Yobobhi

I usually push manned stuff, and disregard probes except for my very early interplanetary missions. The crew report, EVA report, materials science, and scientist skills, are just worth too much for me to not go manned. I always try to keep a probe in every scenario I have reached (Landed on Kerbin, Orbiting Kerbin, Orbiting Mun, Landed on Mun, etc.) so that if I get a "Science from" contract I can complete it easily. I also put labs everywhere and just have them sit and process during my interplanetary warps. I also develop long-range planes for observational survey contracts, which are quite good if done with a plane.

I managed to get my first Career Duna flyby! It was also my first return from a Duna flyby in any mode. Something just clicked in my mind this morning, and I suddenly understand how to reach other planets, which I struggled with before. Next, a landing!

You're completely missing the point. The 747 is better than the Shuttle at what it was designed to do. The Shuttle is better than the 747 at what it was designed to do. Heck, my lawnmower is better than the shuttle at what it was designed to do. Just using total up-mass per launch as the be-all and end-all of launcher comparison is far too simplistic. The Apollo LEM descent stage could put a payload of 4,700kg on the Moon. The Shuttle could put zero payload on the moon. Does this mean that the LEM was categorically a better spacecraft, or simply that it was designed for a different purpose? But the Shuttle could carry a lot more mass to orbit than many other launchers, AND had extra capabilities. Its only handicap was cost.

The 747 is not better than the shuttle, as it can carry exactly 0 cargo to orbit.

No that the shuttle is better than the Dragon 2. The Commies were bad at engineering. That's why their Buran, the Shuttle equivalent, came many years later.

Aaaand the Dragon 2 hasn't even been launched yet, 36 years after the Shuttle. And it could do MOST of what the Space Shuttle could do. I rest my case.

Which regular rocket exactly could have carried ISS truss segments?

I have something against liquid fuel rockets: the N1 The Shuttle could just bring an orbit booster stage for its payloads to allow smaller payloads to reach higher altitudes But the thing is that 2000t of rocket can bring 7 people AND cargo The single-launch capability is a great one, and the added bonus of bringing stuff back too doesn't hurt. Heyyyyyy guess what the Shuttle's engines, SRBs (Modified) and other booster type things are being used in the SLS. Kinda like the whole "Energia as a seperate rocket" So you're telling me that regular expendable rockets were better for the role of crew and heavy payload at the same time AND mass return in the same mission for the 30 years of the shuttle? Which ones, exactly?

Down-mass? That's not the only advantage of the Shuttle. It had huge up-mass AND crew capabilities. What do you have against solid rockets? Why does not being "the only Energia payload" make the Buran itself better? And the Shuttle could have if that was the way the US went with it.

The Buran was not stopped by lack of cost/benefit. They had a second test flight planned for 1993, but something happened before 1993, known as the collapse of the Soviet Union, that kinda put a damper on Buran tests. And anyway, the Buran was destroyed in a hangar collapse in 2002. I think elements other than "Cost is much higher than benefit" were what stopped that program. And....... Skylab? A bit more advanced than the Salyut series, I would say. We kind of built and operated that BEFORE Salyut 6. I really don't see how basically docking together 2 Soyuzes and sticking a living space in the middle is "Notable" (Yes, I know that the unmanned supply craft was called a Progress, "Soyuzes" used for mocking of the USSR) And the Shuttle, although expensive, was extremely capable. I'll use the analogy I used in my other response: It's like saying that the MiG-21 is better than the F-15 because it is cheaper and better to maintain. That may be true, but the F-15 is unarguably the better aircraft in every way but cost and can do things that the MiG-21 simply cannot do. Same with STS/Soyuz. Soyuz may be cheaper, maybe even cheaper per ton to orbit, but a Soyuz cannot carry ISS truss segments into orbit like the Space Shuttle did. The Soyuz cannot carry a full crew and heavy cargo like the Shuttle did. So many people think that cost is the trump card. But if I make a rocket that has 1 cent per ton to orbit capability, would that be amazing? Sure, but what if the rocket could only carry 10 pounds per launch? There are some jobs that you need capability. The Shuttle's other advantage was YUGE payload bay and being able to carry crew to maintain and deploy what it did send up. It's not always about cost. Also, in what ways was the Buran better?

Except Buran was only tested once and was stopped not by lack of interest but by the actual collapse of the Soviet Union. If America collapsed I'm pretty sure we would not develop the Space Shuttle any further. The Space Shuttle may not be cheaper than the Soyuz, but it is BETTER. Crew of 7, AND a very heavy and irregularly shaped payload. That's like saying that the MiG-21 is better than the F-15 because it is cheaper and better to maintain. That may be true, but the F-15 is unarguably the better aircraft and can do things that the MiG-21 simply cannot do. Same with STS/Soyuz. Soyuz may be cheaper, maybe even cheaper per ton to orbit, but a Soyuz cannot carry ISS truss segments into orbit like the Space Shuttle did. The Soyuz cannot carry a full crew and heavy cargo like the Shuttle did. Cost is not the trump card. Effectiveness is. This is a government-funded space program.

NASA moved on past one-off manned launches and onto the Space Shuttle after the Apollo CSM. The Soviets simply could not make anything better than the Soyuz, so they kept using it.

The Soyuz? It's inferior to the Saturn 1B with Apollo CSM, Darn it!

I use goddamn as a phrase of exclamation, rather than a religious term.

Delete all after "How do you think it fell apart" And answer with: They were Soviets. Goddamn commies.

I've been building SSTOs, and have made a slightly successful model, that isn't an SSTO, but is very close with 2 recoverable SRBs giving it the extra kick it needs. What would be an optimal fuel-engine-wing combination for an SSTO, and what would be an optimal platform?

They have very careless ground technicians, the kind of people who open an envelope by shredding it. They need to weld them together and refurbish them Also, due to the obvious complex bureaucratic intricacies of a space program they have to pay the spare part scavenging fine.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeb cmon man

Well we still have pluto

From the apparent tech progression, it seems that Kerbals have invented sub-orbital spacecraft before the invention of wheels with which to traverse roads, making any roads useless. However, parachutes are very useful on spacecraft.

As a self-proclaimed NASA fanboy, I understand how outlandish SpaceX's claims are. Maybe they could do a one-off in that time. Or maybe not, as they have ZERO manned experience. But a full-reusable colony ship? Get real.

Do you seriously expect a company with no experience beyond LEO to develop something such as the ITS in a short time? NASA will get there first for sure, and do it much better.

Spacex is way too ambitious. They can choose reusable or a mars mission, not both.

*In a "Make (Target Body) more interesting" thread* This sample is not a suggestion at all! There's nothing here of any value! Shaking your head, you wonder who sent you here, and what they hoped would be gained from this mission.

Great idea, optimizing CPU is essential for surface bases and keeping them stable.