Sky_walker

Yea... TBH: I'm confused what sort of improvement would it suppose to bring into the game. I mean - it's nice, always adds to the game immersion and realism, but.... there are so many other things waiting...

I'll pass I'm allergic to them. Ok, to be fair - noone but Boeing can tell what would happen for sure. But Boeing is pretty much the only company giving such a clear signs that they most likely will abandon the project if no money is won. Some random quotes from quick google search: http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865 http://www.americaspace.com/?p=66434 http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/20/space-florida-sets-boeing-commercial-crew-rent/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/09/09/nasa-awards-contracts-to-virgin-galactic-and-other-suborbital-providers/

With money. Musk got more than enough and he already said that Dragon V2 will happen no matter what. Don't be so short-sighted. It's not about making flights tomorrow to LEO and back but rather ISS/Future space stations/whatever Musk has today in his mind for Mars exploration. No idea. Ask SpaceX fanboys, they already got everything sorted out down to details. ESA and JAXA according to current contracts are not interested in anything else than technology exchange (eg. DC will use ESA docking port) plus few rental flights in future. It's nothing that could possibly cover the expenses required to make that thing fly into space. Remembers - spaceplanes tend to be the most expensive kind of spaceships. Many have tried, very few have succeeded. Though yes - SNC did say that they're going to continue the project even without NASA money... as much as I'd like to believe it will be they case and they're going to succeed - I doubt it will be the case. SNC is very ambitious project and they really do need that cash, more than anyone else in whole programme. And as for Boeing - they most likely will discontinue their capsule if they won't receive cash from NASA. UK Space Agency is a joke right now. They keep on doing the same mistakes they did in '80s and '90s - being unable to find any agreement with major players, only this time they don't have money to develop anything worthwhile on their own. They suffer typical problems to the post-imperial organizations. Still think they're major players with strong decisive power while in fact that got surprisingly little to say with money they got and the current management issues. UKSA should take an example from Italian Space Agency - they are smaller players in ESA yet somehow manage to find a common ground with other countries in Europe and even despite of years in trouble - they did manage to push Vega and so far it works beautifully. The only good thing UKSA actually managed to do in last few years is pushing British private space sector. Fairing would be needed to speed up the development and cut costs on accounting for modified aerodynamics of the launch vehicle with DC on top. At least that's the official version from DLR. If ESA would want to - they can get the US man-rating certification for Ariane 5 as launcher fulfils the requirements already, only problem with the Dream Chaser could possibly be an escape system, but then again - they already done initial designs for Hermes escape mechanism, essentially an adapter with boosters ontop of the EPS, so needed be - idea can be resurrected. Besides - isn't it similar to what DC will be using on Atlas V anyway? And: No, Hermes wasn't cancelled before Ariane 5 development begun. Final approval of Ariane 5 was done in 1987, years before Hermes was cancelled. Year after that they already started building a launch pad in Kourou. Hermes was cancelled in 1992. By that time not only rocket design was done, but they even gone through series of tests for the new Vulcain engine and in 1993 EAP (Solid Rocket Booster) was tested.

It's meaningless if SpaceX wins. They will continue their project no matter what. That's not the case for the other two (Boeing will abandon the project for sure, SNC says that they will keep on running, but many people doubt if that's even possible without cash injections from NASA) I for one hope that SpaceX looses.

Good work guys, I like the layout. Though I wish there would be more sorting options while browsing through the mods.

Hmmm.... that would explain why my space station with 4 claws and 5 shielded docking ports runs at ~17 FPS instead of usual 60. Can you try filling in a bug report for it? Sounds like you just found a new, rather large problem with the game.

AFAIK construction cost alone was over 2 billion USD, development cost was ~10 billion. Space shuttle launch cost was ~1.5 billion USD. So: no, it doesn't include development cost. Probably. But it's pure speculation at this stage on just how much cheaper would it be.

TPB won't work, but I'm sure they'll be able to download games, movies, music, books and video messages through other means than torrents . Add hardware maintenance and trainings for the mission on the ground and you'll have enough to pass most of the time. IMHO things like private space onboard the craft, personal relations, or even meals variability will be much more crucial to the psychical well-being of a crew than whatever they'll have enough "to do" or not - stuff "to do" can be provided quite easily, especially if you'll eliminate people unsuitable for the mission early on (which is already done for the ISS). [EDIT:] Red Iron Crown always ahead of me, hehe. Yea, basically this. And just think of potential - they'll have time to design the first ever 0g board game!

