StarStreak2109

I don't mind a government funded development process. But the company should be able to select subcontractors on their own and not be told that the engines should be built in Germany, the tanks in France and the guidance systems in Italy (just made that up...), just to satisfy the lobbyists.

No, you misunderstood me. What I am getting at is that IMHO you cannot compare the likes of Arianespace (or ULA for that matter) to companies like SpaceX. Whereas the latter companies are moving into opportunities the market presents, Arianespace and other like them are seemingly virtual appendices to the space agencies, driven by national politics, who tell them where to create value by procurement and production. This was pointed out for instance in the article I quote in an earlier post, where politics dictated that tanks made out of carbon fibres where to be built by a German company, which clearly was not skilled in this kind of carbon fibre product (this kind of production seem to be a strong point of some Italian company). That's what I am getting at: who gets to build what is not governed by expertise, but rather by lobbyism. Companies like SpaceX (or any other medium-sized company for that matter) base procurement / production decisions on financial / technological / entrepreneurial considerations (ideally). In an ideal world, ESA would concentrate on designing missions and payloads for these missions, getting them built and tender launch services. Then it still can be in the best interest of the European nations that these launch services remain in the hands of European launch service providers. But these launch service providers should be able to design, procure and build launch vehicles as is the most efficient way. Only this way prices can come down and innovation take place. Right now the innovation driver are medium-sized companies like SpaceX, with the elephants of the industry tagging along.

With ESA being its prime client and calling the shots on launcher development and where parts are being built....

IMHO, there is one subtle difference. Container vessels or railway vehicles are mass produced, well, with vessels, it is more the principle rather than the individual vehicle. Rockets on the other hand are still rather unique and proprietary pieces of equipment, so even if Castillo looks an awful like a Falcon I with legs, ESA have a long way to go. And then there's still the matter of procurement...

Looks like similar technology. I guess by the time it actually flies it will probably be obsolete. In fact we are talking about a subscale demonstrator that is to fly in 2.5 years... I start to believe that launch services should really be provided by private companies and space agencies should concentrate on payloads and missions...

Well, maybe the initial question should be reworded: "Is it okay to..." And again, I'd say that in general it would be not okay. We are not grasshoppers, moving on, when a patch of grass has been devoured. It is bad enough, that here on Earth, we managed to kill off sufficient of our own biosphere that it slowly becomes a problem. Could we really justify doing that to another pristine world? I truly hope that should we ever set foot on another Earth, we have learned something from our own mistakes... As for "polluting" asteroids by means of mining etc, I am not sure if one even can pollute a lifeless piece of rock. But even then, as pointed out above, sensible resource use, probably some kind of closed loop industry would IMHO preferred.

@linuxgurugamer, I still find it amazing, how you manage to keep that plethora of mods alive and kicking for the enjoyment of all of us. Thanks for this. Especially thanks for maintaining this mod, since it adds a couple of parts that are immensely useful. Regards, Sebastian

IMHO, if mankind ever colonized another planet and/or moon, we should try to minimize pollution, trying to avoid the mistakes that we made on Earth. Sensible use of natural resources should be the prime directive.

I read an interesting article about ESA's strategy concerning the Ariane 6 specifically and how to secure a European access to space, while competing with the likes of SpaceX. It also highlights the the frictions cause by the distribution of individual parts production to a host of different manufacturers throughout the EU. https://www.spektrum.de/news/rakete-auf-abwegen/1567586 It's in German, but Google does a good job of translation these days...

Right click on the inhabited module and click crew transfer. Alternatively use a mod like Ship Manifest. Hope that helps...

Why don't you try the parts in 1.4 and report back to us, how things went?

What's that got to do with GPP?!?

Looks very awesome! I am still amazed about the CobaltWolf-alike art style.

You know, but that is the challenge of this game. You have to design your ship around the task you wanna give it. Of course there's the cheat menu, but RL mission engineers also don't have that luxury. If you say, you suck at landing, try harder, eventually you'll learn how to do it. And mods like Kerbal Engineer and/or MechJeb can help you...

Well, how to put this... Basically, all what you want is available through one or the other career mode altering mods. I do not know the names off-hand, but I am fairly certain that you can alter career mode to what you're describing above. What would really, really, really make much more sense would be a story mode with a sensible, well written and thought through story, which you play out in some kind of missions or quests or whatever. PS: One of such mods I was thinking was "Play Your Way". Maybe not 100% what you're thinking about, but I'm certain there's more...

Wow, nice, a Nautilus-X. Looks to me like you're off to a good start! May I suggest rechecking the dimensions of the ship? Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nautilus-X_Global-view-1.png Further suggestion: to save yourself some trouble, parts like the centrifuge are already available from other mods. So maybe you could then concentrate on getting the main hull, air locks and the various bits and pieces done? But as I said, I am going to subscribe to this, since the Nautilus is one of the ship designs I have been waiting for...

