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.

What happened?

There are numerous replacements for Kepler on the way. NASA's is the TESS satellite, which is smaller and less capable than Kepler, but also more modern and optimized after the lessons from Kepler. http://www.space.com/20943-alien-planet-search-new-missions.html They had 2 left. There are plenty of telescopes in all types of spectra, just not as big as Hubble. Hubble is old anyways. Orion (plus a airlock module and unpressurized cargo module based off the Dragon, or a lunar orbital station resupply vehicle) might be able to do telesope repair, these days most big and important telescopes are in Lagrange points that can only be accessed by men via Orion/SLS. Not to mention it's probably the only way to fund a repair mission (either that, or a commercial repair vehicle based off OrbitalATK's satellite lifetime extension spacecraft http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-believes-in-satellite-servicing-but-not-in-rocket-reusability/.) And yes, before you say JWST is not designed for servicing, I know, but the Hubble also had major replacements of components never meant to be serviced.

http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html This LV calculator isn't working properly, every time I make a 3 stage custom rocket (or 2 stage with boosters), the results never come out... Help please? Is anyone experiencing the same problems?

Then reuse will likely never save more than 15% in the near future. The question is if launch rates will ever increase to what is needed for RLV mass production. Very unlikely, considering history has shown that the satellite market is about as inelastic as a diabetic's need for insulin. Reduce test requirements? That's a recipe for disaster- a rocket is a controlled explosion. And you still need refurbishment costs, so labor costs will not go down, at all. Because if you extrapolate the 10% cost savings from the 1st stage, ou save a mere 0.62 million in launch costs. I don't think you'll recover the r+D money, but Elon is Elon, so ...and the RCS and quidance are also resistant to salt water? Either way, the aluminum will still corrode in the salt... No, the fairings will come in at around the same time. You need 3 helis, one for the 1st fairing piece, one for the 2nd, and one as a backup.

The Shuttle was also designed for reuse. That didn't stop it from being a disaster. Even the engines were very difficult to maintain. Also, I think the F9 uses hypergolic RCS. That means more costs from draining, maintaining, and refueling the RCS system. The Merlins also coke due to using Rp-1. The tanks and engines undergo significant stresses in ascent, and may crack. You need to inspect for that. There are numerous reasons why reuse may not pan out like how spaceX and its fanboys want it to.

Why would you do it manually when you have so many delta V calculators?

The biospheric collapse would probably destroy civilization before that happened. Farms actually produce Co2. But we already have space problems, especially in East Asia. 0.5 kms below ground is a bad idea, the water table is often only a couple feet below ground. It's probably the reason we build up instead of down. Modern cities are heavily interconnected. I agree that once we get everyone into skyscrapers, having park space is essential, but they need to be close enough to make transit between blocks less than 5 minutes. Smaller houses face psychological problems. Look above for the mouse experiments, and how normal behavior broke down in crowded spaces. If you can build bigger houses economically, and people will buy them, I see no reason not to. Only problem is that you need a HUGE amount of water to terraform a desert. Good freaking luck getting that water.

