Gargamel

Everything. The towed antenna does not transmit, it will only receive data. This is not my limitation, this is how they work. They are used for transmitting data to subs that are submerged. There are large transmitting stations located onshore that can transmit ELF signals that can basically span the globe. The data trickles into the subs, and they act on it. It is usually used for tasking orders from command. Which is exactly what I am talking about. You have described a wolf pack style of attack on a surface group. There are secure means of communication that a sub can use to communicate in both directions. But yes, subs close enough to the group will be detected, but they would be smart enough to not do so. But your hypothetical jamming system would be louder than a group travelling without it. It might create false targets, but at the ranges a wolfpack would detect it, would be far outside the range they would be able to discern individual targets, they would only see a single, weird, source. Through communication relayed back to command by the subs not in EMF detection range of the group, a coordinated attack would be planned. And, as stated before, if your jamming system cannot completely mask the existence of every other vessel in the group, but only create a false target, it would have no real affect on the attacking subs. So while, as I said, your system might be hypothetically possible, it has no practical application, and is therefore pretty much useless and ineffective. See what you started @ARS??

This would lead me to believe it's not a user error (Kerbal Skill level) problem. I think some pics and a KSP.log might shed some light on this, if my hunch is correct.

/facepalm It is for receiving only....

What are you smoking? The towable antenna is submerged. It's only called a floating antenna because it doesn't sink. The forward motion of the sub is what drags the antenna behind it, keeping it way below the sruface. It is for receiving only, it does not transmit. The transmitting stations are located thousands of miles away, and are known locations to most militaries in the world. 24.06N32.42W That's not many bits at all. In fact, people have been sending this info for centuries using flags and lanterns. I'd respectfully request you do a bit more research into a topic you clearly know nothing about, before throwing nonsensical info trying to be passed off as fact.

Wait..... so you're not jamming, you're creating a decoy. Single emitter decoys are a lot more effective. Will the 'sonar holograph' also mask the resonant noises of the ships? The rotational sounds of the screws, the engine rumble, a crewman randomly dropping a wrench? Even with visual holograms, I can still see some light being emitted from each source. All it seems we will be doing is creating an extra target, requiring insanely precise positioning of the ships, while making each ship slightly louder, but obscured. This is already do able. First off, subs use a long towed antenna, usually 500m-1km in length, and it floats behind the sub as it is underway. Even at depth, the sub can receive ELF transmissions from a base site. The data transfer rate is insanely slow, like a bit or 2 per second, but is able to deliver detailed messages. Getting the location of a convoy or surface group, detected by satellite or other means, via ELF is common for sub warfare. And since we're talking a wolfpack scenario here, the pack would be placed strategically placed along a patrol line or zone. Only a small percentage of them would be in danger of detection if they popped up to talk to the satellites. Those subs would know not to do so, while the others could relay info back and forth, and the resulting picture could be transmitted over ELF to all the subs. Now, if this is a jamming scenario, not only would it jam the subs sonar systems, but any system trying to hunt them. The subs would be able to narrow down generally where a group would be, and could get close enough for scoped shot, like they have been doing for 100 years. Any ASW systems deployed would also fall under the guise of the jammers, and be unable to see a sub coming. It would seem a large scale jammer like this would only increase the threat to the group, not mitigate it. While I'll concede that your theoretical system may actually create a false signal, there really isn't a practical application for it.

Slow enough the first successful fix was to stick one of their fingers in it.

Well, yeah... I guess... I mean what you describe is technically not a sepatron as found in the game... but.... They do this in real life cause it's easiest to do so. They don't have to add any more engines or mini srb's or nuttin. It makes the system 'simpler'. But in game, rerouting fuel and engine thrust to a new part, gets complicated. Plus stock KSP is not very good at staging before fuel is completely used up. It would be quite a dance for a player to get consistent results. The easiest, and best, solution is to use a stock sepatron. I'm ok with somebody working on this as a mod, but as for the stock game.... I'll eat my hat first. [snip]

FYP.... ;D

I hope not... we might lose a forum member if he does.... ;D I completely agree though, this is pretty unrealistic. The engines are so complex, that such changes need to be done in a controlled setting, not mid flight in space. If it was just some simple switches to flip, or a knob to turn, either in the command pod or on EVA, then those switches and knobs would have be flipped back on the ground. There really aren't many good reasons for an engine to run at a less efficient setting from the get go. I can get behind the idea of having futuristic multi-mode engines for drastically different levels of TWR/ISP, but what you are proposing are minor tweaks, which really don't make sense.

