Cassel

I am comparing data from wiki: Cost per launch$185 million in 1969–1971 dollars[2] ($1.16 billion in 2016 value), of which $110 million was for vehicle What does $110 million means? It is cost of making 1 Saturn V rocket? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V "In 1972, the cost of a Saturn IB including launch was US$55,000,000 (equivalent to $322,000,000 in 2017)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_IB "Cost per launch US$ 450 million (2011)[4] to 1.5 billion (2011)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle Also wiki says that "Project cost US$ 210 billion (2010)" so today that would be more or less like $250bln? This $42 bln is for Saturn V only? Or entire Saturn rocket family?

Read further than just a headline: "With 135 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the shuttle program." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Budget Compare this with: Saturn IB $0.322 bln Saturn V $1.16 bln SLS $5 bln per flight! <- my new favourite, I am sure it will get funds and will fly :-)

"I estimate that U.S. taxpayers have spent about $170 billion (in 2008 dol - lars) on the shuttle program since its inception, at an average cost per flight approaching $1.5 billion." https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2656-2008.18.pdf What is this .45 in your equation? $196 bln / 135 (flights) = $1,451 bln pretty close to $1.5 bln per flight? (Saturn IB $0.322 bln, Saturn V $1.16 bln, SLS $5 bln per flight!) I like the look of space shuttles, but I say they were totally overpaid toy.

And? Does that adds anything? I don't need to send Apollo capsule (15t) + some service module 5t with one Saturn IB and in second rocket launch you send 20t payload. Result is same as with space shuttle only 3 times cheaper and you wouldn't have spend money on developing shuttles in first place you could use that money to upgrade Saturn B and Apollo capsule. After each flight, they had to exchange many elements of the space shuttle. Each start was expensive $1.5 bln, so you could send around 130 of Saturn B rockets.

$644M yes, $450M wrong, space shuttle cost was $1.5 billion, almost 3 times as much as two Saturn B

I'm not saying that you should compare the production cost of one B-52 with one space shuttle, but I'm talking about the way technology is developed. Development of a project that will be for years and then improvement of small elements, as it was done with the B-52. The B-52 costs would be higher if the bomber were reinvented every 30 years. The fact that they are building SLS now, not space shuttle 2.0, indicates that this program is a mistake from a technological point of view. For all fans of the sentence "but space shuttles were necessary to place the ISS", how will Lunar Space Gateway be sent without space shuttles? Can you do it with the help of rockets? Saturn is the whole family of rockets, not just Saturn V. If they needed something that could reach 20t why did not they use Saturn IB? "In 1972, the cost of a Saturn IB including launch was US$55,000,000 (equivalent to $322,000,000 in 2017)." <- fraction of space shuttle launch cost? And they already had this technology, they did not have to invest in inventing space shuttles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_IB

Wiki says: Saturn V - Cost per launch $185 million in 1969–1971 dollars[2] ($1.16 billion in 2016 value), Payload to LEO 140t Space Shuttle - Cost per launch US$ 450 million (2011)[4] to 1.5 billion (2011), Payload to LEO 27,5t So they went into more expensive technology? And then people are surprised that NASA had funds cut? :-) edit: SLS - The Space Review estimated the cost per launch at $5 billion, depending on the rate of launches. HAHAHAHA, progress!

The B-52 began around 1950, so you should add the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, space shuttles and everything that was after them, SLS. Such great engineers worked in the army in 1950, why NASA did not have such capable engineers? And could not develop a rocket that would serve them for 40-50 years if it was possible to develop an aircraft that has been used for over 65 years? For me NASA's behavior is incomprehensible, that as several people have mentioned here, there has been no progress in the development of rocket engines and the engines from the Apollo program and space shuttles are still in use. Why, in that case, have they reinvented the wheel and exchanged rockets for space shuttles and now they are going back to rockets? The space shuttle was not reusable as it seems, after each flight it required many hours of work and replacement of many parts. It wasn't cheaper than rockets either, so that doesn't makes sense. I got examples with engines, which only proves that NASA for 50 years did not make progress in the construction of the rocket engine. Why did not NASA use rockets that were already tested? And instead, they threw money on something new, which did not lower the price of the flight into space anyway? Where is the Apollo lander you mentioned? Who uses this technology? Who uses space shuttle technology? Even NASA no longer uses these solutions, abandoned them and reinvented the wheel, but this new wheel is supposed to be more round, yet not cheaper.

