Ignamious

Plasma is the fourth state of matter. It's theoretically possible to heat a heavy metal to its plasmatic state and lunch it in a magnetic encasement. Mind you as far as I know metal looses it's magnetic property when it heats up, however the plasma is sufficiently churning it could generate its own magnetic field. This could allow the plasmatic metal to then stay heated for a longer time as it flies towards its target at 10km/s True, however most aircraft are EM hardened. And I can tell you now that ALL military craft are as well. It's not hard the harden something agains EMR so that a EMP will not effect it. If you place your electronics in faraday cages you'll be protected and in space you use rad harder anyway. The microchips used in space are already all Rad hardened to prevent the sun from killing them. Hence why solar flairs don't fry every satellite in space even though the charge is so powerful it charges the earth atmosphere! (Northern lights) I actually managed to pick up a few very old microchips that were used for space a few years ago at a summer sale at an electronics surplus store in Silicon Valley, it has a gold top.

If i remember correctly, the Pilots wanted more controls too, originally it was mostly if not all "computer" controlled. i might be thinking of a different mission profile, lots of useless information knocking about in this head in a semi-jumbled mass.

Microwave won't do that, and Radio wave won't do that... LASER is just light (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) reflective coating would reduce capability and heat absorbing material (an absolute must in space) would also make it ineffective. so something 50% reflective with 75% dissipation would reduce you LASER power to just a fraction. but that depends on the wavelength of the LASER. if your reflective material is not rated at the LASER's wave it could end up just absorbing all the heat and act as an amplifier instead. but thats were heat dissipation comes in. Personally... just use a mass driver like a Coil gun or Rain gun to launch a VERY Large and Heavy piece of non-magnetic material (use a sabot to launch the mass). or if we are in the 22 century use Plasma. All the benefits of Mass and Heat. Thermal / Kinetic energy.

The A-10C uses a Turbofan... not that it's much of a difference it's still technically a jet engine... but a turbo prop is also technically a jet engine... but instead of the exhaust coming out the rear, it's used to drive a prop shaft... so the only non jet planes would be piston driven... even if it has a prop. All technicalities but something to think about. also... the rounds used now are bigger then WW2... and more powerful. The A10C's gun's fire a bullet the size of a fist. secondly computers can gimbaling can help with stability of strafe runs. The A-10C actually has a two phase trigger, partial pull activates computer stabilization and spin-up. and full fires the gun. in the COMZ there are tanks with "a hole in it" from the A-10C. not 20 holes... 1 big on like a lance right through it. Control is an issue as discovered with the P-38 " Lightning" called compressibility. basically the air creates a shockwave preventing it from bitting into the air allowing the control surfaces to work. in WW2 some planes had an upper limit to speed, if they exceeded it the wings could rip off. (i can't remember the plane it's been a while since training) but all planes have upper G limits. and a single bomb striking a single target "One strike, One kill" is cheaper then 10 bombs from 15 planes. 1 Jet fighter with Guided munitions is more deadly then a squadron of Prop driven fighters doing strafing runs. and cheaper. Remember the pilot is worth more then the plane, something the ****'s didn't realize. in WW2 the US would only allow the pilots so many missions, when they were done they would train the next generation. Better pilots = more kills and less loss. the **** didn't do that. They lost the good pilots in combat. but up until the 1943 they had better planes, but more losses.

