saabstory88

This is fantastic! I will implement this configuration immediately. Assuming that I only define resources which are unique to my particular mod, are there any other MM requirement checks I need to do to ensure compliance? Should I be sharing the resources which are unique to my endeavor for feedback? Do I need to modify my license to include these configs?

Let me preface this by saying, that I am no expert on this topic, I have only created a couple of engines. I think that the answer lies in examining a stock config file. This only applies to shrouds, as I have not yet attempted to actually build a gimbaled engine. Let's look at the following code: MODULE { name = ModuleJettison jettisonName = fairing bottomNodeName = bottom isFairing = True jettisonedObjectMass = 0.1 jettisonForce = 5 jettisonDirection = 0 0 1 We see an item called jettisonName, which is set to fairing. I find it likely that "fairing" is simply a sub-part in the Unity object, like a thrust vector. It most likely works in the same fashion, although I do not have the current documentation to prove it. Any help from those more experienced would be appreciated.

Greetings, This has been a very interesting thread. I'm actually here to discuss a practical application, because I want to be complaint with at least one standard out there in the world. I am working on a sort of a "Real Fuels Lite" for lack of a better term. I will post the link at the bottom of this post. I want to implement the following fuel types (copy paste from my post): I would like to implement this with a caveat. This being, that I would like to treat cryogenic fuels separately from their base components, to make them harder to store. Do you have any current standard for the aforementioned cryogens, or their constituents? If so, what is the best practice I should use to make sure that my module manager configs do not overwrite them, and use them correctly? Are there currently mass and costs associated with these items that have already been standardized? Are there already standard mix ratio and ISP guidelines, beyond those that I can surmise from researched the real world fuels? I hope this makes sense, and I really appreciate what you gentlemen are doing here. Original post to project: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92433-WIP-0-24-2-More-Fuel-Types-Adapts-to-new-mods-no-engine-configs-needed

Thank you very much sir!

Greetings, Speaking to the mission of ORS, to help standardize resource types, I would ask about the following items, and if the is currently a standard. 1. Hydrogen (liquid, as a fuel) 2. CO2 (gaseous, as a resource) 3. Oxygen (liquid, as a fuel) I am working on the following: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92433-WIP-0-24-2-More-Fuel-Types-Adapts-to-new-mods-no-engine-configs-needed , and would like to be in full compliance with any existing standards. I will gladly change my framework to ensure that this mod is fully integrated with ORS. Thanks!

This reduces the complexity, to something that is more compatible with normal gameplay within stock KSP. To give an analogy, if Real Fuels is comparable to Ferram Aerospace, then this mod is intended to be comparable to NEAR. This also does not require one to install engine config files, or worse, create them for a mod which does not have them, and instead uses some simple logic to pick the fuel type and ISP of any given engine. So you can expand with new mods, without worrying that they will break the experience. This also is meant to help expand upon In Situ Resource Utilization, and allow the creation of fuels that would logically be available at any given place. This is meant to be balanced to career mode, causing the player to think before using cryogenic fuels for long duration missions. Unlike real fuels, the idea is that a decent amount of fuel stocking and transfer could still take place at normally sized and configured fuel depots, by standardizing fuel oxidizer mix ratios. In addition, variety is the spice of life. I feel that it is important to have multiple mods which accommodate multiple play styles. Some people will swear by Kethane, and some people will swear by Karbonite. This is important for our vibrant and creative community.

