tater

Hehe, remember to welcome your robot masters! I suppose for certain missions (until intelligent systems are better) that humans nearby might have a place. For example in martian orbit, controlling rovers in real time (vs the more difficult landing of humans on Mars). Pretty limited improvement, except that the human researchers also have time limits, so faster data collection is of benefit if you are a PI on a probe (lobby for probe for 10 years,get money, build and launch in another 10 years, transit X years, take data for Y years, reduce data for Z years, die.).

You won't see me defending Shuttle here, lol. I merely meant the raw ability at any moment to put humans into orbit. If we HAD to, at short notice, the US could certainly do so, with no less risk than Gemini flights (we have some flight-article hardware that could be mated to a rocket). The current certification is aimed at incredible reliability. CST-100, et al are another thread, though. My point was that colonization is a legitimate goal as a safeguard against a planetary catastrophe (really talking planet-killer asteroids here). That scenario has mitigation (deflecting the threat) as one possibility, and having a sustainable colony out of the Earth-Moon system as another (any huge body hitting either would result in a lot of dangerous ejecta into space). Both are entirely legitimate, long-term goals, and in the grand scheme of human expenditure, not impossible (orbital stations like O'Neil colonies might make more sense, dunno). Remember, I'm a robot guy when it comes to science, it's better, period. No exceptions. Manned flight is like climbing mountains with the sole exception of colonization, I agree. Still, as the costs show, spaceflight is cheap. The NYC school system spends about as much money as all the space programs on earth, combined. My little school system probably spends as much on school lunches as France contributes to ESA (around 700 M USD). I really don't have a problem spending a few billion on what are in effect stunts (manned flight). Even just as an international pissing-match. Beats fighting each other

Will do, I thought it was up to date.

Has ever had it. Stupid of us to kill Shuttle without a replacement already operable. In the context of the "all eggs in one basket" conversation, the ability to make habitats in extremely harsh environments is the real issue, which the US/Russia, China, and parts of the EU are totally capable of doing. - - - Updated - - - I've been liberally sprinkling in the for just this reason - - - Updated - - - Very true. Man in space is a cool thing for purely "gut" reasons to me, honestly. Like I said, robots > humans for any non-circular scientific research (circular, meaning the study of people in space, which only matters in order to put people in space). There is something inspiring about people walking on other words, though.

Read the conversation. Nib31 was saying that any society that can make a Mars colony can survive after an asteroid impact, etc. Are you suggesting that Africa will have the capability to have a Mars Colony instantly upon an asteroid impact? because that's how much time they will have to gain that capability. Only a society with that capability ready to be used NOW, emergently would be able to use it in the wake of such a catastrophe. PS--Africans are people who live in Africa. The only continent without any manned spaceflight capability (the subcontinent will have this soon, but we'll call them "asia" for now).

How many spacefaring countries are in Africa? (for clarity: the idea he proposed is that any society capable of making a sustainable Mars habitat can make an earth habitat after a catastrophe, so really the question is, what countries survive capable of an extended Mars mission? Then add in, how good will they be at that in a post-apocalyptic world? ) Yes, exactly. As was Nib31's post I was replying to. He was saying that humanity doesn't matter in the grand scheme, so we should;t bother worrying about preserving the species. Humanity is already infinitesimal compared to the cosmos, I dropped it from 7 billion/infinity to 1/infinity. No difference, that was my point (since he wanted to go that route ).

I get an error where it says that KAS wants KIS to be 1.1.6 or greater (which 1.2.2 obviously is ).

