and fall down dramatically, but he will scarcely ever actually have a new hole burned through him, and a couple of scenes later we will see him pulling himself painfully to his feet again. The effect seems more comparable to getting punched really hard than to actually getting shot. This is sometimes justified by the ray gun having a "stun setting," or by the hero wearing body armor or having super powers. On "harder" sci-fi, where the gun does have lethal aspect, it's extremely common for any raygun/ laser/ blaster (in fact, almost any laser-based weapon, nit just limited to ranged weapon, but melee weapon as well even laser swords) wounds that causing body part being mutilated or pierced to automatically cauterized with no blood (possibly to prevent blood loss so that the character can survive longer to hear "I am your father") Laser blade/ sword: The laser blade is a melee Energy Weapon, with a cutting edge made of Pure Energy, giving it absurd cutting power. It also allows the hero to clean cut their way across enemies a regular sword does not. Despite their cutting power, sword fights between two laser blade wielders are still possible thanks to the fact that they can't cut each other. Generally a type of cool (and impossible) weapon, they require a lot of "Willing Suspension of Disbelief", but are generally awesome enough to be worth it. Laser blades exist purely because of the rule of cool. In real life, making such fancy swords is impractical when laser beams decide war, but then again, laser blade duels are frickin' awesome, and that's enough justification to be showed on-screen. Another possible in-universe justification in that the duelists are somehow immune to bullets, whether thanks to shields, The Force or any other means, thus forcing the revival of old-school sword martial arts with laser blades. Note also that the word "laser" is frequently used for fictitious energy weapons of all types, even in settings where the beams are created by magic and don't share the real-world etymology of the word. Yes, despite having a perfectly fictional sounding, sci-fi/fantasy ring to it, the word "laser" is actually an acronym, standing for "Light Amplification through Stimulated Emission of Radiation". Despite being a sword made of energy, it's surprisingly rare to see one that can shoot a Sword Beam. On his Sci-Fi Science television series, Dr. Michio Kaku explored the possibility of making a real-life lightsaber out of an extended plasma torch. Unfortunately, this required trillions of nanobatteries, theoretical superceramics, and enough electricity to power a small city. This may be viable in the long-term, but unlikely for the next few decades. Though that level of technology could easily make powerful guns which are more practical than swords anyways. The main practical application of this would be as an extremely effective chainsaw that could cut through virtually any material, though at extreme danger to the user, but it's not as if plasma cutters are exactly safe to begin with. As a side note, the "nanobatteries" would have an energy density of470 MJ/L. That's about 117 times the energy density of Jet fuel. Shoot the lightsaber. The resulting explosion would take out everything within a hundred feet. A thermal lance is a real-world device that some liken to a lightsaber. It essentially burns iron rods to create an intense stream of heat out one end, like a gigantic blow torch but much hotter. Granted they are much bigger than a lightsaber hilt and would require two hands to wield, but the stream to project has all the cutting power: they are normally used to cut through solid concrete and steel girders. "Wave Motion Tuning fork" gun: A specific kind of Energy Weapon consisting of two or more prongs separated by an empty space. The blast from this type of weapon is generated within the space or fired through it, often heralded by crackling streams of energy zipping between the prongs or condensing energy ball as the weapon charges. The thing is, how the energy being charged does not simply disperse into the air is never really touched upon, although, one can expect an explanation about it. Suffice to say, the audience shouldn't even feel compelled to question this logic, because it looks really freaking awesome, to the point where things like reality just aren't very important anymore. Some times a regular, less powerful weapon may be able to open up into one of these for a truly staggering blast. The closest that we can get in real life is Free Electron Laser. The Free Electron Laser is a piece of awesome technology, complete with being especially good at being tuned for various emitted frequencies of radiation. The FEL forces a stream of electrons at relativistic speeds to pass through an optical cavity (the "fork") containing alternating magnetic fields (the "wave motion" component), and depending on the strength of the alternative magnetic field (the "tunable" component), the resulting synchrotron radiation produces photons at controllable power levels and frequencies. The technology is quite versatile and has has applications in scientific research and medicine, but also as a powerful directed energy weapon for military applications. Beam-o-War: Not exactly a weapon, but a very common scene in superheroes, fantasy and science fiction. One opponent sends out a beam of destructive energy intent on frying their opponent, and said opponent does the same. These two beams slam against each other in the middle, and begin "pushing" back and forth, essentially becoming an energy arm-wrestle. Either one consumes the other and goes on to greet the enemy, one opponent collapses from the effort involved, or else they both explode.When more than two opponents are involved, they usually join their beam attack with their respective ally (or give them more energy) so that the "intersection" gets closer to the opponent. They almost never think about sneaking behind their defenseless foe and beaming them (or backstabbing them). This has little justification in real-life science. Lasers, for example, will simply pass through each other unimpeded, although their point of intersection may experience any constructive or destructive interference between the two beams depending on the characteristics (wavelength and phase) of the lasers involved. Of course, energy beams in fantasy and sci-fi are up for grabs in terms of how they react to one another, but even then there's the improbability of the beams being fired nearly simultaneously at perfect enough angles to result in a head-on collision with similar enough initial force to force equilibrium without planning such things beforehand. It does work for matter projectiles, but those are rarely used.