Greetings, I am here to put this forth, so that I can get some feedback and continue to grow this work into something truly usable. Here's what we have, and what we want to do with it. This mod is designed for those who like to add realism to the game, but don't feel like plunging into the Realism Overhaul. This is also career oriented, but will work just fine in sandbox as well. Major Note: As I have seen that there are a variety of fuel systems and tech trees, the eventual goal of this project must be to compile all of the config settings logic into a .dll so massive, that it will have appreciable gravity. The end game here must be to use this, to analyze parts on a per part basis, determine if mods are involved, and adjust settings procedurally. There is really no other way to do this. Truly, I invite people to come help on this project, because if I am left to my own devices, it may take till 0.26 to do such a thing. But this is really what needs to happen. Code needs to be written, which identifies what a part is FOR, what properties it HAS, and what dependencies it USES, and create a procedurally crafted modded config file for EACH PART. This must be the only way forward. i will continue development of the current setup for at least the next week, to make it play nice with most major mod deployments which include dependencies, but then, I will be moving to the juggernaut .dll development only. Now that's out of the way... Objectives/Overview: -Add more fuel types to the game, which create a more dynamic experience -Create incentives for using different fuels for different applications -Create additional challenges to store cryogenic propellants -Make monopropellant more interchangeable with lift vehicle fuels -A more challenging career progression -Automatically update fuel types in new mods without additional engine configs -Allow for certain propellants to be mined via ISRU, but not all of them! -Provide a more beginner friendly (I hope) alternative to Real Fuels. Fuel Types: -Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Hydrogen - High ISP, but difficult to store -Liquid Oxygen/Methane - Lower ISP, but can be created in CO2 atmospheres (ie. Duna) -Liquid Oxygen/Kerosene - Lower ISP, but Kerosene is also Jet Fuel -Hydrazine/Aerozine - Lower ISP, but is inert, and Hydrazine can be used as Monopropellant -Liquid Hydrogen - This is now the only fuel type needed for NERVA engines -Hydrazine - This is now MonoPropellant -Liquid Oxygen/Solid Fuel - Thanks to Procedural Parts, procedural hybrid engines are now implemented. Higher performance, and higher price than simple solid boosters. What is done now: -A working plugin!!! Hooray! Watch that LOX and LH2 boil right away! -Cryogenic tanks can now consume power to stop boil-off -All fuel types are implemented, and properly replace all stock tank payloads -Peak ISP is determined by fuel type -Compatibility is confirmed with KW rocketry -Most stock engines are updated automatically to use new fuels -All RCS units are switched to run on Hydrazine -Procedural Parts have been updated to be fully compatible -Procedural Hybrid Rockets are available, with limited throttle control. Requires an external LiquidO2 tank. -"Zubrin" style procedural tank with space for Liquid Hydrogen, and main tankage for Methane/LiquidO2. This readies the mod for ISRU. -There are now new types of Vernor thrusters. I hope it has been made clear in the titles which ones belong with which fuel tanks. -Implemented full CRP support. What needs to be done: High - Analyze the the entire tech tree High - Fix ALL stock parts High - B9 Aerospace complete integration Low - Add sun exposure to boil-off code Low - Creation of ISRU components to manufacture fuel and oxidizer from atmosphere and oceans, this shall implement ORS and be compatible with Karbonite Low - Method of automatically updating fuel types in mixed mode engines Medium - -Determine how the Aerospike shall be fueled Low - Implement non cryogenic oxidizer for Hybrid Motors Who to thank: AncientGammoner, NathanKell, Swamp Ig, and all the contributors to procedurals. NathanKell specifically, for both helping me through the first steps with MM, as well as Real Fuels, which in no small way inspired me to write this (as well as his other work). RoverDude, for guidance on CRP Dr. Robert Zubrin, for further inspiration Updates: 8/30/14-17:20 EST - Fixed monoprop engines, added compatible Vernors 8/30/14-19:30 EST - Forked project. CRP and non-CRP versions deployed. Integrated ORS into non-CRP version. This is now required. 8/30/14-21:35 EST - CRP issue confirmed to be transient. Non CRP version is now discontinued. 9/01/14-17:45 EST - Preparing for general release of first scope complete version! 9/01/14-21:12 EST - Rebalanced electric charge consumption to factor in mass of tankage 9/04/14-02:32 EST - B9 First pass at fuel tank replacement implemented in the stable build. 9/04/14-23:53 EST - Fixed cryostat code to boil-off when EC is depleted! Added next version of B9Smasher.cfg. 75% of tanks fixed, all jet engines fixed. Download Materials: Source included in download. 1. Procedural Parts (not technically needed, but really, you need it): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/70676-0-24-2WIP-Procedural-Parts-Parts-the-way-you-want-em-0-9-18-Aug-6 2. ORS. This now includes the basics for ORS based Methane production on Duna: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64595-Open-Resource-System-(ORS)-Mod-Resource-API-version-1-1-0 3. The More Fuel Types data and ProceduralParts configs Latest stable exparamental: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B51D0goiPm7JY0tFRFdMMkJyNGs&usp=sharing Latest release: [Moderator removed defunct website link] 4. CRP, on which the mod is now dependent: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89568-Community-Resource-Pack-WIP This REQUIRES module manager: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55219-Module-Manager-1-5-6-%28Jan-6%29 WARNING: This mod might break all the things. Git: https://github.com/Saabstory88/MoreFuelTypes What to do after: Please, post, comment, suggest, and contribute! I need all the help I can get. I would love to be able to edit this to say "We need all the help we can get". If nothing else, test it out, and tell me what breaks. I might even be able to fix it. License: CC BY-SA 3.0 US: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ This is to comply with the license which applies to Procedural Parts. They have not endorsed this mod, but still, thanks guys!

