YumonStudios

This. lol.

Sorry. I can't help but do it. You're not the only one to have this problem with me. Ok, but isn't that what a backup docking port is for? The only reason I can see the 3rd one being needed is in case to abandon ship in an emergency, but in that case, it's definitely not ideal, but still excusable. Ah. It's not a huge loss then, the orginal ISS design had the coupula like that too It's still kind of stupid to put it there, but I guess since you already made the station, there's not much you can do about it now. I think. Well, that's better than what Mir had to work with. ...And you can't bring it up with the module? Either way, the modules also lack a propulsion system in the video. How did they get up there in the first place? Looking at the videos above again, that hole between the adaptor and the RCV is pretty darn skinny. Dang, I guess this station has a pretty strict waist diameter and cup size limit (seriously though, it couldn't be designed wider? What if someone gets stuck?) Thanks And this http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html is a good tool to use for your rockets. Thanks. Oh. The IRL Mu-V stopped being used due to high costs, but I guess since it could be used as an ICBM, it could benefit from Mass production and make the Epsilon unnecessary... Ok, I'll stop. I'm actually a fan of this project, if I didn't care, I wouldn't be bothering to reply to this thread. It's pretty impressive.

If my assumption that the M-II is replaced by the M-III, and the M-II is smaller than the M-III in payload, then the M-II heavy is a bad decision to use on a Moon mission. You want the biggest rocket you can make and launch in reasonable amounts (reducing complexity of the spacecraft), and a 4-core expendable supercooled M-III is a great way to make that happen. The solid upper stage was just an idea, I knew you'd reject it anyways. It wouldn't fall under a commonly used payload class. Thanks. But that means the M-III is OP for the RCV. Those were just for marketing and aesthetic purposes, like the original paint job on the SLS. Noone in their right mind would actually paint over insulation, it adds a lot of weight for not reason. The newer Vulcan images show an Orange core, which means a non-painted core: That's because while Merlin uses a gas-generator cycle, Raptor uses a more effcient staged combustion cycle. It's apples to oranges. http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm This link shows the max. conventional engine (no altitude compensation or air-breathing) isp and density (minus supercooling) RP-1 Lox: 289s ISP sea level Ch4 Lox: 299s ISP sea level A 10 s isp difference is not worth it. SpaceX is pursuing it because they want to eventually reuse the 2nd stage, and H2 sucks when it comes to reuse due to hydrogen embrittlement. However, it's not impossible to solve and account for, otherwise DC-X, X-33, the Space Shuttle (original, fully reusable design, before it went to sh*t), and the New Shepard all use(d) H2 propellants. And you want to reuse only for 10 flights max anyways. Not worth it. However, though Methane can self pressurize, the F9R has shown it's not necessary to have, and helium does the job just fine. IVF can be used if you really need infinite burns, for H2 only though. It offers a nice ~1T payload capacity boost though. I'm not saying you shoulf use it it was just a suggestion. Also, Implies that each stage added increases factory costs by 2x. A 2-stage vehicle uses 2 rockets. I'm only adding another rocket. And ULA doesn't seem to think it's a huge deal, they need to reduce prices as fast as they can to compete vs SpaceX on military launches (bribes, and relations to Lockheed and Boeing will only get you so far), and they're still cool about adding boosters to optimize payload. H-III wants to reduce costs to go into the commerical market, but is still cool about using boosters to optimize payload. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H3_Launch_Vehicle Hell, Ariane 6 is expected to cost as much as today's F9 per kg to GTO (and possibly better than FH, depending on how well reuse goes), and it still uses boosters to optimize payload. http://spacenews.com/ariane-6-rocket-designers-say-theyll-match-or-beat-todays-spacex-prices-on-per-kilogram-basis/ Even SpaceX wanted to do it with LRBs when F5 was still a thing. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html Adding all that together, it can't cost that much more. Especially when you use the same engines and tankage diameter tooling as the core. And in the launch scales where reuse is better than mass production, you will want to optimize payload, at least a bit. It's better to lower R+D costs to build it based off H-II tech, but with modifications to the engine and processes (like Horizontal vs vertical integration) to save costs, then chase after a 10s isp increase and increase R+D costs (and thus cost per launch) (and coking isn't an enormous problem for the Merlin anyways apparently due to using an O2 rich cycle, which also is the most efficient rocket cycle.) I guess we have different viewpoints.

