Kaos

This description only tells, that Hydrogen is somehow used in the fuel, but not that it is pure Hydrogen. It could still be Methane, Hydrogen sulfide or something else. But I doubt, that LF is precisely modeled after some real fuel.

I find it more annoying that they can explode by walking (one Eve, or in timewarp on Kerbin). Yes, they should be fixed.

I also would like very much to have the possibility to fine tune which concepts are used in a game, like Alshain and 5thHorseman suggested; I have that suggestion even linked in my signature ( http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124711-Unify-game-modes-for-greater-configurability ). For how to improve science itself, I would suggest some generic science parts, which do not directly produce science, but can be used in contracts to build up (and extend, via the new upcoming system to interact with existing stations) a science station. Example: * Contract1: Bring a gravioli-twister (20t) into orbit of Dres and operate it with 3 scientists of which at least one was started from Kerbin after accepting this contract; gains xx science points * Contract2 can only show up, after Contract1 was finished: Bring a helium-cooling unit to station yy (the one with the gravioli-twister) and let it work for 100 days (needs 1t helium per day) to enhance the experiments. We need 3 engineers there to connect the parts These science parts may (or may not) only show up, when a contract needs them. Perhaps only one part is generated per contract, hence the experiment fails if one does not manage to start it properly. Some science support parts (as the helium-cooling unit) may be regular parts. Other parts may be unique science parts. Perhaps there are some generic science looking parts models for some different sizes and weights and the parts are generated with this fixed model, but contract-specific, partly auto generated name.

There is precisely one situation where I see sense in it: Suborbital on Kerbin without any other additional goal.

But the liquid helium boils off, so you have spilled the soup in no way. I would prefer liquid nitrogen, as it has similar properties for this application but is way cheaper.

The more I think about this idea, the more I like it. But only as optional mode, not as default mode.

This is comparable to the fear that an aircraft carrier falls on your head. It is quite deadly, including everything around you, but it will not happen. This video reminded me of

As this is mostly included in one of my suggestions ( http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124711-Unify-game-modes-for-greater-configurability ), I like the idea. Nevertheless, the auto conversion from science to funds is a nice addition.

With reentry heat turned off, you can survive a complete reentry to Kerbin. Using the jetpack makes them even more robust. I tested this a while ago.

The experiments with the simulant soil works fine: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265094861_Can_Plants_Grow_on_Mars_and_the_Moon_A_Growth_Experiment_on_Mars_and_Moon_Soil_Simulants The big question here is, how close this simulant is to the real soil. But this part cannot be answered right now, as we do not know more. So I would say: For best of humanity knowledge, crop should grow on mars.

It is less toxic than hydrazine (which by itself is not a complicated goal to achieve). It is more efficient (also not that complecated). But it is presumably not more complicated to handle than hydrazine (which is the interesting part). I think it is a good idea, but one should not expect too much. It is only a little step, but a step in a good direction.

Perhaps this engine can use oxidizer, liquid fuel and a to be named third component with higher Isp. To still have reason to use the other propellants, it might be, that the exhaust is extremely destructive and not producable from ISRU units.

I think this approach might be especially useful when it comes to cleaning earth orbit from debris, then you can use the debris as fuel to reach the next debris. On the engineering side I could well image that it is possible, but do not know, how complicated it really is.

I was not really against Uranus, at least it is better than SLS But I think there are more interesting concepts for naming than just pick an area (planets, greek letters) and use up all its names. Especially I think it is not especially good to keep a naming scheme over a very long time.

That reason is good. Then I like Uranus.

Another big step in space colonization!

To satisfy both the serious and the fun faction in this thread, I will give two suggestions: Launch2050 and HOPE (Heavy lift for Orbital delivery and Planetary Exploration)

Cultural remark to the landing site Mawrth: This would conflict with the story of "The Martian". But of course this should not be a point in the decision process.

