SunlitZelkova

Thanks for all of the answers. I asked as in another game I am playing the US and China are going to war, and I was trying to figure out if there is a "creative" way to increase the damage with China's relatively small number of missiles capable of hitting the US. One other thing- although the fallout/radioactive contamination may not cross continents, would "crater killing" or directly hitting nuclear reactors at power plants be worthwhile?

I'm not sure if this was directed to me or not, but I will answer just in case. The payload is the LK-700 (which includes the capsule, landing gear, TLI stage, and lunar crasher stage) replica for a Munar landing. Mass is 94 tons. I have tried the things people have suggested here but it doesn't want to fly, even with Mainsails. I have also tried mounting it (LK-700) on different rockets (like my smaller design based on the UR-700) but it doesn't work. Perhaps it is time to sacrifice accuracy and just build something regardless of design, so long as it can lift the LK-700?

Would a 1 megaton ground burst at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant cause enough extra fallout to be worth targeting an ICBM at? Assuming the winds are coincidentally optimal enough to blow towards the direction of the Great Plains/farming states. I apologize if this doesn't count as a science related question.

LM-9 is no longer being used for the Chinese lunar program (crewed or uncrewed). That role has been taken over by the new unnamed rocket, referred to currently as "921". https://www.space.com/china-rocket-for-crewed-moon-missions This rocket can deliver about 25 tonnes to TLI. It will require two launches for a lander and the Next Generation Crewed Spacecraft. Note what appears to be a capsule displayed next to it. LM-9 is still in development though. I don't know whether the "LM-9 is for crewed lunar missions" statement actually came from the Chinese space industry or if people just assumed, but it doesn't appear to be the case anymore. Thus the only known mission for LM-9 is a single launch Mars sample return mission. With the appearance of 921, which uses much hardware already in use, it is possible the date for the Chinese crewed lunar program has/is going to be moved to the late 2020s instead of the 2030s. Diameter of 921 is 5 meters. I don't know whether it matters or not as Yenisei uses (at least in the image from kerbiloid) a hammerhead fairing anyways. I kind of wonder what the point of launching it on a Chinese rocket is supposed to be. Is it closer to being ready for flight compared to the Chinese one (I doubt it but I am asking anyway)? The Chinese one may be ready before it, and if it is launching on a Chinese rocket anyways why not use the Chinese lander.

The English info I have just says "voice communications recordings".

I don't think so. The cadets said it was on that day (when the conversation took place) which was May 15th, 1960. No dog launches took place then. Also compared to human spaceflights which were announced as they were underway, dogs weren't revealed until after landing if I remember correctly. There were dogs that died that were covered up, but they are known now as the documents about them have been declassified. Keep in mind though that the "coverup" only went so far as not letting info leak to outsiders. It's not like low level employees at OKB-1 were literally being told "we never sent those dogs into space", or that newspapers were removed off the shelves en masse and regular civilians were being told "that thing you read about never happened". It was simply a secret (and it is no longer a secret). Rather than mistranslation, I think the soldiers were just messing with him or they themselves were to dumb to interpret the news correctly. Reading more about Korabl-Sputnik 1 (the May 15th test flight) the Soviets actually had a surprisingly detailed announcement of the flight, mentioning it was only an uncrewed test flight with no pilot on board.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_origin.html this website gives a good overview of why Baikonur was selected. Contrary to "wanting to launch over China" for whatever reason, launching over foreign countries and overflying population centers were the things they wanted to avoid while picking a launch site. The selection of Baikonur was entirely related to the R-7 missile program, and the process began long before launching things and people into space was on anyone's (except Korolev and a small number of other engineers') minds. About Heinlein- That story is reprinted from an article he wrote shortly after the event occurred on May 15th, 1960. The same day as the Korabl-Sputnik 1 launch, which carried a mannequin and voice recordings of a human voice to test the radio. The newspapers were likely a pure coincidence, as there seems to be no account of such a thing happening somewhere else. In any case, the removal of them was not related to the space program as is shown by various declassified documents. But most important of all, there are numerous declassified documents that disprove any accusation that someone went into orbit before Gagarin. We should trust those much more than a few young soldiers that might have just wanted to mess with a foreign tourist. To use an analogy to point out how bad of an idea it is to rely purely on people's word, seriously considering the possibility that Gagarin was not first in space because some soldiers said that they put a man into orbit earlier is like seriously considering the possibility that the Moon landing was faked because some low-level employee from Rocketdyne said they might have been... oh wait. I would like to make it clear that if a professional historian with credentials found actual documents that pointed to a coverup, then by all means consider that possibility, but as "logical" as the idea sounds- the Soviets did cover a lot of stuff up- there is no evidence for it, and there is lots of evidence against it, and therefore still considering the idea, despite all of that, is conspiracy theorist thinking.

