fairytalefox

Well, it's not like they've got their "Hero of the Soviet Union" titles for their pretty eyes. Wanna know when looks actually matter? Look at the Soyuz-Apollo custom docking module: ...as opposed to the original docking module design:

What's the goal of the mission? Plant a flag? Proxima Centauri hands down. (If by "plant" we mean "drop into space somewhere nearby"). Bring back or transmit science? Alpha Centauri. Find an earthlike planet? As @kerbiloid already mentioned, we ain't need no stinky interstellar for this. Some really useful astrophysics? Ask real astrophysicists. Build a colony? Since I don't believe in colonization of planets, all we need is literally any star as an energy source and a bunch of asteroids/dwarf planet as a source of materials for a space habitat. So let's find asteroids first, space telescopes FTW, again.

Can you elaborate please? What, besides optimism and other personal traits, could make someone think so?

Let's ask ourselves: what could make people create and maintain colonies? Probably the same things that make them do other things in space, right? I'm reading Chertok's "Rockets and People". Seems like the main reasons behind the Soviet space program were (in order of importance): 1. Military. Warhead delivery measures, surveillance, that sort of things. 2. Political. Space race, we're the first, our opponents suck. 3. Economical. Doing something useful that is either impossible or stupidly over-complicated and expensive without space. Let's apply all these to potential planetary colonies. 1. Useless. Having people on Pluto won't help you fight err... Somalia. Let's call that country "Somalia". 2. To some extent. When Somalia does have it's people on Pluto, and you don't, who's the daddy? 3. Heavily depends. Let's talk about (2). It doesn't actually matter how many people you have on Pluto. You have them, Somalia doesn't, it's all that matters. Even more, it doesn't matter if your people are living on Pluto right now. Been there, done things, nothing to do on this ex-planet anymore. You're already the daddy, Somalia already sucks, and it will last forever. No need to spend more money on the colony. Which means "no colony". It's what happened with the American Moon program. So all we have is economy. If we need something up there, we will be up there. Think of GSO. Will we abandon GSO any time soon? Hell no. Not while comsats are profitable. Will we abandon the Moon? Well, done already. Apparently there's no silk spice oil colonial goods on the Moon. Will the Moon be profitable in the near future? Maybe, as an industrial base for large-scale space construction. Low gravity (but gravity nonetheless), minerals and solar radiation in abundance, relatively cheap to reach. Will anything else be profitable in the near future? Probably not. Too far, too inhospitable.

Well, strictly speaking, it's not exactly true. Your point is solid, I won't disprove it; but at the same time, cheap consumer-grade radiometers are a thing. I, for example, am a proud owner of one of these. It's more a toy than a science instrument, but still.

You see, speed squared plus "time speed" squared is always c squared. You can't actually change your full speed, you can only split it between moving faster in space and moving faster in time. For me, it looks like a conservation law, or like another face of the conservation law maybe. We don't try to trick conservation laws, because it never works. It's how I see this.

Guys, I'm afraid not many of us are ready to discuss power generation. It isn't just complicated, it's helluva complicated. Saying "we have wind generators, we can scrap NPPs" is like saying "we have fireworks, let's fly to Alpha Centauri". First, yeah, the more wind and solar generation you have, the less nuclear power you can use, but at the same time the more peaking generation you need, and peaking generators run mostly on totally non-renewable and ecologically unfriendly hydrocarbons. Second, energy generation these days is probably the most politicized topic ever, I'm not kidding you; everything they say on TV and other media on this topic is either blatant lies or partial truth (which is an euphemism for "even more dirty form of lie"). Who are "they"? You see them, you know them. No politics on this forum, so Scheherazade's shutting up. Third, as @SomeGuy123 already mentioned, Chernobyl reactors (RBMK-1000) weren't exactly the most foolproof contraptions possible. Mostly because they were designed in 50's with "quick and dirty" motto in mind. The 1986 incident wasn't the first of it's kind, it was preceded by almost the same, except not catastrophic events on Leningrad NPP. Ironically, the Chernobyl reactor blew up during scheduled stopping sequence; they were stopping it in order to install safety additions, to prevent disasters of exactly this type. So, if it didn't happen that day, it would never happen. Fourth, digging radioactive waste in isn't wrong at all. Ever heard of lava, that molten rock thing inside this planet? It is hot and molten because inner part of the planet is full of hot isotopes. It's where they belong. So digging in, I mean really deep, is THE solution. Fifth, that Fukushima reactor performed extremely well during the earthquake. It properly stopped and began cooling. The problem was not with the reactor itself, but with totally not nuclear auxiliary generators. They were damaged by a tsunami a couple of hours after the earthquake. With no energy for proper cooling, the reactor, after some time, did what it did. The problem is not with reactors being nuclear, the problem is with people being idiots. As always. You see a problem, you look for an idiot who causes it. A rule of a thumb. We should not fight nuclear energy, or terrorism, or drugs, or whatnot. We should fight idiocy and ignorance. When we defeat them, everything will be fine and even better.

