Cassel

Maybe yes, but cost of fuel should be lower than cost of 2-stage that is going to be single-use-only module. Having 3-stage solution would force you to deliver new 2-stage after every landing + fuel for orbital tug and ascend module, right? While with single stage large lander all you have to do is to refuel one large lander. Gateway could hold additional fuel and you can send fuel to Gateway with many different rockets, it doesn't have to be super expensive SLS.

But it is reusable, right? So you can land with it few times only after refuelling. They could send 1-stage lander dry 22 tons with SLS? And later send fuel with Falcon Heavy as many times as they want to?

I think 1 stage lander would be better, just send it to LEO and to Gateway dry and refuel at the Gateway.

Apollo early project, 2 stage lander? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_Direct_Ascent.png

If they make 3 stage lander then why would they need SLS for? Falcon Heavy could deliver it to Gateway cheaper in few flights?

Not sure where to put this... https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-three-stage-approach-to-human-class-lunar-landers/ 3 stage moon lander, but why when they can have 1 stage mini-BFR?

But not as an astronaut, Hawking was not an astronaut. Which does not mean that there should not be a male kerbal that will represent some real astronaut, just like Valentina is a female character based on a real person.

What about tweakable that would add landing legs to some parts? Capsules could have it, fuel tanks, some structural parts too.

But what about physics? If you as a player are in orbit, the ship landing at the KSC would have to have its bubble of physics.

Asteroids would be more interesting if there were several types of ore/resources that could be extracted. One type could be a mineral unheard of on Kerbin, so mining it would give a lot of science points and if you would bring this mineral back to Kerbin you would get extra funds. There should be magnetic asteroids that distort the remote operation of probe. Radioactive killing astronauts if they stay too long in the vicinity of such an asteroid. Another type is fuel. Comets, if a player pushes such an asteroid into orbit close to a star, ice will melt and generate a thrust as it approaches the star. If asteroids are like "parts" then such a mechanism should not be a problem. I wonder if the mechanics allowing the formation of asteroids would be a problem? A burner that would allow us to cut an asteroid into pieces.

I was thinking about fairings doing this, you only drop half of fairing and other half stays and plying role of heat shield is this possible?

1cm³ weights 1.6g and can hold 800 tons? So 160kg for 1km cable (cross-section 1cm) and this cable should hold 800t if I am not mistaken. What gives me 800 tons of 1cm cross-section is 5000km long cable and it can hold itself. For 30,000km long elevator cable you need 6 cables (1cm cross section) and all would weight 4800t?

This should work? https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2170193/china-has-strongest-fibre-can-haul-160-elephants-and-space

or someone dropped nuke?

Bases on land would be easier to find, but that's not a problem if the game limits the funds of each player as it is in a career where you have to make contracts to make money. But to hit the base in orbit is a miracle, you would not only have to spot it without using the UI, but still adjust your orbit and speed. If every player starts the same amount of money then it would be hard for you. Also for destroying bases of other players, he will not get anything, you can do it once, because you will not be able to afford it anymore. The second thing is reputation, everyone in the solar system will find out who you are, and if multiplayer will be tied up with steam accounts, each copy of the game = one account, so good luck :-)

Continuing my idea from previous post... The laboratory itself should not generate science points, only to develop a bonus (boost/acceleration) for acquiring these points from other sources. For example, a laboratory in orbit after acquiring some data from experiments and a few days of work, should give the opportunity to run a boost that accelerates science points by 10-20% for one day (player would trigger boost in one of buildings), but only for parts that require a vacuum to unlock. The laboratory on the surface of the moon or Duna should give a similar boost, but for ground and other related parts. You could also do so that the laboratory in orbit of Kerbin gives only 5%, in the orbit of the moon 10%, etc. the farther you put laboratory the bigger is bonus. This should also give the player a task, which to speed up the research should send/move the laboratory further, and it will require larger rockets or he can spend many more hours playing for lesser rewards and grind points closer to Kerbin. If each node of the research tree is a separate part, you can divide them into different ways. One of ideas may be the distance the player has reached from Kerbin. My point is that some parts will only acquire science points if player fly outside of Kerbin's SOI or even farther. For example, to unlock 3.5m tanks, no matter how many flights we take in SOI of Kerbin, they will not get a single point, but if we go further then 3.5m tank node will get few points each time we finish mission.

