Boovie

I'm not saying that the SLS is the only option nor should it be. We need private industry involved in space exploration. However just because private industry is getting involved does not mean that NASA should become reliable solely on that to get to space. Regarding humans on Mars, that is one great benefit of SLS, but it also allows you to send probes and landers to other bodies in the solar system much more quickly. This allows us to accelerate the rate at which we make discoveries. The more we can go discover, the more public interest we can generate, which in turn puts a larger emphasis on funding space sciences...I think you see where I'm going with this. Bottom line is that the SLS is not the endgame nor the only option in the short- or long-term future, but is another important piece in the puzzle of space exploration.

I would argue that sending a separate probe to Europa would absolutely not be pointless. A lander could glean far more information from the surface and sub-surface ocean than the Clipper will gain from orbit. Congress ordered the two to be done together to save money, but what price can you put on data gleaned from other worlds and moons?

Actually the funding approved for the Europa Clipper mission includes a requirement that NASA add a lander to the mission. I do absolutely want a lander sent to Europa, but as an attachment to the Clipper mission is not the way to do it. We need Clipper to go first so that we can figure out where to safely put a lander rather than hoping that we can just get one down.

One of NASA's upcoming projects is a mission to Europa. With current technology the travel time to Europa would be about 7 years. With the SLS it would be cut to about 3-4 years depending on the launch window. SLS would not the the end game, as you'd have to keep improving, but it would allow us to more easily and quickly explore the entire solar system and beyond. We need the SLS. As of now, it's about smart spending, but I do want to throw this out there: if NASA's budget today was equivalent to what it was in the days of the Apollo missions, it would be approx. $100 billion. Instead of nitpicking what we fund and don't, let's throw NASA (more or less) that level of funding so that we can expand and explore the solar system and beyond.

It's truly unfortunate that congress and the general public (who, let's no forget, elects those who cast these votes) are far more concerned with the here and now. They always seem to be looking to cut the budget or, if they can't cut it, at least cut corners with what they approve.

I appreciate all the replies. I'm able to get to the Mun but am having some trouble landing so I think I could use some continued tweaking of my rocket builds/launch profiles.

Hi all, I've been really enjoying KSP since I started playing and have been going through career mode with all the trials and tribulations of any new player. As I've gone about unlocking the tech tree I've reached a couple of points where I've found myself stuck and struggling to gather enough science to continue unlocking new technology which has, in turn, hindered me in reaching new targets where I could gather more of said science. What do y'all do when you reach a point like this? I'm sure the order in which I am currently unlocking the tech tree is sub-optimal, but it's my first time through career mode so that's bound to happen (I already see some ways in which I could go about it better). Any advice to squeezing the most out of readily accessible science on Kerbin?

Hello everybody! My name is Brian and I just wanted to say hello! I've been following KSP for about a year now but just recently was able to afford a new computer that allowed me to begin playing the full game. I love it! I just want to get my feet wet here and say hello to everyone. I'll be sharing my triumphs and failures on here (I can assure y'all that there will be far more failures than triumphs) and hopefully some of you can help me along the way as I learn the ins and outs of exploring the Kerbal system.