Technical Ben

IMO a cycler ship is a quality of life addition. Or a "guarantee" of performance (done previously to landing a crew less version, otherwise go straight to that). If they can fit everything on one craft by all means. But it seems they will cut things out to save on size/cost. But if they are going to go for number of launches = efficiency, than launching one extra craft should not cut into that much, but would provide twice the living space while in transit. Actually, this could be addressed by launching (and keeping in orbit) such facilities instead. If this is a "one in a lifetime, today only" rocket launch, then yes... doing it once is the only option. Even some ships have "landing" craft. I just don't see many people wanting to spend 3 months in their seat.

One does not plan geoengineering. The planet plans bioengineering. Life changes a planet. But it takes inordinate amounts of time.

I might play with the idea in KSP (which I'm trailing now :D). I'm going to try setting up a cycler. Already dropped a miner on Duna and am trailing a fuel tanker. I guess it will go the way of most businesses. The customers would want a cycler (the extra space, confirmed re-usability/reliability). The company wants to reduce immediate costs. The company will get what it wants over the people. I'm not sure it's a "vision" so much, unless Elon wants to go first. Without that commitment, I'll look on from the sides with a big dose of concern.

The thread title. It asks if we can use the dirt to grow food. So I made a comment on it. Mainly on my opinion of the feasibility. But also on logical steps to get there (which is basic, anyone could figure out). I made no comment on environmental responsibility. "Closed system" is referring to the food supply not needing constant resupplies from Earth. Why? Because perhaps people on Mars might want to eat a tomato and not wait 6 months. Perhaps they just like gardening. It was not referring to energy budget or environmental impact. Chillax?

KSP should be like real life and have the moon get bigger as it approaches the horizon. I guess this is because it is closer to the ground, right? So in KSP the Muns orbit is wrong, is should be more elliptical to be the same as on Earth... /sacasm (Please don't think I think that is real!)

I doubt there are intermediaries that "work" well. You have a full chicken, a problematic over bred farm animal, and meat in a vat. But something between the Vat and a chicken is very problematic. Why? We don't have a "car" and a "sled" with things inbetween often. You cannot have half a wheel. You either have a wheeled car, a powered sled, or a sled. Anything with half a wheel breaks down and fails to function. On Mars? Resupply, grow in a vat, or big green houses. It is probably best for the first attempt to be all resources supplied from earth, then used unclosed cycle. Then from there supplement with Martian materials. Once that is going, a closed cycle Earth supplied system with some resupply added later from Martian resources... then a totally Mars sufficient system could be looked at. We learn to walk before we run.

Then why not just send normal meat? Why are we sending this? Why not just send frozen chicken breasts?

How would it respond to the conditions? How would it effect the reliability? How strong is it? How are we getting it there? How are we producing the steroids, antibiotics and it's food? There is a difference in claiming "just add a rocket to my car to go faster" and actually doing it. Some good ideas may take decades to get one single result (there have been a few rocket cars, and one more is in production now to attempt to hit 1000mph). But here, if it does not work and does not give a result in 1-2 years, what happens? People starve! I ask you. Why do people not farm at the Arctic, Antarctic or on the ISS?

Think carefully. That bull. What does it require? What do we do to it here on Earth that we will not have on Mars. Go through the list. Tell me, and show me you have it on Mars.

Again. To make that claim you don't know about animals. What happens when you do that to the bull? Think about farming. How do they do it? You are missing a big ingredient I doubt they will have in large supply on Mars, and hence why you would send normal domesticated animals, not stripped down ones. Mushrooms are a good resource, and we have almost closed cycle already. We don't for animals.

You mean shooting a barrel does not cause it to explode? Painting it red does not cause it to be more flammable?

And? Those on Mars? If someone wishes to enforce control, they do so here. Disable the launch facility. Make it "illegal". They won't shoot down people mid air, but then you could use that same argument on earth. Will they bomb the poles? Why? As long as your independent on Mars, you can be on the poles/deep seas. Why can I be confident? If someone is willing to waste time invading or nuking the N/S Pole because they don't like you, they are willing to waste time doing the same but sending it to Mars. No more heating, no more insulation. How cold is Mars compared to the Pole? Again. I said I'm only using logic and looking to educate with will facts and numbers. You claim Mars is easier because the Poles are colder due to the winds. Can we check that again? You have brought up the winds. I did not consider them before. So is a single problem, winds, worth the trip? You loose oxygen, radiation protection, water, temperature, gravity, resupply, time to rescue, communication latency and gain "no storms" and "possible moral/social/governmental independence" slightly better than hiding at the pole it's self. Does that make sense to you? (PS, for reference, this might be helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station I'll note they have no trouble heating the facility Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen–Scott_South_Pole_Station )

It is no where near middle. Most domestication changes the size of values, it does not remove them entirely. And it has it's own problems. All things have trade-offs. Why are you sending chickens? Then ask what are you taking off the chicken, and what it does.