Now we have learning points just like the experience in Diablo-like games, no matter with what weapon you're fighting, it's the pool of points from which you then buy new skills for what you want. I would suggest a different solution. Learning points should be assigned to each part separately. So if you want to unlock a more advanced wing, you have to fly a lot with planes with primitive wings. If you want to unlock an advanced rocket engine, you have to use a lot of available rocket engines. The parts would still be arranged in the form of a tree, but to unlock new higher node (each node would be a new part), you have to use the earlier parts from this branch many times. Such a solution could be combined with the atmosphere, vacuum, biomes and depending on where you use the vehicle, such elements of the tree gain learning points. An example a wing and jet engines will not earn points in a vacuum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser ?

So none? And each will have to train for several years, well than slowed don't my hype train for Orion :-/

I read an article about Orion and I wondered if NASA is already training any astronauts for Orion's mission? And how long does it take train them?

Looks like Saturn design was more modular than I thought.

It is not important since I want to compare few project with same measure. My previous calculations were with dollar value not from 2018 , inflation calculator used http://www.in2013dollars.com/2011-dollars-in-2018?amount=1 Per flight (after inflation in 2018) https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-16_Apollo_Program_Budget_Appropriations.htm (shame nobody made table like this for other programs) Saturn I budget - $1,777,226,180 / 10 (flights) = $0.177 bln (payload 9t to LEO) Saturn IB budget - $7,624,684,320 / 9 (flights) = $0.847 bln (payload 21t to LEO) (more than 12 rockets were build, so I would say closer to $0.635 bln) Saturn V budget - $36,511,791,150 / 13 (flights) = $2,8 bln (payload 140t to LEO) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program Space Shuttle budget - $219,520,000,000 / 135 (flights) = $1.626 bln (payload 27.5t to LEO) --- Single vehicle cost (after inflation 2018): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_I Saturn I - $??? bln (payload 9t) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V Saturn V - $0.716 bln (payload 140t) http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/satstg2.html Saturn IB - $0.123 bln (payload 21t) Space Shuttles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Endeavour Endeavour ($2.2bln in 1992 year) - $3,960 bln (payload 27.5t ) Atlantis - Discovery - Columbia - Enterprise - Challenger - EDIT: I think that Saturn I and Saturn IB would be enough to replace Space Shuttle in single mission.

Without taking into account the overall costs, you make a mistake. If you come up with a space shuttle, which after each flight does not need to have changed 20,548 parts, then the cost of maintenance and single flight of such a vehicle will be cheaper. Space shuttle had to change 20,548 unique elements of the heat shield (each part was unique! like puzzle element), which generated cost in work force and salaries, but without this service cost every shuttle was single use only. On the occasion of searching for data for calculations, I saw somewhere information that space shuttles program between 2004 and 2006 cost was $ 13bln, and then only three flights took place. How do you want to determine the cost of a given technology without considering all costs? F-35 began around 1990? The first flight is probably around 2005, and you want to compare it with people who have been deciding for NASA for 2-3 years and are talking about the creation of Space Force? If the Space Force arises in such a form that it will replace the entire NASA, it will be more efficient, I have no doubt about it.

Launch was not possible without those people, right? So this is part of launch cost. If you need to hire 1000 people to operate something then salaries for those people are cost for whatever you are doing. If space shuttle was able to start with single operator, great, show me mission where it was launched with single operator and then we can change costs. Maintenance is also cost, just like fuel is cost, so if you invent rocket that doesn't require maintenance it is going to be cheaper than competition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Budget "Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc.) by the number of launches. 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.[25] A 2017 study found that carrying one kilogram of cargo to the ISS on the shuttle cost $272,000 in 2017 dollars, twice the cost of Cygnus and three times that of Dragon." Maybe some space shuttles were cheaper, like you said Endeavour, but other could be more expensive and average is $1.5 bln. Which is fraction of estimated cost of SLS single launch $5bln and you people still wonder why I am for NASA to die and be replaced by Space Force? :-) I don't mind doing same (program cost/flight number) with Saturn, but we should distinguish what version of Saturn we are talking about. Because making 42 bln $ per 13 flights of Saturn V, if that was budget for entire Saturn rocket family would be very wrong calculation.

If that is true then how it is possible entire program cost was over $196 bln? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program "When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000/kg (approximately $27,000 per pound) to LEO." https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/566250main_SHUTTLE ERA FACTS_040412.pdf "For Fiscal Year 2010, the average cost to prepare and launch a shuttle mission was approximately $775 million. Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion to build. The life of the shuttle program has cost $113.7 billion. (Not adjusted for inflation)"