I built a large passenger aircraft, testing it, and then kraken shows up mid-flight. The craft is shaking and becoming uncontrollable before it explodes Though to be honest, I do use a lot of part clipping on it, so I guess that's the problem

Is it possible to make an orbit where an object appear "stationary" relative to earth's rotation from third person view? For example, (seen from above) the object and the groundstation is on 12 o'clock position, then the earth rotates, and the groundstation changed position by 1 hour (15 degrees), but the object is still on 12 o'clock position. As the earth rotates even further, the groundstation changed position by 15 degrees for each hour, but the object is still in 12 o'clock position. It orbit earth, yet it's "stationary", fixed on a single point relative to earth and moon movement. Is this possible?

MRE... Or grass jelly...

Karmageddon 10.000 A.D Transducers Transducer: Replace the Current Transducer: Dork Side of Power Socket Transducer: AC of Direct Current Blast and Ridiculous Devolution President Evil

The twin A.I. spirit sisters of Fraxinus airship in Date a Live series. ARS is my nickname, and the twin sisters are known as Arusu (Ars) sisters (The white one is Ars Maria, the black one is Ars Marina), so they are pretty much an icon of my nickname

Does a laser gun (which purely shoots energy, either continuous stream or pew pew pew variety) is supposed to have recoil? Does a laser gun even need barrel?

It's still useful for jumping over the obstacles or reaching higher ground and can be used to slow down the descent, so kerbals can perform powered landing on the bodies where rcs thusters isn't powerful enough

My thought about this is a module/ part that can be entered by kerbals to change their loadout (it's like astronaut spacesuit storage room) during mission. Some of the backpack types that I had in mind, themed for kerbal's profession: Normal backpack: self-explanatory. Your basic, standard issue kerbal backpack with built in parachute + RCS thrusters Science backpack: built-in science container, integrated antenna for science transmission, increased science yield. Can only be equipped by scientist Delta-v backpack: much larger RCS fuel capacity, stronger RCS thrusters, built-in reaction wheel (kerbal can reorientate in zero G without using RCS thrusters), built in stability assist and can use maneuver nodes while EVA. Can only be equipped by pilot Engineering backpack: built-in drill and micro-sized ISRU. Allows manually mining the soil with handheld drill and refine the ore with ISRU. Output will be stored in onboard tank (very limited capacity, comparable to half of oscar-b fuel tank) that can be used to refuel craft. Can refine the ore to monoprop for replenishing RCS fuel supply on kerbal EVA suit. Can only be equipped by engineers I also agree on scuba pack

