Vonar

Any discussion regarding a government agency no matter the branch of government at the end of the day is about politics. NASA has its problems just like the EPA. However the solution to those problems is not to gut the agency and hand more power over to the private sector as we have seen with the EPA gutting a agency, and handing more power over to the private sector often backfires quite spectacularly.

I'm impressed that a Republican congress that it as anti-Obama and anti-spending as it can possibly be was able to come together and agree upon increasing the budget for the space agency. Of course Russia maintaining a stranglehold on manned launch capabilities to the ISS and restricting access to Russian rocket engines to the American military has to be a major motivating factor with regards to investing into NASA. BUT with that said $250 Million is just a drop in the bucket, while a doubling of NASA's budget is certainly out of the question with the current political climate in America NASA really needs $3-$5 Billion on top of what it all ready gets in order to do all of the things that NASA wants to do. Also contraire to what some of the others have posted NASA doesn't need a rebuild from the ground up. It needs unwavering support from the highest levels of the current and future administrations, and the political will to do what is necessary to secure America's space future. In other words it needs another Kennedy. Not a Bush or Obama who want the space agency to continue to accomplish what is almost impossible within the scope of the limited resources that it currently has, and having to endure semi regular cuts to its budget by a seemingly hostile Congress. By the end of 2014 we will have demonstrated a manned space craft that is capable of operating in deep space, and by 2017 we will have a heavy lift vehicle that will be able to sustain human operations beyond Low Earth Orbit. Manned commercial systems like the Dragon 2 will arrive in 2015-2017 timeframe as well. This is a impressive feet when you consider the fact that we last had manned space capabilities in July 2011, and development on the hardware that now makes up the Orion and the Space Launch System started in 2004. Also Ravensoul claimed that NASA is a example of a very inefficient branch of government. In fact when you look at the value per dollar spent in 2005 for its measly $15 Billion dollar budget NASA's space-related activities contributed $180 billion to the economy in 2005. This means that each dollar of NASA spending is a catalyst for $12 of economic benefit. With those figures I would argue that NASA is a prime example of government spending working as it should, and maybe even being too efficent.

I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing how a manned landing on Venus is a net benefit and as others have stated before Venus has a harsh enough environment that automated machines exploring for long duration's on the surface or in the atmosphere would be far more efficient then men walking maybe a few hundred meters and picking up a few small samples on the surface. It is not hard to think of dozens of other programs that I want NASA to pursue before wasting the very limited funds that the space agency receives on a high risk low reword manned Venus mission, and while humans are nice to have on the mission most of these missions can be accomplished more efficiently through automation.

Still it is WAY easier to mine in high pressure environments with robots instead of humans, and diamonds aren't going to do us much good without a way to get them off the surface of Venus and back to Earth. Mining off world is as uneconomical for Mars, and it would be more uneconomical for Venus - Mars I should point out to you has a much lower delta-V requirement for most activities that require landing and taking off again then Venus does. We will get to Venus eventually, but I wouldn't place any bets on it happening before 2200. I also wouldn't place any bets on it happening before a considerable amount of instu terraforming has all ready been done by robots.

Finished the "Core complete" of my version of the ISS, and started working on canceled / proposed modules - the first one was the Russian Science Power Platform.

Me having fun with a mostly stock part ISS, the only mods I use is Mechjeb and Kethane.

Meh, this idea is cool but at the same time rather Naive. No government in this era of austerity except for maybe the Chinese would foot the bill for a massive public works project based on a untested technology, and I'm pessimistic in general on Solar power. Really the only sustainable power source in development that has the potential to change the world for the better in the intermediate future is Fusion power, and Fusion power exploited at the commercial level is still 30 to 40 or so years away.

I did my first major station build, a replica of the ISS in KSP and I've gotta admit a 64 bit unity engine with better part support would be a very very nice feature to have as I want to go beyond the stock ISS, and add the components that are in the planning stage / cancelled irl but I'm worried the further I go down this road the 32 bit unity engine won't be able to handle the part load and will just fry itself under the stress..

tbh it would be worth it to terraform Mars if only to learn how to properly manage a atmosphere so we can maintain our own here on Earth. I wonder if over the long term that Oort cloud comets could be more favorable for delivering water to Mars even though there would be a much longer delivery period for each comet then asteroids from the main belt. Of course getting out there would be difficult for our current space faring technologies, but one would assume that the delta-v requirements for changing a comet's orbit to impact Mars would be less dramatic then moving a asteroid from the main belt.