Anyone who mentions an animal then the sentence "does not need x, y or z part of it's body" does not know how biology or animals work.

Thanks. I fail. But point still stands. It could be a sliding door if a pop out is too annoying/out of place. (Or no animation)

Why provide transport (ships) to the new lands? Why provide transport (railroads) in the new lands? It was trade and materials. What does Mars have it can trade? Space? Earth has that. A lot more (physically it is larger and environmentally it has seas/ice sheets/deserts). Materials? Earth has them. A lot more. There is literally zero reason to go as an individual other than "because". Even as a group, only control/independence would be the drive. That is not a good enough reason IMO, go live in the north/south pole or the moon if you really want isolation. Ok, so even though some of the land near the poles has accessible ground (for mining), excess oxygen (for breathing), unlimited water (for drinking) and you would only need power (for heat) and a hydroponics farm (for food)... you consider Mars a better candidate (minus the delta v budgets needed as we presume Elon is providing them for free)? I need to ask myself why I am bothering to attempt to use logic of any form to educate in this argument here...

Older aircraft had swing out windows, or slide back: That would cost nothing in weight (relatively). Though use in space would be debatable.

Again. You cannot stay. You die on Mars. While we all die. It will be a much (and I'm tempted to add another "much") quicker one there. Send one person, then make a claim you will/want to send 100. I'm all for hopes and dreams, but on the scale of things, while Musk does really good work, his latest video is akin to putting up a picture of the Star Ship Enterprise. We all know why that would be a bad idea In Rreal Life.

It's been a long time, so I don't have the links, but it was originally mentioned that they coded docking ports the way they did because of the inability to merge part trees in the simulation. Now we do have sub assemblies (and of cause surface mounting) while in the editor. But the sub-assemblies are newer additions and are not used in the physics engine, but in the fixed VAB/SPH. However, IMO they could unload the vessel and reload it. This does not give them an "easy" solution though, so we would have to ask them if it would be possible.

What jobs? What are they taking? They will have tasks. Like refuelling, food production (how?), some basic repair etc. As said, like on a ship, or a trip to the poles.

Sorry, no. In no way are they "colonists". Any more than the trips to the poles were. This is a trip to the poles/up mount Everest type stuff. The slight difference is it is in an Ice Breaker/Helicopter (depending on scale of craft and length of stay). There is no air. It is extremely cold. These are not small things.

Really? You think the Comet Overlords will not retaliate against this attack!?

Hopefully these little things will be done as steps. The last thing I want to see is the "we sent the first mission, it was 100 people to mars" because something may go wrong. But if they do the "cycler" idea... well, it gives them steps to learn and succeed (by failing ). So send an empty crew ship. But don't land at Mars. Instead just swing by, and now your empty ship is a cycler, and you proved you can get it there. Now send the ISR and dock it with the cycler. You have proven you can meet up with the cycler. Now you can land the ISR, and prove you can land on Mars. Then you can look at sending people. Though I guess the other option just swaps out the cycler. That is probably a good idea. We don't want it going Space Station 13 when it's time to go back into the landing craft... keeping it all in one lowers the emotional and physiological risk (no choice given for chickening out).

But do they go on one for a holiday? Why is there 100 people there? Is it not so they can actually work and perform tasks? If Elon was asking for 100 people to run the ISR and maintenance and science, then great. 100 people "to buy tickets". He'd better hope he can fit a lot of batteries and all the VR gear he can get on that transfer craft! (Alternative is 100 iPhone 7s, but that may not be enough for everyone when the signal drops out after launch)

Thanks for the answers people. I just realised this might be a transitional work around. The idea of "solid connections for docking ports" has been brought up since they first appeared. The reason they have never been introduced previously is because of the part tree Unity (and some other physics systems) use. So making a new "tree" would be extremely difficult and resource intensive, if not buggy. So the strut method (which I don't know how, but does work around the tree system some how) allows a strong connection without building a new combined part tree (order of parts for the game to run).