Kerbal Money Value

[Starman4308]

16 minutes ago, Starslinger999 said:

I guess thats why. But why would it cost that much for a junkyard run by Jeb? Maybe its just that its more when he sells it to the KSP.

Graft and nepotism plague the Kerbal space program? I suppose that might also explain why probe cores are so heavy: they take away jobs from upstanding honest astronauts like Jebediah Kerman.

[DualDesertEagle]

On 13.4.2017 at 0:04 PM, John FX said:

The computer on Apollo 11 for example was very limited, heavy, and cost a great deal. Later computers of similar power now weigh grams, cost pennies, and are far more capable.

Right? I bet today's Smart Phones could easily run the apollo program and still have enough juice for more apps

[Starman4308]

35 minutes ago, DualDesertEagle said:

Right? I bet today's Smart Phones could easily run the apollo program and still have enough juice for more apps

A smartphone would barely notice the load, and would probably handle all of Mission Control while it was at it.

[DualDesertEagle]

Well then why don't we start developing a hobbyist's mission to moon for everyone to take on who can come up with the balls and money to do it? I bet with today's tech it could easily be a 1-man mission with a one HELL of a lot smaller rocket than the Saturn V (and I'm talkin' about real life's physics and problems here, not KSPs)

[Starman4308]

2 minutes ago, DualDesertEagle said:

Well then why don't we start developing a hobbyist's mission to moon for everyone to take on who can come up with the balls and money to do it? I bet with today's tech it could easily be a 1-man mission with a one HELL of a lot smaller rocket than the Saturn V (and I'm talkin' about real life's physics and problems here, not KSPs)

Because space is hard.

Based on extrapolation from ULA's RocketBuilder website, it costs about $25,000 per kilogram to have stuff sent to Earth escape (which is basically lunar injection). Even being generous and cutting that down to $15,000/kg, in order to get a 15-tonne mission to lunar injection, the boosters alone cost you nearly a quarter-billion dollars.

That is before you're talking about things like mission control, how launch costs balloon once you have to man-rate your launch vehicle, etc.

Space is hard.

[Ty Tan Tu]

6 minutes ago, DualDesertEagle said:

Well then why don't we start developing a hobbyist's mission to moon for everyone to take on who can come up with the balls and money to do it? I bet with today's tech it could easily be a 1-man mission with a one HELL of a lot smaller rocket than the Saturn V (and I'm talkin' about real life's physics and problems here, not KSPs)

Isn't that what Musk, Bezos and Branson are already doing? Maybe we should start our own KSP Kickstart...have phone will travel.

[DualDesertEagle]

2 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

That is before you're talking about things like mission control, how launch costs balloon once you have to man-rate your launch vehicle, etc.

Space is hard.

Well, u said it urself...

18 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

A smartphone would barely notice the load, and would probably handle all of Mission Control while it was at it.

Why not let the smart phone handle that then? It would probably be the best choice to have the smart phone run the whole flight from take-off until touchdown on the moon and back and time the whole thing so that u get a certain amount to time to exit the lander and goof around on the moon's surface before u have to get back to the lander to fly back home.

[Starman4308]

Just now, DualDesertEagle said:

Why not let the smart phone handle that then? It would probably be the best choice to have the smart phone run the whole flight from take-off until touchdown on the moon and back and time the whole thing so that u get a certain amount to time to exit the lander and goof around on the moon's surface before u have to get back to the lander to fly back home.

Don't be absolutely daft, and don't put words in my mouth.

A smartphone CPU could probably handle the compute tasks of 1960s-era mision control.

Who's Capcom? What antennae will you employ to communicate with the astronauts? Who's in charge of mission planning? Who liases with the launch site? How are you going to recover the astronauts?

[DualDesertEagle]

1 minute ago, Starman4308 said:

Don't be absolutely daft, and don't put words in my mouth.

A smartphone CPU could probably handle the compute tasks of 1960s-era mision control.

Who's Capcom? What antennae will you employ to communicate with the astronauts? Who's in charge of mission planning? Who liases with the launch site? How are you going to recover the astronauts?

Well since it's a hobbyist's mission it' all gonna be friend-handled as far as their range goes, which with today's tech could be anything from barely beyond earth's atmosphere to all the way to the moon's surface.

[Starman4308]

3 minutes ago, DualDesertEagle said:

Well since it's a hobbyist's mission it' all gonna be friend-handled as far as their range goes, which with today's tech could be anything from barely beyond earth's atmosphere to all the way to the moon's surface.

