Nicholander

Sorry if the title is stupid, but basically, after re-reading The Martian I thought I would write a little alternative history 2nd space race thing, that is of course realistic. And I don't know if it's realistic or not, so I'm putting this here so you can respond and say if it's realistic. (Why am I so bad at introductions?) Basically, The Soviet Union still exists, it adopted a form of Democratic Socialism after Stalin's death, and the USSR's economy is strong and thriving. The Cold War is still going on, the US suffered more in the Repression, and there were some Democratic Socialist revolutions in NATO/Western Europe. Anyway, the space stuff. The USSR becomes the 2nd nation to land a man on The Moon in 1971 with Soyuz-19, the Buran is a thriving, safe, and reliable manned spacecraft, the Soviet Union made Mir-2 with the help of using the Buran, starting in 1993, and the US made Space Station Freedom using the space shuttle, starting in 1988. Anyway, the Is-This-Realistic-Questions: 1. In it, the Space Shuttle program still shuts down in 2011, and Space Station Freedom is still in orbit, so NASA put's it in a "Shutdown" mode, with all non essential systems shutdown, to be turned on again when the US can once again send crew to it. They also raised it's orbit so it would De-orbit due to "Orbital drag" in 15 years, so NASA would have time to make a new spacecraft, with an upper stage attached to the station on the last Shuttle mission. Is this realistic? I'm not sure if NASA would still operate the Space Shuttle regardless of cost's to service and send crew to and from the space station, or if the US would just De-orbit Space Station Freedom. 2. In the beginning of it, NASA has to make a new launch vehicle. The Soviet's Energia rocket can get 100 tons to LEO, and in comparison, the US's largest launch vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy, can only get 29 tons to LEO. NASA end's up deciding, to instead of continue developing the Space Launch System (SLS), to use a modernized version of the Saturn V, with the 3rd stage replaced by a HydroLox stage with 6 RS-68 engines, basically a widened and lengthened Shuttle External Tank with cheaper and simpler SSME's. (That's pretty much what the RS-68 is). The 3rd stage is also the diameter of the 2nd and 1st stages. That's the Saturn VH (The H stands for HydroLox). Is this realistic? I know that some of the companies that made the original Saturn V parts have gone bankrupt, so I suppose NASA would pay some companies like ULA to build the Saturn VH parts. I see that this would not need the costly development of a new launch system, but would NASA really do this, if they had to make a new launch vehicle in a hurry to compete with the Soviets? Or would they still continue development of the SLS? So, now that you've read them, if you know the answers, please post them! Also, I MIGHT add a few more questions.

One: Sup KASASpace! Two: How do you guys think we could get this more "Formal and organized?" Also, I though one of the mods would have stickied this by now!

This. Is. AWESOME!!! I think someone really should make a mod that does this!

Okay, but I think that the name of the CubeSat can wait until later. Also, will we need (Or really should have) more then 1 communications center, or will one be sufficient? (Though we can only communicate with the CubeSat when it's over the communications center)

Good Idea! I don't know if it's to early, but now we have a base goal for it having a pressurized module with some plants, so I think we should at least consider having that poll now or pretty soon.

Unfortunately not. EDIT: KSat, yeah. We should probably do that visualization in KSP. (I brain farted when I put Orbiter, and I only realized that now. Derp.) Also, should we name our CubeSat KSat-1? I know it's WAY to early for that, but should it be something else? Like Kerbal-1 or KerbSat-1?

The orbiter thing I was talking about was to do what ESRO did in that youtube video, making the CubeSat in Orbiter and showing at as a thing to get more attention, as visualizing it would certainly raise interest in it. Oh, and about the teams. I would be more a electrical main systems guy I guess you could say, I mean things like MPUs, CPUs, maybe the cameras, the memory/hard drive, etc. So basically, non-Biological stuff.