Glad it worked

See for yourself. From 99 science points to over 40k science points in a single mission

Note that even though the Solaris Hypernautics makes it convenient to get fuel station fueled up/ topping up the spaceship's fuel tanks by literally using the resources available in the surrounding area, including interplanetary space, as a balancing feature, it's far less efficient than directly mining ore from planet's surface (More time and electricity needed for matching the productivity of surface mining base as well as having some modules being heavy and large). it also has more complex resource chain. For comparison: Normal mining: Electric charge (Drill) > Ore > Electric charge (ISRU) = Fuel SH mining: Electric charge > Magnetic charge (Dust collector) > Dust > Electric charge (Dust compressor) > Ore > Electric charge (ISRU) =Fuel Summary: Pros: -Seeting up right, it can make an orbital fuel station entirely automatic and independent in producing fuel, fuel supply will be topped up regularly in weeks or months -Frees up resupply craft for other task -Modules works inside and outside the atmosphere -Collection productivity rate does not depend on mining location, unlike surface mining bases -No radiators required, since dust collectors and dust compressor generates negligible amaount of heat, unlike drills. The only thing that needs radiators are ISRU and radioactive material processing unit (heaviest part) -Sticking an efficient assembly on spaceships allows it to refuel the fuel supply as it drifts through interplanetary space Cons: -Some modules are large and heavy -Resource chain and module constructions is far more complex -Very dependent on electricity supply -Dust collectors works very slowly, attaching a lot of them speeds up the collection rate, but increases part count -Dust compressor has 5:1 Dust to Ore compression ratio. It takes a lot of them (and a lot more dust collectors) to match productivity of land-based mining base -Far less efficient in in terms of energy + time input to resource production ratio compared to drill-based mining stations On the other hand, you can literally mining a planet from orbit

There's an old mod called Solaris Hypernautics. It has a special resource collector called dust collectors. Basically you use electricity to turn into magnetic charge, then using magnetic charge to collect dust (it can gather dust both inside or outside atmosphere), before using dust conpressor to turn dust into ore, which you can put inside ISRU or used for whatever you want. Fitted into orbital fuel station, this is basically turns said station into automated orbital mining platform with infinitely available fuel supply (freeing resupply mission, when it becomes a hassle when regularly doing it becomes mandatory). Fitted on spaceships, you can potentially have infinite fuel supply. The tricky part is making a right balance of resource collectors, it's quite balanced and not so gamebreaking as some would think, since magnetic chargers requires constant electricity, dust collectors works very slowly, dust compression has around 5:1 dust-ore conversion ratio (and eats a lot of electricity), not to mention the parts are heavy (some reaches 5+ ton in weight) and some of them quite large (bigger than mk3 fuselages) The mod is outdated (1.3) but still works in current KSP version (already tested it), and in my opinion it's not too cheaty, since it's basically orbital mining kits

Starsip Troopers: A movie about the supernatural armies of space gods that sipping the stars Snakes on a pane: A story about a snake sitting on the window's glass pane Back Hawk Down: A story about hawk who falls down on it's back Word Trade Center: Literally the gathering of Scrabble enthusiast Unrelated, but here's one who adds one letter: Ultraviolent (Ultraviolet): An ultra gory killtacular 9000 massacre movie about super soldier slaughtering his way across enemy soldiers

Do you want to get the resources by skimming the atmosphere or the one that also works outside the atmosphere as well? Because you said that "but that only works while being in the atmosphere itself"

What's the (supposed) actual advantage of gyrojet rounds compared to normal cartridge rounds? Seeing as the actual gyrojet weapon has inadequate performance (bullet starts slow and then accelerates, bullet veering off course, bad accuracy at long range but bad power at short range (it won't even harm the finger placed directly at gun barrel)). Does it even make a good weapon to substitute normal cartridge rounds?

