GJames

These are great, took me ages to figure out who on the forum was putting all this up on the KSP Mindspring site... A before and after aerial shot of the Laythe Base could be cool, depending on how far the coast has moved. Like the "map" of the base with all the names on it somewhere back in the thread... But keep this up, they're informative and somewhat enjoyable if I say so myself!

Even if the Russians don't take full advantage of the funding it is likely that ESA will get a boost; A lot of the bigger ESA missions have been in cooperation with Roscocmos, I seem to remember... Especially that ExoMars rover whose future was called into doubt, hopefully that will be able to continue.

Definitely needs more funding, but hopefully if they prove that the technology is feasible they'll attract some serious attention from private companies, governments and ESA. It could happen, and I hope it does.

They stated in 2011 that they could have a suborbital test flight by 2016. Bit optimistic, I know, so emphasis on the "could" part. ESA and the UK Space Agency conducted a review of the project and found that: ‘no impediments or critical items have been identified for either the SKYLON vehicle or the SABRE engine that are a block to further developments’. Obviously there will be delays and setbacks, as is the nature of new technologies. But this does look really good, and I'll be following it with interest... EDIT: The X-51 that the US is developing probably won't be used for anything like an SSTO. Instead they're planning on turning it into some kind of high speed strike weapon...

The Skylon uses SABRE engines to fly, so I reckon it could be. It is by far the most promising that I've heard of, and it could be doing test flights in just over 5 years time...

As you have branded Thaniel's, karolus10's and my views as inane and crazy, I doubt that we could do anything to convince you otherwise, (although they can if they want to). The fact that you didn't directly answer Thaniel's post when, in my own but obviously inane and crazy opinion, systematically refuted nearly all of your points, seems to suggest that you couldn't come up with any decent answers. Your posts all seem to have the tone that your opinions are more important than everyone else's and you do indeed intersperse your points with various insults, as if to prove how ignorant we are. Not generally a good to e to take when this is supposed to be a discussion, not an argument. As for living in la-la land, I would far rather be optimistic and hopeful for new technologies than poo-poo any that don't fit into your view of how spaceflight should be. EDIT: If you had paid any attention to the source that I linked you to, you would've seen that the research presented on the page was in turn linked to the Graybiel Lab at MIT, who originally conducted the research. That's a bit less dubious right?

Here's your citation. And while you don't strictly need artificial gravity, it could be helpful, especially as this "bone-less medication" you mention would likely cost an awful lot of money, as does bringing any drug to market. Exercise and diet does help to an extent, but after longer-term missions it wouldn't be nice coming back to solid ground again... There is actually a plan to put a small ring shaped centrifuge on the ISS and possibly use it as sleeping quarters, but it hasn't been confirmed yet, (it was part of the Nautilus X plan if anyone wants to have a look).

I believe they did some Earth based testing on artificial gravity induced Coriolis effects, and they found that at 2-3rpm the subjects experienced some symptoms but adapted nearly completely after two days. At 5-6rpm some subjects were able to adapt after a few days, but at 10rpm adaptation wasn't possible, even in the least-susceptible subjects (ones who didn't easily get air-sick, like experienced pilots etc.). At 2-3rpm, you would need a 220m long tether to replicate 1g, which is definitely achievable. Look up the Gemini 11 mission as well, they briefly experimented with the idea and produced a tiny amount of artificial gravity. There are still many things to consider and try and find out their effects, but shouldn't we at least investigate it rather than discard the idea without any serious thought?

It's hardly "Science fiction fluff". Any long term deep space mission will need to have either lots of exercise equipment or some form of artificial gravity in order for the astronauts to be able to even walk when they reach their destination. Not so much of a problem if they're coming back to Earth from an asteroid or a flyby, as we have medical facilities and the like, but if they landed on Mars for example, it's going to put a damper on the mood if the first step on another planet is swiftly followed by a face-plant. Also, nuclear engines have been built and ground tested, so they're hardly science fiction as well. I agree with you that space elevators and warp drives are mostly pointless endeavors to focus on currently, as they're technically impossible for now and won't be built for decades, if not centuries. As for my crude oversimplification of artificial gravity, what else is there to it?

I personally think that Vall is much more like Europa in that it is covered in ice. Laythe has a decent atmosphere, but very little ice on it. Europa does have oxygen in it's atmosphere, but there is far too little too be of much, if any use at all.

If you read back a few pages you'll find that OP had all that shizzle explained to them by Fractal, Nova and others, and then they apologized for not double-checking facts and looking stuff up. So...I guess your post fails on every level...

It's hardly "technology" in the traditional sense. Just stick a rope* between the spent upper stage of a craft and the crew module and then spin it round at a couple of rpm. Voila, artificial gravity. All it needs is someone to actually do it and we're gold. *Not actual rope

Okay, how about extending the discussion to include any Mars landing that doesn't plan on coming back. I'm interested in hearing if people think this is ethical/a good idea/just completely stupid...