Read the article I linked to - NASA is experimenting with servicing the satellites that weren't designed for that. Just to prevent you from missing it again, here is a clear, direct link to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_Refueling_Mission Yea, that's why you want robots to perform them, not humans. But obviously you are right - it's easier to perform repairs on a satellite that was build to be modular than one that hardly can be de-assembled. Thankfully modularity is a constantly growing trend in satellite design. Still though quite a lot can be done with just a single cleverly build spacecraft designed with repairs in mind. Eg. you could fix solar panels or antennas that got "stuck" while unfolding (both being quite common issues that are easily "fixable" without having a spacecraft intentionally designed for that (heck, usually combination of heating from sun with spin is enough to "unstuck" them) ). Well... not really. If I remember well - Hubble was more expensive than it's launch, even with horrendous launch costs of the Space Shuttle. And that mission had an added scientific value. So it was worth performing it. That's not how it works. You can't pull assumptions like that out of the sleeve. In some cases it will be cheaper to send a replacement (eg. for communication satellite) - in other cases it'll be cheaper to prolong life of an existing satellite (eg. for some more expensive scientific satellites) Yes, you are correct. That's why ESA isn't building a reusable spaceplane that only does servicing, and servicing alone. Please, finally start reading carefully, I already pointed that out 3 times and you still insist that I never said anything like that. We do agree! Reusable spacecraft on this scale build only for servicing and servicing alone doesn't make much sense. But that's not what ESA builds! Sorry, but I give up. There's only as many times as I can explain the same thing over and over again and you still refuse to even process what I'm writing. See you in another topic, I'm out from here.

Noone does it for a few reasons: 1) There are no standards for refueling. Even the International Docking System Standard doesn't have any connectors allowing for a fuel transfer. 2) There are no spacecrafts performing refueling and added weight means less payload or less fuel onboard your satellite. So either you put the equipment for refuelling that might never be used or you add more fuel extending lifetime of your satellite for sure. ESA doesn't build IXV just for a sake of studying technologies. It's a clear path leading to a future autonomous spaceplane, and one of it's roles will be to service other spacecrafts / satellites. And let me stress it again: It's not the only role for it. I already mentioned that in my post. Read carefully. I already pointed out that it's not a reusability for the sake of re-usability. You are the one suggesting that, not me. Yea, it won't. That's why noone is building reusable tanker, but rather very versatile craft capable of performing multiple different missions in a single flight. Remember that with the use of electric propulsion refuelling isn't a problem - servicing satellites is. Propulsion systems will actually start outliving other hardware on the satellites (you'll notice the increasing number of redundant systems on a newly deployed satellites). Refuelling itself isn't a priority, especially when you consider that there are no standardized ways to refuel satellites and any non-standard ideas that exist for refuelling are still in an experimental stage at the moment. Never said that they are reusable rockets. But think of that: Either you pay ~13M euro for each Astrium servicing spacecraft or you pay once for a spaceplane and reuse it for multiple missions, including an ability to perform several different tasks in a single flight bringing the payload back from space (eg. scientific experiments + servicing a satellite/space probe/space telescope mission profile).

Selected landing site is J - it's on a smaller lobe. See the center image below. Back-up landing side is C - on a larger lobe, more risky, highly structured, but in case J will be unsuitable for whatever reason (Eg. jet forming) - C will be used. Some quotes / info: "We are on the edge of revolution for our understanding of how the solar system formed and what's driving the diversity." "Rosetta contributes the unique ways to expand our understanding of the creation, building blocks of life, and diversity of the universe" "Comets although are made of 90% of ice are darker than the darkest place in our moon" "Molecules that are covering the comets might be the critical contribution to the creation of life on earth." Rosetta will perform first ever studies of comet magnetic field Philae will measure pretty much all of the surface properties, even it's electric resistance Rosetta mission will give complete studies of the comet, from macroscopic properties to microscopic studies. Site J is the best one to achieve all of the mission goals. Another image (small lobe on a foreground, large lobe in a background) Two major points before the landing itself. - Decision if Rosetta can approach comet to 20km - In late October - decision if Rosetta can descend to 10km. Descend will take approximately 7 hours For a few days after the descend Rosetta will have to actively maneuver to keep stable radio frequency link with Philae. Sep 26 - announcement of Philae descend date 14 October - confirmation of GO/NOGO - if not possible then landing on site J can be delayed by up to 28 days if needed be. There are 2 landing opportunities every day. Estimation of the successful landing was initially estimated at 70-75% assuming that comet is rounded, however complex shape made it much more difficult and more risky. No site on a comet meets 100% of the engineering requirements. They didn't do any estimations for current successful landing chance percentage as it'd take lots of time to do that and still would not affect the mission in any way - they still will do the very best they can. Comet coma is very difficult to predict and it's effect on the approach will be crucial. Scientists still have trouble distinguishing effects of gravity from effects of coma, right now they can predict approach path with an accuracy of roughly a kilometre. To compare - they can estimate previous path of a comet and where exactly photos were taken with an accuracy down to few dozens of centimetres. The ways outgassing progresses is different than anything estimated or modelled before comet have been approached. Sublimation is some areas is much faster than anything anyone expected at this distance from the sun. Two months make a huge difference to the approach trajectory. An interview with Philae project manager. Journalist: Rosetta will cost as much as 5 days of war in iraq (I guess it's 5 days of French costs?) BTW: Looks like ESA loves anaglyph. They made another one for the presentation (shows landing site J) and seems like they equipped all of the reporters, visitors and speakers with anaglyph glasses, hehehehe

Selected landing site is J - it's on a smaller lobe. See the center image below. Back-up landing side is C - on a larger lobe, more risky, highly structured, but in case J will be unsuitable for whatever reason (Eg. jet forming) - C will be used.

