Borklund

Thanks for the update!

Yes but on the flipside, if you handwave practical, economical and political hurdles why not just build an interstellar warp drive and go find an Earth twin that is better than Earth in every single way and relocate the entire population of Earth there? There is no self-sustaining, closed loop ECLSS system yet, and there won't be for a while. Even if we get that, and everything else required to go to either Venus or Mars and settle humans on either of them permanently, why would you choose Venus over Mars? Venus is worse for settling humans on in every conceivable way, most notably the fact that we're talking about a ridiculous city in the clouds. You can plant both feet firmly on Martian soil just to name one advantage over Venus.

Falcon 9 (and subsequently also the Heavy) are already human rated. You must have missed the news from earlier this year. Elon Musk has consistently talked about Mars in the context of SpaceX going to Mars and building a city on Mars, not waiting for NASA to do some flags and footprint Mars mission using his vehicles and/or spacecraft (though that may also come true). - - - Updated - - - Think of it as a demonstration mission on steroids, coupled with it being amazing advertising. I believe Elon Musk is deadly serious about wanting to go to Mars in a big way, and in order to do that he needs to shift the attitudes of the people who hold the purse strings, meaning the politicians - the public does not care about space exploration in a meaningful way. "Hey, I can launch a cheap, commercial spacecraft anywhere in the inner solar system on a partially reusable super heavy launch vehicle for a fraction of the cost of an almost negligibly more capable SLS. Listen to me/buy my things!" is a fairly strong statement. I'm not saying I know that they are thinking of doing this, I don't even think it is likely, but if there is a single person who is better placed or equipped than Elon Musk to do something like an Apollo 8 stunt, I'd like to hear about them. Elon Musk said so during a telecon after the Dragon V2 Pad Abort Test. Here's the relevant part: Who said anything about returning from the surface of the moon? I'm not saying SpaceX would launch astronauts to the surface of the moon in a Dragon V2. I'm talking about an Apollo 8 reboot. See my earlier reply. I'll add that his original idea was to send mice or plants to Mars to kickstart a revolution in space exploration. While the mice and plants are out, the vision behind it is still there. SpaceX will be making the satellites as well as launching them. SpaceX has flown demonstration missions paid for out of pocket before (Falcon 1 Flight 4) and Elon Musk has hinted at/not ruled out a Falcon Heavy demonstration mission. If you look at it from the reusability effort angle, you can put it down as an R&D expenditure. They'd get 3 cores back (which they plan to resell, so they'll recoup part of the cost) and get invaluable data.

Yes. They're in a better place now, where they have plenty of space in which to roam around freely.

Following the deaths of 14 astronauts and several commissions, the emphatic conclusion is that mixing significant cargo payloads with human passengers in a piloted system is not a recipe for success. If you do away with the crew part of the Space Shuttle, you're left with an unnecessarily complicated, heavy and risky way to launch cargo to orbit. Why lug around 60 tonnes of "Space Shuttle V2" to get 20 tonnes of usable payload to orbit? The smarter solution is to build a safe and fully or partially reusable "normal" launch vehicle. The Space Shuttle proved that reuse of a large winged spaceplane is anything but cheap.

There is no point to a flying Venus colony, it's all science fiction make believe. Mars provides an infinitely better environment in which to settle humans. A 30-day manned research mission to Venus however, would be nice to have. But even something like this is completely beyond the capability of NASA at the moment and in the foreseeable future. A mission like the one in the video would require research, design, building and testing many incredibly complicated pieces of hardware. NASA does not exactly have tens of billions of dollars lying around. [Citation needed]

Dragon V2 only weighs ca 4.2 tonnes, less without the heat shield and parachutes. You could easily fling a Dragon V2 to the moon or Mars or pretty much anywhere in the inner solar system using a Falcon Heavy. Dragon V2 is already in the process of being fully certified and manrated (Falcon 9/Heavy already are), and even then there are absolutely no regulations stopping SpaceX from sending their own people (non-NASA astronauts) into space. Wrong. Falcon Heavy will be flying next year. Elon Musk has stated that Dragon V2 is already capable of landing on the moon; all it takes are minor modifications. SpaceX could definitely land something on the moon by 2019, just not people. A SpaceX Apollo 8 mission is more likely imo, but who knows what Elon wants to do (certainly not me). Wrong. SpaceX manufactures many types of payload; Dragon, Dragon V2 and now also satellites. They are a payload-to-destination provider as well as a launch provider. With current SpaceX architecture you don't need an EDS to get to the moon or Mars, merely improved and hardened avionics and electronics, maybe extra instruments. No need to build anything from scratch. Why would you bother replicating Apollo hardware when you can put a slightly modified Dragon V2 on the surface of the moon, launched atop a Falcon Heavy. The question is not one of feasibility, but of desire, and for anyone who isn't Elon Musk or at top of the SpaceX hierarchy, it's pure speculation.