Well I certainly appreciate the help. This sort of selection may not even be supported by the current version of MM. That's ok. I've migrated to a tech level dependent version of fuel selection, which also sets the peak isp based on the fuel source. It might be ok for the first version. Anyway, much appreciated, as this is my first day playing with MM. I will move further development to a dedicated post. Thanks!

So, taking this from another tack, would it be possible to grab the value from "key", and write it as a new value, of say ISP, in the header of the PART config instead of below atmosphereCurve, and then run a second .cfg to filter by that number instead, which would be available with a simple "@PART [*]:HAS[iSP[0?390]]"?

With fixed brackets, no error, no success: @PART [*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines]:HAS[@atmosphereCurve[0?390]]]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines],@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]]:FOR[MoreRealisticFuels] These variations were also not successful: @PART [*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines]:HAS[@atmosphereCurve [*]:HAS[#key[0?390]]]] @PART [*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines]:HAS[@atmosphereCurve [*]#key[0?390]]] Original post: No, MM reports an error, but it did not log it in either the KSP.log or the Player.log Full code: @PART [*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines],@atmosphereCurve[0?390]]]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines],@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]]]:FOR[MoreRealisticFuels] { @MODULE[ModuleEngines] { @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] { @name = LiquidH2 @ratio = 1 } @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] { @name = LiquidO2 @ratio = 4 } } }

Aha! Missing the @. Ok, so I guess it's time to go back and try to tackle the ISP thing again.

I must be misunderstanding something even more basic. I created the following, to do a basic swap of resource types in the stock tanks (obviously this is not the final version of this file). This is the file in its entirety. It does not function as I would expect. Edit: I went ahead and checked, I can successfully make changes using the @PART [*] command with no arguments. However, this is not ultimately what I would like to do. KSP.log and Player.log do not show anything which helps me debug this. Permutations: @PART [*]:HAS[RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]]:AFTER[Squad]:FOR[MoreRealisticFuels] { @RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] { @name = LiquidH2 } @RESOURCE[Oxidizer] { @name = LiquidO2 } } @PART [*]:HAS[RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]]:AFTER[Squad] { @RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] { @name = LiquidH2 } @RESOURCE[Oxidizer] { @name = LiquidO2 } } @PART [*]:HAS[RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]]:FOR[MoreRealisticFuels] { @RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] { @name = LiquidH2 } @RESOURCE[Oxidizer] { @name = LiquidO2 } } This is still a no go.