Yuri Gagarin was the first human being in space. There are a few problems with the "someone else was the first in space and they covered it up" conspiracy theory- 1. Gagarin's flight was announced while he was still in orbit. Why would they not have done this if they sent someone into space earlier? 2. There is zero evidence for the "there was someone else and they covered it up" claims. Documents regarding the Soviet space programs have been virtually completely declassified. 3. When Valentin Bondarenko died, the Soviets attempted to cover up his existence, and were sloppy about it and it was already known by the early 60s a cosmonaut had perished one way or another. If there was another cosmonaut who died, his existence and demise would be known in some way. But all of the other cosmonauts apart from Bondarenko are accounted for. 4. Either people have made such a claim with no evidence, or both the people making such accusations and their evidence have all had dubious backgrounds. Serious consideration of "it might have been someone else and they covered it up because that's what the Soviets do" is the equivalent of me saying we should seriously consider the possibility of the Apollo Moon landings having been faked because the United States and Britain successfully kept the role that codebreaking played during WWII secret until the 1980s, and therefore they are hypothetically capable of keeping a fake Moon landing a secret. It is not a good idea to drop to that level of thinking.

Thanks for the info! I should have been more clear, I meant whether there were any plans for LEO after the ISS. But I believe my question is answered by what you said anyways.

Is this a serious proposal? The spacecraft in the pictures are purely for reference. The tweet it is in says "they are dreaming to much" or something to that effect. I used Google Translate combined with my limited Japanese skills, so it may be inaccurate, but it looks like- They are proposing a NASA Integrated Program Plan style system for space transportation. Basically similar to the original Space Transportation System (that is, the STS that ended up being only the Space Shuttle) proposal. Space tourism, transport to the Lunar Gateway (which in the future will have spacecraft to take stuff/people to Mars docked to it), transport to a post-ISS space station, P2P, and use in the construction of a space based solar power network would be the missions of this system. The spacecraft concepts under study are Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy style rockets, a Starship equivalent, and an SSTO or TSTO. The private sector is supposed to cooperate to reduce costs. I am not sure whether international participation is considered, because theoretically, there is nothing stopping Japan from paying SpaceX to do all of this in the future. The missions they propose are ones they think will exist by 2040 and thus the spacecraft would to be developed by then, no earlier, although if they use the Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy rocket, its first flight will be in the 2030s. The latter parts of the PDF describe the technical aspects of either the TSTO or the Falcon 9 style rocket, while the very last page might be about cost reduction but I'm not sure. Separately from this, I have a number of questions (for anybody to answer)- 1. What are Japan's plans for after the ISS? It's Wikipedia so I'm not sure how accurate it is, but apparently there is an idea to build a space station with modules based on the HTV, similar to how Russian space station modules are based on the FGB. 2. Although it may not even be a JAXA proposal, if they went through with the HTV based space station would it be possible to lower the cost by using SpaceX to resupply it and send crews to it, with Japan only building the modules? Of course they could also just keep Kibo attached to it, because the ISS looks like it could become a private space station with much of it being replaced by Axiom modules. 3. I have seen English sources saying Japan had completely indigenous plans to send people to the Moon, that were shelved around the early 2010s. I am wondering if any documents are out there describing the way the mission would work.