One: I can't connect to the internet sometimes (I'm in vacation in Australia and i'm sometimes in houses with no internet), so don't expect me to be able to post all the time until I say i can. Two: Did any of you notice my thing about the Orbiter thing?

Hate to bump, but why has there been no more submissions? You all playing 0.24 or something?

1. Yeah, I think that won't be computer intensive. 2. Of course that would be in the game! 3.Hmmm.... I don't know about that one. 4.Yeah, that would be simple to add. 5.I don't THINK that would be computer intensive... 6.Probably simple.

Seret. The reason I made this thread was because I just thought other people might be interested in my idea. And I won't be expecting anyone to actually go into Unity and make something, but IF someone does, FANTASTIC! Okay, I see that it will be simply impossible to make an engine simulation that complex. Do you have any ideas to make it simpler but not so dumbed down like KSP?

KSat, too bad the ESMO was canceled. Also, great RocketmanRower! those MIT guys will be great help for our project. Also, I think someone should make thing in Orbiter of our CubeSat (Both the Phobos and LEO), I would but I have NO IDEA how to mod Orbiter.

One. YYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!! This is an awesome idea! Do it! DO IT! NOW!!!!! Two. I can't see the image. 403. =(. Three. Here's a random obscure Soviet proposal for a manned mission to Mars. In 1956. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mpk.htm Four. For the pre-Mars-departure picture in KSP that you'll put, are you going to do it in RSS? You should.

I see some very valid points Lukaszenko, and I see the detailed physics taking up a super computer. One: I think the parts/components and variables are not computer intensive, but the physics, yeah. I see the problem. The only problem like this i thought of was engine physics. In KSP, the thurst is just a variable in a .cfg. And the fire that comes out is just an effect, same for the sound. Though, for example FAR has MUCH more detailed physics then in the regular game. Though, that improves the aerodynamic properties of the game, and does nothing to the engines. Spacecraft would have that and engine physics calculations. That means stuff like how the fuel flows into the combustion chamber, how it ignites when the igniter is started, how much pressure it creates in the combustion chamber, and how much thrust all those calculations combined would create. This would allow for actual failures, like engine fires, gimbal failures, combustion chamber breaches and explosions, fuel line blockage and leaks, etc. But as you said, it would be very computer intensive, I mean just imagine your computer trying to calculate 26 engines, with all there physics and such. It would be Lagtopia. Though well, FAR does do something which I THINK is equally computer intensive, and I don't get any unbearable lag. So i don't know how much physics it would be forcing the computer to calculate. Two: For example, the light to the space toilet, all you would need to is just click on the thing that generates/has electricity. (Either a big battery or a thing where all the solar/RTG/whatever power goes) Then you would right click it, (Which opens a bar), click "Wire To...", and then click on the toilet light. I think that is simple, though I don't know if there should be different kinds of wire and if they should be editable/makeable in the Component Maker/Editor. I think it should be complex, like up to making a solar panel in the Component Maker/Editor by being able to change it's dimensions (How long and how wide it is), what type of material/type of solar panel it is made of, and maybe how thick it is. (Depends on the technology level you have, I'll get to tech levels, campaigns, and challenges later). Oh, if you want it to be deployable, you have to make a robotic arm/deployment system as a different thing in the Component Editor. (though really, it wouldn't be that hard to create a component. All of the types of component editors will have a similar number of variables.) So yeah, I see why you would see some issues.

Also, is it me or are a lot less people posting on this thread? It's probably that everyone is playing 0.24. .

Rakaydos, I found this Solar Panel Datasheet on Clyde Space: Solar_Panel_Datasheet

Interesting.... Well, I don't know if that type of KSP mod you're talking about (Which seems awesome, and if I had a magic button which would make it appear on my computer, I'd sure as heck press it!) is possible, mine is a completely different game (Idea), but there are similarities.