Having a bit of a snag searching for components to patch. I have tried the following configuration, with no matches, and no patches applied. Searching for all liquid fuel engines with an vac isp (key=0 390) of 390, of which I know at least one exists in the stock game. I am assuming I have made a syntax error, can someone give me direction on this? I am using the latest release: 2.3.1 My code: @PART [*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines]:HAS[@atmosphereCurve[0?390]]]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]]]:FOR[MoreRealisticFuels] Log snippet: [LOG 20:57:55.080] [ModuleManager] Checking NEEDS. [LOG 20:57:55.103] [ModuleManager] :FIRST (default) pass [LOG 20:57:55.105] [ModuleManager] :BEFORE[ASSEMBLY-CSHARP] pass [LOG 20:57:55.106] [ModuleManager] :FOR[ASSEMBLY-CSHARP] pass [LOG 20:57:55.107] [ModuleManager] :AFTER[ASSEMBLY-CSHARP] pass [LOG 20:57:55.108] [ModuleManager] :BEFORE[MODULEMANAGER.2.3.1] pass [LOG 20:57:55.109] [ModuleManager] :FOR[MODULEMANAGER.2.3.1] pass [LOG 20:57:55.110] [ModuleManager] :AFTER[MODULEMANAGER.2.3.1] pass [LOG 20:57:55.111] [ModuleManager] :BEFORE[MOREREALISTICFUELS] pass [LOG 20:57:55.112] [ModuleManager] :FOR[MOREREALISTICFUELS] pass [LOG 20:57:55.242] [ModuleManager] :AFTER[MOREREALISTICFUELS] pass [LOG 20:57:55.243] [ModuleManager] :BEFORE[NASAMISSION] pass [LOG 20:57:55.244] [ModuleManager] :FOR[NASAMISSION] pass [LOG 20:57:55.244] [ModuleManager] :AFTER[NASAMISSION] pass [LOG 20:57:55.245] [ModuleManager] :BEFORE[SQUAD] pass [LOG 20:57:55.245] [ModuleManager] :FOR[SQUAD] pass [LOG 20:57:55.246] [ModuleManager] :AFTER[SQUAD] pass [LOG 20:57:55.247] [ModuleManager] :FINAL pass [LOG 20:57:55.249] [ModuleManager] ModuleManager: 0 patches applied, 0 hidden items

Thanks! And thanks for the inspiration, I have very much enjoyed your work.

Greetings, Are other logical operators, besides simple boolean equivalence, currently implemented inside of the :HAS function when searching for parts to patch? Let me clarify, I am looking to search for parts with specific ranges of vacuum ISP. I would prefer not to have to create a 450+ section configuration file for this task, but i understand is this is simply what will have to be done. I am working on a sort of "Real Fuels Lite", for lack of a better term, simply matching only a couple types of imaginary fuels (and oxidizers) with specific ranges of ISP, just to make things more interesting than stock, but still have the ability to do relatively simple orbital refueling. Obviously, because I am only looking to break this up into three or four ranges of ISP performance, it would be convenient to only have to write a couple segments of code, instead of 450+, which would make the tweaking process much faster. Thanks!

