ARS

This?

Read this analysis about the viability of whether having a fighter making sense or not (depending on several factors) tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/SpaceFighter It has a good amount of reasons of when having fighters is justified and when having fighters is not making sense

Going back in time to tell Baron Kelvin about aerodynamic and prove to him that heavier-than-air flight is possible and practical

Instead of being a carrier, the space equivalent would be like a battlestar type, aka a hybrid between battleship and carrier. Aerodynamic does not work in space, so hangar and runway becomes useless. During World War II, the honored tradition of building more and more powerful gun-toting battleships came to an abrupt halt when naval artillery became largely supplanted by carriers. It had none of the battleship's armament and durability, but it could project force hundreds of kilometers away, without ever endangering the ship itself — which made most WWII aerial/naval battles decidedly one-sided. Modern warfare may eventually subvert this trend. Currently, major warships that aren't carriers or amphibious assault ships are missile ships, each capable of launching a relative missile massacre, macross-style. As missile technology and remote piloting advance, the aircraft launched by the carrier may become unmanned guided munitions, blurring the line between missiles and attack craft. However, warfare largely dominated by purely automated systems can take away from importance of human characters in a war story. Thus, authors are likely to explain that missile combat didn't take place for various reasons, such as abundance of electronic countermeasures to disrupt missile guidance, point defenses, or electronic warfare potentially compromising the effectiveness of remotely piloted (or automated) craft. Instead, the flagship of the future (IN SPACE) becomes something that encompasses both artillery and piloting tropes: a hybrid carrier/battleship It has the heavy armor and big guns of a battleship, along with the fighters and point defense weapons of a carrier. This makes perfect sense, assuming having fighter mmakes sense, this is because the extremely thin atmosphere and the huge amount of free space means that the range of weapons are enormous, and the lack of gravity means you don't have to waste the entire top on runways and the entire bottom on being underwater. As a general rule, the Battlestar is portrayed in sci-fi media in one of three ways: Type 1: Battleship carrying fighters. This is essentially a capital ship with the primary offensive options being its own big guns, with the fighters to serve as interceptors against incoming enemy strikes or to provide utility and ability for surgical strikes when main cannons are too blunt of an instrument. Example: space battleship yamato Type 2: Carrier with extra guns and armor. This ship essentially behaves like a real life aircraft carrier, in that the primary offensive option is its embarked fighter wing, and the guns and armor lean more towards self defense options. Example: battlestar galactica Type 3: The ship is not a war vessel per se; rather, it is an exploration or colony craft, armed out of neccessity to have the widest array of available options. Its guns and air wing may very well have applications outside of combat, such as exploration, landing and dealing with the occasional space anomalies. Example: The Sidonia In real life wet navies, it does not work. Battleships and carriers require very different paradigms; the former are built for taking and dealing out heavy damage, which demands certain armor and armament characteristics, such as compartmentalization to minimize damage spread but also cut into holding space. Fighter landing strips, hangars and the stores for their fuel and munitions would detract from this role, leaving you with a jack of all trade/master of none that cannot fight or tank as well as a pure combatant or service as many fighters as a pure carrier. This didn't stop some attempts from being made. When initially launched in the late 1920s, the USS Lexington and Saratoga had a complement of cruiser-class 8-inch guns. Japan put similar 8-inch guns in casemates on the sides of Akagi andKaga. The reasoning behind the guns was so they could defend themselves if ambushed at night or in bad weather when planes couldn't fly, but they proved to be generally useless - the necessary high speed of carriers was a better defense. Japan also created hybrid Battleship/seaplane carriers out of a couple of old battleships, Ise and Hyuga in the wake of losses at the Battle of Midway. The naysayers turned out to be right: Ise and Hyuga were total failures, and the large guns on the US ships interfered with flight operations if actually used, and they were removed in 1941. The 8-inch casemates were going to be removed from Kaga and Akagi after Midway, but the ships were sunk first. Other experiments never got even this far. It's worth noting that real life examples of carrier/battleship hybrid largely predate real life examples of dedicated aircraft carriers. Many early experiments in launching and recovering airplanes from warships involved cruisers and battleships, and the first aircraft carrier to launch a wartime air raid, the British HMS Furious, began life as a battlecruiser and went through various design modification where she retained some of her main battery along with a flight deck. They wouldn't settle on the flush-deck carrier design modern viewers would recognize until the postwar period. In space, however, this model is less silly than it might appear. A trio of points: First, given how planets move through space and the need for at least rudimentary slingshot orbits, trajectories are actually fairly predictable in time and space, therefore, combat is likely to be very short range, though you could send a bunch of missiles hurtling down this space "lane". Although fightercraft are less useful in a traditional role, they can bring weapons (e.g. missiles) closer, in under the target's point-defense range, and at this point in time we can't conceive of a spacecraft that could take a missile and keep fighting, but if we could take the missile out early, the most it could do could be irradiate the ship, and you can armor against that. You can actually make an argument for almost any weapon in space, though for kinetics you'd need a propellant that doesn't need outside air, and be willing to live with the fact that you're putting hyper-lethal debris somewhere, especially immediate if you're fighting in near-orbit. Thirdly, shields could help mitigate some of the carrier's vulnerabilities, especially if physical armor is useless such that pure battleships don't have superior durability after all. Furthermore, depending on the FTL system used, the carrier strike group system used in real life may not work. In real life, enemy ships have to battle through fighter screens and escorts to get to the lightly-armored carrier, with the fates of Prince of Wales, Repulse demonstrating battleship vulnerability to air attack and Yamato providing object lessons as to the impossibility of uncovered surface elements closing with carriers. However, in a universe where the FTL has a lack of no warp zone, enemy battleships could bypass screening elements to "jump" into close quarters combat and shred carriers with alpha strikes, denying your side most of its strikecraft and thus offensive power, insofar as this is a universe where fighters have useful anti-capital firepower. In such a universe, it would only make sense to armor and upgun carriers to survive these sorts of lightning strikes, thus giving rise to the battlestar concept

