GoSlash27

Sorry, I'll have to get back to you on that. Time for me to head out to work. Best, -Slashy

Yeah, I absolutely do not agree with that statement. Apologies, -Slashy

I joined in 2014, just after 0.23 dropped. It's been a long time and a lot of changes since then. Best, -Slashy

Rakaydos, Unless you're talking about using Starships to bring them everything they need from Earth, no... I don't agree with that at all. Humans live within a very complex biosphere that no machine can replace. Best, -Slashy

But if they go with any other provider, that argument never happens in the first place. It may seem a trivial matter to you and me, but that big asterisk most definitely will matter to the people with enough money to afford such things.

Here's something we agree on, although I'd add that the VG Unity and the space tourism industry built around ships like it are also just marketing. In fact, today's flight was also just marketing, made more difficult to sell because it can't exceed 100 km. Best, -Slashy

Everybody would laugh at Guinness. The experience of weightlessness while looking down at the sky is pretty much the same, varying only in price and the amount of time you get to do it. If you're rich enough to afford it, you probably want to pick another option that exceeds 100km so your rich friends won't scoff at your 'pretend astronaut wings'. Certainly, if you're going to claim to be the first (whatever) in "space" but you never actually went above 100 km, you have to expect that people aren't going to consider your claim valid... Or question it at the very least.

That's all well and good, but when somebody claims to have broken the world record for the fastest mile nobody starts explaining to me after the fact about how the original "Roman Mile" was shorter. Best, -Slashy Last I checked, there were no aircraft capable of supporting themselves over 136,000'. Maybe we should all call *that* "space".

Doesn't matter what he calculated it at. It's not the internationally accepted definition of "space". Best, -Slashy

Shouldn't we put air quotes around "space" when discussing the VG Voyager/ Unity? After all... It's never broken the Karman line. Best, -Slashy

I hear what you're saying and all, but it's not Elon Musk or the good people at SpaceX who will be dying if/ when it doesn't work. If they go and start an unsustainable colony up there, one of 3 things will result: 1) They will be obligated to supply that outpost forever 2) They will have to bring everybody home or 3) Everybody who went up there dies. Option 1 is especially troubling, because SpaceX may go bankrupt and then *we* are the ones stuck sending supplies to an unsustainable colony forever. There is a line between "optimism" and "recklessness", and I think this is pretty far over that line. When risking human lives, it's best to have some idea of how you're going to make it work *before* you start, not after. Best, -Slashy

Hour 4: No change in the science points. I'm about to recover the last of my science from space around Kerbin. The sun should rise soon, and I'll be able to get back to exploring Kerbin's biomes. Best, -Slashy

Hour 3 report was delayed because I had a probe dangling by a parachute and couldn't leave it. Anyway... 554 points to go. I built this guy to explore around Kerbin's biomes, but I can't really use it properly until morning. It'll be difficult to gather any more science in the dark, so I may save my next update for end of day 1. Best, -Slashy

Hour 2 update: 660 science points to go. I just launched my first Munar probe. I'll send a follow-up in a half an hour, meanwhile I'll continue farming science from Kerbin. Best, -Slashy

The definition of self- sustaining isn't 'arbitrary'. It means that absolutely no imports are necessary for survival. And clearly we *can* continue the process (SpaceX is doing that now), the question is whether we *should*, especially if there's a long laundry list of reasons why a Martian colony can never be self sustaining. At the very least, it undermines the main reason for having a colony on Mars; "survival of the human race in the face of an extinction level event". Deddly, If that's the case I guess I'll have to bow out because IMO there is no way to make it work. Not a dig on SpaceX, just the reality of the situation. They can easily do human exploration and even an outpost/ settlement, which still puts their capabilities far ahead of any other space agency. Best, -Slashy

You're entirely missing the point. If it isn't 100% self- sustaining, it's not a "colony". The moment Earth dies, they die too because of a million reasons, one of which being they can't provide their own salt. Best, -Slashy

If you're just doing a flyby, I'd definitely choose Eve. Reason: It's very easy to get a free return to Kerbin. Just set your Eve periapsis so that it slings your solar apoapsis nearly out to Duna's orbit, and you'll have a very close encounter to Kerbin on the way back down. If you do it right, the entire trip should only cost about 1,100 m/sec DV assuming aerobraking at Kerbin. Best, -Slashy

This seems to be a bug that they haven't squashed yet. If you click the purple "orbit" tab in the lower left hand corner, it will display your Pe and Ap. Best, -Slashy

Rakaydos, I'll wait until you see the video and let you get back to me. Best, -Slashy

End of the first hour: I'm going to hoover up science to launch my probes using this little guy... There's all sorts of science in and around the KSC. It isn't worth much, but it's quick and it's enough to unlock some helpful stuff. Best, -Slashy

To clarify: 6 Raptor engines plus associated thrust puck/ plumbing. Tankage and structure necessary for a fully fueled transit. Drag fins, thermal tiles, crew quarters, life support, and all the associated plumbing/ wiring/ etc. That all doesn't need to go down to the surface just to turn around and relaunch. I'm talking about doing something closer to Mars Direct 3.0. Best, -Slashy

Habitat: Nobody's talking about using the Starship as a habitat, not even Elon. ISRU: The Starship can be refueled in Martian orbit just as easily as in Earth orbit. Efficiency: The most efficient profiles are those where you don't land and launch anything that doesn't need to be there.

All of this, just no. It's specious nonsense; a vain attempt to sound "right" about something you haven't seriously considered. You're attempting to hand- wave major problems with solutions that don't exist. AFA "salts", not the same thing as Sodium Chloride. Humans have little use for poison. Best, -Slashy I think it would be in our best interest to prove that the necessary elements are there *before* committing to building a colony rather than after. Best, -Slashy

My spreadsheet doesn't take inclination into account, but neither does the subway map. It does, however, solve the Oberth problem and calculates the gateway orbit at both ends for any given transfer. It also calculates transfer windows, departure angles, and transit times. Best, -Slashy

Funny you should mention "grains of salt". There's no sodium or chlorine on Mars, so good luck finding a grain of salt. Humans need salt to survive, BTW. That's enough to doom colonization right there. I'm afraid you've underestimated the magnitude of the problem. AFA mining asteroids, what do you imagine asteroids contain that isn't cheaper and easier to access right here? Finally, the issue of "Mt. Everest". You don't like that as an example because it's not flat, fine. Go with the Gobi Desert or Antarctica if it makes you feel better. Both are more habitable than Mars and offer more resources (and plenty of real estate), yet nobody lives there. There's a reason for that. I agree with kerbiloid; These practical matters need to be ironed out *before* committing to such a grand endeavor, not after. Otherwise it makes less sense than a 5 year old planning to run away to join the circus. Best, -Slashy