AngelLestat

Argentina! With our Tronador Rocket. 200 tons to low polar orbit. I mean 200kg... And is not ready yet But if we have 200 kg, then we can sent 50kg to mars, then we can go back with a grain of sand and win the race. muahaha..

You have more ISP with hydrogen.. but how much hydrogen mass you can have in a fixed tank volume? If I am in space aside an asteroid, I would have more deltaV if I full the tank with water than with hydrogen, (that is my opinion, I never thought much about it) Of course if you launch the rocket from earth surface, and your second or third stage is your nuclear thermal rocket, then is always better hydrogen. The same than any chemical engine.

For nuclear thermal many things would work.. just water for example..

Ok, I made some calculations, and even if we extract only 120kg of sulfuric acid by day, we have enoght rocket fuel in just 1 year. And I really doubt that the manned mission may be ready so fast after the unmmaned. Methods to get rocket fuel in situ: 1- We carry few kg of H2 from earth, we combine with the Venus CO2 to produce methane / LOx. Sabatier reaction, CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O, Oxygen is liberated from the water by electrolysis, and the hydrogen recycled back into the Sabatier reaction. 2- LH2 / LOx from the sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid concentration vary from 60% to 85%, so we have 30% water already that is easy to get If we chill or heat, because sulfuric acid freezing point is 10c and boiling point is 350c, the heat option may be efficient if we use the external heat 75c and rise it 25c to vapor the water. We can also use electrolysis which would need very few power because h2so4 is already an electrolyte. I am not sure what is the best (low energy requirement) method to get hydrogen and oxygen from H2SO4. Hard to find any info when the reverse reaction is so popular at earth. Here are some links that explain a bit more about ISRU in Venus: http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venus-isru-what-do-we-have-to-work-with/comment-page-1/ http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/12/venus-isru-condenseables/ http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/12/venus-isru-isru-development-phases/ ------------------------------------------------------------- Lets remember the mission phases: Phase 1: Robotic Exploration / Phase 2: 30-day Crew to Orbit / Phase 3: 30-day Crew to Atmosphere / Phase 4: 1-year Crew to Atmosphere / Phase 5: Permanent Human Presence We know that they also considered ISRU but they discarded due "Atmospheric rendezvous is challenging for early missions" and "No abort options during rendezvous (cannot ascend to TEI stage)" So the key factors to improve this mission would be: a) Better energy management and storage to all exploration vehicles, this include the use of a KITE to counter the meridional winds, remplace helium by hydrogen, and remplace much of the battery weight with a fuel cell / electrolysis cycle. Change the mission arquitecture to avoid carry the fuel needed to launch from the clouds doing ISRU and remplace the 300 days travel return by 100 days. We can have "a" without "b", but not vice versa. The new HAVOC architecture might be: Phase 1: Robotic Exploration / Phase 2: Unmanned Vehicle with ISRU / Phase 3: 30-day Crew in Orbit / Phase 4: 1-year Crew to Atmosphere / Phase 5: Permanent Human Presence Phase 1: Is a small robotic version of the manned vehicle but without the rocket. It will have fuel cell cycle and KITE (this also work to test the design) Phase 2: A robotic normal size copy of the manned vehicle, this would do ISRU using the same rocket to storage the O2 and LH2/Methane. Phase 3: 1 or 2 years later, humans arrive to venus with the transfer vehicle that already has enoght fuel to go back from venus orbit, in LEO is waiting a copy of the unmanned ISRU, after 1 month in orbit --> Phase 4: the crew board the blimp and get down to the atmosphere. They proceed with Atmospheric Rendezvous, transfer fuel to their rocket, or in case of problems use the unmanned vehicle rocket. After that, the other vehicle continue ISRU (both can). They explore by 1 year, then rise again to LVO, board the transfer vehicle, and proceed with the 100 day return transfer to earth. (during the rocket ascent to LEO, they can abort in case something happens, the capsule is ejected, a ballon would inflate, and they would wait for the unmanned blimp reach them to try again.) Phase 5: They already had 2 unmmaned vehicles exploring (1 doing ISRU with a rocket ready) to help in the deployment of a permanent outpost. Not sure how much cost reductions with get in this case. I am sure that it may be a better way to design these phases. Some ideas?

