FishInferno

SpaceX parts. A small, surface-mount engine (Merlin) and atmospheric landing legs (though not an exact replica of the F( legs)

Does anyone else here have a RC Heli? I had one a year ago but now that battery is damaged, so I am going to order a WLtoys v931.

New trailer released: And for the record, I think the machine gunner should have better aim.

I would like to be able to change a kerbal's salary. If you pay them too little, they quit, and as a kerbal gets higher skill levels, the minimum salary increases

The problem is that NASA is doing this the wrong way. You cannot say "we will make SLS, SEP, habitats, Orion, and hope that a Mars mission is possible with all of that." you have to say "Ok, we need to get to Mars. Now what do we need to get there?"

I know that some people do see different colors than other people (i.e. my orange could be your blue), but i do not see why this matters because even though we see colors differently, we can agree that grass is green and the sky is blue, etc.

Im... a moderator

Mars has long been known to be the next step into the cosmos, but what about after Mars? Obviously we want to eventually conquer the whole solar system, but how long will it be in-between the first landing on Mars to the first expeditions to other planets? Lats say we get o Mars by 2030, as SpaceX hopes. I would suggest focusing all of our efforts on establishing a colony for at least ten years since Mars is the only place in the near-term where we could actually colonize. I would see the next planets visited by 2045-2050. We have several options: Venus, closer/easier to reach than other planets but there isn't much you can do there (high pressure/temperature and stuff). Ceres, a little farther than Venus, probably not the best place to colonize due to low gravity. Jupiter/Saturn, Could investigate Europa/Titan to see if life exists, but not as easy by far as Venus or Ceres. Uranus/Neptune/Pluto, Not much there, really, but we should go there eventually. Interstellar, whoa, lets not get ahead of ourselves. (These are all listed in the order that I think we should do them, but that's just my opinion.) What do you think? How long should we focus on Mars before expanding further, and where should we go next?

This would be a great movie:). I do think that the part about Earth reforming would be a bit unrealistic, but hey, its a movie, right?

i will build fairings. And shed tears of joy

I think thy should have called it "Karbonite" as a tribute to the mod.

Remember that this scenario assumes that something had already wiped out tons of people, probably pretty rapidly. So there wouldn't be lots of people to begin with. If you take away the threat of other humans, I think that more people would survive because they still have shelter (abandoned cities) and reasonable weapons (until ammo runs out). If people were able to restore limited electricity, more people would have a shot of surviving. Not because of the luxuries that power brings, but because if we lost power, there would be tons of panic and anarchy would take hold.

I think that different scenarios would result in different results. For example, a plague. I think it would very much be like in Dawn of the Apes, where most of the world is wiped out, the governments are shut down, and after a brief period of anarchy there are small pockets of survivors. At first, people are crap to each other, but then they realize "oh crap, if we keep fighting there wont be more humans"

Once SpaceX succeeds in making rockets reusable...

I think I read somewhere that the air in your lungs would literally blast through your rib cage due to the vacuum in space relative to the air in your lungs.

Add this: What was the first man-made object to reach space? (v2 rocket)

This mission will probably never happen. Even if it did, it is doing nothing to help us get to Mars (yes i said the m word). I would much rather wait 2 years and land on the Moon instead.

teacher: [shows a picture of Saturn] "And here are the rings of the Milky Way Galaxy." no lie

http://www.axmpaperspacescalemodels.com/index.html#.VRKNv-EXvf0

You could put an engine that fills up the whole body tube, but it would be wayyyyy overpowered and you would probably not get the rocket back. High-power rockets have larger enigne-to-body-size ratios

I launched a few rockets over the weekend, here is a pic of the Estes Crossfire: Granted, its nothing like B7's, but I think its a cool shot

Mars One's point is that a one-way mission could be accomplished with out developing a Saturn-V class rocket, but an Earth Return Vehicle would.

This. This so much. official ESA parts!

I actually think that explosions would be a bad thing to include. I think the trailer should focus on all of the things you can accomplish.

I really think that 1.0 should just be "Kerbal Space Program"