tater

Anyone who thinks Antarctica is more harsh than Mars for humans is demonstrating that they have pretty much no idea what they are talking about. The most inhospitable surface environment on Earth is orders superior to Mars by orders of magnitude. Heck, anyplace on Earth is not just quantitatively better (it is), but qualitatively better. Predicating arguments on self-sufficiency is even odder, since Mars would be entirely dependent on Earth for most supplies for as long into the future as most of us could imagine.

Just saw this. Poor Elon will be sad. If you had a gazillionaire wanting to blow it all just because, then some other answer might be possible for even just sending people at all (not a colony, just a private, manned mission). Musk doesn't have that kind of money, so SpaceX needs to actually make money. There is no possible business reason for Mars, and as backup for humanity, deep space is likely easier (the people will be living in cans, regardless, it doesn't matter if the can are at the bottom of a gravity well or not). There are no economic reasons at all. The only other reason is not a bad reason, but there is no reason to assume Mars is the right place for it. Billionaires already pay stunningly high taxes, and the large bulk of the US federal budget is already social programs, and that won't be changing. Tax dollars will not pay for colonization.

^^^ that makes a lot of sense, actually. The thing to do would be to spam a few different rovers around, too, to make maximum use of crew time. Of course some of the vehicles would need to be substantially faster than current designs since they won;t have many years to commute to a new location.

To be fair, the total mission efficiency is a combination of the orbital/rocket mechanics issues (least dv, etc) combined with human factors and related engineering (for the crewed component). Longer, more efficient transfers (from a dv or propellant standpoint) require larger payloads (life support, etc). Obviously there is a point where that doesn't matter, but it's a concern, certainly.

A business making money on it is one thing, I think the OP point is the whole economy. If you can buy a private island in the South Pacific for the price of a trip to Mars... most people will buy the Island.

So they can go from earth to Mars in a week? That means a craft like that could easily head towards 2000km/s assuming that length journey was as far as propellant lasted. A small craft of 100 tons would at that point have ~2x10^17 J KE. That's pretty much spot on the total energy of the Tzar bomb the Soviets blew up. Anyone with a small craft and a computer can wreck places. Might they can do better than 0.3g, or go longer than a week, it gets worse as KE goes as v^2.

Tourism requires really large numbers of people visiting someplace that requires that they take off a few years from work to do. It's not even remotely plausible as an economic driver.

The more obvious thing I noticed the couple times I watched part of it was everyone just walking around. They have artificial gravity?

VASIMR has no capabilities to know right now. It has flown as much as NERVA. If they do test it, it will be a smaller scale unit at lower power. It has some promise, but claiming you "know the capabilities" is a little odd. We know the capabilities of chemical rockets quite well. Ions are well understood, too.

I'm not really negotiating anything, just making an observation. I hope I'm not coming off the wrong way, I really like USILS, and I'm trying to be constructive, not to badger you. As I've said (since the first post where I mentioned it) I understand the rationale due to the size/mass of the part (you're adding capability without being able to add to the stock part, so use the biggest/heaviest of the only 2 you have to chose from---as I said before, I get it). The IVA doesn't show it as filled, however, it's 3 floors of fairly open volume (certainly compared to a mk1 pod). I'll just assume the panels directly above and below the IVA floor (on the same side as the kerbals) are filled with LS stuff everyplace except the windows. Still, vastly larger than 2 mk1 pods that are equally habitable. Yeah, I saw that. My point was that I think that the multiplier in particular is oddly determined. My post right after yours shows the real issue. 2mk1 pods are exactly as habitable as the MPL. The usable volume of the mk1 pod is basically the blue seat you see kerbals on in the MPL IVA, and the MPL's volume is vastly larger. Wonder if it could get a hab multiplier? I just added a MM patch making a hab multiplier equal to the cupola for the MPL. With 2 crew the hab value goes from 30 days to 82, which is still less than 2 mk1 pods attached to a cupola. Using the whole mass would be too much I think (assuming that a chunk of the upper and lower decks have the recycler stuff taking a lot of the room). Call the recycler nearly half of each of the 2 (unseen) other decks, then maybe use a hab multiplier of 2.5 (out of the mass of 3.5).