@tetryds Not sure about the debug, but I saw the cfg with all the atmosphere parameters. The problem tweaking that is that you also change atmospheric fly which it work fine in stock. In a logic world SQUAD should paid Ferram for its work and be able to use and modify his code to match it in their tiny universe. But I saw as SQUAD keeps ignoring real solar cells aspects, ion engines, science-economics logic procedures, etc. So the only that I check lately are new mods advances. The problem is that they stop working each time that squads updates KSP.

of course you can push them, gas particles also has momentum, you have a pressure inside the star, all that mass that ends behind has gravity effects over the same star, photons also carry momentum, magnetic fields and charge in particles, etc...

the amount of matter expelled (is about 10 to 40 solar masses) at higher speeds, that is enoght to make a big push. Also any "atmosphere" lost in both stars may be recaptured. Of course the dwarf example sounds more plausible.

@blowfish: Already in use. @taniwha:That is not the case, you need to read my first post to understand.

but is weird that they are happy with a theory that does not explain why they explode years ago. Maybe this system is too young, they was not a binary system before the explossion take place.. Lets imagine 2 starts in a collission route (or close enoght to had an intersecction between their corona), that kind of encounter may produce this huge explossions. That encounter could slow down both starts enoght to make them binary, but the huge explossion also push them against each other in their periastron (we can see that the explossion are kinda collimated in 2 jet streams) It said that the periastron they have now is about the distance between sun and mars. That is very close for 2 massive stars like these.

Ok, of course I will respect your opinion. I understand it. But why you said that is not real for me? I know that is real if we play with RSS. But the kerbin universe gets some gameplay benefics with 1/10x scales. Thrust, dry mass and many aspects are made it to try to get a similar rocket experience at those scales.. The stock aerodynamic total fail in try to match reality because they dont know what you know. But if someone wants to get similar aerodynamic effects at these scales like if it was earth size.. then the only way is change a bit the real aerodynamics effects. But yes, may bring different behaviors in some other aspects. But the true is... I guess that squad would never improve it. well, thanks again for your awesome mods.

Ferram: I like some of the changes that KIDS adds, but to "fix" FAR in stock game reducing ISP in atmo, just improve some aspects impacting negatively in others. It can not be a way to adjust parameters or the aerodynamics formules used in FAR to match similar atmosphere effects for kerbin scales? For example, we have Shape-Based Aerodynamics which is one of the 5 effect that you describe. "Tall rockets good; pancake rockets bad.". Maybe (from ignorance) if the drag value calculated for certain craft is X, then in stock game would be X with a multiplier. But this multiplier decrease depending on our climb angle, to avoid change airplane behaviors. Also increasing the drag due speed (even more) may help. So those effect "in theory" would help to counter the lack of drag due the small size of rockets from ksp compared to real rockets, the lower speed required and the lower amount on time experiencing these effects on the atmosphere. May work?

Ok, I was not sure, because there are mods that are not affected by updates, Thanks.

