KIDI- Kerbal Interplanetary Defence Initiative

[Sliinty]

Absolutly and completly wrong. Read this for what I meant by "KEW"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

also. what you said about the ship heat pumping being close to reducing entropy... the page you referenced on ship defenses lists types of radiators that would be immune to weapons fire.

Thats what you meant by kew, but baseball bat inflicts damage by virtue of its kinetic energy, ie a kinetic energy weapon. If you mean kinetic bombardment, say kinetic bombardment.

I didnt say that there arent radiators that could withstand being shot at, I said that pumping heat sounds like reducing entropy! Its unrelated.

Also, back on topic, note that project thor just involved weapons in space and not ships carrying weapons, as I keep saying.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Sliinty

[Comrade Jenkens]

Testing of the XCo-9 revealed the ship to be inferior to the Co-8C in almost every way.

The prototype was deorbited and the decision was made to modernise the Co-8. Work is starting on the Co-8D

Dersted Kerman Poses next to the scuttled remains of the XCo-9

[sodopro]

Testing of the XCo-9 revealed the ship to be inferior to the Co-8C in almost every way.

The prototype was deorbited and the decision was made to modernise the Co-8. Work is starting on the Co-8D

Dersted Kerman Poses next to the scuttled remains of the XCo-9

Oh noes. What went wrong?

[Comrade Jenkens]

Oh noes. What went wrong?

Read the above post. I purposly scuttled the ship. It was a prototype and had a disappointing performance so there was no need for it anymore.

[Rune]

Its far better to have stuff already in orbit, unless you have instant hit (Or close to it) weaponry such as a Ground-To-Space cannons like a Rail gun, as the target in orbit you are engaging has plenty of time to spot, plot, and intercept a missile; even then, unless the target is in a low orbit, it'd still have time to evade incoming shots from the ground. Compounding that is that unless you are firing a truly massive missile, you're not going to get all that overly large a warhead on route to the target; even if said warhead is a nuke, you still have the issue of limited number of weapons enroute to the target if firing from the ground. there is also the matter of having to get close enough for the warhead to be of any use, as in space the blast radius of a nuke is severely diminished in both radius and power.

I know some people are going to point out the fact that you could skip having a explosive warhead at all and go for a KEW approach; you'd still have the issue of a target being able to engage the weapon before it could hit.

Ideally, IMO, and from reading alot of sci fi, the best Defense system would have a series of missile batteries in orbit equipped with fragmentation warheads ( throw a cloud of flak in the path of a target and have it run into it) so they can whittle away at enemies from a distance while any warships in orbit maneuver to intercept the target(s) and commence Singleship operations.

Long thought on how Warships are always better in most regards to Planetary Defense Systems such as missiles aside, has anyone considered using a modular basis for their Warship designs? I've been reading a bunch of Sci-fi and I came across the idea of making your warships modular IE things such as weapons, shields, troop transport capability, Singleship operations, you name it, are all modules you "Install" onto a basic core structure, which would be most likely the engine section, Command and Control and crew modules; that way you could keep several different "Modules" in orbit, say docked to a orbital station, with the core of the ship nearby. All you'd need to do is have the core dock with whatever module you needed.

Say you had incoming Cap ships; you'd simply detach whatever module you had docked (assuming its not the Antiship one), attach the proper one, and off you go! Once you've completed your mission, be it successful or not, you'd return to the station, and you'd deal with the mission module as needed; reattach to the station or dump it as you see fit.

Advantage of this design would be that unless a enemy managed to do catastrophic damage, the mission modules would take the damage leaving the core module intact and still viable; you'd simply "blow off" damaged modules as needed.

Disadvantage would be that this type of design is a jack of all trades; Okay at all, good in none. Still thinking of disadvantages, I know there would be some; maybe you guys can tell me, no?

Oh and BTW, if ya'll think I'm just blowing smoke out my ass tell me; I've been up all night working on something for a relative and I'm coming down off a coffee high. What I've said may or may not make much sense.

I'm just going to stop you there without reading the whole argument between you and Sliinty (I started at the end, BTW). It all comes down to cost: for the price of an interceptor missile on orbit, you can buy two suborbital ICBM's. The orbital interceptor can only intercept stuff on its line of sight and orbital plane, the pair of ICBM's endanger the whole world.