Let me preface this by saying that from a scientific exploration standpoint, I agree with you completely, Nib31. Robots beat people (soon they will for most tasks on earth as well, frankly). That said... This is entirely circular. In order to ever have a substantial % of humanity elsewhere, we have to start someplace. If you never bother to start, then you are 100% correct for all time. If we gain the capability, then we gain the capability. We can argue the value of being off-world in general, but a cataclysm is a non-zero probability. Assuming the remaining people happen to be the ones capable of spacefaring and doing this. If we do not figure out how to build such habitats, then the probability of building them after a planetary apocalypse is zero. If the only continent to survive is Africa, for example. Game over. This is as circular as your first statement. This is simply nonsense at multiple levels, even if strictly speaking true ( ). Your own life doesn't matter in the grand scheme, either, why not just end it? I can think that human life in general is mostly dumb people that the world would be better off without---should we just bump off whole regions filled with people the world would be better off without (say, authoritarian, regressive, misogynistic societies that haven't contributed anything meaningful to the human race for many hundreds of years?)? Preserving the species is a fine goal, I'm all for it. People that disagree are welcome to start with themselves. I'm for manned spaceflight, and I wish more of my tax dollars were spent on it---they can take the money needed from social programs, which are really just throwing good money after bad, IMO. At least I get to see something interesting here and there from NASA. If the mission is strictly science, then robots are vastly more cost effective, though, with more money, then throw humans into the mix. For the most part, manned flight is going to be a nationalistic stunt, but if not spaceflight, then it would simply be something else. Spaceflight beats many alternatives. You keep bringing up humanity as an animal like any other, and I agree completely that we are. I don't question why beavers make dams the way they do, and people do things for their own reasons. Some want to explore space---with squishy cargo. Their reasons are their reasons, so what difference does it make? If you try and argue the money should be spent on something else... I simply don't care. Everyone can have an opinion about that, and I'd rather buy cool stuff than give it to deadbeats who can only impact me in a negative way if ever at all. - - - Updated - - - Some reality checks. ESA's budget is ~4 billion USD, NASA is on track for ~18 billion, Roscosmos is around 6 billion. The public school system here in Albuquerque spends 2.7 billion a year. A town of 500,000. The NYC public schools spend more than 10X this amount I think. Space exploration right now is chump change.

On low-gravity bodies I have been landing the habs vertically, then tipping the craft onto the leg/wheel side. I have used both the engine part, or added radial engines to them (sometimes monoprop) to cushion the fall. Alternately long legs at the "nose" so the wheels are not damaged. I then retract those, and if in the way, remove the legs and store them (KIS).

RIP. Glad for your project, it's a valuable contribution to WW2 history that future historians will appreciate.

I agree, it also allows for deploying them radially after landing, feet/wheels down?

The tried and true Soyuz is a variant on the conical shape as well, for good reason. That's a better shape for maximizing volume, but our problem is the base diameter, since kerbal helmets seem to be exactly 1/2 of the 1.25m diameter, leaving no room for anything, and the 2 helmets even touching, and as you go forward from the base, 2 do not fit.

From what I can tell, the helmets are roughly 0.625m. I really don't see 2 helmets in a 1.25m pod, it needs to be bigger (least they don't need room to remove them). The 1.25m 2-kerbal pods with helmets off need to put the helmets in there as props. If there is no room... they are too small for helmets off. - - - Updated - - - Reentry heat and tiny planets is not a real constraint. If the part description for that landercan is to be accurate (impossible to reenter), they strength and heat tolerance of that can should be dropped far, far lower.

One, wouldn't affect me at all, I don't steal. Two, the the Stasi is East Germany, after ww2, so no Godwin's law.

Chihuahuas are not a good choice where I live (even though only a few hours drive from Mexico ). They are small enough to be carried off by owls, and certainly don;t threaten bobcats or coyotes.

I know they are not spiders, but they seemed relevant for people afraid of tiny creatures (and I actually had a pic of one on my arm).

I pick up tarantulas, and vinegaroons in the house and let them go (with my hand). My daughter will pick them up with a cup or something. We never kill them, they eat pests like crickets. (this is a tiny vinegaroon, they can fill my palm)

Why would anyone hate such a useful animal?

That's what I've been saying

I'm game for whatever if the bloody helmets fit. Seems to me a little larger just makes that easier to accomplish. The 2d drawing above shows it nicely on a 1.25m. Really, it's sorta like Ares 1 CLV.

It's not the exact shape of Gemini, or even terribly close. I'll leave superimposing images of the 2 to someone else. Regardless, it looks wrong with a helmeted kerbal next to it.

No worries. I think mentioned scaled up system mods as well, but that's entirely optional, those won't ever be stock. I like the bigger parts just because I like them. I looked at the K2, and it looks like it shouldn't actually work to me (feels a little like a TARDIS on the inside ).

What are you talking about? The probability of RSS becoming stock is zero, and no one is, or has suggested it.

Obviously, I'd likely pick "vegetables," but OP failed to define how realistic they would be, so I need to withhold judgement.