Yeah, but everyone who makes a challenge in this forum will almost always at least post their own attempt to prove that it is indeed possible (see the "is this challenge possible?"), that would encourage people to participate and give them incentive to do it because there is a proof that it's possible. Since you already said you make 4 of it, then post it

There's no landing gear, control surfaces or sas module at all in starting tech. Your challenge is to build a plane, yet the very first plane parts and jet engines available at least on aviation node tech. The only propulsion on starting tech is just a flea SRB, which makes the craft essentially a manned guided missile. A horizontal takeoff and landing isn't possible using starting tech since flea (and starting parts) is very fragile. Also, the only control that available in starting node is just reaction wheel on mk1 pod, which, without any way to generate power due to the lack of the parts, would be very limited. Inevitably, players will build a rocket instead of plane Also, the rules of the challenge is that the creator must post their attempt to prove that the challenge is possible (and since you said you have built 4, then post your attempt to prove that this challenge is indeed possible. I'd like to see it)

I don't know, but back then when I tasted it for the first time, I love it. It is basically my equivalent of tea when it isn't available

Honey, especially when mixed with lime Other than that, maybe just tea

I'm already used hangar extender, but it makes me difficult when an extremely tall fairing is mated with launch vehicle since I can't clearly see the staging parts and adding parts to the rocket

So... I got a massive payload that I want to send into space, it's not particularly wide, but it's extremely tall, so tall that I had a difficulty building fairing for it since VAB space is not enough for me to build the fairing. Is there any way to edit fairing height by using notepad on craft file? How to do it? And is there a limit of how long I can build it? Thanks

Regarding about the structure being created like KSC facility and put to offset on the orbit altitude, it might work like a space elevator. Since yes, we cannot render the cable or large scale structure from ground level to orbit altitude, a particle effect might be worth using. This also makes me wonder, if the space elevator is indeed being built, most of the upper section would be like an orbital shipyard where ships being built in orbit and launched directly, with materials being transported by the elevator itself. It kinda like a spaceport, after all, you can only send limited amount of stuff with the elevator, but there's nothing stopping you to assemble it in orbit. Now wait a minute, I think I can make a pseudo-space elevator (aka improvising). I haven't heard about extraplanetary launch pad mod that you said before, but what I know, it allows you to build and launch rockets on another planet, mind telling me how it works? I think I'm able to find a way to make this "space elevator" possible