Thanks! The old pod went to live on a farm.

Thanks! Textile Product Development and Entrepreneurship, a 3 year program where I will be trying to build a space suit.

To misquote Mark Twain: "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated" I'm back! Well, sort of. I could say that I have been busy with other stuff but the truth is that I just sort of lost interest in KSP. With the release 1.0 I'm slowly rediscovering my interest in playing KSP and - most importantly for this thread - making mods for KSP. The plan in the OP remains unchanged but I should say that I am not making any promises that I will actually finish the mod. The most likely outcome is that I disappear again in a while, perhaps never to be seen again. I am after all going to university this autumn, so that is a distinct possibility. But while I'm here and we are operating under the assumption that I get something done and released, here's an update in pictoral form: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's my new CST-100/Orion influenced crew capsule design. I'm calling it the KST-70. Business end of the KST-70. Panels attach to the bottom of the capsule and fold out 180 degrees. Launch configuration. Note the pusher launch abort system used on the real CST-100 and also Dragon V2. Unlike traditional LAS systems, it does not require a tower and separation event. Instead the same thrusters used to manuever in space are used (deeply throttled) for launch abort. This is essentially what will be in the first release. The spacecraft and service module, an interstage fairing, a 3.75m fuel tank and engine part (inspired by ULA's Vulcan), a single part 1.875m strap-on liquid rocket booster and a nose cone. Same launch vehicle with a 4m fairing. Not sure if clamshell KW Rocketry type fairings work in 1.0 or not, it's not something I have looked into a great deal yet. Consider that part notional for now. I am now 100% done modeling. This will (hopefully) be the last post featuring untextured, grey models. Next time I post I will have completed UV mapping all of the parts featured in in the pictures above, and animating the solar panel.

Yeah, no. My impression is that there are a lot of people on here who believe they know more than they really do and/or who get their information mainly from wikipedia or cooky websites. You don't need to bring hydrogen to Mars. You can get hydrogen from electrolyzing water, which you are (ideally) already making to sustain humans and plants.

The U.S. Every other nation is so far behind and have much less funding. I'd be surprised if the first crew on Mars was all American however.

The mission - CRS-5 - is not yet a success, they still have to get to ISS. The first stage recovery was an experiment outside of the mission.

Thanks RobotsAndSpaceships! Yeah, absolutely. It's still a work in progress, eventually I want to add a more mechanical, less smooth unfolding motion. That'll come later. The engine cluster, the radiator panels - everything below the capsule excluding the solar panels - is all one part, but I think I can accommodate you. I have mocked up a 2.5m service module decoupler (seen in blue below) which you can use to stack service modules on top of eachother. The red cylinder is 2.5m in diameter and can be anything - a fuel tank, another pod, a stock decoupler with other things on top etc.

Thank you Cpt. Kipard! Thanks! I opted for custom panels in the end, but they are Dragon-like in size and shape. You mean the silhouette in the OP? My bad; it's not meant to be 100% representative, I just took an image of the PPTS and made an outline out of it. If you ask Beale nicely maybe he'll make a replica for Tantares. I'm trying to make some sort of realistic/stockalike fusion thing with my own spin on it, not replicas. Sorry for the confusion! Thanks a lot Bomoo! As for your request, well, I've tried to make it as modular and interchangeable with stock and other mods as possible. For example, the pod should be compatible with the SDHI service module and stock parts. The service module on the other hand, is a more unique part (or rather, two parts). It will probably fit well with other pods, but it's not exactly a flat 2.5m fuel tank. That said, there will be a decoupler adapter so you can stick the service module onto any standard 2.5m part if you want. I'll definitely try to do the same for all the other spacecraft parts (if I ever get around to making them). It'll be more like SDHI than KSO for sure. The solar panels, well, I want to make them partly because - as you mentioned - it'll be self-contained, but also because I like to create 3d models, and I want to have them fit into the launch abort and fairing system I'm making. I appreciate your continued feedback Nope, the only docking port is on the top of the crew capsule. Check out Tantares, it has exactly what you're looking for. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. -- Did some more work on the service module on pod, minor detail work here and there, plus a new solar panel design. The solar panels unfolding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uks7Bk7OS8