Why naut? No. Just no. That's never going to be viable, simply due to the cost of Co2 scrubbers, and high energy use (and noise). Plastics will always be cheaper from hydrocarbons. Not to mention we have a natural Co2 scrubber that produces viable products. It's called a plant. Yeah, not happening. I can see extensive recycling, but it's not going to replace metal mining, and it's definately not going to be able to be done from people's basements. People will probably buy 3D Printers and sell products to people who want them, as not everyone will be able to, or want those things in their houses. Also, metals need huge amounts of heat to melt, and that alone is a good reason to not have that in your house. Aluminium might be excusable though, it's lower temperature, and can be melted in a regular fireplace. Recycling also needs large equipment to crush, flatten, sort, and melt materials. Not to mention it's an industry all by itself. The two combined kill this idea. Also, that equipment is freaking LOUD. Why? It should be lower, since you can walk from point A to point B instead of drive... We have more experience building up, and it's apparently cheaper. No, that's a horrible idea. Building many smaller, but still large buildings is not only easier to build and maintain, it is also something people are a lot more used to. It's also evolutionary, which usually tends to win out, if spaceflight has taught me anything. Yeah, if we have the tech to make vertical farms economical, then we should be able to build more buildings bigger and cheaper, which would mitigate this (more overall space, despite greater density per cubic meter of land). I would argue it is essential to make suburban people go to apartment buildings. Also, giant parks and urban farms every km2 or so can mitigate this effect. So, for every km2 of city, there is .5km2 of farm or parkland. It should still be more dense than suburbs. Also, here is a detailed account of one of those rat density studies:http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22514/1/2308Ramadams.pdf They apparently stopped interacting with others normally, and died out due to lack of childbirth. The mice also stopped taking care of their children. Scary stuff. Unless you like in Signapore or Japan, and land is $$$ as hell, than building up is cheaper than building out. You don't need to build skyscrapers, 4-story vertical greenhouses do well, and those are the only kinds of Vertical farms out right now. They are far cheaper, being made out of similar things used to make normal greenhouses, and also don't need a lot of lighting and a lot less extra power than you would expect. http://permaculturenews.org/2014/07/25/vertical-farming-singapores-solution-feed-local-urban-population/ And even a 4-story greenhouse would produce huge efficiency increases- now you can farm even in the Canadian Shield, and not only do you have extra plant space, but also controlled conditions that increase efficiency and reduce pesticide and fertilizer use. Currently, only building costs are holding it back. But just seeing so many people can give the feeling of overcrowdedness. Humans are intended to live in small groups, not huge cities. But it makes sense, urban sprawl is a serious problem, especially since cities are often located on prime farmland, and ecologically important deltas. Will it though? That's happened 3 other times in the past (the 3 other industrial revolutions) and there are usually lots of jobs after words, as new oneas re created from new tech, and increased consumption. Ideally, yes. However, modern cities are designed so that residential, commercial, and industrial districts are all seperate, primarily to improve real estate value(no one wants to live next to a factory), and since transportation isn't that expensive. Mass transit will become essential in these giant cities, like they are today. ??? What happened? Which is why enormous skyscrapers are a bad idea. Build more buildings taller, not one building enormous... But it's already happening. Denser cities are more efficient, and can be serviced by mass-transit. Modern urban planning favours building up, rather than out. Because people hate GM crops. Energy costs are probably too high for underground farming due to needing artificial lighting. And I doubt mining tunnels have enough ventilation... Build up in skinny 10-4 story buildings with crops and conveyors to move the crops very slowly. Then you have much lower energy costs, as you have free energy from the Sun. This could change when robots become more advanced.

I don't think they have any plans for developing second-stage reuse...at least, not for the Merlin engine class. I foresee them testing the Raptor engine as a BLEO Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy upper stage, but it's anybody's guess whether they'll explore direct reuse on that stage. They don't have plans for 2nd stage reuse yet, but it might happen if they have a higher capacity F9. http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-ft/ And in any case, it'd apparently by a 1:1 payload penalty to reuse the 2nd stage (to LEO, GTO is probably a bit worse, but not too much, since you can aerobrake in the atmosphere if you have a solar panel or RP-1or CH4/Lox fuel cell) and since the 2nd stage is 4T dry mass, I'll say that there is a 5T to LEO penalty, allowing for margin. That's not astronomical, and should be possible with a 5m diameter supercooled H2 Lox upper stage, or a full CH4 Lox 5m diameter supercooled F9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dragon_%28spacecraft%29 It was still rejected by NASA (in the V2 version), and SpaceX would only ever use it if their Mars plans actually start to fruit (very doubtful). And in any case, the sample-return mission proposed for Dragon V2 is very doubtful in possibility- the Dragon V2 almost certainly lacks the Delta V to launch off Mars to LMO. It would need a extra rocket stage, and at that point, you're probably better off doing the NASA flagship MSR, and get more science off it, and samples from more scientifically interesting locations. That's what the Shuttle was supposed to be like. And we all know how well that plan worked . Well, F9 v1.0 was about 88% of F9 FT costs. Thus, SpaceX would actually save 18%, according to SpaceX's own words. Of course, the 30% number is likely optimistic, and SpaceX will never publiscise problems with their reusable boosters, (also, SpaceX is planning a huge number of launches, needing 4 pads, even though it seems unlikely to ever materialize) but I'm feeling generous, so I'll round that down to 15-10% overall cost savings vs a cheap expendable rocket. Fairing reuse probably won't add much to reduce the costs. http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_v1.0 A 10% cost reduction is nice, but not a game changer. It also probably isn't worth the effort, the R+D costs are likely to exceed the savings unless you have a lot of launches. And then you wonder why only SpaceX is bothering with reuse. No, you also need a helicopter to capture them (otherwise the value of the fairing goes through the floor due to saltwater contamination) and a RCS and guidance system to keep it reentrying properly, or else it could tumble out of control. The cost of all that means at most, fairing reuse will likely only save $1- 0.5 Million. Not really noteworthy of a savings. Then SpaceX is overshooting the numbers, or has some bad manufacturing processes. Ariane 5 fairings are around the same size, and apparently only cost $6.2 Million. The Dragons are never reused though, and I'm fairly certain nozecones are just ejected on Dragon V1 during ascent.

I have a feeling that if human robots become a thing, they'll be made cartoonish and obviously not human, just to bypass the uncanny valley. I'm looking forward to my IRL MegaMan. Hey, if Capcom won't make any games for it...