I felt it necessary to reorder my response, as to provide a better flow to the subsequent arguments. Others, please note this is not the original order of the author. I happened to watch this particular talk a couple months ago. The data is absolutely flawless. He lays out fantastically the events and trends which must occur for his model to continue to be correct. These being: 1. Children survive 2. Many children are not needed for work 3. Women get education and join the labor force 4. Family planning is accessible Point one may or may not remain true. We will leave this as is, and assume trends will continue. Point two is more of a point of divergence, with outcomes being completely dependent on the demographic area which you are surveying, and your optimism about future trends. The positive outcome assumes positively trending economic outcomes for the majority of people in a given nation. It is possible that the following will be an oversimplification, but I will make the point anyway. If we are witnessing developing nations tracking to the same trends which developed nations experienced in the past, then how do we reconcile the data which shows that many of these developed nations have reached Peak Economic Equality. As more people are given to producing things locally, and independently of industry (Industry making the use of children for labor unnecessary), is there not a reasonable possibility of seeing an increase in children being integrated into the family to produce their own goods and food? As Hans Rosling has suggested, this would be something which would contribute to an increase in births. Point three, may be a cause for concern in much the same fashion as point number two. Again, I stress that we undergoing a period of change, and that these trends may not be able to be predicted with accuracy, the new trends have not been given time to be known, however it is still an important factor to consider. If we are seeing college enrollment fall, regardless of gender, due to the same economic factors which are driving the local production of goods, then how will this affect the trend of continued education of women? Hans's assessment of this factor is, of course, accurate. However, we are only seeing data from when these populations have been recently afforded these opportunities. We do not yet have data which shows how education is affected in nations which have long had this access, and it is no longer a novel thing they have had to fight for. Complacency, and negative education trends, have had impacts on other historic cultures, in a variety of ways. Again, we do not yet have data to see where these trends will go, but that does not mean that we should blindly assume that, at the very least developed nations, will forever choose to become more educated. Point four. This assumption only holds true assuming that we will never see an increase in the number of governments being influenced by fundamentalist religious principles. This again, is difficult to predict with accuracy. Religion has such a great emotional component, that we can not say with certainty that any particular industrialized, or developing nation, will never see a return to religious governance, in one form or another. Emotion of course, having the power to defy logic, and even the basic principle of self preservation. All of this correlates with with United Nations reporting on the topic, seen: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf . This data they are using is simply expository, not explanatory. It is not sufficient to state, "these are the underlaying trends which drive the future of our growth", without also being able to say, "and these are the underlying factors of these trends, which we can also say, with confidence, will remain constant". I am not disagreeing with their predictions, based on current data. I am simply trying to assess which other factors, which are more malleable, and subject to sometimes very rapid change, may cause the current model to become invalid. Not to diverge too greatly from the original topic, I just wanted to point out our potential for destructive societal change. Human progress has not been without setbacks. It is depressing to think about, but it is not untrue that we have, at times, done so. Absolutely agree with the development of a full NEO, and far field, detection system. This is, of course, incredibly important. To the point of climate change, this is of course a grave concern. What is most concerning is what you are most correct about, that it is not an engineering problem, but a problem of human cooperation. It is not enough for every member of this nation to cry out to prevent catastrophe. The easy portion of solving this, would be to inform the global citizenry to the point where they will act upon this. The difficulty, is then convincing these same citizens to dismantle the structures of political power and industry, which will fight with every fiber of their being to prevent such action. If we could, tomorrow, pass sweeping regulations which curb carbon output, responsibly dispose of our edible live stock population, and drastically reduce our energy usage, such that it could be sustained with nuclear and renewable power alone, it would do nothing to stop, say, China. Whether or not arguing, that since we have never had a unified global will to do something, we will never do so, is a fallacy of tradition, or a set of data, is debatable. Even if we consider the previous remarks as invalid, we can still extrapolate three primary outcomes. 1. We will, as a species, do the right thing, and deploy the regulations and technology to save our planet. 2. We will continue at our current level of cooperation, and rate of progress towards curbing climate change, and likely still have our planet affected in a negative way. 3. An unexpected social event, or series of events will occur, we will cooperate less towards this goal, and our environment will be damaged severely. To simplify: 1. Action: Positive change. Outcome: Positive 2. Action: No change. Outcome: Negative 3. Action. Negative change. Outcome: Negative. To eliminate the bias of pessimism versus optimism, let us consider an equally likely chance of these actions coming to pass. We see that this matrix leads to a greater likelihood of a negative outcome. I do not ask you to take this to heart, as any given reader will have an opinion as to whether we can overcome the human cooperation factor, I simply ask you to read this argument, at least once, from a point of optimistic neutrality. Your third annotation is fantastic. The problem is with corporations, not with our science. It is the same line of thinking which causes individuals to fear our agricultural technology, which causes them to not vaccinate their children. This is also a wonderful example of a negative educational outcome. To your fourth annotation, this fact is why I had proposed the original argument I did, in the way I did. We are seeing data which shows that we will choose not to cooperate towards the positive outcome. Our short term self interest will ultimately outweigh our long term self interest. This is why I have chosen the path of supporting a mission to simply go elsewhere. If we are going to save ourselves, from ourselves, any solution proposed must, by its nature, not disrupt our personal comfort in the near term if it is to succeed. The right thing to do is to take care of the planet we have. If we can not have successful outcomes with this approach, we must find an alternative one, to at least have as a backup, while we continue to try to have a positive influence on our planet. You are correct, that this is not simply something we can throw money at, that is the wrong approach. We must throw engineers at it. We are just as good at solving technical problems, as we are poor at solving social ones. That is all the colonization of Mars is, a technical problem. If the base elements needed to support life exist in a place, however unlikely, then it is simply a matter of using our ingenuity to create the most efficient and sustainable methods of utilizing them. You are correct, we have the methods of correcting our global environmental crisis, the remaining issues are socio-political ones. So if it is not engineers which we need to help solve this crisis, then why not get them working on finding better ways to survive, in ever more hostile places. Think about the benefit, if we are going to have to learn to live in a world which have made less habitable for ourselves, then why not gain some experience in one of the least habitable (but not uninhabitable), places we know of?