Ok, here it is the HAVOC PDF ready to download and easy to see (I will post it in the first page too) https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5gu06h0u7n7v66/HAVOC-Final-Outbrief-General-pdf.pdf?dl=0 The lack of hydrogen is the biggest problem of Venus in my opinion. This does not mean that we can not do ISRU, it only means that it would not be so energy/efficient as might be in different moons/planets. (In mars or the moon, is not so easy either, far from the poles the water is too stuck in dirt and if you try to heat it would sublime into vapor without liquid phase) Scientist already believe that venus is in equilibrium with respect to hydrogen lost by atmosphere erossion which is compensate due constant asteroids and matter that falls to the planet. About the amount of water is 15000 km3, almost the same that earth atmosphere, with the difference that it is 90 times thicker. Another option is to make fuel using the CO2, that is the main objective in mars ISRU, but in venus it would be much easier due presssure. Yeah that might work, maybe with a damping mechanism against any possible turbulance.It can be a tunnel to the gondola inside the envelope using the same blimp material in case envelope docking prove to be safer. But the main reason to "dock" is to get the fuel harvested by the drone. So maybe a hose (like the one use it to refuel airplanes in air) may work. In case of emergency that we need extract another equipment from the drone, we may have a more risky """docking""" procedure to that case. The weight-energy density of batteries is about 1/20 that of gasoline and about 1/10 that of hydrogen (because small pressurized tanks have a bad weight-volume ratio), But the true is if we have a big hydrogen tank, then we would have much more energy density than gasoline. Hydrogen (compressed) 142 MJ/kg Gasoil/Diesel/gasoline close to 47 MJ/kg Lithium-ion battery less than 1 MJ/kg I dint did the right calculations yet because I am not sure to understand the KWe unit used in the PDF. That is an "USA unit" not very common used in the rest of the world. I guess is almost the same that KVA for mostly all cases. But not sure yet. About the inverter, I also thought about that. But there are many Pros with AC engines against DC when we are talking of big powers. Take the electric cars example, it does not matter if they use just batteries or fuel cell, they always use a AC motor. The same for electric airplanes, etc. Lost in efficiency plus weight of the inverter is not enoght to counter the cons of DC motors (also more dangerous). Yes but if we compare the mass of hydrogen that we need to inflate the blimp vs the LOH mass to launch, then we have 6000kg Vs 60000kg. 60 to 1. So if we can carry only the hydrogen to inflate the blimp, we would have a 5 to 10 times cheaper mission (counting the extra drones blimps that you need to sent to harvester the fuel) Tantalum is better than gold and I guess cheaper to deal with acid in big concentrations and high temperatures. About your calculations... 2mt? What is 2mt? 2 metric tons? It can not be that number.. Yeah, I dont think that acid collecting would be so hard to do in the venus clouds, less for the low requirements of the mission, you also dont have limit of time to do it, you can harvester that in 1 year, that is enoght time no matter how difficult would be. But if we think into future with many colonies there. It will be hard to become economically self sustainable if you dont have easy access to water (which you need not just to survive, to produce any kind of product too) Maybe if there is a way to mine asteroids on LVO and "lowering the water somehow" to the colonies, then yes. I guess Venus has a great future over any other place. more things can go wrong in mars than venus. Also if we achieve to improve our climate models here at earth thanks to venus, then any accomplish that we might have in mars would not be so great and useful compared to this. Yeah, carbon is the best material, but that will be possible only with big colonies already there. You can 3d print small stuffs, but make a whole rocket.. sure not.

Yeah, I acknowledge that a normal docking port for those mass would not be easy to develop. But people does not need to cross them, we only need stage separators which act as docking port. Also a docking port may be difficult to develop, but then how much difficult and costly would be to develope and launch a new super heavy rocket? About KSP docking ports, they may be stronger to brake, but the minimun force and they bend.

I know that there is some assembling and structure difficulties. But real docking ports are not like KSP, they are strong, and you can make them bigger. There is not point to sent to orbit different stages in one constructed block. Of course that a mars ship has a lot on developing cost which makes the launch cost not so important. But the cost to develope a launch vehicle 2 times bigger than the new SLS.. seems not needed.

Nobody wants with BahamutoD permission maintain this mod? Looks awesome, It seems like a waste leave it die.

This mod has bugs in 0.90? Because after a time that I dont play KSP, I install like 12 mods, and in the first time that I try without EVE some bugs that I have seems to disappear. But I dint test it much yet. I have some bugs, kerbin half texture corrupt, my ship dissapear some times, etc. I play with the 32bit version.

Ok Radarman, just do it the best you can. if that means keep it simple, go for it. With the time, and maybe if you get some help, I guess it will be great to have a complete airship and hotair ballons procedural mod. About the animation, I guess the best approach will be create a new procedure box shape, which depending its volume it would generate a standard shape/volume blimp attached to that box, you can not attach things to the envelope, only to the box, and without buoyancy control. As in real life. So then you can separate standard procedure rigid airship structures (which you can attach things to the sides and able to control its buoyancy) from the inflatable blimps.

Good Job Bac9, I will try this mod over the previous Procedural Dynamics.

Lol, this mean at least 150 tons to mars. Which it means close to 250 tons to LEO? I dont understand why we can not just sent small stuffs and dock in orbit. But never mind.. This guy thinks in big. He will control the space industry in no time.

frozen place.. enceladus? Or europa? It seems that back then they also ignore venus as a good place to colonize. The concept that must be "surface" under our feet is too strong. Is not easy to think out of the box. Lately I hear Carl Sagan voice in lots of videos. Of course it does not bother me, he was my favorite scientist. The one who open my respect for science.

Thanks both, yeah I remember that second picture.. Using a magsail to decelerate there will take few months, from light speed to chemical propulsion speeds.

beautiful, it does not said any other detail about the picture? Sky coordinates, or exposure time, magnitud, etc?

EDIT: already post it

damm, no again...