I'd go for a slider, if we can go full or empty, then a slider shouldn't be that hard to implement too.

You and the rest of the universe. It really doesn't get much more low tech than a fly wheel......

Yes.

Probably been already mentioned, but that was a total failure. As soon as they realized pencils gave off insane amounts of graphite dust, which got into the cosmonauts eyes and lungs, not to mention possibly shorting out the electronics, they switched over to pens. Yup already mentioned. I see now now that I am late to this bandwagon.

Which movie did this? I mean obviously, but it depends on the plane. Some planes just don't glide well at all, some do. And as mentioned, unless there's some mechanical backup system, FBW planes might not stop in midair, but their flight path might resemble a brick.

I really like this idea, but I don't see it in stock... mainly because I think some intrepid modder will beat SQUAD to the punch. I know quite a few mods can already differentiate between stages in the VAB/SPH, like MJ/KER, so tapping into those approaches might allow for the automation we are looking for.

If we're talking about breaking the physics range with a single vessel, I have a feeling part count will be one of the least of our worries. But I bet @bewing is correct. AFAIK, KSP computes where a ship is based on it's COM. So if you are 3km away from the COM, but 50m away from where the docking port should be, the station would not be loaded, and there would be nothing to dock to. Now, If we do some tricky pumping of fuel back and forth, we might be able to keep the COM near one end of the station, allowing us to keep docking modules onto it. But... I dunno if it's still a thing, but years ago Manley showed in a video how pumping fuel across a large station can actually be used to increase your orbit. So by pumping large quantities of fuel back and forth to move the COM, we may end up accidentally de-orbiting the dang thing. Also, if we get this thing up to a size that is bigger than physics range, say 4km, and then we bring another module up to dock with it, KSP will load the station when you get within 2km (2.5?) of where COM should be, the extra 2km of station are going to go somewhere. And that somewhere may end up being right through the ship you are trying to dock. But this is the real question. To this..... I have no idea. Probably nowhere near physics range though.

Now, while the argument about jamming sonar tracking systems in reality is pretty much settled here IMO, there is the question of jamming a weapon. Torpedoes generally have two modes of guidance. Wired and unwired. In the wired mode, they are literally unspooling a long wire back to the sub. This wire can be many km's long. During that time, the weapons officer on the sub, with data from the sonar operators, steers and controls the torpedo. The wire leads back into the torpedo tubes, so while they are driving the fish, they cannot reload that tube, as the outer doors have to remain open. But once they cut the wire, the doors can be closed and the tubes reloaded. Once the wire is cut, the fish usually goes into active acquisition. It starts using it's own active sonar system to locate and hit a target. These systems are far less complex than what is found on a sub, and are completely automated. Since the target vessel would now be able to hear the exact sonar pings the torpedo is emitting, would it be possible to emit a "white noise" or wave cancelling or whatever you want to call it, to negate the pings from the torpedo? This would fall more under 'active stealth' than jamming, but... . As the emitter would cancel out the sound waves of the ping, could we keep the ship from generating a return to the fish?

This may or not be a solution, but I frequently have a similar issue. A simple quick click, one that will register in any other program, just doesn't work sometimes in KSP. So I just hold the click for a moment longer, and it usually works fine. I've found if I just take my time and don't rush the clicks, the problem doesn't really affect me.

I disagree. Maybe not the worm thing exactly, but they had been trapped on the prison level, and they needed to escape. And they needed to go somewhere they could be lost by the pursuing troopers. So the garbage pit was a convenient place for them to go. But they couldn't just get away that easy, there needed to be some conflict within the pit. It's not a moon, it's a space station. There are ships constantly coming and going from the station. So they needed to compact all their waste into larger blocks, after recycling as much as possible I'd assume, so that there's wasn't a kessler syndrome forming around the station. Larger blocks are easier to avoid that a field of small debris. Or maybe that's where the Falcon did the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs? So maybe the time v distance argument is void. The kessel run is a large field of debris, and ships have to manuever through it at high speed. The smaller the number of parsecs, the denser the field, and the harder the run is. So maybe 12 parsecs is a really difficult size of debris field to manuever. Of course, 39 light years is a pretty big debris field, that's a lot of space junk.