I think if they really wanted to, Blue Origin could construct a habitat, and SpaceX could design and deliver science. I agree that if international cooperation is a goal, NASA has a role to play as a "manager" for everyone involved. NASA PR seems to push the sustainability side of the program more than the international aspect. My comment was more intended to point out that the idea of sustainably going to the Moon is a bit of an odd statement for this program given the unsustainable element of it in the room (Orion and SLS) as crew vehicles. If the Human Landing System is being commercially developed, why not have the other crewed spacecraft be commercially developed too? Wouldn't that fulfill the objectives of the program better, even if Orion ends up being cancelled? Of course, as people have pointed out many times in this thread there are political reasons involved in answering that question. I was 9 around the time I heard "Mars in the 2030s", so I had no idea. After 2011, I didn't pay attention to space at all until last year, so the gritty reality of space politics is a bit new to me. I did not take into account the politics behind SLS when I wrote my post. On paper, Artemis feels a lot more serious compared to what I have read of the history of Constellation and the SEI, which is why I wonder if it has a hidden, more important motivation behind it (like national security). Then again, there was/is the unrealistic goal of a 2024 Moon landing, which implies the program doesn't have serious (non-domestic political) motives behind it.

NASA has given many reasons for the Artemis program. But they seem to be similar to the reasons given during SEI and the Constellation program, and if "going to the Moon sustainably" is a goal, why is NASA needed? Is there something NASA has to do before SpaceX and Blue Origin can do their own things there? I think Artemis is politically driven in response by presumably still classified reports on the progress of the Chinese crewed lunar program. All that the US intelligence community has really said is "what America did as the hare in the 60s, China is now doing as the tortoise- slow and steady". Slow and steady wins the hypothetical race, so perhaps the US wants to "win" despite there being no race as America all got there first (but currently can't go there anymore). During the 1960s, while the "Moon Race" was very real for most of the people at NASA and of course the public, the people at the top were never really concerned, apart from shortly after the Apollo 1 disaster, because they had access to CIA reports describing how much disarray the Soviet lunar program was in. A CIA report from before the first N-1 launch still put the first Soviet crewed lunar landing in 1970 at the earliest. If this is not the case with China, then it makes sense why despite repeatedly having been unwilling to fund crewed lunar programs in the past, despite the problems caused by the pandemic, the US appears to be sticking with Artemis. Also, given how people like to raise their voices on the internet nowadays, if the Artemis program is cancelled, the "Artemis generation" NASA has been publicizing will become the "orphans of Artemis", which would be a PR and public confidence disaster. Until a CIA analyst runs in to his supervisor's office and yells "THE CHINESE ARE GOING TO MARS". I was born in 2001, and for all my life I have heard people say "human on Mars in the 2030s". It increasingly looks like it will slip to the 2040s or 2050s, or perhaps even 2060s. Will the government really fund a crewed Mars program when the Mars Sample Return mission, which isn't even going to come back until 2031 if it launches on time, might kill the crewed mission project in the (extremely unlikely) event that life on Mars is dangerous to human life? (This is also probably why the most detailed of available proposals- the DST architecture- involves only orbiting Mars, and whereas Constellation had a very preliminary concept of a lander, the DST version basically just has a drawing bearing resemblance to the SEI era Boeing Mars landers) It is a dangerous world, and in China, Russia, the US, or anywhere, there are a lot of problems that can arise which take precedence over (and thus taking funding away from) a crewed Mars program, even if it sounds like a great way to boost national prestige in the 21st century. Hopefully Artemis survives the 2020s.

Lunar Gateway around 2027. This was based on one image and reading off the descriptions of the modules on Wikipedia so it is not 100% accurate. The lander is based on the ILV from the National Team. Within to history of my game, Lunar Gateway is actually the second lunar space station, built to replace the 1980s vintage OLS.