Wrong category?!?!

Sure, it is best never to underestimate the will of those truly convinced by their own ideas. My impression was that SpaceX is going for the quick turn-around here. Maybe at some stage we'll get to see an animation showing the cargo loading process in detail. Right now it seems overly complicated and cumbersome to me. Just imagine you have to crane possibly delicate cargo some hundred meters up and into the cargo hold. So yeah, they probably have some super ingenious idea on doing it (wouldn't be surprised), which will amaze us all, when we see it. Right now I am just a bit sceptical about the practicality. Nothing at all. Just that it probably isn't the quick turn-around that is advertised currently... I was just thinking the following. You have this cargo bay, which goes up around the edges to allow for the heat shield to cover the areas affected by reentry. Then there's the cargo bay door, which is - at least in the render - not opening to 90° but somewhat less. Now you have to deploy the cargo, i.e. have it move out of the cargo bay. My point was that the egress way is somewhat constricted, more so than a payload mounted on a payload adapter. There the fairing does not matter, since it was jettisoned after leaving the dense parts of the atmosphere. Again my point is that I as a non-engineer would probably go for a solution with a less constricted egress way.

Why... Competition is good. Hope SpaceX (or any other space launch provider / rocket builder) stands proudly above that and lets the facts of his product speak for themself. I mean Falcon 9, BFR, SLS, Delta IV, Vulcan, New Glenn, ... they all have their strengths and weaknesses. NASA or any other public/private entity seeking launch services would be well counseled, if they chose the launch vehicle which would be best served for the intended purpose. I guess the main problem right now is that there is no direction as to where the space program of NASA (or any other space agency on earth) is headed for. Okay, there is some unmanned exploration and there is the notion to go to the Moon Mars Moon, but again, beyond colorful posters and PowerPoint presentations, I do not see an agenda or strategy, which survives longer that the legislative period of any given administration. So let's be honest, right now, however much we want it to, there is not much incentive to go to the Moon or Mars with a manned space ship. As such, the SLS will probably die a slow, lingering death, probably after the next elections, as NASA or whomever can no longer justify pouring billions upon billions of dollars into that bottomless pit that the SLS is. At the same stage I do hope that as many launch providers as possible, in conjunction with NASA and other space agencies are continuing to explore space as much as possible, learning to build, fabricate and live in space, because I believe the only reason for us to go to space, to the Moon and Mars (and even beyond) is for monetary reasons. Nothing more and nothing but. IMHO everyone stating he wants to go to Mars for scientific reasons is a bit naive, since probes can achieve most of the science that a manned mission can for a fraction of the cost. We will only go manned to other planetary bodies if there is money to be gained. To that end, I must conclude that we will probably see something like the cislunar initiative that ULA advertises (probably or most certainly not exclusive to ULA). Everything else will follow at some stage, not vice versa. So, let's hope, that there are as many launch providers as possible to show alternatives to a money-eating SLS, as that is IMHO the only way to justify spending so much money on space (exploration/exploitation/...). Steps off soap box...

At this stage all these "artists impressions" are IMHO of a notional character only. I'd say that if it happens, the final BFR (whatever it'll be called eventually), will look significantly different. But first it'll have to get beyond the PowerPoint stage and actually / literally get off the ground... PS: I am not an engineer, but how they will get several tens of tons of potentially bulky cargo in and out of the cargo hold that high up, I cannot imagine. Of course on Moon and Mars, the gravity is lower, so you'd get a way with a smaller crane. But on Earth? And that cargo bay door pictured above may make sense for large satellite deployment, but again, I have my doubts it is practical. Too many points where cargo could bump into edges and stuff (what happens then with the heat shield?). As I said, it'll probably redesigned half a dozen times before any (if any) prototype lifts off...

Honestly? That just sounds like empty words... My faith in NASA actually achieving something tangible these days is pretty limited... I saw that tweet as well and thought: "Yeah, like that's gonna happen...". My guess is that at some stage private companies (not SpaceX or BO, they're just contractors in my view), probably some of the major corporations, will take to the moon (or elsewhere) to start mining resources and stuff. Necessary precursor missions will be also privately funded. NASA won't do this, because their funding only goes for four years and priorities shift with every new administration. Not like there's some superior goal there... PS: However, with all this Mars hype, I feel it would be very much worthwhile to look at the Moon for resources, science and possible colonisation purposes.

https://www.space.com/40431-nasa-cancels-moon-mission-resource-prospector.html First victim of the new NASA administration?!?

This works in 1.4.4 yet?!?

But that's in 1.3.1... And using SSPXr. You see, for that you need BDB...

No definitely FASA, why would I install BDB?!?