Not to mention the environment itself, where due to salinity and temperature changes, acoustics can do different things at different times. Logistics logistics logistics. This is assuming a perfect world. Subs are made to hide. They are, for all practical purposes, invisible. Deploying such a system would require knowledge of the subs location. Even if you don't need the exact location, you need to know where they are generally. If you know the location of sub, it is practically trivial to kill it. ASW Helicopters would be deployed and they would drop torpedoes onto it. At this point, even if they don't get the kill, they can harass it enough so it has to run away. Data on various ships noises are already known. They can be tracked upon leaving port, or even just crossing over a SOSUS line. In peace time, there would be little advantage to deploying such a jamming system, even if it is possible (I'm not arguing yes/no here). You would be giving up data on your jamming capabilities, and then the sub would know they were found, and just pop up to scope depth and track the group that way. And if they can pop up to scope depth, they can accurately fire a torpedo, the same way they've been doing since WWI, with math. But once a sub has been located, it's pretty much a sitting duck. Helicopters and ASW Aircraft are significantly faster than a sub running flat out, and a torpedo is roughly twice as fast. They only thing deploying a jamming system does is give away the location of the group to every sub within a couple hundred miles.

@Laie Saw those two awesome numbers and had to screen shot it.

Please confirm this is not the issue: This is the #1 cause of "I can't dock" threads on here. So don't feel insulted for me suggesting it, or feel bad when you realize that's what happened.

That's what I'm afraid of. I've never noticed it before, just that it got dark and the stars came out. But I never noticed a dramatic transition like you describe. I truly hope you are wrong and there is a bug on your machine, cause if it's true and I can't unsee this......

Actually, surprisingly not true. If the launcher is completely different, not even remotely similar, then yes, you'll probably need to do a test launch. But if the launcher could be considered a distant cousin while squinting and drunk, then there's a good chance the original data will still apply. If your new launcher can fly the same launch profile and hit the same speed v altitude curves, then it will follow the same path into orbit. This is a lot easier done than said, to be honest. If you over build your ship a touch, and use the throttle limiters to limit your acceleration, then most any ship that also hits those throttle limiters will also fly the same path. Now it won't be exact, but it will be close enough to not need an orbital maneuver to finish the docking. Once you get a baseline angle for launch, you can keep a note on your napkin log book on which launchers will get an offset from the base angle. It will only be a few tenths of a degree for the most part, so even if you forget to adjust your angles from the baseline for that altitude, you'll still be close. Point is, Launch angles are determined by the flight path taken, not the vessel flying it.

Most radar jamming systems I've seen seriously discussed don't offer a point source or bearing to the jamming source, they usually have overwhelmed the sensor so it is garbage from all directions, or at least a broad section of the sky. Broad enough you can point in the general direction (like "It's coming from the West!"), but not enough to fire any ordnance with any hope of hitting the source. Now an anti-jamming weapons system is possible, for all the reasons in previous posts, but ECM (Electronic Counter Measure) warfare is a chess match. Or better yet, a poker game. Each side is very reluctant to reveal their capabilities, and so designing a SAM to counter airborne ECM is doable, but very problematic. They would have to get a good set of data on the types of ECM one side is using, and then design a weapons to counter that. The ECM side of it will quickly learn they are being defeated, and make changes to their software, which is 'relatively simple' to do, and they already have alternate software designed for this purpose (probably back at the system contractors, but it wouldn't take much for them to change the software). A weapons system would have many more components to alter to match the new system they are encountering. The missiles themselves would require new seeker heads and software, so instead of just changing the software on a few planes, hundreds of already made missiles would need updated. They do actively change up the tracking radars to help counter ECMs, as needed. But ECM operators are very reluctant to use their systems until it's absolutely necessary, giving the other side as little info as possible, as the targets they are jamming are usually destroyed shortly there after. It is very rare for an ECM system to be used against a target they don't intend to destroy. That's why in most of the major conflicts of the past 60 years where one super power is actively engaged, and the other is officially not (Both Afghanistans, both Iraq wars, Syria, Vietnam, Balkans, you name it), the non participant has technicians and observers in the field to gather as much data as they can to upgrade their own systems. With the lack of data on ECM systems, it is hard to design and deploy a weapons system to defeat them within the time frame of most major actions. Doable, but hard.