Hello, I have been trying to build a replica of the UR-700. A problem has arisen where due to its massive size, it is virtually several different rockets (not boosters, full fledged rockets) packeted together. As a result, it is too heavy to lift off. It has six Rhino engines right now and weighs 1524 tons. My question is- Is there a way to build such heavy rockets that will fly?

NASA and a number of private Western organizations have conducted numerous studies of interstellar space travel. Did any organization or person in the USSR/Russia ever conduct such a study? I am curious because I plan to build a Soviet interstellar spacecraft when KSP2 eventually comes out and I wonder whether it will need to be completely fictional or if there is something it can be based on. So far English Google has yielded no results.

Is a "[insert location in space] colony" even legal? Legal definition of colony- "In International law, colony refers to a dependent territorial entity subject to the sovereignty of an independent country, but considered part of that country for purposes of relations with third countries. The country occupied by the colonists is also called a colony. ..." https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/colony/#:~:text=In International law%2C colony refers,of relations with third countries.&text=The country occupied by the colonists is also called a colony. From the Outer Space Treaty of 1967- "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;" https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html You could build a base that happens to be self-sufficient and has hundreds of crew members, but building a "colony" is currently illegal. A "city" might be ok though. On the other hand, I think it is a bad idea to build such a "pseudo-colony". Subjecting your citizens to whatever ad hoc laws the company managing the "city" has sounds awful. If there is going to be colonization in space, I think it should be done with the following plan- Withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty Establish colonization program and laws, the former under the government But, all of the technology development and the building and maintaining of the city itself will be done by private companies. The government is purely there as an administrative entity and gives no funding. How was North America colonized? Did private entities just go there themselves and start building villages and ports, or was there government help? Studying that is also a good idea alongside looking at Antarctic bases. Despite all of this, I personally think colonization in space will never happen. Destruction/massive damage of the space industry in a war or some disaster seems more likely to happen first at this moment in time (in my personal opinion). I would like to emphasize this is my personal opinion and everyone else is free to think what they want. If humanity does succeed in building a colony on Mars, I hope that whenever someone decides to start planting apple trees, they play the Soviet song about such an activity while they do it.

I like this show as entertainment, but it is certainly not an accurate representation of what might have happened if the Soviets landed on the Moon first (that is, I don't like it because of any sort of accuracy). Here are the major issues with their hypothetical history. Warning, there are spoilers- This show makes me want to see a parody of the movie First Man, except it is about Alexei Leonov and a successful Soviet moon landing. Sadly, the L3 complex is never shown during this show except for the part of the LK visible during the broadcast of Leonov taking his first steps on the Moon.

Hello, Background: My Duna lander had an extremely delicate design, and as I was tired, I made a mistake causing the lander to explode. The first attempt failed, and I am now preparing to launch a second rescue mission. There is heightened importance to the mission as the stranded cosmonauts are three of the original four. Question: How does one make a precision landing on a celestial body with an atmosphere? Specifically Duna, although how to do so in general with an atmosphere would be good to know for the future. I am already capable of making a precision landing on an airless body. I am trying to land within reasonable walking distance of the crash site. During the first rescue mission, I basically entered a similar orbit to the one the original lander used, roughly estimated how much the orbit/trajectory would change in map mode to where the rescue spacecraft would intercept the crash site, and then of course landed as usual. The rescue craft came within about 10 km of the crash site. I am wondering if there is a better way to do this. EDIT- I am playing stock.

I know I need to flyby Jool, but what else needs to be done? Should be periapsis during the flyby be as low as possible? Would conducting a burn during the flyby help or not? I want to launch a crewed expedition into interstellar (or the closest thing possible to interstellar) space. Of course, if there is another option that does not involve flying by Jool, I would use it too. I am playing completely stock, with the Making History DLC.