Well... Without getting into any specifics about something that is illegal to do outside of the military... Jamming is actually very easy. when it comes to the EM spectrum (thats Light -> UHF -> Microwave) ect. all sensors read a "wave" that bounces back. Thats how the Stealth planes work. I'll talk about the F-117 because it's old stealth technology. Basically it prevents the EM signal from bouncing back to the source thus preventing it from being detected. there is also EM absorbing materials. Those are known as "Passive Stealth" Now also some old technology is the IR Jammers. they were played with in the '70's+ Basically you get a very bright IR Source and Blast it out "Blinding" the Targeting source. Now... the basics of IR... it's not heat. it's molecular motion (kinda) Now... a "Cannon" won't work. We'll take your 2.4ghz phone as an example. What is the Actually frequency it uses? We don't know, so what we will do is Blanket the area with with 2.3ghz all the way to 2.5ghz just in case. Well what amplitude is it using? how powerful? can the Target just increase it's gain to get away. can it employ ECCM? (Electronic Counter Counter Measures) with your ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) be able to stealth? Because a VERY simple ECCM method is to just Blow up the ECM. you can VERY easily build a tracking system to target that MASSIVE Radiation coming from you. so as long as your jamming them there missile / turret / Bullet is whizzing right at you following your jamming signal. There is more to it, but much of it is classified and VERY illegal to do. You make a Jammer at home and your toast (it's very easy to triangulate) Jamming is more about fineness then brute force. Look at the AN/ALQ-184 and the AN/ALQ-131 Both currently used and operated by the USAF. I can't go into detail about them but wikipidia as some fun info to think about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasure The info there is public info and something to think about. In space, there is a lot of background radiation. so ECCM will be FAR superior. as for visual... There is always a way to see, it's called frequency shift. Also known as signal processing if your IR Viewfinder is being jammed use something else. Every object emits some sort of EM radiation. so if the IR range is being blocked try UV or something else. look at the pictures nasa gives on the sun! 4 other views none of which are the visual light scale. Not saying you can't Jam the target with raspberry but you best know what the target is using before jamming and make sure you can block it all if you want to "blind" them, and thats a LOT of power... Now that the "Can't be done" is over... how to do it. Well, by using a very sensitive direction receiver to receive the active signal from the target vessel, you can active a ECM program, and using a separate system as an ECCM you can counteract the Targets ECM and ECCM to try to maintain the Diversion. as for passive devices (cameras, recovers, ect) thats were intelligence comes in. You need to know what they have, and try to block it, you could use a phasing Light pulse Quickly ranging the Spectrum of light in pulses it won't permanently blind them but it will give a very fast strobe effect reducing the ability of the target to get a clear shot (think of moving with a strobe light, thats similar to what it would be like) by using broad spectrum jamming as well as more precise methods at the same time you could denny the target a few sensors at a time. You would need many systems targeting the different components at the same time. A single fighter could not achieve this feat, however a squadron or flight of them could. assuming each bird was responsible for a different subassembly. a larger ship (Similar to a C-130J) could do more but be less manuverable. a few of them could do the same as many smaller. if you had a destroyer sized vessel you could theoretically have most if not all the ECM / ECCM on that ship, providing telemetry and information to the less hardened fighters. I could go on, but i won't. The ECM field is large and very interesting.

I'm currently working on a cockpit for the DCS A-10C Game. it can also be used for Flight sims and space sims. I've build my CNC just trying to get it a bit more stable. I've got 1/4 of the Panels in G-Code already, and i have the cockpit ready to cut up as well. I've had a few different iterations of HID code programed onto so ATMEL chips so i can make the joysticks / buttons. I've sourced many of the switches and buttons. and have even designed the backlighting for the panels. (oddly enough, the way i designed my panel backlighting is the same as the USAF does for it's panels! only i'm using Dual Color red/green LEDS's and a clear acrylic instead of white incandescence and a green acrylic. Now if only KSP had support for my Warthog joystick's Dual Throttle.

I'm looking forward to having an add-on that adds more tweakables. IE: Right click and add Batt charge at the cost of a reduced fuel available as a whole.

When your at the gym and your looking at the lights thinking "add a fuel line to those lights and they will make a perfect engine nozzle."

While jet engines are great they are limited by the need for an oxidizer, the SABRE engines proposed for the Skylon SSTO are a great idea. Also the SABRE engines in KSP are not realistic. First the ISP is wrong. Second the precooler is only an extra part in ksp that MUST be on it to work. Now it's been a few months since I looked into the SABRE but if I remember the basics it uses a variable intake to reduce drag, uses raw air for low altitude then starts compressing it and super cooling it in the upper altitude range and then cuts of completely and uses internal oxidizer in the end. Also to be fair... an SSTO SHouldnt be using multiple thrust sources. That's just extra mass and more things to go wrong. The SABRE is "one" engine with all ranges. I think the best chance if an SSTO is te LASRE "Liner Aerospike rocket engine" that was to be used on the X-33. This SSTO is a VTHL and not a CTHL like the SSTO's most people build in KSP. It would use the same engine from launch to LEO. And has great promise! I've been thinking if building a replica in KSP. Another way is to use a MAL or KEL to get you up high there for using very little internal fuel but not having to rely on external staging. In simple terms. There will be SSTO's soon, maybe very soon, but they probably will NOT act like airplanes to get into orbit.