Getting a feel for how to design with the new habitation values: A HH manned with 2 crew and one small LS tank has a habitation of 240 days (30 kerbal-days per seat), and supplies for a little over 15 days. A MPL with the same 2 crew and same supplies has a habitation of 30 days, but supplies for 51 days (understandable, I've slept in a lab before with effectively endless candy-machine food, and my bedroom was better ). Two Mk1 pods with the same 1.25m supply tank is 30d habitation, 15d supplies. Makes sense except the 2 tiny pods equalling the habitability of a lab that is vastly larger. Add a cupola to each, and they are: HH: 704d hab, 15d supplies. MPL: 124d hab, 51d supplies. 2*Mk1: 124d hab, 15d supplies. OK, so I "get" that the hab is their personal space, beds, etc., so the 240 days vs crashing 30 days in a lab makes sense. I can even get that the "rec" area of a "cupola" might increase wellbeing, but the lab as a "crash pad" is vastly superior to 2 crew sleeping/eating/making mulch in their Mk1 pods, yet they have identical habitation values when both have the cupola. Note that the MPL and supplies MINUS the cupola is rated as 4 times LESS habitable than 2 mk1 pods with the little cupola. This makes no sense to me. While the mass is about 4X larger, the volume (I made a stacked blob of mk1 pods), the volume of the MPL is on the order of 15X that of the Mk1. Somewhat counterintuitive. So your baseline assumption in the early versions was that the pods, etc are good for 15 days, then extra supplies needed past that. The hab value and recyclers extend this idea, which is great. Your code remarks say: Seems like the hab multipliers should be less based upon part weight, and rather more just what you (or related, compatible mod authors) think seems right based upon frankly subjective factors to get the right balance. What would happen if a part got a fractional hab multiplier? Perhaps areas that are just "cockpits" get a 0.75? The MPL is about 18m3, and the HH is about 12m3. The cupola is about 5m3. Perhaps a benchmark suggestion might be volume, instead of mass?

Because LS is not for doing science ? Up a few posts I wrote that as a large part with only 2 crew, I understood your decision to use it (it has extra room/mass, clearly, so it makes sense). Still, the few other non-control crewed parts, as well as all the other USILS parts are all in the Utility category, not science---which was my real point, that's it's not where one would expect it based on the name of the part, and the fact that all your other USILS parts are in Utility. It wasn't an attack or anything, just my observation. USILS is great, and I like the direction it's going in, complex feel/gameplay without micromanaging too much. As I said a few posts up: I understand why you chose that particular stock part, my point is that one would expect the part that is explicitly for habitation to perhaps include relevant habitation stuff. I can see the point in having the Hitchhiker NOT having the recycler, though... partially it's the fact that there are only the 2 deep space parts (non-aircraft) that have seats at all, so you have basically no choices to work with (the mass of the recycler equipment is totally more plausible within the huge science lab, I "get" that). It would make more sense (to me) if there was the ability (later in the tech tree than the HH) to add that capability, perhaps at a lower efficiency. Regarding the other stuff I asked about: 1. Will there be stand-alone recyclers? 2. Is the cupola supposed to be the only part with a hab multiplier? If so, what's the design rationale so that it can be added consistently for mod parts? Ie: If a mod adds a greenhouse that looks nice and roomy, would you suggest using the part mass (as in your code remarks) as the multiplier? Would you reserve the multiplier for "non-hab" facilities that effectively have no purpose except maybe recreation (there is a station parts mod with a gym, for example)? I'm just looking for what the benchmark is, as you'd think the volume of extra HH-sized parts would trump the nth cupola added.

