Drunkrobot

I've made my mind up-I'm building a Munbase out of AAP-inspired bits and pieces. Wish me luck, I have work to do!

Then at what point in the future will manned spaceflight have a practical application? When we want to start sending colonists to Mars? The manned program is just as important as making that goal a reality as the unmanned probes. Only two areas of exploration had arrived during the modern era, when we had a choice to send robotic probes-underwater exploration, and spaceflight. Unmanned deep-sea probes always go to new depths first, but do so as manned vehicles are built to follow them. The Surveyor Moon probes did the same, going forth to pave the way for Apollo. But for some reason, many people think robots are all that is needed for the exploration of space. These people cling on to the archaic belief that the Earth is permanent, when those same probes that they think is all that is required keep supporting the fact that the Earth is tiny, and vulnerable. The ultimate defence against total destruction of the human race is establishing a foothold on other worlds. Before colonists, and after robots, human explorers need to go live on other planets for a while, so we can perfect the technology we need to live there permanently.

Pray tell, what exactly does wind turbines and solar panels do to the environment, and how could it possibly be any worse than the hydrocarbon power plants we have right now? And how does it all connect with this "leftist conspiracy" that is trying to destroy the environment on purpose? In countries that have a lot of wind or sun, turbine farms and solar collector power plants are viable, and private turbines and panels mean a little less fossil fuel is needed every day. You could imagine me as a hippy new age believer, but that would be incorrect. I wouldn't fear a nuclear reactor, the latest generations are making meltdowns physically impossible. But the problem with them is that they run on something that is not renewable. Uranium isn't going to run out before oil, but it will still run out. I stand by my opinion that, money no object, the space or Moon-based solar power stations are the best choice. The Sun is going to be here for quite a while, and the comments on "the microwaves heating the atmosphere" ignore the fact that the equivalent power from hydrocarbon power plants would heat up the planet way more.

Is this a teaser at what you've done for the challenge, or your standard Apollo vehicle? If it is the latter, then you may wish to add some shots of the payload.

I suppose, if I had to use only one sentence, that would be the idea. The reason I put up the thread is because there are so many Apollo style rockets on here. I wouldn't say I'm bored to death with them, I just love to see when somebody gives an interesting spin on the basic formula. The first two examples that come to mind is: Temstar's MOLAB: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24775-0-19-1-MOLAB-Heavy-Manned-Munar-Rover?highlight=temstar+molab And Wayfare's "Skyshack": http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/37237-0-20-2-Munshine-IB-Skyshack-Station-and-Crew-Transfer-Vehicle?highlight=wayfare

In reply to rdfox. I said earlier, in the thread that building SLS is NOT a return to Apollo-Saturn, it is simply looking back at the people who built it, how and why they did what they did, and how the technology of today can simplify, and improve the work done in the 60s. OK, I didn't put it that clearly, but I was trying to stop the posts from being too long. Thank you for your reply!

WHAT!? How old were they? I'm 16, and I would punch someone in the face if they said something that stupid! I realise that you could get by in life without an intricate knowledge of physics, but Jesus Christ, you should have an understanding of the universe more advanced than Ptolemy.