An SSTO is WAY Cheaper to operate. Once built the major bills are Phase Maintenance, Fuel and Operation. While staged rockets you have to pay for the stages, fuel, operation, phase maintenance, construction, VAB's, tear down, reconstruction, Transportation of spent stages, inspections, and the list goes on. yes there are extra costs for the SSTO not mentioned, but many of the costs would be similar to the SR-71 run by the USAF. one way to show the cost savings of SSTO's is to install the KSP mission packs and KAS. Create and SSTO and use KAS to put your payload into the SSTO with KAS. and bring it to orbit, the return the SSTO and land. refuel it from a tanker, and put another payload in it. You will see how much money you will save with it. R&D costs will be roughly the same, however there are still engineering hurdles for effective SSTO's. The LASRE and SABRE are both interesting technologies for SSTO. The LASRE is for the cancelled X-33 and the SABRE is for the proposed Skylon.

Keep up the good work e-dog! This is a great mod.

Agreed. I was looking for something like the docking port with parachute! it's something i've though was missing. while the radial ones work, it takes some extra parts (5) to make it. Great job, keep up the work and keep adding to it! a great addition to KSP.

I think the rings can easily be done like ground scatter is done now. from afar you see them as one mass, using a single texture, as you get close a new texture loads (just like it does now) and as you get close enough to discern objects like the ground scatter on planets you start to see the "Ring Scatter" until unity goes 64 bit this could be an easy work around, as the technology advances to the point where said "ring" scatter gets a collision mesh. With resources each ring layer would contain different materials just like the real rings do. most gas giants have a ring, i think that saturn has a ring on it that is actually produced by one of it's moons. might be one of the other planets it's been a while and i'm to lazy to wiki crawl.

Great! Thanks for this. IT's already in my KSP Notebook.

Great idea, picked up this add-on a few days ago and was on the forums when you snuck in an update from .3 to .4 sofar i havn't used this in a save, oly in my test build version of KSP. like it so far.keep up the great work!

Ive been doing more testing, with just ASRB installed. i think it is a ASRB problem. i have not been able to fully replicate it with other addons or stock. it's and old issue, i remember it from .19 but non of the old tricks work. my work around is to build one stack then add it to the symmetry.how ever i am getting spontaneous explosions even with struts.I Really want this add-on to develop. i love the idea!!-Iggy

Sorry for Wall of text. won't accept return carriages for some reason: ----------Just did some testing with stock install of game, found this mod to be something of GREAT value!I would like to see this mod updated soon with more features. I will be using it in place of stock for my SLV. I am seeing some odd behavior when doing symmetry in the VAB. But i haven't been able to isolate the cause to the KSP bug or this add-on. However your Original Post is daunting. To explain this better:Stock mod:adds 3 "fuel" tanks, gimbaling nozzle and 2 nose cones (useful!!)You stack the Fuel tanks adding to the Thrust, there are 3 variants A, B, CA = 50 seconds of burn (constant)B = 100 seconds of burn (constant) C = ≈50 seconds of burn High thrust, then a reduction in thrust, then high again, The C is great for getting the Terminal Velocity, and with traditional LF engines, and a good TWR gets this second burst of thrust around gravity turn time!! great for making smaller LF stages.The nose cone as two. A and B.A will give a small thrust at 50 seconds from when the SRB's fire. The B is 100. This allows the Thrusters to "Move away" from the core, sadly 5/8 times they crossed each others paths (50 second burn time) probably because of the decoupler used. i did manage get a constant slow separation by putting the decoupler in the DRY COM (of as close as i could) but they still tend to move toward the core without the decoupler. i thought about adding a fin the the outside to offset the mass, but didn't get to it. (This is a KSP thing mostly) the parachute deployment is the same as stock, however it's a different model (no transparencies) but as i don't plan on following them down its fine. This is good because this allows them to be "recycled" and the KSP mission pack should be able to utilize this (add-on and hopefully stock!) but have not tested that as i did a vanilla test for this.There is also a different type of launch clamp that bolths the bottom of the SRB nozzel perfectly! ad just on of the stock ones to the top and you have a great looking "Real life feel" now, to get them in 2.5 size with longer burn timesI recommend this mod as a goof Alpha SRB replacment. to the DEV of the mod;keep up the work, i would love to see it more procedural for the burn pattern, i know it's planned.

