Reddragon

In my opinion optimally we shouldn't need to choose. I'd be the happiest if there was money for both (and there could be) but since that's not the case I'd go with ARM which is much cheaper and is completely new. Besides that having a smaller station in lunar orbit with a reusable robotic lander for sample return missions to the station and perhaps to bring some scientific equipment to the surface would be a good option. No need to restart Apollo just to see it end again. SLS and Orion came way too early. They shouldn't be working on an SHLV yet.

I will post a craft file but I have to work more on it! The Mainsail SSMEs were tweaked on this one to have larger gimbal (as an SSME should have) but I intend to recreate it to work well without any config modifications and flying it was still... funny! I also want to recreate both the NASA shuttles and Buran from completely stock parts. I'll try to come up with some new images too.

The Vos-909 is actually a pretty good OMS engine. Here's a shuttle of mine with a Tantares station. It's only a single module lab for now.

"space debris" Interesting idea btw. I think it isn't the first time somebody came up with this idea.

I dare to say that buying KSP was one of the best ideas of mine so far. Not because it's probably the most entertaining PC games I've ever had but because it completely changed my attitude towards science, space exploration and by that, maybe my life itself. Thank you guys for the game!

Gargantua in itself sounds awesome but I'm excited for the planets too!

Which failure do you mean? Falcon Heavy's as a failure itself, or its reusability?

Yes, for the balloon tanks it makes sense but I don't know why it's needed to cover the Centaur. The Atlas V has two versions. Maybe StrandedonEarth is right but I have to look it up.

That's also true.

RS-25s (SSMEs) are very good yet today. They also have a high ISP. 450 in vacuum or something like that.

How beneficial are these large fairings? I don't really see the point of them. Better aerodynamic stability maybe?

Maybe it is designed that way. I think the Atlas V was meant to have a 'heavy' version as well like Delta IV but they never launched it. It depends on how much it boosts the performance and for what costs.

If they want to replace both Delta IV and Atlas V than it has to be able to launch at least 22 tonnes to LEO.

Probably. I also wonder if it could work well with heavy or super heavy lifters.

The heat shield seems to be quite small when it's deflated. If you take a look at the engine cycle picture there's plenty of space around it. Hence why they decided to go with an inflatable one.

Today United Launch Alliance introduced it's new rocket design called 'Vulcan' also known the NGLS (Next Generation Launch System). Probably the most interesting part is it's reusable engines and the fact that they intend to recover it mid-air with a cargo helicopter, after it being detached from the first stage fuel tank (like the old Atlas booster engines did). According to the plan, it will also use an inflatable heat shield during re-entry. ULA expects to reduce launch costs by quite much: What do you think of this technology? How reliable could this system be? Could it rival SpaceX's reusable boosters? Let me know about your thoughts!

I like this Saturn V. DECQ, you did a very good job in making it as realistic as possible. Although it's true that there are quite many Saturn V mods already. Maybe you should try something different if you don't see a point in finishing it but I think it still has potential.

I think that's an RPM camera on the Tantares probe RCS arm (or whatever it's called).

Those "symbol laws" don't affect anything here. They are only forbidding public use of these symbols and you would just have to pay some kind of fine if in any case you break them. Also these laws are hardly being enforced, trust me. I live in one of those countries. I think no decal is the best option only because no other part has anything like this I think.

I don't think most of us are critical about NASA in respect of SLS and Orion but the politics behind it and how nobody in decisive positions wants to raise the budget for the agency yet everybody waits for miracles to happen. I'm 100% behind the idea that NASA could get a lot more. And by that I mean even two times the budget they receive annually.

SLS and Orion will only really be picked up when NASA either gets more funding or ends the ISS program 2024. I don't know what the launch cost will be for SLS itself but I'm sure they can't afford it for now and there won't be any serious budget raise in the near future (which is a shame).

I don't see too much potential in Venus. I'd say focusing on the Jupiter and Saturn systems after Mars are the obvious next steps. Also, don't forget about asteroids!

It would only take a habitation module and sample collecting equipment and other smaller things to test. These are just a few out of the many technologies needed to got o Mars. If we have done a mission like this, it still doesn't mean we're ready for interplanetary flights. It would also be a much shorter mission than a Mars mission. The current ARM concept only needs Orion out of all the proposed Mars exploration equipment.

Wouldn't visiting an asteroid in it's native orbit with Orion make more sense? I know this would require much more, like a deep space habitat and other equipment for sample collecting and else but those technologies are required for Mars missions anyway so they could at least be tested. I'm all for asteroids (and their resources to be mined in the future) but this mission really seems to be a waste of time and money in it's current form.

This Kliper looks very good! I don't remember the last time I used a shuttle design like this but I'll definitely try this one.