So what this discussion is about? FTL traveling doesn't seem to be possible, I can say it right now. Light speed definitely isn't an arbitrary barrier, it's a part of what time and space are. I really don't see how this can depend on DNA capacity, grey goo growth rate or number of angels dancing on a needle.

They look clean and cute, I'm already in love

I don't think it would be right to add parts just because they look Russian-ish (or Chinese-ish, or whatever-ish). Like @tater, I'd prefer to see new parts with some new/changed functionality, not just retextures/remodels/mild respecs of the old ones. Two-men capsule, five-men capsule, something like Soyuz (one part while in the VAB, three separate-able parts while in flight). Holy mother of Jeb, it would be like a miracle to have an early available 2-seat capsule for those rescue contracts...

We just need more different pods. Now we have one 1-seat pod, one 3-seat pod, and that's basically it. Other habitable space parts are, strictly speaking, for building stations, not for launching people into orbit. Speaking of real life pods, spherical ones are from the early stage of the Soviet space program, Vostok/Voskhod. They suffered from horrible g-force on reentry, like 10g or so. That's why more technically advanced Soyuz landing capsules look mostly like Kerbal pods, their shape gives them some lifting force to make reentry trajectory less steep and g-force less cruel.

@K^2 Magical thinking is the problem. People these days are used to use things they don't understand. You push buttons, you get the result. It's basically like magic (hello Mr. Clarke). Buttons as spells, electricity as mana, and we call our magic wands "remotes". When they think of something seemingly impossible, they don't believe it's actually impossible. They just say: "we need more wizards technicians". Surely, science and technology can do much. But what some of us can't understand is that sometimes (read: quite often) the universe just doesn't work the way we want. It's not like lack of technicians, it's fundamental. Impossible things are impossible, no matter what. Like, when you're 8 years old, you can't subtract big numbers from small numbers because you don't know where it leads to. And you can't divide by zero because never ever. There are two different sorts of "can't". We should learn how to distinguish them.

The only more or less plausible way to communicate with the probe I can think of is to manipulate the star's light. A planet-size mirror, or a cloud of vapor, something like that. My point is, we have to either use an existing extremely powerful source of radiation or create our own one. Yes, it's far beyond our current or near future technologies, just like the probe itself. Or maybe we can just refuel the probe and return it back home. Somehow. ISRU or whatnot.

Got it. Okay, I was wrong, forget that idea. Thank you for the discussion.

Man, think one more time. Fuel. Electricity. They aren't here, something around there stops working. It's, like, the core-est of all the core mechanics. Sorry? If you dock a ship with a little crew cabin to something, it means the ship has a pilot. Thus, if both ships were controllable before docking, they're still controllable after docking. Unless you've managed to remove the pilot after docking... which is technically possible but seems completely random, overcomplicated and unneeded. So no endless streams of tears for ya. A few drops, maybe. Like I said, it's not completely counter-intuitive. One body in the trunk, other body in the driver's seat. For me, it makes some (although... yes, not too much) sense. And not very Kerbal. It's a weak point of the plan. Yes, it was my point. Thank you for making it clear. I've mentioned magic just for reference. - - - Updated - - - Hmmm. Patched conics is my first or second upgrade. I get top-level pilots, let me think... never? I mean, I've got the idea, it's not necessarily fruitless, but not in it's current form. Atmospheric predictions, maybe? It's what that 'Trajectories' mod does. I doubt, though - putting mods based on heavy calculations into the stock game isn't very SQUAD'ish.