I too think an Oxidizer option is a great idea. I very much like how well your doing! Keep it up. Some stuff i'd like to see: Oxidizer Tank Yellow texture for the Monoprop the Orange texture used in Stock KSP (or not the same but similar color) The Same idea as liquid fuel but SRB: Taller = Thrust Wider = Burn Time Keep up the good work. Your adding immense capability to the game.

If you get right down to it an RTG Wont just stop working for a very very long time. It's output would just get weaker. It is a radioactive source so it would be based off its half life. So rather then just cutting it to zero, it would be an exponenetial drop off. Just can't remember the formula right now. If you are going to mod the RTG so it's not unlimited you should model it off that. Rather then just cutting power. So if the half life is 30 years. After 30 years the power output would be (theoretically) half of what it was

I have a Research Station at 0º inclination around the Kerbin. Originally it was planned as a core habitat module for extended stay and study, however the Orbiter One's project funding got cut when Kethane was Discovered on the Mun. The Kerbinoughts were allowed to finish the research. Hermes I piloted by Bill picked up the Scientists, but not before they moth balled the station. It was later to be repurposed, a transfer module was docked with the station, and the inclination was brought to 45º and it's orbit was raised to 250km. However project "Rescue Bacon" was postponed then scrapped. Obiter One station was then repurposed into a refueling hub for scanners headed to the Mun and Minmus. It was moved back into 0º and 100km and a fuel tank was docked. However, after an incident with a malfunctioning probe core and Port Solar Panel, the station has been abandoned. At this time a mission is planned to send a de-orbiter module to the station and bring it down to burn up in Kerbins atmosphere east of KSC.

I have been doing research on rocket engines, some of which i wanted to add as mods into KSP, while keeping the spirit of KSP. Specifically the Aerospike. I have always loved it but felt that it was a bit off. specifically the inability to have it for higher stages. Upon a few hours of reading and digging i had come up with a few different models for the Aerospike and a limited understanding of the basic mechanics behind it. No the main project that i was able to dig up was the XRS-2200. It was designated for the X-33 SSTO. it produced 909,300 N of force with an ISP of 339 s at sea level and 1,184,300 N thrust with an ISP of 437 in vacuum. Now if the information that i have dug up is correct the Liner Aerospike Engine (XRS-2200) is modeled with the J2-X parts and some of it's tech. The reason i bring up the J2-X is that i have been catigorically unsuccessful in finding a weight for the XRS-2200. What i did find is that the J2-X is 5,450 pounds. one could surmise that the "Mainsail" in KSP is modeled after this J2-X, were as the Teroidal Aerospike is probably modeled after Rocketdyne's J-2T-250k. if i were to surmise a weight for the XRS-2200 i would guess it probably sits at 5,900 - 6,500 Pounds. due to i t being crated in the late 90's i would guess it's the latter at 6,500 pounds, however since then obviously technology for metals and cooling have come leaps and bounds. So, if i were to model this in KSP i would probably give the Liner Aerospike Engine something like this: mass = 3.5 cost = 3700 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.2 minimum_drag = 0.2 angularDrag = 2 attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0 MODULE { name = ModuleEngines thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform exhaustDamage = True ignitionThreshold = 0.1 minThrust = 0 maxThrust = 1100 heatProduction = 625 maxTemp = 4200 atmosphereCurve { key = 0 440 key = 1 360 } some numbers in the above "code" is spitballed. i'd like to also use a velocityCurve if i can figure it out to model the velocity as well. but will probably not want to deal with that until ksp evolves a bit.

How about just calling this bug "The Olethros Bug" if memory serves (and it usually doesn't) it's ancient greek, basically meaning "Random Destruction!"