TMK (Тяжелый Межпланетный Корабль - Tyazhely Mezhplanetny Korabl or Heavy Interplanetary Spacecraft) was a series of proposals for a crewed interplanetary spacecraft created in the Soviet Union in the late 1950s and the 1960s. The English language literature on the proposals is a little confusing, I have seen the Salyut-like TMK-MAVR referred to as TMK-1, TMK-1 described as a different nuclear powered design, and a landing version of the TMK from 1964, despite the "only" landing variant (according to the English language sources) having been designed in 1966. There is also the TMK-E, which would deliver a vehicle known as the "Mars train" to the surface, which is sometimes described as having been the main landing proposal, but referred to simply as "TMK". TMK-1 was the first of all of these proposals. It was designed for a Mars flyby. The initial design was completed on October 12th, 1961. It had a crew of three cosmonauts. It would have been launched on a single N-1 rocket, not requiring assembly in orbit. It was composed of three modules- one for biological research, one for instrumentation, and the crew section. It would carry impactor probes that would be released shortly before the Mars flyby itself. The mission would have launched on June 8th, 1971, make its closest approach to Mars in April 1972, and the crew would return to Earth in a capsule on July 10th, 1974. The mission would last a total of 1095 days, making it one of the longest seriously proposed crewed spaceflight missions. A ground test simulator was actually built for the life support system. From November 5th, 1967 to November 5th, 1968, physician German Manovtsev, biologist Andrey Bozhko, and technician Boris Ulybyshev lived in it. Using chlorella, water and oxygen were regenerated from human liquid waste and exhaled carbon dioxide, while food was a combination of freeze dried rations and vegetables grown in a green house. Human solid waste was removed from the cabin. Their stay was apparently successful. The research on the life support system was carried out by an institute separate from the OKB-1 space design bureau, and due to Voskhod, Soyuz, and eventually the L3 lunar program, TMK-1 wasn't cancelled or rejected as much as its designers and engineers were distracted by other projects and unable to push for funding or start further work on it. However, research on it would prove valuable for later proposals of crewed Mars spacecraft (although they too were never flown). The actual design had solar panels in a ring around the main body, however I have based mine on an artists concept which shows it in front of Venus, which had two solar panels. When I designed it(this was a few months ago) I did not understand how flyby "drop" probes worked, so they are non-functional in this version, although I plan to update with working probes in the future. There is no clear indication of where the Earth return capsule was, so it is at the front where it is capsule shaped in some drawings of the spacecraft. Also, although I could have used fairings to give the different modules a cleaner look, I opted not to, in order for it to fit on an N-1 replica, as well as to be able to look at Mars through the windows. TMK-1 during its flyby, 1972 Approach to Mars Leaving Mars During the return to Earth, it encountered a comet! This was very special, as TMK-1 is one of my favorite spacecraft, and this made flying it in KSP all the more fun. As I plan to improve the design with working impactor probes in the future, there is no craft file. Thanks for having a look!

IOS-GP-1 (International Orbital Station-Guinea Pig-1) was the first international space station. It was launched in December 1976, and was the second and (for the time being) the last cooperative spaceflight between the US and the USSR (the first being the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project). It has dockings ports for Soyuz and Apollo CSM spacecraft. It is in the shape of a guinea pig.

