Pipcard

Probe landing: on Eve Crewed landing: on Gilly

Fuel (propellant) isn't 80% of the cost... isn't it about 1 percent or less?

Then what do you think we should do in space? Nothing?

Stuff like this just proves that this is the most anti-space "spaceflight" forum I have ever seen. "We won't get to Mars in this century, nothing is ever going to be possible, why bother, we should all just give up because it is all pointless."

Just because NASA abandoned reuse after the failure of the Space Shuttle to make reuse economical doesn't mean they will force SpaceX to do the same, especially if the latter's method actually works to reduce costs. And so far, SpaceX is only thinking of reducing prices for F9R. Even if the market isn't elastic enough (as some people here may think), there will still be cost savings.

Hatsunia's next generation rocket: the M-III launch vehicle.

My current PC (from 2012) is prebuilt, because I was hesitant to build one. It has: CPU: A4-Series APU A4-3400 (2.7 GHz) GPU: AMD Radeon HD 6410D and can only run KSP in low settings. The PC I am planning to build this summer will have: CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core (it was originally going to be an i3) GPU: Radeon R9 380 4GB (originally GTX 760 or 960) Can it even handle visual enhancement mods like Scatterer? Also, I am not sure whether I should get a 480 GB SSD or a 1 TB HDD + 240 GB SSD (both add up to about the same price these days), because I have only used ~40 percent of my 500 (actually 465) GB hard drive in the four years that I have owned it so far.

This looks just like some clickbait site.

What do people here think is the ultimate goal of space exploration and space development? If the prevailing attitude here is that space colonization and human spaceflight are pointless endeavors because "it will never be 'economic' (it really is the "dismal science") or rational" - that logic will be used to justify the abandonment of all forms of spaceflight except for the ones that are really pragmatic, like GPS and some geostationary comsats. Like someone will eventually say "what's the point of sending probes out there to study some 'worthless' rocks - there's no return on investment, it's more 'economic' to do almost nothing regarding spaceflight," making this the most anti-space "spaceflight enthusiast" community. I know, I have some doubts about the practicality of space colonization too - but this prevalent defeatist attitude (e.g. a post basically saying that "we should never go to Mars in this century because it is too expensive" that was liked by over 20 people) isn't going to get us anywhere.

I've always wanted to see a Japanese manned spacecraft. Unfortunately, their economy has been relatively stagnant for a while now (even though it is currently the third largest economy) and so it is more pragmatic to ride on Soyuz.

But just don't take its premise too seriously.

Actually, with statements like this^, this section is both "overly optimistic SpaceX hype" and "overly pessimistic doom and gloom." And I disagree with both.

Here, a user by the name of Robotbeat claims that MCT would be cheaper than Mars Direct with a reusable launch vehicle (I know, there is some skepticism about that here, especially from Nibb31) and a single vehicle design (for less development costs) that refuels in Earth orbit and on Mars with pre-deployed ISRU equipment.

That website lists the expendable payload. Musk is describing the payload with booster reusability.

Musk said that for Falcon Heavy, the payload to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit "with full reusability of all three boost stages" would be "7 tonnes." The heaviest comsats weigh almost that much (TerreStar-1, the heaviest, was 6.9 tonnes). So that's probably how it's intended to be used.

(A Hatsune Miku song about Akatsuki. It has no English subtitles, but here's a (bad) Google Translated page of the lyrics)

So I'll see a Falcon on Friday and a Falcon on Saturday.

I like Mars Direct (and Semi-Direct even more), but its main criticism is that the masses of the components (such as the ERV) were thought to be underestimated, and a mission involving on-orbit assembly (simple docking of propulsion stages, no EVAs), on-orbit refueling, and/or high-Isp propulsion (e.g. nuclear thermal or solar electric) would have better mass margins as opposed to a direct HLV launch to Mars.

Akatsuki had 100 metal plates, used as balancing weights. A few of those plates bore images of the virtual singer, Hatsune Miku*, the result of a successful >10,000-signature petition supported by Prof. Seiichi Sakamoto of JAXA. *what you're seeing is "Hachune Miku" (the chibi version)

[quote name='Jimbodiah']Pipcard... that would work if you get into orbit with that first stage, you'd have time to switch back to the main stage. But I often have a main stage that is rejected while still underway to the apoapsis. I've tried adding chutes but there is no control to have them open on time (besides manually switching back and waiting until it is safe).[/QUOTE] Flight Manager was supposed to make it so you didn't have to do that, but sadly it doesn't work in the latest version, as you have pointed out.

It is possible. I use MechJeb for my [URL="http://imgur.com/a/QNgA2#2"]Kappa launch vehicle's first stage[/URL]. But it is also important to use [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80292-1-0-2-Flight-Manager-for-Reusable-Stages-%28FMRS-v1-0-00%29"]Flight Manager for Reusable Stages[/URL] (it works for 1.0.4, haven't tried it with 1.0.5).

[quote name='fredinno']Lol, why is the Spacecraft IN THE FAIRING?[/QUOTE] I put it there just because.

Rocket I made up in 2009. All values were arbitrarily chosen. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qCzqAgj.jpg[/IMG]

As people above me have said, an SSTO version of a launcher's first stage will have too little payload to be useful. [quote name='Nibb31']Musk is just being an ass because he got burnt by Bezos.[/QUOTE] He didn't get "burnt," landing a stage that has a higher horizontal velocity, and is much larger/taller (because it is the first stage of an orbital launcher) is still a much harder challenge. (I'm just wondering, are you hoping for SpaceX to fail or something?)

[quote name='Legendary Emu']I like the H-11A. Mostly because it's not white.[/QUOTE] It's H-IIA. (Roman numeral for 2) And the core stage is not white because it is unpainted insulation for the liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen propellant (like Delta IV, Space Shuttle) However, the [URL="http://global.jaxa.jp/projects/rockets/h2a/upgrade.html"]upgraded H-IIA[/URL] (which will actually [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZo7RTSBXY"]launch in a few hours from now[/URL]) will have its second stage painted white to protect the liquid hydrogen from boiling off.