You're still confusing things. Perhaps picture will help: IXV won't do that, PRIDE might, though it probably will be decided in December for sure, it's successor however will be fully fledged spaceplane capable of servicing satellites. Lower long-term cost thanks to reusability, lack of space debris, ability to perform multiple varied missions, ability to retrieve cargo (what opens a whole lot of possibilities with space probes) / broken components (for further analysis) / microsatellites (european ... geckos ). I can think of few reasons why spaceplane would be better than one-shot-spacecraft like the one build by Astrium.

Why not? I mean - right now it takes some time to force yourself into bankruptcy, so combine that with taking loans and you got 8 hours of "fun" easily... ...ok, ok, you win.

Read carefully. I never said that IXV will be the one servicing satellites. The final goal of the programme that involves IXV is to develop a reusable spacecraft that will be capable of servicing satellites. Astrium will be servicing a satellite made of Probodobodyne OKTO and Communotron 88-88. Oh, by the way - here's some more recent and detailed info from the DLR website: http://www.research-in-germany.de/dachportal/en/Research-Areas-A-Z/Space-Technology/Research-Projects/DEOS.html Launch will take place in 2018.

More info on Philae landing sites: http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-en/11447-gp-rosetta-five-landing-sites-selected-for-philae.php

ESA published some info and a video about scientific experiments to be done by Philae. http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/09/13/science-with-the-lander-what-to-expect-when-philae-meets-67p/ Harpooning the comet! Like a boss.

"Finally"?! Oh come on, ESA has been building that for years. In November they launch IXV - the first test vehicle of a future spacecraft that will do exactly the same. Nice to see that DARPA catches up, but please, don't misinform people that it's something new or they're the first. Concepts for ships like that have been floating at least since '60s.

They are different things but not opposite - which is some obscure assumption that you build your argumentation on. And it works both ways - unrealistic games (eg. arcade) don't always offer great user experience. This. If Squad wants to see where the money is they should take a look at the most popular mods. These tend to belong in one of two categories: 1) Parts packs. 2) Stuff that increases various aspects of realism. They're addressing parts packs, but somehow are very resistant to adding various aspects of realism while in fact it could make the game easier to understand by a new players, not more difficult as few overeager people here suggest without giving it a second thought.

The only thing I can think of that would fit this whole description for a secret feature is bankruptcy. That's something even average player never gets close to, not to mention a good one. And if so then I suppose we might see loans? In case you get bankrupt - you can get some quick cash injection in hope to revive your space program? But then again - it'd only make sense if bankruptcy would be something you can get by just playing bad, not intentionally trying to get bankrupt as it is now.

I'm quite sure that cockroaches would live as long as we do. The highest density of cockroach population is always in centres of a human population.

There are many theories. Extraterrestrial source of life on Earth isn't the "fact" nor ever was. It doesn't matter what's terrifying and what's not And in that case - a definition of life from scientific point of view is already established. Homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction are how you recognize something is alive. From scientific point of view - viruses are not forms of life but rather replicators (and: no, not the Stargate Replicators, "replicator" is a real scientific term that exists in a biology) What people use in a common language is another matter. But by now we should know very well that people have an outstanding tendency to babble nonsense and not only "blur" terms but straight on change their meaning for no logical reason.

My 8 cores are burning with excitement.

Technically - early Atlas rockets were... sort-of Single-Stage-To-Orbit designs. There were also multiple designs and ideas, like Aquarius, for SSTO rockets, however none of them accomplished a successful spaceflight. In either case - purely theoretically there's nothing stopping you from building SSTO rocket in real life. It's just that from practical point of view - it's a stupid idea. You waste time, money and resources on something that performs significantly worse than staged rocket. In KSP on the other hand it's quite opposite - it's cheaper, more efficient and in some (rare) cases easier to build SSTO than multi-stage rocket. This leads to plenty of obscure misconceptions. Yea.... that's the problem. To get KSP behave in a... logical way you NEED mods. As I tried to highlight in few points of my lengthy post - majority of new players expects several things from a game about spaceflight, including possibility of death during the reentry, aerodynamics that make some sense, or a proper maths running behind the scenes:

Read this: http://www.pocketqubeshop.com/pages/how-much-does-a-pocketqube-cost After that, read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/06/25_satellite_swarm_looks_like_going_down_in_flames/ And if you want to build a sprite sat - first find someone who can launch it, cause it's so unconventional type of a satellite that I wouldn't be surprised if you'd fail finding anyone even to consider taking it, not to mention actually cooperating with you to deploy it (I guess it'd need to be taken as a cargo onboard cube sat, or something similar... no idea really, as said: it's very unconventional payload).