TMK (Тяжелый Межпланетный Корабль - Tyazhely Mezhplanetny Korabl or Heavy Interplanetary Spacecraft) was a series of proposals for a crewed interplanetary spacecraft created in the Soviet Union in the late 1950s and the 1960s. The English language literature on the proposals is a little confusing, I have seen the Salyut like TMK-MAVR referred to as TMK-1, TMK-1 described as a different nuclear powered design, and a landing version of the TMK from 1964, despite the "only" landing variant (according to the English language sources) having been designed in 1966. There is also the TMK-E, which would deliver a vehicle known as the "Mars train" to the surface, which is sometimes described as having been the main landing proposal, but referred to simply as "TMK". Formulation of the proposals took place mostly during the period of the space race before John F. Kennedy proposed the goal of landing a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s. Sergei Korolev apparently had very strong enthusiasm for the whole undertaking during meetings regarding the design. The schedules produced during planning had the missions taking place in the 70s and 80s. Wikipedia states any landing mission would have launched in 1980, however as far as I know, there was no transfer window during that year, it was in 1981. If it had launched in 1981, it would have ended up taking place simultaneously with the NASA Integrated Program Plan manned mission to Mars proposed by Werner von Braun in 1969. The Mars landing would have been in 1982. The TMK design I have decided to replicate is apparently from 1964, designed by Gleb Maksimov. I am unsure of the specific details of the design, so mine will have a little artistic license as I describe its components (it is not intended to ultra accurate in specifications per say, more for looks and the general configuration, only because of a lack of detailed information). The core of the spacecraft is the docking hub. It connects five nuclear rockets with the crew section. The docking hub has unused docking ports on the sides to allow Soyuz (or for future expeditions, the Progress) spacecraft to visit it while it is in Earth orbit. In real life, all components would have been launched on an N-1 rocket, however, the docking hub was too wide, so I used a Saturn V. The nuclear rockets could in theory be used as nuclear shuttles to the Moon and back (I am actually unsure if it was propelled by nuclear rockets or not, but I have decided to use them). They were launched on N-1s (in the game that is). The crewed section consists, from front to back, the MK Mars lander, a habitation compartment, and the power compartment containing a ring of RTGs around a transfer tube, which leads to the work compartment, which contains facilities for science experiments to be conducted both in interplanetary space and in Mars orbit. Below the work compartment is the Earth return capsule, and below that is another nuclear rocket for Mars departure. Attempting to launch the crew section on an N-1 failed, so I put it on top of my Energia replica. The crew section does not have any engines for use in low Earth orbit, so following the docking of three of the nuclear rockets to the docking hub, the docking hub flew to the crew section and performed all docking maneuvers. The ship carries a crew of six. Three cosmonauts will land, and three will remain in orbit. Here is what it is based on/supposed to be- Nuclear rocket docking with the docking hub, late 1980- Completed ship in Low Earth Kerbin Orbit- TMK-2 Akademik Korolev departing Earth Kerbin, 1981- The ship in deep space en route to Mars Duna- The ship in Mars Duna orbit, 1982- The MK, designated MK-1, descending towards Mars Duna- MK-1 on the surface of Mars Duna- TMK-2 Akademik Korolev-MK-1 landing site, 1982- TMK-2 in orbit around Mars Duna, 1982. The MK-1 landing site is visible below- The mission is still in progress and I plan to detail it in a different post in the mission report section. I have decided not to upload a craft file for now because it needs a little work. For example adding reaction wheels separate from the one built into the probe core on the nuclear rockets would make maneuvering for docking much easier. I will reply to this thread when it is ready to be uploaded. I will also include performance comments then. Specifications- Part count- 242 upon completion of assembly Length- 55.8 meters upon completion of assembly Width- roughly 8.4 meters at widest point Weight- 208.375 tons upon completion of assembly and fully fueled, however, about half of the five Earth Kerbin departure nuclear rocket's fuel is spent during docking, so the weight is less upon actually completion of assembly. It varies by flight. Specifications for individual components- TMK Docking Hub- Height- 6.9 meters, Mass- 13.766 tons, Parts- 30 Soviet Nuclear Rocket- Height 20.5 meters, Mass- 28.665 tons, Parts- 21 TMK Crew Section- Height- 28.4 meters, Mass- 51.284 tons, Parts- 107 Thank you for having a look! Note (moderator please remove if possible)- I got logged out of the forum after I clicked upload, so if this has appeared twice I entered it again in case it did not go up the last time.

Hi! I had an interest in space flight roughly six or so years ago, however other things took priority, but I have recently become interested again. Six years ago I was not playing video games, however at the time when I became interested in space again, I was playing video games, so I decided to find a reasonably realistic space game to play. My interest six years ago, in hindsight, was mainly about space history as opposed to any of the science, so I have a lot to learn. I am very impressed with the Positive Forum Movement and the Good Conduct guide. The internet seems to be filled with arguments and insults, so it is very nice to see such an effort to keep discussion polite and friendly. I look forward to becoming a part of this community!