bradley101

Sick craft wow. Thats a lot of effort into that good job.

How long until this is updated for 1.0?

Just to mention about the VASIMR 40 days yes but the T/W is so low just like any ion or plasma engine. The low T/W ratio means you spend a year or so gaining velocity that means for manned missions you are exposing your crew to high radiation out of the van Allen belts. Excellent for cargo but for crewed missions I would rather trade off specific impulse for a T/W ratio greater than 1 for a 9 month Hoffman transfer than 13 month transfer including the long slow acceleration.

I know of the SAFE-400. Developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Marshal Space Flight Center. Uses Uranium Nitrate as a fuel. 10x the power the weight ratio to the SP-100 project in the 1980s. Only weighs 512 kilos. Max core temp 1020 degress Celsius. 100KW Electricity energy 400KW Thermal energy Source http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Non-Power-Nuclear-Applications/Transport/Nuclear-Reactors-for-Space/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Affordable_Fission_Engine Hope this helps.

When you become abscessed with a friends Apple computer cause it has a rocket on the launchpad icon...

Cool like the plot line doing more work on the stuff tonight.

I'm working on some ship designs at the moment got some parts of the plot in my head...

I care if Jeb dies but the others yer na let em die. :0

I love the ways kerbals invented city light pre city's. Haha looks cool will download it.

Welcome to the forums 95tiger59!

Does not mater multiplayer is awesome.

Yes but I'm rubbish with flying intercepts in space. Vanilla really why not Rommfar laser and the Gatling gun mod. No mechjeb thats just poor piloting. I would love to help craft files and mabye some pioleting from me. Yes I'm all in for this.

Weclome! Happy launchings and the enivitable Crashes!

But still is higher concentration of water ie permafrost with maybe as low as 10-15% concentrations the greenhouse affect could work. Under the right conditions it could be a low maintainence water extraction system move it from place to place so you don't use up all the water one area. Make the top of the dome like a lens to increase the effect. Even if you have the water locked in chemicals if you base is running off nuclear power use the vast waste heat of the reactor to bake the water out cheap and easy as your utillizing your resources to the max.

Have you read any data? http://www.space.com/22949-mars-water-discovery-curiosity-rover.html A liter of water per cubic foot. Use a inflatable green house that uses he natural sunlight to extract the water into vapor. Then you condense is simple. No power needed light weight to bring to mars.

But the only way to get the idiots in congress to fund anything is competition stupid military projects or oil. NASA is more capable than most but congress is the the block of stone that stops them from going anywhere.

What do you think of mars direct I like the idea personally. I think it is the only way we can get to mars in the near term with out ludicrously expensive in orbit assembly.

If you could call them glory days they achieved little science value Apollo brought a few hundred KG off moon rock home but they were really flag planting expeditions. But we learned a lot about soft human landings although that experience was never used.

New Gas giant with MOAR MOONS!

Have you guys noticed that the OP is titled Moon Landing 2013 not the potential second space race.

Hahaha Too true

Very, very sad despite NASA is well funded enough to make them...

That could really badly affect your bubble of air your displacing. Thrust vectoring as apposed to RCS styled various nozzles could be viable but would not provide enough maneuverability I think.

So true sadly more funding does not fix the problem a clear directive with a tight time frame is whats needed.

How would you maneuver? Ailerons and the likes would warp in the extreme airflow. Moving liquid or the likes to warp the whole shape of the aircraft?