No, it isn't: This is from the OP: Can I do it then :3 (in KSP) ? Can you show me to them please? Can I have the stats for the M-II in general? Thanks. ? I don't see the point. Just keep it on the space station, the docking adapter can be reused then. Also, even the HL-20 attachment is wder than the one for the RCV. Then you probably want to make the crew vehicle carry quite a bit of downmass. How much does it have? But those diagonal panels are pointless. They're no good as radiators, nor as solar panels (they can't move to face the Sun) And I could only see the scientific arm for the unpressurized exposure experiments. And speaking of experiements, is this a scientific station? I would think so. Ah, didn't notice it. Sorry. The copula looks like it is in a bad position, as it isn't on the Nadir, allowing for better Earth Observations, though. And it's still kind of a bad position to put a docking port, even as a backup. Assuming the positions of the docking ports haven't changed, you can just use the 2 on the front side, which have no obstructions, and get rid of the back one. You only ever need two, (especially since this looks like a small station). Speaking of docking ports (and assuming you use the ISS US berthing system), it would be ideal to have a 2nd docking port on the nadir. I Know one's on the bottommost module, but a good 2nd one could be located on the bottom of the left module on the back. Berthing is done from the Nadir. Sorry for all this questioning. I hope you don't mind me criticizing your designs.

But doing those things are healthier than not doing them.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a19728/kickstarter-interstellar-antimatter-engine/ Keep in mind the $200,000 kickstarter is just for the measurement device. The entire system (minus antimatter) would apparently cost $100 Million. And the antimatter fuel? $100 Billion per gram. I wish them luck . They'll need it.

Why would you air-bomb dead bodies just to claim land? Just send a pressurized rover with alive humans- 3-4 missions can theoretically cover the entirety of Mars. I think that's why you need to base land claims in space on a manned base or outpost of at least 4 people, with a 100km radius around it. And by the time land is so precious on Mars or asteroids that they'll start killing others, you'll have quite a few people in each base. You'd basically have to slaughter a small village, which could be considered an act of war. That's probably enough to prevent that from ever happening. I think that once space gets used enough, war is inevitable, and someone will just break the treaty anyways. Because people in a rival nation today are generally better off alive than dead due to globalization and free trade. Also, there is literally nothing to bring disease to and destroy cultures of in the inner solar system, except maybe Martian bacteria. The test ban treaty bans weapons of mass destruction in space in general. There was to be an exception for Orion, but the Soviets didn't like it, since they feared it could be used as a loophole to send nukes in space. And even if it was legal, you need a very good reason to build an Orion in the first place. Good idea for a new KSP forums thread

I already calculated the actual cost savings is 15% vs a cheap expendable rocket due to the major performance hit. But, I got the Shuttle VS SpaceX message a long time ago, no need to keep hammering it in

It's less thick than Europa's. We'll probably drill deep into Enceledus' crust before Europa's It's ovbiosuly not using an RTG, those cost an arm and a leg. And samples from deep in the geyser can uncover less changed samples than those on the surface. And good luck sending a nuclear probe to Saturn. You'll need it. No, the probe is going to go on a curved trajectory to avoid obstacles. And the hole is likely to close over time. Gamma rays. But good luck transmitting and receiving data with those. Doesn't water absorb radio waves? But ice tends to move. Since the global ocean was found by the ice on top moving, the wire is likely to be severed. No, too risky for a >$1 Billion dollar probe. Probably like Europa's, which would be similar to Earth's deep sea life centering around deep sea vents. Life would definitely be blind. Any life will be under the ice, so it doesn't matter much anyways. Yes, the previous page has been on if we need a cable or not.

That's no reason to skimp on the testing.

They likely need to take the engines out for inspection too. But ok, maybe I'm being a little too pessimistic. But all the testing on a new rocket needs to be done on a reused rocket. The only employees layed off are the manufacturers, and considering a through cleaning of the inside and outside is still needed, the vast majority of the overall workforce will still be there.

They still need to thoroughly inspect it for cracks and anomalies, and clean it off, which will mean that the labor costs will decrease only minimally. The savings will be material costs.

You can do that. It's called an Ion drive. Also, @KSK anything on those alternate NTR propellants?

We don't need to explain the existance of natural nuclear reactors, we know those form when U-rich magma goes up to the crust. And the formation of the moon via nuclear fission explosions sounds ridiculous. The mass of the planet above is way too much to allow for that. Sounds like it would not be able to achieve fission after a few million years, as the waste would clog the reactor up and stop it from running, and the density of U-235 would become too low very quickly.

The Shuttle would have never been made unless the USAF got involved. And the main reason it had a crew cabin was that it was originally intended to service a giant space station, that would grow to 50 men. When it became apparent that was a fantasy, NASA changed the mission to launching satellites, but had to keep the crew cabin because so much work had already been done assuming it was there.