You have some interesting points Wanderfound, I wish continue this discussion after work.

I apologize for the tone. That was wrong of me to introduce spiteful emotion into this debate. I would really just like to elicit your feedback, not on any particular technical challenge, but on the implications set forth by a view of our world being all that there is for us. If our world is all we have, then what do we do about our long term survival, and how well off will be be during this time? Is there a method of cooperating which both preserves some semblance of freedom and equity, while still allowing us to survive comfortably for the tens of millennia before we cease to be human, at least biologically? Is having to expend vast resources to make the oceans, and remaining land, fit for food production, to feed our ever expanding population, a desirable outcome? How many more centuries, or possibly millennia, will it be before we are, out of necessity, consuming nothing but algae and insects? Will we have the resources to continue technological civilization at this time? If we are left with the prospect of no escape from extinction level events, how should we be petitioning the government, to create long term survivable shelters for at least some of our population? As to the original argument, let us take this from a different tack, as of course, even if we were to pursue the idea originally put forth, in practice, we should not disregard our gathering of knowledge. You are, of course, correct about unmanned robotic vehicles being a far more efficient means of gathering science. Let us leave NASA out of this business, and focus, instead, on another funding source. As we could feasibly task NASA with the business of science, we could also feasibly task the military with the business of colonization. What percentage of the military budget could theoretically be diverted under the auspices of "Preserving the American Way of Life"? It seemed to be a valid argument for building atomic weapons, launch vehicles, and a massive support infrastructure. Lets put it this way, from what I could find about the cost of the Cheyenne mountain complex, it cost us 18 billion in adjusted dollars. It costs us 150 million dollars a year to operate it. This, all in an effort to "P.t.A.W.o.L". How far could you get towards the beginnings of a viable colony? If we are able to use commercial boosters, specifically of the sort which are planned by SpaceX, how much life support and mining hardware could transfer to Mars every transfer window?

This is a interesting point, which I believe can help to form the basis of another useful argument. Let us consider, why does Mutually Assured Destruction work? It works because both aggressors "Way of life" will be destroyed. This puts all nuclear armed nations on equal footing. Naturally, our military, and political leaders will seek a further advantage, by other means. If we can propose that, upon establishing an outpost on another world, ours, or any other nation which should do this, would no longer be governed by the MAD principle, as their "way of life" would not be ended by a nuclear exchange. This would, in a sense, provide the ultimate form of defense, in that, the enemy, would know that even if we were to experience global thermonuclear war, that their adversary would not be defeated. This would, as history shows us, force another desirable outcome to come to pass. Namely, the adversary country would have to establish their own extra-planetary base, to ensure that MAD would keep them safe. This not only retains the usefulness of MAD, but creates variety of methods by which to survive on other worlds, further increasing the chance for success of the overall goal of keeping us from going extinct in the near term.