This challenge is so vague (no scoring system, for example), that it might be better suited somewhere else. Apollo-style rockets: To anyone learning how to play the game, building and flying them is the final exam. Passing means acquiring a skill base that allows you to do almost anything. As someone who passed the test, let me give you some advice-as you go to the VAB for your next big project, remember that you know have a good rocket in the craft files. Why not use it? NASA was asking that same question before Neil ever got his foot anywhere near the Moon. They had spent billions of dollars, and millions of years of man-hours, on getting equipment capable of bringing human explorers to the Moon. Why should they throw it away as soon as the first mission planted the flag and collected the rocks? That is where the "AAP" in the thread title comes from: The "Apollo Applications Program". It's goal was to find ways of expanding the capabilities of Apollo-Saturn while spending the least amount of money. It meant multiple launches per mission, heavier, better equipment and longer stays on the Moon. Basically, NASA puts it up to 11. Many ideas were discussed-Turning a LEM into a surface Habitat, to be sent ahead of the astronauts and used for stays on the Moon measured in weeks, rather than days. Work it harder, make it better, do it faster, makes us stronger. More than ever hour after, our work is never over. Dedicating another Saturn V launch to bring a heavier, longer range rover. MOLAB! Order now, and get your very own AtmosphereTM absolutely free! There was even plans for a manned flyby of Venus. And, of course, those whacko plans for a long-term habitat/research station in LEO... "I have the overriding merit of actually existing." Of course, you all know what happened-the later Moon missions got cancelled, funding was cut short. Congress was thinking Apollo was a huge waste of time and money. Do bear in mind, it was Congress that said that. Fortunately, Kerbals are a more clear-thinking and logical race of beings than Congressmen. This is where the challenge comes in. You start by giving a basic profile of your Apollo-style rocket: some stats, a few pictures, if you uploaded it to the forums before, then you can provide a link to it if you want. Then, you sprinkle a little bit of MOAR onto it. MOAR: noun. This picture. (This won't make any sense, because dictionaries don't have pictures.) Using the fewest possible alterations, do something...interesting, with your Apollo rocket. Try to give it a spin that would make sense in the real world. What can you really do with a few Saturn Vs, or an expanded form of Saturn V. (The real AAP didn't really give much study to new models of the Saturn family, but in the interest of acquiring fun, I'll allow it. You can strap some boosters on, or stretch a stage if you wish, just try to keep the alternations low.) Switching out the payload (CSM/LEM/S-IVB upper stage) with something else (a space station, for example) is allowed. You're still reusing the majority of the rocket. There isn't really a scoring system, competition really comes down to "who can perform the impressive feat". I would see this being a discussion-based thread, to share ideas on what to do. Good luck! EDIT: 1000 points for stock crafts! jk do whatever you wish, stock or mods!

It depends on how you get it up there. It would be much cheaper to set up a base on the Moon with a manufacturing centre and a mass driver, then use it to build the components of the solar station and launch them to LEO, than it is to launch the components from Earth. You could also just pave the Lunar surface with solar panels, and beam it from there. There power that could be collected from the Moon (at least, the day side), assuming a 20% efficiency in the in the panels themselves, would be measured in terawatts.

Maybe point the nozzle towards a wind turbine?

I'm assuming it was a simple conversion of the energy released by the chemical reactions at such a scale (measured in joules) into watts. I claimed that the five F-1 engines together had the energy equivalent to the national grid. There are bound to be some countries that have peak demands of <12 gigawatts, or ~9.92 time travelling Deloreans.

So I've been guided to an article by a fellow forum member: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/ If you bring your attention to the second paragraph of the article, you will notice an interesting little nugget of engineering trivia on the Saturn V. "The power output of the Saturn first stage was 60 gigawatts. This happens to be very similar to the peak electricity demand of the United Kingdom." For a long time, I have admired this most astonishing machine. I thought I knew how much power it had. Then I was told that, for 150 seconds, it could've powered my country. As it turns out, the Rocketdyne F-1 really did have the power of small nations.

To Diche Bach. Thanks for putting your time towards giving such lengthy feedback. I had as much enjoyment reading it as I hope you had reading the OP. First, exactly how much does NASA have to rediscover to build SLS. I know that as much equipment and experience that can be gathered from previous programs, like the Space Shuttle, and be practically used, is done so. This makes sense, using what you've got and building upon it is, in fact, the idea behind the thread. My point was that much of the hardware, especially later, more advanced blocks of SLS, need to take a page from Apollo-Saturn's book. If NASA wants to do more than simple fly-by missions with Orion, then more needs to be redone-a successor to the LEM, space suits that can deal with the dust etc. They won't be going back to 1972, the new equipment will be a vast improvement over Apollo-Saturn-it's just that, for a good deal of that equipment to be built, the space industry will need to learn things that it once had, but then lost. And I agree with your second point, the space industry has hardly been stagnant for 40 years. Priceless information on how the body reacts to a microgravity environment has been gathered, and how that same microgravity environment could one day be of our benefit, large orbital factories producing things that could never be formed on the Earth. But I am of the opinion that the space industry shouldn't have been forced to chose between LEO and deep space. I'm sure you are too. Long-term life on space stations can be possible, a large spinning wheel can produce an effect of gravity. Closer to current abilities is putting two living quarters modules on two long arms connected to the central "stack" of a space craft or station, then spinning them. Spending sleeping, exercising, eating, washing and recreational hours in the living quarters would be an effective counter to microgravity. And your last point, on how the science fiction sketches I used would probably have never became fact- I partly agree with you. I know that the future of space exploration is not exactly what Von Braun designed it to be, no more than what Da Vinci thought the first flying machines would look like. But the core idea of the sketches, of the human race inventing stuff to let them explore such places remains up to date. Take a man with no technology or knowledge of technology (i.e. science.), and put him in icy tundra or scorching hot desert. He would, very quickly, die. But give him clothes, a source of controlled heat, shelter, ways of harvesting food and water, ways to carry food and water, an effective mode of transport and the knowledge to use it all, and he would survive. Science and technology is how we conquered the world. Science and technology is how we will conquer space.

