Borklund

Thanks. I don't know that I can answer that question yet, other than to say that I will be smart about putting it together (texture atlases and the like). A good reference point might be something like Tantares, but I don't know if that's low or high RAM usage. If you're using Active Texture Management it likely won't matter anyway.

I too was confused at first. What you need to do in order to change the radii of the fairing base is to right-click it and use the sliders in the context menu.

It works 100% fine in 0.90.

Great looking stuff as always Beale!

This is related to MarsOne, so by extension, this isn't going to happen either. MarsOne does not have the money to pull off any mission to Mars. This is a non-starter.

Why is this thread stickied? It is a ridiculous topic for any number of reasons. First, whatever probability you assign to humans landing on Mars in the near future, you've got to assign a much lower probability that we'll send humans to float around on airships in the Venusian atmosphere, because we simply know so much less about Venus and there has been almost infinitely more research, hardware testing and actual spaceflights done with regard to Mars and landing humans there safely. It would take a lot more time and money to pull any manned Venus mission off, let alone one involving giant dirigibles, compared to a manned mission to Mars. Money that doesn't exist. NASA have not even spent a single dollar on a manned Mars mission yet, not even planning. Hell, they've barely been allowed to start planning work on ARM. There are is no manned Venus mission in the works. It is one of any number of hypothetical, "wouldn't it be neat if we ..." missions that otherwise idle mission planners at NASA come up with (See: HOPE). Even if NASA could get the authorization and funding to go to Venus, why would anyone want that? It's a distraction from the only viable location for the off-planet, permanent, self-sustaining settlement of humans in our solar system: Mars.

Revised the plan for the mod a little bit, updated the OP. The first release will consist of launch vehicle parts and a 2.5m, 3 kerbal crew capsule and service module. Here's a work in progress:

Thanks! There may be an update in the near future. I've been busy with other things since my last post.

This is awesome, thank you! It's a little sad that Squad hasn't already added in outer planets like yours after all the years KSP has been continuously in development. I look forward to the addition of PlanetShine and Distant Object Enhancement compability, and moons of course. Keep up the great work

Super stuff! Keep up the good work.

It's not dead and I'm not gone. Right now I have more important things to do in my life. When there's an update, I will update.

Minimal training, not no training. As shynung pointed out the avionics will be redundant and probably very sturdy given NASA's vast experience flying a shuttle type spacecraft. I still don't know what if any evidence you have to suggest that DC is less safe than the alternatives? If anything, DC is safer because it offers low-G reentry and landing.

I still can't follow your logic. The winner or winners of Commercial Crew will be announced before the end of this month, a whole month before the next NASA budget automatically kicks in (in the form of a continuing resolution) unless an actual budget is passed (which is looking unlikely). A continuing resolution would fund Commercial Crew at identical levels to last year and would fund at least 1,5 winners. With this in mind I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that unless Boeing gets picked, NASA isn't getting any money for commercial crew, or that if Boeing doesn't get picked, Congress will cut funding. Furthermore, only the NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator have to "please" Congress, not some mid-level civil servants picked for a committee. Congress does not influence decisions at this low level of procurement. Besides, the funding Boeing would get from winning Commercial Crew might as well be an accounting rounding error, given their vast aerospace and defence contracts. Let's not forget the 3 billion dollars or so they receive every year for work on SLS and Orion. Congress is a lot more interested in defending that pork (hence "Senate Launch System") and ULA's EELV monopoly. To summarise: you are mistaken in your beliefs about how Congress and NASA operate. That landing gear was temporary. The actual landing gear going on the real DC has flight heritage. Where do you get the idea that the passengers are scientists and tourists? DC is going to service the ISS with NASA and EU, Japanese and Russian astronauts/cosmonauts, all of whom will have undergone extensive training before any flight. NASA has a lot of pilots who become Shuttle pilots and NASA in general knows a lot more about landing a Shuttle-like spacecraft than it does about any other mode of transportation - they just spent the last 4 decades flying something very similar to DC.

No. They (the FAA to be specific) are going to help Britain with things like spaceport legislation, lessons learned and the like. There is no Skylon, it's only a concept. Reaction Engines recently received some £200m in private and govt (UK and EU) funding to build and test one full scale SABRE engine by 2020. Skylon will only be funded if SABRE is proven to work and either UK or EU politicians greenlight the project. It would take several billion dollars and many years before it would ever see the light of day. Near term use of the proposed UK Spaceport would presumably be Virgin Galactic, if they can get an export license (and they actually start flying passengers to space).

That thing is never happening, for many reasons. Even if you somehow got it built and secured funding for a rideshare, it would violate Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty and would never get to fly.

What makes you thinking landing gear are more dangerous than either a parachute landing in the ocean or retropropulsively landing on land? Boeing and SpaceX are already in competition for Commercial Crew. Even if they lose and DC is selected as the sole winner, either or both of them get launch contracts. I don't follow your reasoning. There exists no other customer or purpose for Dragon than NASA and serving its Commercial Crew programme. If they cut funding for Commercial Crew there would be no CST-100 either. They can't influence the selection committee because their identities are not public knowledge.

I would post simply "No." but I can't, so I'll elaborate. KSP is just a game, it's not a "game changer in the grand scheme of human space travel", that's a ridiculous notion. I was interested in space exploration before I ever heard of KSP and I'd bet that's the case for most people who play KSP. If you want some small part in changing human space travel, get into politics or get a job in a related field.

You have no factual basis with which to claim that DreamChaser is more expensive and more dangerous than either Dragon or CST-100. It's definitely more safer than Orion, which can only use its launch abort system for certain periods after launch, unlike all the proposed commercial crew vehicles. Why would Boeing (and Lockheed Martin) and SpaceX say no to free money because DC has to use another launch vehicle to get into orbit? You're wrong on so many levels.

No, ULA has been awarded money to human rate Atlas V. IIRC they estimated it would cost a billion dollars to human rate Delta IV. Non human rated launchers or spacecraft are not going to launch NASA astronauts anywhere. There's so much wrong with this paragraph that I can't be bothered to explain everything. For one, SNC has built and flown an engineering test article. Boeing is not going to spend a single dollar of their own money on CST-100, so they're not going to launch in 2017 unless they're awarded a contract. SpaceX isn't ahead, their pad and flight abort tests are behind schedule. They really don't have to "set themselves apart to have a chance"; their proposal will be judged on its own merit. Nobody in Congress is picking the winner. There is a NASA selection committee and a selecting officer making the decision after reviewing the proposals.

No, it is designed to go on Atlas V or Falcon 9. Delta IV is not human rated.

What Bomoo said, more or less. I'm not going to take into account how other mods affect part balance. I'm not familiar with FAR so I have no idea what you're talking about, but if it's a problem then if anyone is willing to provide optional FAR friendly config files I'd put them in the release thread, when it comes time for that. That's a problem for later however, as nothing is even in-game yet.

There are already plans and talks for landing sites at existing launch complexes. Brownsville isn't even built yet but it would probably necessitate boostback or a landing platform out at sea.

Because they need permission from the Air Force to attempt #2, which they don't have (yet).

That is wrong. Any stage that returns to land is going to return to a landing site separate from the launch site.