I am not currently arguing from a position of expanding our knowledge, which of course I personally support, I am arguing from a position of imperative of our continued survival. You mean to say interstellar. Do not confuse the two. How long can you, not an expert, but you, survive alone naked in the woods? Even our own planet is incredibly hostile to us. Additionally, arguing that have have never done something, does not mean that we can not do something. Does this mitigate the idea of not hedging our bets? Can a convincing argument be made for putting all of our eggs in one basket? Can you describe the cost benefit of choosing not to try? If given the following options. Action: We do nothing. Result: With certainty, we will go extinct on this planet. We can not be certain when this will happen, granted, but describe a reason to wait. Action: We try and fail. Result: We experience extinction bound to this planet. Probable spin offs. Action: We try, and colonize one or more other bodies. Result: We have extended the span of our species until such time when we can no longer be considered human, and reintroduced the benefit of "infinite" resources for all of mankind. We attempt to pursue options with maximal payoff in our daily life. Why is this subject different? If we were to consider the Earth as being finite, then you argument is valid. However, a finite earth scenario not only drastically increases the near term possibility of the end of our species, but necessitates, that until such time as we are extinct, that we eventually must implement programs to curb our population, and find some method of fairly dealing with our finite set of resources. If we are looking at outcomes, what is the difference of living in a world were we are overpopulated, and miserable, and living in a world where we are overpopulated, miserable, and broke from flinging people into space and failing?