I think that would really elevate the gameplay on a whole new level (pun intended) but I'm afraid to say that there's several problem regarding ultra-large megastructure in KSP. Since it's essentially, a space elevator is a glorified hyperedit. It might be possible to make a mod about it, but considering the limitation regarding physic simulation distance, orbital mechanic and gameplay value, there must be a way to prevent the space elevator being too OP or impractical as well as a way to overcome the limitation of game engine regarding orbital mechanics and gameplay value. First, the main problem with space elevators (Gameplay value) is that, once it's created, it renders launch pad useless since rockets becomes obsolete. A launching facility on KSC has their own advantage and disadvantage so that one of them does not overshadow each other. For example, launch pad allows you to launch rockets, but unfeasible for launching spaceplanes or atmospheric aircraft. While you might argue that we can launch rockets on runway too, without runway, there's no viable starting point for SSTOs and jet aircraft. If there's a space elevator, then no more use for launch pad, and the only usage of runway is for landing SSTO or operating atmospheric aircraft. There must be a limit of space elevator capability such as maximum tonnage, additional cost for launch or cool down period after each launch. Second (Practicality), I understand the concept of space elevator is awesome and really, I do want to see it becomes a reality. But in real life, space elevator is also vulnerable to space debris, just like space stations, and in KSP it's still in full effect. Judging from KSC location on equatorial region of kerbin, and most players usually makes equatorial orbit, it's not surprising most refueling stations, space probes, relays and debris are scattered mostly on equatorial orbit. If launching ship from KSC is like what you suggest, then there's a very high probability that the ship being hit by space object as soon as it's "materialized" (loaded) in orbit, especially if the elevator being frequently used. Third (Orbital mechanic), how the ship makes orbit? Sure, the ship is transported into outer atmosphere where the orbit takes place, but space elevator is static object, aka a structure, it does not move at all. If you load a ship on the outer atmosphere locked by launch clamps on the summit of space elevator and release it, it will fall straight down since the ship has zero velocity, it does not move at all in the first place, and thus has no orbital velocity. Personally though, for me, I'd like to use mass driver instead of space elevators since judging from engineering standpoint, it's much easier to build and maintain (and someone already make a mod about it) I don't know much about skyhook though, only a vague information about it, and I don't know exactly how it works

The most realistic and stunning graphic? Your own life, since life in this world is nothing but a game of life But as for game... Crysis series

My problem with Tylo is that, during landing, using rocket fuel is mandatory for safe touchdown. However, fire the thruster too early and it ends not having enough to leave, or fire too late and crash to the ground. So far I've been doing 5 Eve mission (3 success, 1 failure, 1 unmanned permanent probe) but only 1 Tylo mission (Fail)

Atmospheric insertion on eve? Well just attach a bunch of parachutes and tons of heat shields. Let it go down the atmosphere by itself. It's easy, just like usual reentry. What makes eve infamous among KSP players isn't about how to land on it, but how to leave it. The drag and gravity that must be overcome is absolutely ridiculous which is why you will always seen a video about eve return and almost none about eve insertion Though in my opinion, tylo is even harder since the lack of atmosphere and high gravity means you must slow down using rocket fuel instead parachutes

Maybe you can find it in mk3 expansion mod. There's an adapter that fits 3 mk2 from a single stack

No problem

It's because your career mode setting. Normally, a tech node is unlocked with science point, which will give you an access to unlock parts inside that node with money. The money to UNLOCK parts is not the same with money to BUY that part. You cannot use money to unlock a part if the node is still locked. When starting a new career, there's a custom difficulty option that removes the requirement to unlock parts with money, so you only need to pay the science for a node, and all the parts inside that node is yours

A tip if you encounter unbidden in the next play through: they will warp in in one of the empire's territory (usually at the edge of the galaxy). It consist of a large fleet, an anchor and a portal. Their ship has a ton of shields but no armor and their attacks ignore armor (so don't bother equipping your ship with armor plating, they'll punch through, focus on spamming shields). Once they appear, RUSH to the portal location ASAP. Your priority target is the anchor then the portal, since portal can only be attacked after you destroy the anchor. The anchor is a beacon that calls Unbidden reinforcements every few months, so expect some heavy resistance and act fast. If you take too long, they will create another anchor in other star system and expand their territory (and reinforcement delivery rate). If your initial attack suffers more than 50 percent losses and defeat is inevitable, retreat and replenish your fleet. If you cannot repel them, then there's still hope: after a few years, the second and third faction of the unbidden will show up (with the same intention as the first) and predictably, they'll create anchor and portal too. During this time, they'll sometimes fight against each other. The key strategy for unbidden on late game is, the larger their territory, the more sparsely scattered their forces is, it also seems to delay their reinforcements. In short, once they have large enough territory, their forces is mainly on their borders while the portal and anchors deep inside their territory is unprotected or barely have any defenses. Use this opportunity to sneak a fleet to take out the portal and anchors ASAP (this will provoke main forces on the border to return to portal to defend it, but as their territory becomes large, it'll take some time before they arrived). Once all portals has been destroyed, no reinforcements will arrived anymore, leaving the rest of the unbidden is the last to deal with. The crisis ends if all unbidden fleet and their portals has been destroyed I managed to stop unbidden when they create their 2nd portal, when I attack it, they send all their fleet to defend it, allowing me to sneak a much larger fleet to 1st portal and destroy it before steamrolling the 2nd. Funnily enough, their portals appeared on another empire that has lower military and tech level, but constantly insulting me. Once unbidden appeared, they beg for me as a refugee, and after the crisis ends, they agreed to be integrated in my empire