What about the army way? The Americans developed the B-52 around 1950 and those are still flying. In the meantime, many things have been improved, but every 20 years they did not make a revolution and did not throw out the proven equipment and money, they gradually improved it. Thanks to this they have achieved reliability, because reliability is something that has proven technology and proven design, not a new revolutionary approach that maybe will work.

Or never used, because someone else invented better tech :-) As long as development was for private money it is ok, but if it is NASA it is wrong. They are doing things people at NASA couldn't do for last 50 years. If SpaceX and Blue Origin really use a lot of technologies that NASA puts aside on the shelf, as something useless, it only shows worse about the people who work for NASA. [snip]

Apollo program was broke? Space shuttles were broke? So why is it different with cars, ships and airplanes? I will repeat myself: "There is no such a natural transition of technology as it is seen in other industries: a horse-drawn car, a combustion car, a hybrid, an electric car. A biplane airplane, a monoplane with an internal combustion engine, a jet plane, and a supersonic airplane. Sailing ship, ship powered by a steam engine, a ship powered by a combustion engine, a ship with electric drive (I read about such plans)."

So the Apollo program cost $19,408,134,000 in 1960-1973 (what would be few times as many today) and it was possible to use only engines and not quite as they used during the Apollo mission, because you had to improve them? Great, program cost $196,000,000,000 and you have another engine. NASA didn't invented rockets :-) And where is the technology today? Who and how does it use it? Great, so where is the technology that NASA invented? Who uses it? Even NASA can not use its own technology and send a man to the moon again, instead they load billions more into an Orion capsule and SLS that exists only to bring Orion into the orbit of the moon. No wonder that when reasonable people look at the numbers and use these funds, every year they cut them off NASA budget. This is not only about SpaceX, but also about Blue Origin. Both companies use similar technology, cheap, reusable rockets. NASA has never used such rockets. It depends on what you need. I do not think it makes sense to spend billions on something that you use only 1%? Perhaps the Chinese will need this 1% to develop the technology they will use, why should they overpay and work on something they will not use for the next 50 years? Is it nice just a little bit of such expensive programs? So, another lost money? They invented something, somehow it flew, but it was not used and today no one uses this technology? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X#Program_cost Where does inflation come from? Well, throwing hundreds of billions into something you do not use.

[snip] The destruction of the F-22 production line is a political decision, I do not want to talk about it here, but outside the US it looks different. SLS in the hands of the army would have to work, and that's because, if it did not work, someone else overtook the US army winning a strategic point on the moon and would force military action (war). [snip] Above all, this should make SLS a cheaper rocket that has been operating for a long time. If this is not the case, then there is something wrong with using already proven technologies.

[snip] edit: I forgot about the Dragon, a capsule that can land using engines. What NASA program did this idea and technology come from?

What does it matter? Maybe they work faster than Americans? Which, for example? And I do not mean sending a single probe, because it is possible for other smaller and cheaper agencies. So what part of the Apollo program has been used for the space shuttle program? What part of the space shuttle program will be used in the new planned NASA missions? For what? Even NASA admits that it is cheaper to repair satellites in orbit. SpaceX technology comes from NASA? What NASA program Musk did take two staged reusable rockets from? Was it space shuttle program or Apollo or something else? Is this an element of one program, with uniform technology that will be further developed, if so, what is the technology?

"They have not carried out any major mission for 50 years. Send one probe does not count" Yes, the mission on the moon was big, because Apollo is more than one landing. Have you seen a similar mission somewhere beyond Earth's orbit?