Modified my mini submarine Umi-03 [DEEP EYES] into a full-fledged research submarine, now rechristened as Kaiyo-06 [ABYSS DIVER]. It features much higher speed, maneuverability, stability and control. Also enabling it to be launched from a mothership by using docking port on top of it Aside from that, I'm making another submarine. Intended for multi-crew operation, this new submarine can carry 3 crews into the depth of the ocean. This new submarine, named Fukai-07 [KRAKEN BAIT], is a full-stock submarine, easy to control for beginners. Just turn on the SAS, point it to any direction and fire up the engine, you're good to go! Craft file: Kaiyo-06 [ABYSS DIVER]: https://kerbalx.com/ARS/Kaiyo-06-ABYSS-DIVER (STOCK) Fukai-07 [KRAKEN BAIT]: https://kerbalx.com/ARS/Fukai-07-KRAKEN-BAIT

Tourist contract always offer funds, and usually the most profitable contract compared to others, making them useful in racking large amount of cash (make a long range large capacity craft and accept several tourist contract before sending them all in one go for huge sum of cash) Exploration/ survey contract always rewards science, so if you're doing it, make sure you carry science instruments and do science in addition of finishing contract, since they usually involves a far-off biomes that's previously unexplored Don't forget to use strategies in administration building! One of the strategies convert a portion of gained cash into science (fully upgraded building allows 100% conversion of cash income into science), and since tourist contract usually offer large amount of cash, converting them into science can give you a tremendous boost in unlocking tech tree You can abuse contract to get parts that you haven't unlocked yet. The parts will be marked blue on your part list (prototype part). As long as you didn't finish the contract, you can use the part as you like (well, until the contract expired of course, but a more powerful engine in early game is always helpful)

What makes it difficult here is the way KSP apply G-forces to kerbals. The G-force will only apply in-flight if there's a sudden deceleration. On atmospheric type contract, this is easy since after getting mach 5 or 7+, you can just pitch up and the sudden deceleration is almost guaranteed to pass up any kerbal inside. The same could be said in suborbital type contract, since it's natural for returning crew capsule to experience massive deceleration from orbital velocity the moment they hit the atmosphere. The hardest is the one that requires you to make them pass out "in orbit" (emphasis on that). If I'm just burning on a single direction in orbit, it won't create any G-force, and since there's no atmosphere, the only way to do this is by firing up the engine on the opposite direction. If I'm going to use prograde/retrograde, normal/antinormal or radial in/out direction, then it's either it's hitting escape velocity (so it doesn't count as "in orbit") or decelerated into suborbital trajectory (also doesn't count as "in orbit"). No matter what, inducing deceleration in orbit requires the craft to decelerate, since there's no atmosphere for pitching up. And any deceleration in orbit can easily change the craft's trajectory (because any orbit direction change to pass out a kerbal will make the trajectory goes briefly suborbital and the G-force peak during deceleration is when you hit 0 velocity relative to orbited celestial body, once you gain velocity on opposite direction, the G-force bar on kerbal depletes) I think the real problem is how the system doesn't seem to know what's the limitation of the game world. In real life, pilots can go blacked out just by flying fast enough because there's a G-force applied to them. Kerbals? meh... It's extremely rare for kerbals to experience G-force just by flying too fast (remember, they survived re-entry without capsule and occassionally still lived to tell the tale). They are ridiculously resistant to G-force. The problem is, the contract seems to overlook the fact that Kerbin's gravity is too weak to induce a deceleration with a G-force sufficient enough to pass out a kerbal without changing the orbit into escape trajectory or suborbital flight. I do managed to make them passed out, but that usually happens after my orbit goes escape/ suborbital trajectory, so it doesn't count. If only the celestial body that's used has stronger gravity (Tylo, Eve, Jool), then it might be possible to pull this off

Twin A.I. Sisters of Fraxinus airship in Date a Live (also my profile pic)