I'm not entirely sure you can be convinced, but I'm going to give it one last try. Think of a mission to and from Mars in simple steps. Each stop costs money and adds risk, which makes the mission more expensive and less likely to succeed. Here's the way I'm proposing: Transfer burn to Mars -> Descent to Mars -> Mars ISRU -> Ascent from Mars -> Transfer to Earth. A grand total of 5 steps. This is your scenario (or some version of it): Transfer burn to Mars -> Fuel transfer from Phobos to Mars orbit -> Refuel in space -> Descent to Mars -> Ascent from Mars -> Fuel transfer from Phobos to Mars orbit -> Refuel in space -> Transfer to Earth. A total of 8 steps. You have added three steps, and now you have to answer the following questions: What do you get in your version that you cannot get from my version? I'll give you the correct answer: Nothing, and it costs more money and adds more overall mission risk. I have grossly simplified the mission, too. There are so many more steps than 5 in my version, and thus many, many more steps than 8 in your version. Your version would add up risk after risk after risk, dollar on top of dollar. What if some piece of the ISRU and prop production and depot hardware fails, and you have to replace it, where is that going to come from? Who is going to repair it, and where are they or it going to come from? More money, more risk. I could go on and on. Does this help make it clear why there is absolutely no need for off-world ISRU and propellant production and storage? I haven't even mentioned any number of details, like the fact that we haven't yet refined a single gram of fuel from space, but there are already technologically ready and tested Martian surface ISRU and propellant production prototypes. Why would you spend limited time and energy on something which is completely unnecessary? You haven't shown why an "orbital infrastructure" is necessary for a human, long term presence on Mars. You just insisting on it is not an explanation.

No, you wouldn't. To get to Mars, you have to expel energy at Earth. It's going to be much more expensive (in energy and dollars) to get the energy to Earth orbit from anywhere other than Earth's surface, it's just that simple. Then, when you get to the surface of Mars, you need the energy on the surface of Mars to get back to Earth. Here you have the same exact situation as on Earth; it's going to be much more expensive (meaning wasteful) to get the energy from anywhere but the surface of Mars. You're just adding unnecessary cost and risk - more steps in a chain of things that have to go off perfectly in order for you to succeed. You do not need ISRU anywhere else but on the surface of Mars to get to Mars and back.