Hello all, Obviously, many things I will say here will be preaching to the converted, however it is important to see how these arguments affect those around us. I want to start a general discussion on how to petition for space exploration, and ultimately colonization, but more importantly, how do we convince those people in our lives to do the same. Let us address the elephant in the room, the first rebuttal. This is the notion that there are more important things in the world than sending people into space. We only need to employ some very simple logic, to show that nothing is farther than the truth. It is fairly easy to make a cursory survey of the items which will always be brought up, but we first need to talk about the most important core point. What is scarcity? Scarcity is at the core of every argument, and discussion, about man kind and how we live. No matter what logical counterpoint you are given, it can always be brought back to this essential point. We will, in the beginning of this thesis, ignore emotional responses, and cover them later. If you think about it, the concept of finite resources is incredibly new to us as humans. Unfortunately, it really started setting in centuries before we ever could imagine that we actually could go anywhere else. It has now become ingrained, and must be eradicated from our social conciseness. This must be the central mission. The fact that we, as a community, are obsessed with the methods of exploration, must not overshadow the fact that exploration and colonization are essential for our survival, and freedom. Let us take counter arguments from inequality. Must we not ensure that our fellow man is given an equal opportunity, before we expend resources on flinging people into the solar system? Again, we come back to the idea of scarcity. While we will likely never devise a system that eliminates poverty, we can see that whenever humans are given the opportunity to go over the horizon, settle new lands, and use new resources, that inequality is reduced significantly. We have two options, we can attempt to remove people's freedom to profit from their labor, or we can give people the chance for everyone to profit. Both options are not easy, but only one option has negative societal consequences. When we have two options to help enrich our people, and one of them requires taking someones freedom, why should we be more inclined to choose this when there is an alternative? Let us now consider the following response, "we must keep the world we have clean, and devote all our resources to this venture". This ignores the fact that we will never control the world. Recycling every can will not stop the Chinese from demolishing our ozone, and continuing to upset the ecosystem. It will not prevent developing nations from using whatever dirty manufacturing methods are necessary to compete in the global market. If you are truly concerned about the future and wellbeing of our planet, and our species, then not having a backup plan on another world is unforgivable. You also ignore that the technology that we need to say, colonize Mars, is likely to help us develop better ways to clean up our own planet. This brings us to one of the ultimate points, the phrase, "This is the only world we've got, so me might as well...". This state of being, a species with one world, is actually a fear that has been with us for a long time. However, historically, it pushed us to take action, unlike today. We have always sought future security for our offspring, and have ensured that there would be no way that we could all be wiped out, as far as we know. The fact that all of human life could be wiped out tomorrow, though nuclear war, or a super volcano, or an undetected asteroid, should scare you beyond belief. It sure scares me, more than anything I can imagine. I know it scares other people, why do we have disaster movies, which are so successful? This fear drives people like Elon Musk, and Robert Zubrin, possibly even people like Christopher Nolan. It must scare all of us, and we must make our leaders fear this fate as well. This is where we must craft our arguments. Everyone I imagine I am speaking to must at least have some interest in the subject, but more importantly, an understanding of just how important it is to not just be a one planet species. I do ask, that we try and think of something that is more important, because this could be an incorrect thesis. I do not believe that it is, but if we discover that anything is more important, we should pursue that with all of our passion. If nothing else, we must generate a list of as many counter arguments as possible, and defeat them with logic, emotion, but preferably a combination of both. We must take these arguments to our friends, our family, everyone we know. If you really understand this, then you will realize that this is worth losing friendships over. if your friends do not want to hear about it, then they are ready to let humanity be wiped out. It really is that simple. We must make anyone who will listen understand this, and the urgency with which we must correct this oversight of our species. As much as I like superlatives, I want to eliminate the possibility that I could personally be the last living human. You could be too, unless we do something. So with the following things in mind, I would ask to the help of anyone who would hear me. We must: -Discuss structured arguments -Create convincing and factual rebuttals, which stir emotion in our peers -Share these arguments, start conversations, and drive home the stakes of this proposition -Use facebook, twitter, and all of our social outlets to make sure that everyone we know at least considers this -Make it clear, that whether you are a democrat, republican, or any political creed, we must demand this from our leaders with swiftness -Make it clear to these same leaders, that the likes of Lockheed, and our other entrenched military suppliers don't care if they are building missiles, or building spacecraft, and will continue to fund their campaigns. To those who have made it through, thank you, and I welcome the discussion.

Google Dr. Robert Zubrin. Also, for more immediate results

This looks perfect. Didn't know this existed. Thanks so much!

Hello all. Looking to do a space race type of save. Let me say that I am very near my RAM limit with the amount of mods I have installed on this save, and I have confirmed that my current config is unstable on 64 bit, so that is not an option. I would simply like to add one more launch site, and if possible, have it operate much in the way RSS handles its alternates. I do not wish to have to run RSS to have this ability, and it seems to me that Kerbtown is too bloated, and Extraplanetary launch pads is probably not what I am looking for. Someone must have something for this, but google has not been my friend in this matter. Thanks in advance!

I saw this, and realized there is an objective answer. Given: Tim must be the author of the letter. The letter must arrive in his mothers hands in New Jersey. The letter must be handwritten by a person. This method will allow for a total delivery time which can be less than 5 minutes, and use only items which the average person has available. Tim picks up the phone, and calls his mother. He asks her to go fetch a pen and paper. Tim dictates the letter to his mother. Tim is still the author of the letter. The contents of the letter can travel at a maximum speed only limited by his rate of speech, the transmission rate of the telecom network, and the speed with which his mothers brain can decode the words and put them to paper. The letter is still hand written, and is available to her in its original form in her home in New Jersey. This method satisfies all of the requirements, and considers total preparation time from initial idea to do so, and time to her having a complete letter in her hands. Even the fastest methods of travel would still require the letter to be delivered to the start point, complete its journey, and make its way to the mother.