In that game, the "Engineering" part of the game is smacking together a bunch of fuel tanks, engines, and the occasional battery and then pressing the green "Launch" button. In This, you would actually design the every little component in the spacecraft and you can create absolutely anything you want! This focuses a lot more on the engineering, and KSP focuses on the flight. Please, can people understand that this is focusing on engineering, not a version of KSP with mechjeb. Please everyone, understand that. Like I said earlier: More Clearly, In KSP, the engineering part is just smacking a bunch of parts together. In this, you would actually need to design and pay attention to what you're making. Want to add a parachute for you're Mars lander? KSP: Smack a parachute on top of it. Spacecraft: Go into the Component Maker and actually go make every part of it, from what type of material the parachute is made of to the release system for when the landing engines ignite. I made this idea because I think spacecraft engineering is fascinating. And KSP just doesn't quite cut it. I like engineering. Some other people may like the flight section of KSP more. And i think the engineering part in KSP is way to dumbed down and over simplified. On focuses on flight. The other focuses on engineering. Is that clear?

Here it is. Though I do see how you could see it as a KSP with a MechJeb. But it's not, you don't actually pilot it. (Unless it's and aircraft with no autopilot or the exceptions above) and it's more complex and you actually design the parts/components, not just plonk them down on any node on your spacecraft. (This also does not have a node system)

I don't agree, it's supposed to focus MUCH more on the engineering part of the game. By components, i don't mean like parts. In ksp, a probe core is alot of complicated stuff combined into one little part. In this, you would make a spacecraft shell, which can be Many, MANY shapes. And a component can be very small, from everything from radio transmitters to Main Processing Units, it has vastly more complex and specific components then KSP. I'll try to make a MS paint visualization of the Clean Room. EDIT: More Clearly, In KSP, the engineering part is just smacking a bunch of parts together. In this, you would actually need to design and pay attention to what you're making. Want to add a parachute for you're Mars lander? KSP: Smack a parachute on top of it. Spacecraft: Go into the Component Maker and actually go make every part of it, from what type of material the parachute is made of to the release system for when the landing engines ignite. I made this idea because I think spacecraft engineering is fascinating. And KSP just doesn't quite cut it.

