Bill Phil

It's not as practical as you would think. Large success leads to large exaggeration. And support, etc. If someone put all the details, ALL the details, and explained it, then sure, I would say okay. But, 20 billion is very optimistic. It would be over budget in the end. It's inevitable. And the bigger the project, and the more crazy the idea, the more time it takes. So it doesn't seem in any way practical unless you already have an orbital infrastructure. But then there's almost no reason. Plus, how much power would it take to operate those elevators? I assume you want a lot of payload. You'll also need propellant anyways, to keep it stable as it wobbles around. Now, the real question isn't construction price or payload cost per kilogram, but what matters is the upkeep cost. It's a huge structure ( HUGE, that's why it's so expensive), and it will be hit by debris and micrometeorites. The total upkeep cost will be ginormous compared to the construction cost. It's useless for all orbits except GEO, unless you want to use a decent amount of your payload mass as propellant to get it from GEO to LEO. So, the company that'll run it will have to increase costs to insure the upkeep, and they want a profit. So from many standpoints, not just technically, it's impractical. If any of this is completely incorrect, please pint me to sources. Thanks.

I wouldn't say reliable. Less than 10 DIVH launches, right? ~1 failure? It's not reliable, yet. If there was more 29 ton payload demand...

Hey! The Atomic Rockets guy is here! Now we're cooking! BTW nyrath, I really think your website idea is a good one. I learned quite a few things there. Thanks. Although, spacecraft maneuvering like aircraft isn't very far-fetched. If your point of reference is a space station, you can use thrusters like wings and fly like a plane. It's not very effective, but it can be done.

Hmm, let's see... Doom, Doom II, Half-life, Asteroids, Megaman, Podracers, Smash Bros Melee, Tetris, Portal,... That's just a few.

Well, perhaps you could use SQUAD's library, but with their permission! You wouldn't check off each goal, you would figure out each goal's requirements, and their requirements, and so on. Like dominoes. It might take a while, but the last domino falls. Then you know what needs to be done at each step. Just figure out how. Basically, make a very simple version of the game, with a sphere planet-sized and a sphere spacecraft-sized. Then you make it so that when you start the simulation, you input the current heading as well as orbital characteristics. It's a simple physics simulation, but it's a good start. You then make the spacecraft capable of propulsion. And so on and so on. These are just example steps, but they aren't COMPLETE bull.

Chances are, that any same government would realize that building an Earth-to-orbit-to-moon-and-beyond logistics would be way cheaper. Then you can start building things in space with asteroid resources, and the only Earth launches would be humans and some specialized cargo. So, by the time the tech becomes available, or the money, we have other (cheaper) options.

Nova: Will there be ringed planets? Like Saturn? Better yet: moon systems. Oh, and can we name star systems? Just a few thoughts...

What browser are you using? What attachments, what other programs, etc.?

Work backwards from your final design goal. Write out what you want the game to be in a very descriptive way. Then you have to extrapolate what each step is. After that you figure out how you want to do it. "Begin with the end in mind."

Since it's only a late mission addition, that's also expensive, this won't happen for a while. Though maybe things like Skylon could use it...

Jim and Rozon are the best ones...

If only we could do this kind of mission for a Galilean moon...

Huh. So, a true space carrier?

Maybe like 1 ton? For balancing. Similar size to Mk1 too.

So, like an autopilot, but it's just replaying what you did?

Best case... not it a planet at all. An artificial environment like a Stanford Torus. That way we could control the environment completely. Plus, it can be built in any star system.

I'm pretty sure it's a box.

It gets tedious to move to other computers ( don't worry, they're mine!) but it does auto-update.

Huh. Weird. I had this exact thought ( although not with fineprint) a while ago... Plus, each mission profile can be reused! And maybe make it a tab at Mission Control.

The scale of this game is what attracts me... I kind of want to make a 600 meter radius earth and do all the calculations as to G and whatnot. That would be fun to play around with, imagine, a 6 km Radius Jupiter! Tiny, but huge too! It would be a neat little project to fiddle with. Anyways, if this project does get shelved ( I hope not) can you release all the builds up to that point?

Well, KSP isn't 100% accurate... But it does teach you more about orbits than battlefield at shooting. I think the main problem is that in KSP you just put stuff together in a Lego like way. It's not like that in real life. It take months to design and possibly years to build. Not to mention the constant threat of budget cuts.

Guys, just look at the STS NASA Proposal from 1969... it had a good use for it

1001.01- a space Odyssey. Frank Kerman and David Kerman arrive at a large brown dwarf and discover microbial life on an orbiting body

Maybe #2 can be 0.625 meter and radial mount only.

Aren't elevons elevators on the wings rather than the tail plane? Yeah. Ailerons are placed for roll, elevons are placed for elevating.