 

6 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

Don't be absolutely daft

You wouldn't even get permission to launch such a heavy vehicle with that kind of approach. There are small concerns like "flaming toxic debris raining down on the ocean" and "not colliding with anything in space" and "what, precisely, Mr. Smith, are you doing with hundreds of tons of hydrogen, hydrazine, nitric tetroxide, etc?".

There is an attitude of "I can do these things for far cheaper, government and big business must just be wasteful". That can maybe sometimes work on the small scale, where the risks, technical challenges, and complexity are small.

Nothing about sending men to the Moon is simple, easy, or low-risk. Even with the extraordinary efforts of NASA and the efforts of thousands of engineers and scientists, Apollo 13 still ended in near-disaster and failed in its primary mission goal of landing on the Moon, because of a small manufacturing defect in obscure parts that were nevertheless mission-critical.

[Deddly]

Very interesting discussion going on here, that's maybe worth starting a separate thread about so as to avoid derailing this one

[DualDesertEagle]

1 minute ago, Starman4308 said:

because of a small manufacturing defect in obscure parts that were nevertheless mission-critical.

Which was back then, almost 50 years ago, when even electronic components were huge lumps of fragile material put together by bulky, probably much-less-reliable-than-today machines and human hands which admittedly aren't the most precise tools.

Today we have computers about a million times more powerful than those used in the apollo missions while being only a tiny fraction of their size made up of tiny chips that run at low voltages where nothing can really happen. And the size of today's components would allow everything to be triple-redundant if we went just a little bigger than the absolute minimum in size. So my guess is that the chance of a serious problem would easily be less than 1 in a trillion.

[adsii1970]

Thread reminds me of the movie, The Astronaut Farmer. It was a really good movie...
 

7 minutes ago, DualDesertEagle said:

So my guess is that the chance of a serious problem would easily be less than 1 in a trillion.

[Edited by adsii1970 - only quoting what is relevant to my post]

That's easy enough to say and no one would argue that kind of statistical risk is bad. Unless you happen to be that 1 in a trillion...

[DualDesertEagle]

1 minute ago, adsii1970 said:

Thread reminds me of the movie, The Astronaut Farmer. It was a really good movie...
 

That's easy enough to say and no one would argue that kind of statistical risk is bad. Unless you happen to be that 1 in a trillion...

I would easily take that risk over the one back when the apollo missions were launched.

[adsii1970]

Don't get me wrong, I'd go back further than that. I'd do a Mercury style mission just to go into space. In fact, I've volunteered to settle Mars back when the ESA and NASA were looking for volunteers. I'd go in a heartbeat even if it were a one-way trip.

[DualDesertEagle]

9 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Don't get me wrong, I'd go back further than that. I'd do a Mercury style mission just to go into space. In fact, I've volunteered to settle Mars back when the ESA and NASA were looking for volunteers. I'd go in a heartbeat even if it were a one-way trip.

Sounds like there's a big "but" (no pun intended) missing here.

[adsii1970]

Nope, no but here. But remember the saying our mothers taught us all so well... "it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt..."
 

[Red Iron Crown]

If you want to discuss the feasibility of a private Moon mission on the cheap, may I suggest the Space and Science forum? It's off topic here.

[DualDesertEagle]

I'm done so far, and I'm just as curious about how the ingame funds would translate to real-life currencies as many other ppl here are.

[Ryan.Bayguzin]

I don't know what the translation would be. I guess one fund equals to 1482.1400 AUD Dollars.

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Ryan.Bayguzin
Forgot to write the last bit

[Ryan.Bayguzin]

On 4/13/2017 at 7:43 PM, Razorforce7 said:

Currency value is based on many mathetmatical variables in real life. Let me stress the word many. Request/demand, inflation/deflation is the tip of the iceberg although definitely the main factors in this.
We don't know all in real life variables unless your a financial expert with both current and historic knowledge about finances.
And these Variables in the Kerbal space program are unknown.

So I take it your asking about my gut feeling?

I'd say 1 fund is $0.0000001 USD..
That way I can easily fill my gut and buy the Kerbal Universe and be supreme ruler over all green goons. Only if they accept Visa or MasterCard

 

???

[Vanamonde]

A post or two has been removed. No one wins points for making fun of "necroposts."