AND? The Chinese have made their space station 10 times cheaper? Apollo was an achievement, but it was 50 years ago. Later, the technology was rejected and the ISS came up with everything from scratch. What component of the space shuttle came from the Apollo mission? After completing the space shuttle missions, they re-invent everything from scratch. If SpaceX, or anyone else, takes over the role of supplying resources and astronauts to Earth's orbit, technology will be a completely new technology, not a development of what has been built in the space shuttle program. What part of the Apollo program was used to build space shuttles? How much did the space shuttle program cost and what will be used in the next space programs planned by NASA? What is the point of keeping an agency that throws itself at programs, and later turns out that all technology is useless and they have start from scratch? There is no such a natural transition of technology as it is seen in other industries: a horse-drawn car, a combustion car, a hybrid, an electric car. A biplane airplane, a monoplane with an internal combustion engine, a jet plane, and a supersonic airplane. Sailing ship, ship powered by a steam engine, a ship powered by a combustion engine, a ship with electric drive (I read about such plans). The technology from the previous stage went on, but some part has been improved. Meanwhile, NASA works so that they first invented a balloon, then a plane, and then return to the balloon again. Did I said anything about Mars?

I am a fan of all this, which is why NASA must be closed and a new agency must be created instead, which will be able to explore. NASA also participated in the creation of spy satellites. How do you think where they came from? At the beginning, NASA did all these things and was trying to explore our solar system, but now it has stopped, it is just a very expensive space job program. They have not carried out any major mission for 50 years. Send one probe does not count it is also what Indian space program can do and they do it 20 times cheaper than NASA, but you can not call it a large mission. [snip] SpaceX is probably technologically overtaking NASA in the matter of building rockets? Somewhere you can read what Space Force is meant to be? To watch other states taking part in the space race?

I hope it does https://phys.org/news/2018-10-space-nasa.html

1. If there was no UI tag, finding a ship or base of another player would be difficult in solar system. The tag could only appear for players on the "friend list". 2. And that would be the driving force behind this game. If it was still possible to dig a tunnel and hide base from opponents. 3. BDArmory is a good addon. In multiplayer, there should be space-weapons to defend against evil people. There would always be the possibility of arming your space station/base/ship, and if someone outside your friends list approaches, Kerbals would automatically open fire. More like eve online, jump gates. To jump to another SOI you have to reach the orbit on which the jump gate circulates. Or less sci-fi you have to fly to the gateway-station on the moon and then you choose the target planet, and AI using some booster/ship designed for such purposes will push you to the trajectory you picked. After finishing the flight and "cut scene of flight", you appear with your ship docked at the gateway-station of Duna. Problem solved?

What if we could jump into the SOIs of other planets instead of using timewarp? It seems to me that I could play without timewarp on a low orbit or surface of Duna.

Yes, but it turned out to be cheaper to spray from balloons substances focusing the solar energy ;-)

Best way to block ability of common person to observe stars?

It seems to me that two types would be more interesting. Oxygen / air could be processed / filtered by additional parts of low mass. Food would not be processed, only could be grown in a greenhouse. These mechanisms would also give life to planetary bases, because now there is nothing to do there. Nice idea, but maybe mortality could be set in the level of difficulty? If someone likes easy, he would hibernate his kerbals, while at the level of hard kerbal would die of hunger or lack of oxygen. I had this in mind :-)

Space stations need something that will make their construction interesting. At the moment, even in career mode, the space station gives us nothing. The life support system could be based on oxygen and food. If one of them is missing, kerbals die. Deliveries of these resources would depend on the player or AI. In a career mode to reduce costs, the player, if he wanted to, would be able to supply oxygen and food from time to time. But with more space stations to make this process not boring, you could use AI. The player would have issued a "contract" for AI. AI would not have to simulate the whole flight, just from time to time the AI ship would be created in orbit and would dock for a few days at the space station, to the port indicated by the player. After a few days, he would detach himself from the station and leave, after leaving the zone of influence of physics he disappeared.