Yeah, but I can just buy a purifier and composter for my house. Since there are no recycler parts, I have to have an apartment, and buy another apartment next door that has those 2 things included and knock a hole in the wall . Still, in terms of KSP _parts_ why would the one crewed part with a recycler be in the science parts? I'm playing a 6.4x distances mod, so I need a few years of supplies/habitation for Duna to be safe. I was watching the USILS window in the VAB, and with a crew of 3, I have a mk1-2 pod, 3 Hitchhikers, and a Science Lab, plus 4x2.5m NOMs. Habitation is 1 year, 105d. Supplies for 2y, 384 days---not enough, I need 90 days for a Minmus return---but I can add more. If I add a cupola, my habitation rating jumps to 3y, 215 days! You have this remarked in the LSModule.cfg: //For parts that act as hab multipliers (dedicated or bundled with other functions/converters), //a multiplier equal to the tonnage works well. And the cupola is set this way. Should the HH have a hab multiplier? Regarding recyclers, perhaps the supply tanks could lose a % of their supplies in return for some recycler capacity. Maybe just the 2 large ones?

Yes, but the HH is explicitly for habitation, whereas the science lab (MPL, whatever they call it) is a science part. It's somewhat counter intuitive, though clearly the lab has considerably more mass/volume per crew capacity, and makes sense for that reason. I guess I'll need some part mods, unless I want to cover my craft with added parts. I'm fine with the additional concepts, I just want clean looking ships . I'm trying to keep mod parts low until 1.1 when hopefully I can add more without memory issues.

Do parts like the Hitchhiker include recyclers? Wouldn't that be the point of them?

NASA says that number is about 1.83 kg/day, actually. (from memory, but it's that order of magnitude). Water is very well recovered.

Cool, it's nice to know they work properly.

I was under the impression that the fairing mass was carried in the base, not the actual fairing (it should be in the fairing, obviously, but I read otherwise someplace).

Anything you could do on Mars, then have to lift to space you could also just do in space. A built environment is a built environment, it doesn't matter where it is. The day/night cycle is meaningless, as martians will need exactly as much radiation protection as they would on the Moon---about 2 meters of soil over their heads. At that point, you are artificially controlling the day/night cycle anyway.

The staging of fairings is a little odd. Say I have a 2d stage, then a fairing, then a 3d stage. I have the 2d stage and separator together, then the fairing, then the next separator and engine together. It will stage the 2d engine, AND the fairing, often when the ship is still engulfed in flames.

KE weapons would certainly work up to a point. The trick is hitting the target, I'd think. Lasers pretty much can't miss, so you can blind the targeting sensor on the missile (unless it is just remotely controlled) then evade at the last second (which you could do anyway if it is remotely controlled as there is a large between the controlling ship seeing your maneuver, then sending commands to missile). Once again, we need all the givens.

Yep. Also that the way to mitigate such complications is to go for an entirely controlled construction technique. Ie: like ISS, etc. That means that the "colonists" need to bring everything with them. Making a habitat out of martian concrete, or 3d printing with martian soils, etc, ad nauseum, is not impossible, but would need long-term testing while the people involved were actually safe in a plastic hab they bring with them from Earth. I said it someplace, but Mars is only a "destination" to the extent that humans construct/bring-along a destination with them. Such an environment could just as well be placed on the Moon, or simply in orbit. About the only thing that you get "for free" on the Moon or Mars is the use of regolith for radiation shielding---assuming you design the habs you bring with you to support a couple meters of dirt on top of them.

Any near-future space battles are more like ASAT stuff, anyway. The laser system on Ponce could certainly be adapted to spacecraft, though I'm sure it would not be cheap. Lasers are a reasonably mature technology, the only issue is every production, really. The ripping in half... yeah, that's not a thing any time soon . Again, it's why a timeframe/tech level/sci-fi universe is a required given for any discussion.

True, but you would then be directing your program into certain sets of mission types rather than just certain mission types on a slider. In your system, would the player have to then take all the contracts? If not, while it might eliminate some of the contracts the player doesn't like, it's not really "directing a space program" any more than sliders, or the current clickfest (it's WAY better than the clickfest, but I mean in terms of "direction"). I feel your pain, really . I'm the choir you are preaching to. The idea of the target world also being there is way closer to the goal, however. Love that idea. It's unfortunate that we have to try and get them to do something "within the system" to fix such a fundamental issue of gameplay, though.

Lasers are entirely possible, now, actually. They are already being deployed. The USN has one in service on Ponce.