The US substantially studied space-based weaponry during the "star-wars" SDI. The end result was, sure, if you are willing to spend 10 times as much as the other guy, you can defend against 90% of his stuff. You are still probably screwed in a real war.

Rune. In the short term when infrastructure is Earth-based primarily, at least.

[Sliinty]

Isn't that pretty much what I was saying?

Edited May 30, 2013 by Sliinty
typo

[axxo2]

[Sliinty]

-snip-

Literally jaw dropping

But that must be quite a few parts, right?

Moderator note: please avoid quoting pictures, especially 6 of them. - Cykyrios

Edited May 30, 2013 by Cykyrios
removed pics from quote

[Christian365]

Awesome ships

[Lazurkri]

-snip-

My god, how many parts, and what is its performance/armament?

Moderator note: please avoid quoting pictures, especially 6 of them. - Cykyrios

Edited May 30, 2013 by Cykyrios
removed pics from quote

[Comrade Jenkens]

Co-10D - Work was started on modernising the Co-8C. The resulting ship was so different that it was given the designation Co-10D. The ship has many slight changes including an improved dV and a living space for the crew and two passengers.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qoeb4yjewbigh8g/RQLh-7lOpg/Co-10D.craft

Parts: 235

Cost: 130,720

Mass: 145.5T

dV: 7287m/s

TWR: 0.42

[The Error]

Unfortunately, Comrade, a good shot to the bow will knock out that tuna can and decapitate it.

Unless you've got another command pod stashed away in there?

[Comrade Jenkens]

Unfortunately, Comrade, a good shot to the bow will knock out that tuna can and decapitate it.

Unless you've got another command pod stashed away in there?

I realised that but was trying to keep the part count down and the dV high. It has an abort system and also a probe core further inside the ship but all kerbals are quite exposed. The armour is designed around its predcessor so doesnt quite fit.

[The Error]

So.....the poor Kerbs flying this thing are either a) Jeb or screwed?

[BrightBritches]

Something big coming tomorrow, very excited to share it when it is done

[Comrade Jenkens]

Something big coming tomorrow, very excited to share it when it is done

Looking forward to seeing it

The Error: Redoing the crew compartment to make it easier to armour. Also added some armour to the engines as they are quite vulnerable.

[Lazurkri]

Co-10D - Work was started on modernising the Co-8C. The resulting ship was so different that it was given the designation Co-10D. The ship has many slight changes including an improved dV and a living space for the crew and two passengers.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qoeb4yjewbigh8g/RQLh-7lOpg/Co-10D.craft

Parts: 235

Cost: 130,720

Mass: 145.5T

dV: 7287m/s

TWR: 0.42

This thing seems to me to be a standoff distance ship, as others have pointed out, a single shot to the bow, and your crew is vapor.

[Sliinty]

Looks a bit like the sulaco to me (ship from alien 2 I think)

[Comrade Jenkens]

Co-10E - Due to health and safety regulations requiring manufactures to provide crew protection, the front half of the Co-8D was reworked. Both the bridge and the engines are now armoured though at a slight cost in dV. Extra crew space was also added to improve the view.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qoeb4yjewbigh8g/POt1qi4ia0/Co-10E.craft

The abort system in use.

[Russian Flame]

looks at a lot like the pillar of autumn form the first halo

[brobel]

hey the new co-10E looks great better then before even

[Lazurkri]

looks at a lot like the pillar of autumn form the first halo

The engine section, yes, the rest of the ship, no.

[Comrade Jenkens]

looks at a lot like the pillar of autumn form the first halo

I admit i love that ship and do follow the basic shape of it for many of my ships. The got the idea for the front half off the correlian corvette that was posted.

Edit: And i've realised i've forgot to put docking ports on the ship so it can't mount weapons.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Comrade Jenkens

[Lazurkri]

I admit i love that ship and do follow the basic shape of it for many of my ships. The got the idea for the front half off the correlian corvette that was posted.

Edit: And i've realised i've forgot to put docking ports on the ship so it can't mount weapons.

You forgot something; the entire ship is a weapon. Prepare for RAMMING SPEEDS!!!!

[sodopro]

I do believe the crew is still located in the front.