tl;dr: This is just a thing explaining a game idea I have, of pretty much a kinda KSP like thing which is MUCH more focused on the engineering part of the game. As the tl;dr said above, this explains a game idea which is kinda like KSP but MUCH more focused on the engineering part of the game. So... where do i begin? (I'm terrible at introductions, unfortunately) By the way, if you can't tell, the name of the game is Spacecraft. Basics: It focuses on engineering. (I've said that 3 times, you know that. Why am I saying that so many times? Oh, yeah, I'm terrible at introductions) There is a "flight" portion of the game, but it is almost entirely automated (exceptions include docking, unless you put an automated docking autopilot on, and landing a manned lander, unless there is an autopilot. Oh, and EVA.) You can choose where the spacecraft goes and it's orbital trajectory. (You either just put "final destination: 200 Km circular Mars orbit, 0 degree inclination", or you can make the trajectories your self). More clearly, you essentially make spacecraft in the clean room/spacecraft factory/place where you design and build spacecraft (Let's just call it the Clean Room, okay?), it's much more complex then the KSP VAB (By complicated I don't mean you need to know insane calculations and stuff, I mean you can design individual components of the spacecraft, and there would be a bunch of stuff to guide and help you make stuff (Which you can turn off, if you're feeling hardcore and even MORE realistic). Also, there would be a bunch of pre-made examples and stuff in the game (Like sub-assemblies), and even some whole craft and rockets. Oh, and you can also even design the rockets and launch vehicles. I think I've covered the basics pretty good. Clean Room: Well, obviously you design and build your spacecraft, there would also be a separate building called the VAB where you build your launch vehicles. But let's focus on the Clean Room, in the middle there is the spacecraft you're building in it's current state, you can select certain components/parts of the spacecraft you would like to view on a bar on the bottom, which would also have an "All" button which which makes all components appear. When you click on the name of a certain component, it shows info, details, and statistics about it on a panel on the right, the "Component Viewer". The Component Viewer would show the component type (Ie: Radio Antenna), the component's name (Ie: RA-3), It's mass, it's electrical drain (If it uses electricity, of course), It's expected lifetime, the other components that it's wired to, and some stats/info/details that are specific to that component type. (Ie: Data bandwidth: 1 byte per second. Radio range: 2,500 Km. Radio Type: UHF). There would also be an "Edit Component" button, which would go to the Component Editor, where you can edit your components. On the left there would be another panel, the Component Placer (Gotta think of a better name for that one), This is a lot like the Panel on the left In KSP, it has the list of available components that you can put on your spacecraft. You can right click a component and it will show you it's stats on the Component Viewer. (Except for it's name and the components it's wired to). You can then click on the component and it a popup in the middle of the screen (The Spacecraft Viewer) will ask you if you want to put the component on the outside of the spacecraft (Not concealed by anything), or the inside the spacecraft (Concealed by the shell/chassis of the spacecraft). If you choose outside, you can, like and KSP, move a "Ghost" version of the component, put your mouse cursor over where you want to put it on the spacecraft, and it will appear where your cursor is on the Spacecraft. And then you can click, and it is now attached onto the spacecraft. The inside is the same, except it is cutaway, and when you put you're mouse cursor on an area, you can press a button to add small "Stools" on the bottom of the component, which will raise it, so you're using the inside more efficiently! Also, in the component editor, you can make "Mega Components", essentially they're treated as sub-assemblies, and you can get a component, add some stuff and some other components. You can create some stuff like the long truss which sticks out on the Voyager spacecraft, by making a truss component, and then adding some RTG's at the top. Oh, for the components to actually work together, you have to wire them to each other, so for example a Radio Transmitter could be wired to a Radio Antenna and it would broadcast whatever the Radio Transmitter is making. (Ie: A Sputnik Style Beep). That took a long time to write! Mission Planner: This is where you go before you start making your spacecraft. This is where you choose what your spacecraft's mission will be, in the middle of the screen there is a visualization of your spacecraft's mission plan, and on the left there are options for where it will go. I'm too bored to put it in sentences, so here is how it would look like. (In Text) Mission Plan: First: 350 Km circular LEO orbit (Some of the steps will block out the option to add anymore, for example Suborbital. Second: Trans Lunar Injection for 120 Km Lunar Periapsis (All steps require a minimum amount of delta-v, and some a thrust-to-wight ratio. The only exceptions are "Instrument usage/Scientific research", "End of mission" (This is for when the mission is over and there's no more steps, this is a step which is impossible to remove (Unless the mission has either crashed or it's de-orbited and there's nothing more that can be done with it)), and "Surface activities" (For landers, and it can also be done for EVA's.) Third: Course Corrections Fourth: Lunar Orbital Injection for 120 Km Lunar Periapsis and 600 Km Lunar Apoapsis Fifth: Instrument Usage/Scientific Research Sixth: End Of Mission So that's how it'd look on the left panel, called the "Mission Steps Overview". Also, even after the "End Of Mission" step, you can select the spacecraft in the "List of current missions and spacecraft/tracking station", and if it works and can has enough delta-v, you can assign some more steps to it. There's really not much else to explain. I'm not done writing this, but this is taking FOREVER to write, so I'll continue it later. NOTE: I don't have any experience with the Unity engine, well, i have it and tried it, but just looking at Java or C++ code made me think "Yep, I'm NEVER gonna be able to do this!". Also, some questions and feedback would be great!

Yeah, that's a great idea! We should do that!

About how long do you think it will be until we can start our KickStarter?

Why would we need 2 camera's anyway? One is enough.

I think, if what christok said is true, we should only have some Java Moss and some bacteria, because it would be intresting to see how bacteria interacts with other biological matter in microgravity. (And also other gravities, because it will create artificial gravity by spinning)