I am aware of the fact that stopping the space program would have about zero impact on improving the human condition, in fact it would dramatically reduce it. Sparing a little thought for the future is just as important as thinking of the present. But, you have to remember what people were thinking back then. As children (the people who built the Shuttle, and the parents of those building the SLS-Orion) watched in wonder at the live TV from the Moon, the adults were complaining-"Why should my tax money go to a man practising golf on the Moon!" Looking back at the state of the world, they did have a point-Vietnam, campus unrest, the human race realising that it was destroying the environments-why should some Buck Rogers wannabes live in Tomorrowland at the expense of billions of dollars? Pushing the boundaries of human science and engineering is exactly what should be done to help solve the problems we face, along with sparing money for those born in a less hospitable works than ours. But the majority of people couldn't see the significance Project Apollo had on improving the world we live in, and those of us who try to follow a scientific way of thinking can't blame them for not believing in something they had no, or little, knowledge about. I think the space program is immensely important, just as important as welfare on Earth. But it doesn't matter what I think, it's what 51% of legal voters think.

I think that would be a mixture of EOR and LOR. Personally, I think that would be the best form of mission after the initial rush to land before 1970. Having the payload of two Saturn Vs would mean the CSM/LM pair could receive a significant upgrade (more consumables, more scientific equipment, the ability to bring small modules to Lunar orbit and a surface base etc.).

Thank you! When I do another of these really long posts, I'll be sure to bring comedy italic text with me! Dude, don't respond to every comment. You do this all the time. Hey, I'm responding to feedback. The dinosaurs died because they didn't respond to feedback. That was a killer asteroid, this is an internet forum. There are more similarities than you think.

Well first off, I'm British, my country was a spectator in the race to the Moon. And secondly, I was assuming we lived in a crazy parallel universe where the majority of people value scientific discovery and engineering achievements that don't have immediate practical value.