So, I just had a look at the Mars One website... It looks interesting, and would be amazing if it all went to plan. I'm still a bit skeptical though, so do you think it should go ahead or not? And do you think it would actually work if it went ahead? For those who haven't a clue what I'm talking about, Mars One plans to land four astronauts on Mars and have them stay there and conduct research/build a base etc. http://mars-one.com/en/mission/mission-and-vision EDIT: Mars One is a tad unlikely, I'll admit, so I'm expanding the thread topic to include anything about any manned Mars mission that plans to stay on the surface and not return to Earth.

I voted for research only for many of the same reasons that other people have put (not running before you can walk .etc). However, I would personally be very disappointed if humans didn't go back there and then onto Mars by 2050 or so. My view of 2100 is of a continued research-orientated human presence on the Moon and maybe Mars, and manned missions to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn either having happened or be seriously on the drawing board. I'm an optimist, what can I say!

Pfft...5%, I'd take those odds any day! Seriously though, we'll think of something. Think how far we've come in the past fifty years, and then think of all the amazing things that we'll have done/made by 2053. If we haven't landed on Mars by then I will be very disappointed.

Once a vehicle is more than 2.5km away it get's unloaded and just becomes a set of data points, but there is a mod that increases the loading range that might keep ASAS on, but I cannot remember it of the top of my head. I think Scott Manley mentions it a few times though... And no, I don't think you can target more than one thing at once.

Look a bit further down the page, someone already posted about this.

They're trying to sell it to the public, who don't necessarily know that, shhh...

That is pretty neat, soon they'll have loads of those little telescopes up there! EDIT: The numbers just keep on going up as I reload the page...

My example of a 15,000 ton asteroid obviously wasn't given as the first asteroid we would capture. It was supposed to be an example of what we could do once the technology and processes of asteroid retrieval are somewhat understood. A more relevant example would've been an 8.2m diameter asteroid, much like the one that NASA is designing it's retrieval mission for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Retrieval_and_Utilization . This asteroid would still weigh hundreds, if not thousands of tons. And who said that you would need a large-scale processing plant. Have a look at Deep Space Industries Microgravity Foundry. It can "print" components made from nickel while in orbit, and is very small-scale, as most technologies are when they start out. Lastly, although I said I wanted constructive criticism, bluntly shooting down my points without any explanation doesn't normally lend itself well to a discussion.

They put the plane into a steep(ish) dive which simulates zero-g. Think of the van going off the side of the bridge in Inception if you've seen it, where everything floats up into the air. There is some more to it than that, but that's the general idea...

You can now (as of 0.20) see how much something weighs by clicking on the little "i" button on the far right of the map screen.

I will admit that I phrased that a little bit optimistically, so I'll try and explain my reasoning: Asteroid mining is very likely to be commercially viable simply because of the huge cost of lifting materials and fuel into space. If you could get a large amount of those materials, especially water ice which can be used to make propellant, you save a good deal of money when carrying out space missions of any kind, as less fuel etc. needs to be brought up from Earth. As for the availability of target asteroids, there are around 1,100 near Earth asteroids that have been classed as "moveable" by Deep Space Industries and NASA. There are some problems if the target asteroid is tumbling; currently there is no real way of stopping that easily and economically. It is also easier to reach many of these "target" asteroids than it is the surface of the moon (In terms of Delta-V), and current technology has already visited asteroids, such as NASA's Dawn mission, which is currently cruising through the asteroid belt on it's way to Ceres. Lastly, the asteroids with large amounts of minerals in them account for roughly 20% of the asteroids discovered so far, and more are discovered every week. If a target asteroid weighed 15,000 tons, it would be roughly 20-25m in diameter. Such an asteroid could be brought back to lunar orbit, where it could be studied and then mined. If this asteroid was an M-Type asteroid that contains mostly metals, it is likely to have a mineral content of around 88% iron, 10% nickel and 0.5% cobalt. As you can see they are almost pure metal, and if those metals were sold at today's prices then that one tiny asteroid would be worth $222,000,000 at today's prices. However, the cost of putting nearly 15,000 tons of usable metal into LEO would be around $45 billion assuming that the launch price is that of the Falcon Heavy, one of the most economical rockets in development today. Obviously it would take a ridiculously long time to use up that much metal, but having it out there, safely orbiting the moon would bring down the amount of materials needed to be launched from Earth for future missions. And I'm not even going to start figuring out how much an icy asteroid would be worth in terms of rocket fuel... Sorry for the wall of text, but I felt that I should explain myself a bit better than before. Feel free to poke holes in my points as much as you like, constructive criticism is welcome... EDIT: Bringing this post back on topic, having all that stuff already in space would dramatically lower the cost of a Mars mission.

Good call, just manged to catch liftoff. The stuffed toys in the capsule are pretty cool as well!