Bill Phil

Thrust plates need to be stock. They definitely didn't hit the mark with MH. Integration with career mode would've been amazing, although definitely difficult.

There's good anime and bad anime. Personally, I like Gundam a lot. Mainly the UC timeline. Sure, it's a show about mecha combat and stuff, but it's more realistic than it has any obligation to be, so it gets bonus points. Also... it's pretty dark. One of the directors is "Kill 'em All" himself, so that isn't all that surprising... http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/YoshiyukiTomino

I was advised, for my Eagle BOR, that if they ask you why they should approve you, say that it's because you earned it. After all, you did earn it. Although BORs vary quite a bit from place to place...

Reminds me of Prelude to Space...

Sure. But that doesn't really change anything. Soyuz has been servicing space stations since 1971. The Shuttle didn't service a space station until halfway through the program, and even then that space station was primarily serviced by Soyuz/Progress. The bottom line is that, back when the Shuttle was conceived, they viewed it as necessary for station programs. This proved to be false, since the Salyut and Mir programs did so much with only capsules. Even now, capsules are effectively servicing the ISS. The two space stations the Shuttle serviced were and are also serviced by Soyuz and Progress. Ultimately, the capsule proved to be an effective means of servicing space stations.

Before Orion it's Nexus, about 1000 tonnes to orbit. Then it's Orion.

Shuttle was the result of NASA being stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Shuttle could've been a vehicle that was far better optimized for its purpose. The USAF, however, who's support was needed to fund it, had different requirements in mind. In the end, those requirements changed the Shuttle significantly. Not only did they want a vehicle that was cheap to fly, they wanted a vehicle that was cheap to develop as well. And to an extent, the Shuttle was. But where they saved on development they eventually repaid during flight operations, and then some. Not only that, but the Shuttle was supposed to be a means to an end, not the end itself, by acting as a part of the integrated plan. Ultimately it only ever serviced two space stations, one of its key purposes for being built, while the Soyuz and Progress series of spacecraft serviced so many more.

AI is only to be feared if we are irresponsible with it. Same with people, really. AI needs to learn things. And if we make sure AIs learn the proper things, then there's nothing to fear. Of course, people are likely to be irresponsible...

Europa Clipper can launch on an EELV. The only reason it was proposed to be a payload for SLS was so they could get to Jupiter faster, without a bunch of gravity assists. It can definitely be launched on FH. The question is, could it be done better with a different LV?

BFR only reduces launch cost. Congrats. Now, instead of spending 42 billion per mission, you're spending maybe 30, if you're lucky. Remember, it's a NASA mission. If they use BFR (if BFR even flies, could easily be cancelled, although no one wants that) they will also use SLS. Guaranteed, unless SLS is cancelled by then, but, if there are Mars plans, they'd probably be cancelled as well. Still something like 68 billion for the first mission. Once again, massive underestimate. If missions happen every two years, that's an extra 5 billion per mission.

Here's an interesting thing about space exploration: payloads cost more than launches. Curiosity cost a few billion, for less than a tonne of payload on the surface of Mars. We can expect manned hardware to be even more complex, so the cost would be higher. Using SLS will increase that cost even more. BFR might shave off a few billion. Maybe tens of billions, if we're lucky. But it will still be hundreds of billions of dollars for the program, consisting of maybe 6 landings, a la Apollo. Maybe even some around the same time? Would be cool, but unlikely. I've talked to some NASA engineers working at MSFC. It'll take something like 7 SLS launches. At 3 billion per launch, plus 3 billion per payload, that's 42 billion. That's being generous (SLS will be more expensive, payloads too), but we only just got started. Adding in 15 years of paying off salaries and benefits for 10k people (about 250k per person, from what I can find), that's about 80 billion total. For the first mission, and an extra 42 per mission after that. And that is guaranteed to be a gross underestimate. NASA has tens of thousands of contractor employees that work on NASA programs, and we've ignored the yearly SLS cost, the SLS development cost, and so on.

That would make sense, except that having that information doesn't guarantee success in any way. Players would have to use the information properly and put in the correct inputs. There's still plenty of room for mistakes. I've failed plenty of landings, or had something go wrong, even with that information. But what makes no sense to me is that the game does provide altitude above ground. But only in IVA.

Considering that they intended each NERVA to be used for 10 lunar flights, I doubt core ejection was ever an option. It's possible that they had cooling systems in mind to cool the reactor after "burns", but multiple activation cycles would stress the system regardless. This led to the idea of a bimodal NTR, where you don't ever shut it down during the flight, but use it for power while not providing thrust.

1.3.1 Crashed on me twice, ever. 1.4.x has crashed 5+ times on me already. All previous versions were nowhere near as stable as 1.3.1, for me, at least.

Seeing that tritium is a beta emitter... the risk is extremely low. Well, assuming the engine is working as intended, that is. Tritium is much more dangerous when ingested. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if NERVA exhaust is less radioactive than coal plant exhaust.

Do you mean the SPH?

No. No it is not. 40 billion wouldn't even begin a moon base program, let alone a Mars program. 40 billion is remarkably cheap for Super heavy development, being something like half the Saturn V's cost to develop. And if BFR can get it cheaper, then that's great. Most realistic estimates for Mars missions put the program at about 400+ billion, for flags and footprints. Basic stuff.

Maybe a stimulant to keep the heart working, combined with a molecule that strengthens cells? Probably something for pain as well...

And that's only if your periapsis is on the day side... If it can send the station to the Moon then it can put the station and a transfer stage into LEO.

Do you want to minimize time or delta V cost? Minimizing time through constant acceleration basically maximizes delta V. Minimizing delta V basically maximizes time. The question is which one do have more of?

Maybe Block 2 could, but there's not much evidence that Block 2 will ever fly. And it certainly can't when taking an Orion as well (25 tonnes).

That's exactly what I mean. If they had a money pile of 20 billion every year, they could do a Mars mission. Might take 20 years of funding, but certainly possible. Of course, reality doesn't work like that.

Well, letting it fester does allow for more bugs to be found, although you'd eventually hit diminishing returns. And patching too fast can increase the number and/or severity of bugs. Of course, the game is "released," so we're no longer playtesters.

They theoretically could, but since NASA has so many programs that take money out of the total budget, it'll never happen. NASA isn't given a pile of cash and told to go to space, they're given money that is marked for specific uses. Just the way Congress likes it...

KSC monolith. Then a mun arch...