I find that to be an important feature, when the consumables are of different complexity to produce. If there is only one ressource, then you have vessels with production of it and without production of it. No stations in between, that only need a little bit of supply. I myself find that boring.

I would like to go with different kinds of consumables, some of which more mass per time is used, but they are simpler to produce (water/oxygen/...), some with less mass per time usage, but more complicated to produce (food/snacks/...) and some which is really complicated to produce, but very low mass is required per time (spare parts for space suits/tools/...). The morale/condition thing from the original post might be interesting, as it would give sense to large living modules. Perhaps every module has a maximal value, to which it can increase the condition. Kerbals in it go slowly to at most this value, but morale shrinks whenever their morale is higher than the module max value or when they are on EVA. Perhaps these module values also change with the total amount of kerbals on the same vessel, as even kerbals might get lonely. Then kerbals may have a health value. They can be hurt if they fall down from big height, by radiation or if hungry for too long. Medical modules or a fourth kerbal class, medics, can improve healing times.

First of all: Text is a bad medium for transporting emotions. I get at some points the slight feeling, that you take something personal. At most points I do not get the impression. If that is the case, let me assure, nothing is meant personal. And not to harm someones feelings values more for me than gaining right in the discussion. So please let me know if and where I wrote something you took personal or something like that. You avoided my question: The community means by self sustaining, that nothing but solar radiation, aka light, is needed for the colony to survive over a long period of time. But I would consider light significant. If you say "no significant input" then yes, it is not possible. Furthermore the whole discussion is senseless. So I assume for the rest of the answer that you mean "yes light is ok", as the community mostly sees it Let start with this source: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/titanium/stat/ So 95% is used for making white color, which is only done, because of cheap imports. Lets say, the USA tried to get self sustained in titanium. Then the would use other white pigments which do not contain titanium. From the remaining 5% a lot can be replaced with other materials. All which you do not want to do unnecessarily, which is why no one does it as long the world price is so cheap. Now we are already at a number below the current US production. But we can go further: A lot of mines for rutile, ilmenite, and leucoxene (the main ores for titanium) are not used, because the purity is so low that it is cheaper to import than to mine. But if you have no other sources and you really want titanium, you could mine it and get more expensive titanium. Then there are further minerals containing titanium, which are not mined, because it is harder to get it out, which would be too expensive. All in all the USA could also increase there production to their consumption. Expensive, but possible. And this is the very reason, why no country is self sustaining, because it is cheaper not to be. But they could if they did not had the cheap imports. We do not produce ourselves, because someone else does it cheaper. It is the same with countries as with persons: I do not wash my dishes, I put them in the machine, because this is more time efficient, including the work to afford the machine. So in my personal resources it is cheaper the dish washer. But I am sure, that I can wash my dishes if the machine brakes. Now let us pick a technical (and again a country sized) example: Producing cars. Years ago much more countries used to produce cars, but they do not do now. They do not have forgotten how to produce cars, the others could do it cheaper, so they stopped car production. If the cheap imports would vanish, they would produce their own cars again. Worse and more expensive ones, but nevertheless cars. No. I import the essential components. I cannot grow faster than I can gain the crucial imported parts. The more complex the technology is, the bigger the colony has to be for being self sustained. In the stone age we had a lot of self sustained colonies. In 1500-1700 the standards the people wanted grew bigger. So they took rather imports than to aim for self sustainability. But forced to do so, a lot of colonies would have survived (gotten self sustained). I think I even remember examples of ships wrecks in that time where the descendants managed to be well and alive on an island hundreds of years later. A situation clearly not made for self sustaining. I fail to find the sources right now, though. It is not all the way down: There is stuff there. One just has to use it! Self sustaining on mars without using the water there, without using the light from the sun there, without using the carbon dioxide there, without using the available materials there: No way. But using all that it gets quite possible. Some people even argue that we cannot survive 1/3 g more than 5 years. So nobody is technical not correct, but I agree that we do not argue about that aspect.