*deep breath* Okay. Venus is a hot hellhole with a literally crushing atmosphere. Solid ground and guaranteed insights into its history are not the only benefits of a manned Mars mission vs a manned Venus mission. Is it infinitely better than your pie-in-the-sky (or rather airship-in-Venus's-sky) idea. Mars' atmosphere is thin, but it's there. It does a good job of protecting against some of the worst types of solar and cosmic radiation (which is just one reason why Mars is better than the Moon, but that's neither here nor there). The sun isn't dim on Mars at all, not in normal conditions, that's why most surface missions to Mars have had solar panels. Dust storms, while they block out sunlight, also clean solar panels (see both MER rovers). Plus, it would be idiotic not to take with you an alternate source of power on a critical mission like a manned one. Even if there wasn't one, you'd have batteries and generators. There's nothing "dubious" about being able to walk or drive around your landing site, that's the whole point. That's golden. If I sent you somewhere to explore and told you to stand still in the one spot I dropped you off, and I set off on a walk or took a drive in a car, who'd you think would come back with the most information about the place? You could explore long distance on Mars, why couldn't you? Electrical powered rovers could get you tens of kilometers in one day, and keep going, day after day. On your Venusian airship, you're confined to your pressure vessel, looking out at some clouds. You get the Sabatier reaction on Mars too, and it's a hell of a lot easier and less risky because it's on the ground and not in some giant airship floating in the sky. That's not to mention the fact that humans cannot survive on oxygen and water alone. You can grow crops in Martian soil. I would go on but I realised I'm wasting my time when you mentioned graphene. Graphene is not necessarily the saviour of mankind. We haven't figured out how to make anything more than a few atoms large out of Graphene yet. I recommend you read this article: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-question NASA could pluck you from your chair, put you in a probe, send you to Mars, transmit the instructions and tell you to go out and do what Curiosity has taken three years to do, and you could do it in under a day. Do you know how far Curiosity has travelled in three years time? About 9 kilometers. Even at a slow speed of 3 km/h, you'd catch up to it in three hours. That's not to mention all the things you can do. The human eye and instinct is something a rover will never have. You could pick out interesting objects and features and analyse and value their importance on the fly, something mission controllers in California spend weeks and weeks on, before sending a pre-planned set of commands to Curiosity. If anything comes up, they have to wait. Curiosity can automatically detect and avoid some rocks, that's it. It doesn't know when to perform scientific experiements or when to take experiments, and even if it did, it doesn't have the resources it would need. You should read this article: http://astrobites.org/2012/03/29/dispelling-the-myth-of-robotic-efficiency-why-astronomers-should-support-human-exploration-of-the-solar-system/ Basically, human missions are way more expensive, but also astronomically more efficient. Robotic exploration is great for places humans can't go, but they're limited. There's a third option, teleoperated robots from orbit, but that's still very expensive - you have to send the robots and the humans, and even if the humans aren't going on the surface of Mars (for example), they still have to go almost the entire way and back, and they still don't get as efficient as human autonomy. Why would you have to have to use Mars' moons for ISRU? Everything you need is on the surface of Mars. Trips to and from those moons would just be a waste of energy. No. -- These posts are really typical of people who may confess to be interested in space exploration, but are actually not very knowledgeable about it. If you want to call yourselves space advocates, and you actually want to see the expansion of mankind beyond Earth's confines, you need to forget all you pretend to know about space elevators, stanford toruses, nuclear engines and kickstarting thorium reactors with bitcoins, and get real. Direct your energy towards learning about actual, plausible space exploration and if you're a US citizen, write your congressperson and senator and implore them to direct NASA in the right way and to give them more money.

Thanks IGNOBIL! That's exactly what I intended to do, thank you Very kind words, but I am nowhere near that talented. While I don't like the sci-fi look of those parts, the workmanship and quality is second to none, and something to strive for. -- Almost done with the capsule and service module. Made the aft end cone bit slightly longer. Also added ATV/HTV style engine nozzles, CST-100 style radiator panels and PPTS style solar panels. Another view: Might revisit the solar panels, make them taller (more Dragon-like) but I don't want the whole pod to look just like Dragon. Not sure yet.

Thanks nebuchadnezzar!

This should be made stock. Brilliant job CaptRobau! Also, thanks nebuchadnezzar for the 64K config, much obliged.

Yeah, interdimensional aliens, that must be it. It cannot possibly be that the more reasonable and plausible explanation is a combination of cognitive bias, incompetence and just out and out lies. I'm rolling my eyes so hard it hurts.

This is getting slightly off topic, but I'll run with it. It is true that we have not shown that humans can develop from childhood to adulthood in a different gravitational environment, but that doesn't mean that we won't ever figure it out. We may never be able to have a self-sustaining colony outside of Earth, but what if we could? It would be cool to find out regardless. Wandering into OT, and I'm not sure a dedicated thread for this subject would stay on topic and, eh, not deviate into less civilised areas of discussion quickly. First thing that comes to mind is animal testing, rats for instance. You might not think that we could learn a lot from rats but they're actually not a bad analogue with regard to a lot of human physiology.

Yep, his texture tutorial will be very helpful too. The launch vehicle parts will be more like real rockets, but not replicas. I am drawing a lot of my inspiration from prospective Russian HLV designs and other launch vehicles like Angara, and Chinese launch vehicles and concepts as well. I'll put together a cohesive picture (render) when all the parts for the tentative first release are done. Imagine a 2m core with four strap-on 1.875m identical cores (much like the Angara-5), a 2.5m upper stage and a slightly larger fairing with launch abort system (similar to the Soyuz) for the crew capsule and service module. Then, after that - and this is presuming I ever get this far - I'll do 3.125m and 3.75m parts for much, much heavier launch vehicle configurations (shown in the renders in the album and on earlier pages).

Thanks everyone. I figure I'll start texturing when I'm done modelling the capsule, that way I can start out small and work my way up to the bigger pieces. I haven't textured anything myself before so it'll be a bit of a challenge, but I'll get there eventually.