Elsewhere in the science labs you will find this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/45565-What-if-the-Space-Shuttle-Program-had-done-its-job It asks "what if the Space Shuttle was a complete success, what would it have led to?". This thread goes a little further back in time, to the early 70s. Men were walking on the Moon, Kennedy's challenge to the American space industry was accomplished. And we did stuff. You know those annoying "My other car is..." bumper stickers? I bet this guy has a pretty frickin' rad one. But even as NASA was starting to get good at going to the Moon, new endurance records and ground-breaking discoveries being made on each new mission, it was called back, or rather, pulled back, to Washington DC. Voters were now getting bored of the Moon, and it's difficult to justify two men with living quarters on another world when there are millions without homes on Earth. "The Earth is all we need!" Said nobody after looking at this picture. 5% of the annual budget is a lot less than what people today, and then, think is what NASA gets, but it is still a lot of money, and even the other, more Earthbound and "practical" science organisations get less than NASA. Space had to get cheap, and the new plans for a reusable "space truck" for LEO was the only new manned program that congress would accept, and pull through with. The Space Shuttle: only 1.48% catastrophic failure! Apollo-Saturn, the most fantastical transport system ever built in human history, was dead. As it turns out, all that talk of the Apollo-Saturn duo being a waste of money meant the next generation of spaceship builders, the ones working right now, have had to re-invent the rocket. I'm sure you are aware of the SLS-Orion program in development right now. Of, course it won't come apart like this in actual flight. It is a wonderful design, and if allowed to flower, would open up a lot of options for NASA. But here's the thing-remember when those old spent F-1 engines were recovered from the sea bed? <Hums the theme to Titanic.> Those engines, along with museum pieces, are being studied by NASA to produce the high-power engines needed for SLS. Many people think aloud "How inept are the people of NASA that they need ancient relics to build their supposed "state of the art" rocket?". It was invented ages ago, and is therefore primitive and useless! What these idiots don't realise is that the F-1 was the best at what it does (producing an ungodly amount of thrust) for so long because what it does hasn't been needed for a long time. No rocket since had the payload capacity of Saturn V because not one needed the payload capacity. The F-1 is still state of the art. Unfortunately, there is few technical documents of the F-1 left, and the people at Rocketdyne who built it are either retired or dead. I'm sure the retired rocket scientists wish to help NASA build their new engines as much as possible, but it is difficult remembering every step to build a rocket engine you designed nearly 50 years ago. That means only the museum pieces and used wreckage from the sea-floor are left to base new engines on. Let's use the Lunar Module as a better case. You had trouble getting your car in that tiny parking space? That must have been an incredible accomplishment. It was, and is, the only vehicle ever built that can take a human crew from Lunar orbit to the surface. The LEM had a brilliant service record, working every time it was needed to, even pushed beyond it's factory limits to become a lifeboat to the crew of Apollo 13. Not bad for small New York state-based aircraft company Grumman Corporation. Here's to you, spaceship builders. But then Project Apollo was cancelled, and demand for manned lunar landers dropped noticeably. The team that designed and built the LEM moved on to other projects and eventually retired, the remaining LEMs were sent to the museums, and the design sketches of components and how it all fits together, were thrown away. Why throw away this priceless data? Again, because it wasn't needed. These were the days when "data" was not stored as bits on a hard drive, but as actual pieces of paper, on a shelf. The designs for the LEM alone could fill a small room. This. full of paper. Grumman had no need for it, and drawings and paragraphs of technobabble don't make good museum pieces, so they were condemned. What does this mean? It means that when NASA starts thinking of building a new Lunar lander... With blackjack, and hookers. ...the LEMs in air and space museums across the states will probably be taken apart, studied, tested (sometimes to destruction), and maybe put together again, like the F-1 is right now. The same is true of many other "relics" of project Apollo, like the spacesuits and the rovers. Beyond the obvious loss of an engineering masterpiece (Although I think it would be wrong to shun technological improvement to continue marvelling over machines of the past), this means a lot of money is being spent to do what has already been done. NASA: Built a computer from scratch, then had that computer taken away from them, and forced to use an abacus for 40 years. Then the people who took away the computer makes them build another computer from scratch, better than the last one, with one-tenth the money. Things weren't always like this. The people who built the machines of Apollo-Saturn were still building said machines, and some optimists among the designers were thinking on how the equipment could be made better. The production line would be increased, and the rockets would get both better and cheaper. Since all the hard work had already been accomplished (a 15-minute sub-orbital flight to an 8-day round trip to the Moon in 8 years is a steep learning curve.), it would've been relatively simple and cheap to scale everything up. THIS IS WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN. If the success of the Apollo missions had left the people of the world hungry for further exploration, what would the next big program have accomplished? There would've been space stations, of course, but humans would've also spent longer and longer periods on the Moon... Never have I hated something so much for not existing. ...humans would be going to Mars by 1980... STOP IT! YOUR BREAKING MY HEART! ...and the gas giants by the turn of the century. One thing would make me happier than this happening in my lifetime. It is this happening before I ever existed. Or at least, that's what I think would've happened. What would you think have come from the Apollo Program, with all the sharp minds, brilliant hardware, and money NASA had at it's disposal?

There were three main plans considered by NASA on how to get to the Moon: 1. Direct ascent. One huge rocket, even larger than Saturn V would launch one craft up to the Moon. This was the simplest mission plan, with the fewest steps that could go wrong, but there were significant downsides. First, the Spaceship would look like this: It was top-heavy, would've been nearly impossible to land, and required a huge amount of fuel to get back home. The launch vehicle would look like this: That "C-5" on the left is the actual Saturn V. "Nova" is the direct ascent rocket designed by Werner Von Braun. Getting the slimmer Saturn V to work was a pain. Nova would've been a nightmare. There was nothing to say Nova could never work, but getting it to work would've taken more than the time NASA had before the 31st December, 1969. 2. Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR). The Spaceship is assembled and fuelled in Earth orbit by several Saturn V launches, then does the mission similar to direct ascent. This removed the need for the "super-rocket", but the Spaceship design was as difficult to fly, and there was no way Boeing, North American, Douglas, Rocketdyne and others could build the Saturn Vs fast enough to meet the deadline (It wasn't just Apollo 11 that needed the Moon rocket. Effective hardware can only be truly perfected by field tests, Saturn V, and the Spaceship, being no exception.). The requirements for one EOR mission. 3. Lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR). Instead of one, big Spaceship, there are two, smaller craft-a main ship for the astronauts to be in during the trip to the Moon, and the trip back to Earth, and a lander for the astronauts to go to the surface, leaving the main ship in Lunar orbit. Then the lander will climb back into orbit, and dock with the main ship, which would take the astronauts back home. They came to be known as the Command and Service Module, and the Lunar Module. This mission plan had the risk of performing the rendezvous around somewhere other than the Earth, while astronauts are in a craft that wouldn't have a hope of getting home, or surviving re-entry. The upside is that only one Saturn V is needed per mission, and the lander can be tiny and agile. LOR was the mission plan chosen to bring men to the Moon.