Not to be a party crasher or anything but has there ever been a government that has ever committed to a century long project? The longest project(s) that I am aware of that have been accomplished or are being worked on internationally are the ISS, ITER, and the SLS/ Manned asteroid to Mars program and the three of them are in the 20 to 30 year lifespan time frame.

I've saved all the stock craft files from Spaceport on my hard drive. Debating uploading them to ModDB after Spaceport goes down for good so at least there will be a repository there of what we have had on Spaceport.

Lol, yeah... Not gonna happen before the middle of next century. The cost of terraforming Mars has been estimated in the trillions, and like all major government projects this would be well over budget and behind schedule. Plus it is easier to use asteroids in the main belt and generate as well as maintain your own atmosphere on Mars through industry, and giant atmosphere scrubbers then it would be to bring the atmosphere with you from another planet.

Really the only thing to run into at interstellar velocities is the occasional asteroid or comet in the Oort cloud, and even they are going to be few and far between.

Scott Manley always has great educational videos for helping new players in KSP.

Those who are complaining about the SLS/NASA parts being over powered in comparison to stock KSP stuff need to keep in mind that the SLS is designed to be a heavy lift rocket from the beginning and is the first real Heavy Lift rocket that we as a community have gotten access to in KSP. The SLS Block II configuration calls for the ability to deliver 130 Tons to Low Earth Orbit. With the exception of the Falcon Heavy that can lift 53 tons to LEO that's more then five times the launch potential of the next closest rocket that anyone in the world currently uses. Saying the rocket is over powered and makes things like Duna, asteroid, and Jool missions too easy is like complaining about rain in rainy season as with the exception of a mission to Jupiter the SLS is designed from the ground up to accomplish return missions with ease. What the SLS does need is a better sepratron rocket to clear the bigger boosters away from the core of the rocket when you stage. The current ones fail to make any difference more often then not, and when launching large payloads the side boosters may actually be underpowered in comparison to what NASA will have irl as with a 130 ton test payload I was struggling to clear 4,000 ft before my boosters ran out of fuel and had to be jettisoned. Irl the boosters are expected to last 120 seconds into the flight at which point the rocket would probably be in the 7,000-12,000 ft department.

I suppose you could do something with 4 external boosters pumping fuel in a asparagus style launch system. I haven't had a chance to test out the KSP version of the SLS to see how close the stock SLS is in capabilities to the rl SLS. Irl the SLS is supposed to be able to launch 130 Tons into LEO. If it is comparable I don't really see a need for Asparagus, after all how often do you need to launch 130 ton payloads in KSP?

I would add a specific "Landing zone" / Landing pad which would require you to land a rocket at the pad and recover it for a partial refund of the construction costs. (say 80%-90%) as recoverable rockets will still half to be refurbished after each launch, and as we saw with the space shuttle refurbishing added a fair bit to the overall cost of each mission.

I build payloads based on what my rockets can deliver to a Low Kerban parking Orbit. No sense in wasting delta-v to go any higher when you've got a armada of space tugs

I have my doubts that Skylon will fly this year. Last time I checked it still needed a $12 billion Billion Pound investment in key technologies, and only a very small percentage of the research funding has been acquired.

I hear it will be 0.26

Subscribed. I would love to see a 0.24 Long March 5 and Long March 9 rocket.

I follow the KISS principles. Kethane, Mechjeb, and Kerbal Alarm Clock are the only mods I use.

Don't dismiss the Chinese out of hand. Their current rocket program is around a Gemini level of development, and they've got both the money and political will to push through a Apollo style moon program with a heavy launch rocket (Long March 9/10) which is currently in early development phases. They've also got the new Long March 5 rocket which will enter service next year from a new equatorial based launch site. Let's not forget they landed a rover on the Moon, which is a body that we have regrettably ignored since 72.

I dunno about you but I'm definitely interested in China's achievements in space, as I suspect a lot of members on this forum are. I would love to see a Long March 5, and 9 Rocket from the mod developer as well as a Shenzhou if simonArtisan is interested in pursuing additional Chinese-space related designs for KSP.

850 km is a bit of a high orbit to reach for any launch vehicle let alone one that can launch 130 plus tons. Have you considered launching the payload into a lower orbit, and then using a space tug of some kind to pull it into a higher one?