shynung

I recently came across a PDF from 2005: http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS3/SESSION%20PAPERS/SESSION%206/6001-TURNER/6001C.pdf It describes Aquarius, a low-cost, SSTO launch vehicle envisioned to carry only bulk items (fuel, water, food, duct tape, etc) to LEO, for transfer to a depot via orbital space tug. Interestingly, launch failures of up to 1/3 of total launches is considered acceptable, even after considering the costs of typical payloads. I'd like to hear your opinions, considering your experience as KSP players, as to the viability of such spacecraft, and its possible uses. P.S. Haven't made a vertical SSTO yet, so this might be a good practice.

That did it. Thanks, DasBananenbrot! EDIT: Ninja'd. Thanks for the mod. Mihara!

For some reason, the MFD's not showing in the PPD cupola pod. Only the status lights (RCS, SAS, Lights, etc) are using RPM textures, but the rest of the instrumentation is basically stock. I'm using Module Manager 1.5.6, and skipped the MechJeb and SCANsat folders, as I don't use both. No other mods, clean save, on 0.23. Anybody else seeing this?

Okay then, lets swap Orion-style propulsion with, say, VASIMR. My point was, for long-range missions such as Mars manned missions, new and powerful propulsion systems must be developed, otherwise travel time would be significant. Orion was the highest-performing systems I knew of, which is why I put it as an example. Should better systems arrive, I would happily use it instead. The MSL Curiosity rover takes months on a single one-way trip to Mars. Is it more effective to supply manned missions for that long, plus their stay and return trip, or is it better to develop new propulsion systems to reduce the journey to a matter of days, rather than months? I myself would favor the latter.

This. This struck me as brilliant. If the scientists and engineers refer to the "bombs" as "fissile fuel", Project Orion MIGHT have been much more developed by now, or at least have some application for sending probes to further destinations. Heck, if some sort of nuclear propulsion system (either Orion or NERVA) has been fully developed, we would have been on Mars by now, and have rovers on Titan (the moon of Saturn) or Europa (the moon of Jupiter), and have probes on Pluto, without waiting for another Grand Alignment (which was the case for Voyager missions). If I was controlling NASA, I'd pursue these propulsion systems first, along with alternative propulsion systems (NERVA, SABRE, hybrid rockets, various electric propulsion systems), then adapting the SLS to launch these into orbit. Next, I would build what I call a modular spacecraft, which is basically a spacecraft that's so large, it has to be launched in segments and assembled in orbit. Then, landers, rovers, manned capsules, labs, probes, and other payloads would be docked to this massive spacecraft and be carried away to other planets, acting as a mothership of some sorts. After the mission, the spacecraft would carry its returning payload back to Earth orbit, detach the manned capsules for reentry, and stay in orbit for for its next mission, with new capsules, new crew, and (possibly) new engines. This way, the WHOLE spacecraft, other than discarded segments due to damage, is recovered, and ready for new missions without launching it to orbit again. I have tried this concept in KSP, and while initial efforts are challenging (it cost me 19 launches, and it has 350+ part count, not including payload), the results are staggering. For every subsequent missions, all I have to do is launch a resupply mission, send manned capsules and landers, maybe a processing lab, and simply set the thing on its way. That same spacecraft did at least a dozen missions before I lost my save and had to start over, and I'm thoroughly impressed by its capabilities. If we are actually going to send manned missions to Mars, this would be essential, especially since sending additional supplies from Earth would take months to arrive. Going there with stockpiles in reach may be a better idea.

I have to admit, this is probably one of the strangest facts I have ever encountered. The force exerted by a massive object, via a curvature of space-time, is absolutely equivalent to the force exerted by either a linearly or centripetally accelerated, man-made object, in every way? What a weird universe we live in.

Then, is it true that gravity and acceleration are basically different phenomenons that produces the same effect? In this case, gravity producing acceleration, that is felt by humans by having themselves being stuck to a specific surface? (forgive my grammar) If so, for the purposes of artificial gravity generation, I see no viable means to generate it other than simulating it using acceleration. And I think it's safe to say that the 'gravity' produced by that acceleration is a simulated one, as it does not involve using plenty of mass (other than the spacecraft itself and its occupants, which only produces gravity at negligible levels).

Ah, you're right. It is, indeed, artificial gravity. That's one big oversight I just made. However, that raises another question: Is gravity and acceleration exactly the same phenomenon? If not, why can we artificially create it by accelerating things (either by thrust or rotation)? In fact, what IS gravity? What causes them? How do they work? Is it possible for its processes to be replicated? If so, how? Before these questions can be answered, I am not sure whether artificial gravity as depicted in sci-fi movies will actually be possible at all.

I do not think we have the technology to create artificial gravity, at least not for the next 100 years. Instead, I think it is possible to simulate them using the ship's own acceleration. One way to do it is by centripetal acceleration, as described by K^2. The other, more straightforward way to do it, IMO, would be using the spacecraft's own engines to constantly accelerate it at 9.8m/s2. That way, the spacecraft's 'floors' would be facing against the engines, resulting in people standing inline with the spacecraft's direction of travel, at a constant 1G acceleration. And since gravity is felt the same way to people to acceleration (depending on their orientation), they would, practically, walk around in the spacecraft just like in the sci-fi movies. Only this time, they see the stars out the window going to their feet rather than to the side.