I know I'm delving into sci-fi here, but in the Mars Trilogy, the vehicle that takes the first 100 colonists to Mars is constructed in orbit, Mainly from Space Shuttle external fuel tanks. This would've required an up scaled Shuttle program.

Have you ever had a big think to yourself, about what your dream game would be? A good idea just pops into your head, or you see an already great game, and you imagine something that would make it even better. If you've ever had one, way not share it here. Maybe someone can tell you of a game they know of that matches your idea? We can agree that would be good for everyone, you get to play a game you like, and talented games designers get a wage. Since this is the Kerbal Space Program forums, the first entry should be a space game. IHAGGI: Think Buzz Aldrin's race into space, but more so. While BARIS was a great idea, it was limited by the computing technology of the day, and was rather simple by today's standards. For a "simple" game, it was also really difficult, even unfair. The most complicated missions had such a low chance of succeeding, it was equivalent to, shall we say, "pissing in the wind". There is always an uncertainty in space travel, but men got to the Moon with good training and solid engineering, not blind luck. The setting is similar: as the head of NASA or OKB-1, circa 1945-1975, you must put a man on the Moon and return him back to the Earth, before your rivals on the opposite side of the world. To do more stuff, you need to have support from the government. To get that support, you need prestige, which you get from successful missions, particularly "firsts", like first satellite, first man in space etc. This game goes much more in-depth than BARIS, in which the biggest choice was "direct ascent" or "lunar orbit rendezvous". This game is an unprecedented love letter to the history of the space race, where every proposed technology and mission profile with an the realm of sanity is available to be used. You have to decide who develops and tests the necessary equipment, and you make the big decisions. "Alright, we have to send men into Lunar orbit by the end of the year, do we do a simple free-return trajectory (safer, but less prestige and smaller safety bonus to Main engine) or a Lunar orbit insertion (more dangerous, more prestige and large safety bonus to Main engine)." Do try to rush for prestige like the Soviets, in the hope of riding the wave of support to do the big mission soon, risking the lives of the astronauts/cosmonauts, or do it the NASA way, slow incremental steps to make the trip as safe as possible? Leave your good game ideas down below!

Banned for not having a witty signature.

Historically, governments have funded the initial "daring first step" in the exploration and exploitation of other parts of the world, since only they had the resources to spare for said first step. The Moon is likely to be the same, or even requiring the cooperative efforts of governments, businesses, and universities to make the initial investment. Cooperation means specialisation, and less duplication (Canada doesn't need to build a Moon rocket to employ it's expertise on space robots.), which means less money is spent. As infrastructure is built, systems become standardised, and costs go down, smaller groups can "do their stuff" on Lunar surface.

ESA (European Space Agency) has recently begun a €1,000,000 study on how Skylon, a design for a SSTO launch vehicle from the folks at Reaction Engines Ltd, might be able to service Europe's space activity in the early 2020s. ThalesAlenia Space in Italy will design the Skylon upper stage (a fuel tank with an engine that will be fitted to a satellite to push it into a higher orbit.), Qinectiq Space in Belgium will be studying what forms of payload carriers (space crates) to put in the payload bay, London Economics in... London, will prepare the business model for Skylon (it's hard to assess the economic impact of a vehicle straight from Thunderbirds.), and Grafton Technology will be seeing how Skylon can fit into the Spaceport in Kourou. The study should be finished by the end of the year. This by no measure means that ESA is completely on-board with using Skylon, but spending a million euro studying how to use it is a good sign. I wish Reaction Engines the best of luck. They'll go through with flying colours! http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_updates.html

This sounds like an interesting thing to do, should be in stock. I had made a similar suggestion a month ago about Kerbals taking out and deploying experiments. If you don't mind the obnoxious self-plugging, it's here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/39793-ALSEP-Long-term-scientific-legacy-of-manned-missions