What is self sustaining in your opinion? If that has to include to generate all its power and survive trillions of years, then it is indeed not possible. But normally one would assume that the sun is available and surviving a million years is enough (otherwise you have to deal with genetic shift more than just avoiding inbreeding. In that case I prove the possibility by example. First of all the earth in total is a self sustaining colony. At least I do not know of any necessary imports. Then within earth there are quite some self sustaining colonies, numerous small villages with no or rarely modern technology exist all over the world; most of them in Africa, South America and Australia. The modern technology they have is not necessary for survival. So on earth there are many examples of self sustaining or easily transforming into self sustaining. Perhaps you want to include modern technology and do not count it as colony otherwise (which is understandable, as we are very used to it and would miss it strongly). Then you need of course bigger structures, but most bigger countries could do that with some problems, but could do it. Quite some industries would not work as efficient as today, because they need to be smaller (think of computers etc.) and some imported goods have to be synthesized (which needs energy, but we have wind and solar power) but not a single thing looks impossible to me. Feel free to ask for a particular thing and country with more then 10 Million people where you think this product cannot be produced in this country or it needs so much effort that the remainder of the workforce would be to small for doing anything else. This transformation would not be easy, especially food production would be more complicated in some countries, but it would be possible. This is the reason why we trade, because it benefits. But just because we profit from trade this does not mean that we would not survive without. Then lets look into space. The low-tech alternative is clearly not working there. So we have to construct a bigger, because high-tech colony. How big does this colony have to be initially? I will argue that an import of 100t every two years (time between two low energy transfer windows) to mars will suffice to build an arbitrary large colony there. 100t is an amount we could transport there with todays technology. And with the argument before an colony of more than 10 million inhabitants will find out how to produce these 100t themselves. And I belief the real minimum to be smaller, but with more margin the argumentation is shorter and this post is already much longer then intended. Total consumption per astronaut is about 40 kg/day. That means our 100t suffices for living rooms and two years later supplies for 3 colonists for two years. There they build up water cleaners and recyclers and dig for water. Without water the consumption is 4 kg/day. So you can support up to 30 colonists there, or bring 3 astronauts every other year and more tools for the next 18 years. With these tools and workforce you develop some means of producing food and oxygen there and build there. Now you can expand the colony faster than bringing the modules from import and reduce your consumption to 1.5 kg/day. This is enough to support 80 people. 20 build up a chemical industry, which allows to produce more stuff on-site, reducing the imports to 0.5 kg/day. With then 240 people you find ways to produce more stuff locally. Every reduction of necessary imports by a ratio increases the number of astronauts by the same ratio, hence even more complicated stuff can be assembled. But take a look around for small companies with 20 employees and see what they can produce here on earth. When the needs are fulfilled by the other people and the imports, they will be able to do the same on mars. If I did miss nothing this totally allows for construction of self sustaining colonies on mars. It will be more complicated on moon and even more complicated in floating cities in the atmosphere of venus, but still possible. The numbers in the argumentation are to my best knowledge (sometimes slightly increased where I do not remember exactly, so with real numbers it is even simpler, well: less hard). I have looked up quite some of them just a month or two ago, so I should be able to find references where necessary. If I did miss something, please point it out to me, I would like to fix my argument (or agree with you if you happen to have arguments that convince me; I try to listen to arguments and not stick to my opinion). I agree with you that "try your best and you'll always succeed" is clearly false in general. But I think with actual technology and production capacity of the earth, mars colonies are quite possible.

The only reason we cannot is because we do not try.

I would like a inflatable tank, that can only hold fuel in expanded mode, in which it has the best mass/fuel ratio but is extremely fragile then (at most 0.5g, do not even think about atmosphere with this tank). This would be an interplanetary tank. Currently we mostly have planetary stuff that happens to be suitable for space.

I know that. I must have misread one of the postings before, sorry.