Well, I won the game by colonization victory, Aka colonize as many planets as possible. My empire is fungus materialist, focusing in economic warfare, an the ascension path that I take... Well I take megastructure-based ascension path, but for general strategy for newbie: 1. In the beginning, EXPAND. Use your science ship to go to other star systems to get strategic view of the entire galaxy. If you've researched automatic exploration, it becomes even easier. Expand your border by placing outpost and colonizing planet 2. If there's a new alien contact and prompt to research it's language, don't bother. Let them be the one who did it for us, this gives you more time to expand 3. Take the planet with as many times and resource nodes if possible. This will increase the space you can use to build mining camp and power plants, bolstering your economy. Sometimes colonizing a poor planet is viable if it allows you to get a strategic advantage in position 4. If you have your first contact, the alien's territory will be revealed. If possible, RUSH immediately to capture nearby star systems around it's border, colonize and/or build outpost to confine them inside your territory/edge of galaxy. This will severely limit their movement so you can expand more. If you want to really confine them, just close your border, they won't have any free movement to expand their border 5. Late game, energy becomes less critical, since you will mostly spend your time building fleet, where minerals is at must. In any case, you can sustain your economy alone with power plants during late game, build many power plants and use trader enclave to trade it with minerals for cash boost since energy is dirt cheap at this point. Or if you can build one, a dyson sphere can produce over 1000 energy per months, enough to cover your expenses and focus the entire planetary infrastructure for mining 6. Weapon has their own advantage and disadvantage. Lasers are good against armor, but bad at damaging shield, projectiles are good against shield but bad at damaging armor, while missiles has no damage bonus against anything but has 100 percent accuracy against moving targets, but they can be shot down. Consider checking your enemy's ship status and their weapon preference before preparing fleet to face the 7. My standard fleet usually consist of battleships fitted with focused arc emitter and kinetic artillery, supported by destroyers fitted with point defenses. This has a huge resource drain, but since I've built a dyson sphere and has a stable economy, it didn't bother me for upkeep and repairs. My fleet has a power of around 700k 8. If your standing is good with other empire (opinion 300 or higher, and you have military and technological advantage) there is usually an option (or their own request) to integrate their empire to your own (unless you're xenophobe). Doing this will integrate their species to your empire and all of their territory is transferred to yours, basically subjugating their empire without even firing a shot (I did this twice) 9. Late game crisis can be very powerful. Observe any clues and prepare for them. If there's "ghost signal" report, you will face The Contingency. if there's "the coming storm", you will face Prethoryn Swarm. If there's "ship warped in from another dimension", you will face the Unbidden. All of the has different mechanic and very powerful (I lost once against contingency but won against unbidden). 2 of those 3 crisis is triggered by something you or other empire did, Unbidden is triggered by researching jump drive, Contingency is triggered by Synth research (give them citizen rights) hope that helps Feel free to ask more

By using Near future solar mod. It provides large scale solar panels and other shapes such as circular panels and blanket array (I wanted to install blanket array, but it's so large it might cause clipping issue when they rotate and hit each other) The one that I'm using is an improved version of gigantor array (Trio type, it extends three times the length of stock solar array) and yes, it's furled initially That 1500 Ec/s is because I'm very close to kerbol (Borderline safe distance)

I'm building an exotic propulsion space probe. This thing is gigantic, unmanned, and designed to explore kerbol (And meet the requirements of it's power-hungry engines) Over 72 ion engines, 16 hall effect thrusters and 1 magnetoplasmadynamic engine (And a gigantic magnetic heat shield on the front)... This monster requires a truly ridiculous amount of power to operate Testing it on near-kerbol space (Borderline minimum safe distance to kerbol) Those 8 solar panel arrays produce over 1500 Ec/s, each! With a grand total energy output from all solar panel arrays alone (Not counting generators that I attached inside the probe) around 12000 Ec/s. Enough to satisfy the massive energy requirements The moment when all the engines are running is truly beautiful And the test is succesfull, the probe is able to sustain a thrust with zero energy drain on the battery. It's thrust is around the level of... Poodle engine (Pushing a mass around stock apollo spacecraft), but with amazing ISP Suddenly I remembered the movie "Sunshine"

If your craft is burning in the atmosphere and your kerbal goes EVA, of course the heat from your ship transferred to your kerbal too. I've seen someone using hypersonic jet on kerbin, he reached about mach 5 and the jet is burning up before he land it on runway. Once the kerbal disembark, they glow red hot. Other than that, does your craft has adequate cooling? Some engines or parts (like nuke engines or ISRU) can produce heat and on the airless environment like mun, it's much harder to dissipate heat without radiators