KASASpace

Wait wait wait. So, if a laser damages by heat buildup, then wouldn't the ship with a higher capacity for heat buildup win? So, why not have a crap ton of large heatsinks, connected to the outer extremities of the craft via a heat conductive material and having a few heat sinks near the extremities.

Excuse me? Break logic? 2 weeks is better than 6 months! Less radiation, not much of a storm shelter, less life support. Sure, it would take quite a while to build the system to get there, but with what we have, we can build the SHIP, just not the engine. It's actually more hypothetical, too.

1.) Why me? 2.)Where's the engines? 3.)Can I have access to your technology? Yep, they pretty much explain it. OR 1.) How in Kerbol's name did you get here? Response is: You know of Kerbol? 2.) Wait, are you....... Kerbals? Response is : Yes, we are, we are using a universal translating device like the one on that Star Trek show you guys have, when we first intercepted it, we got real excited! 3.) Where is Jeb? (or, basically saying, take me to your leader)

Actually, one time Hubble looked into an empty space that is empty to the naked eye, and found hundreds of galaxies. That gives more of a sense of scale to me.

I prefer sleeper ships, like in Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series, where aliens attack earth in 1942, using fusion and hibernation tech to get here from Tau Ceti, ~12 ly from Sol. Send a small fleet, each ship landing in one general location, but being used as production facilities at first, and then getting cannibalized for parts. Of course, now we need that planet.......

Okay, maybe not the environments sounds, but it might help with seeds and root transport, as Kasuha mentioned.

Actually, not. If you have a trailer system, you can just flip the engines, not with rotors or anything, but like how the Soyuz rotates its solar panels, thrusters. Of course, probably a tractor trailer system, so it would be better.

Yes, I have played. I say its shocking because it proves that things aren't that far. And plus, there is no limiting factor, there are MULTIPLE limiting factors. Now get your facts straight. You have Isp, mass ratio, and the fuel you're using (determines the actual SIZE of the ship). Now, XTs are Shuttle external tanks, and I mean quite a few, at least five, powered by an engine with 1500 to 3000 Isp. TWR matters because in this scenario it is constant acceleration, with a TWR of 10/322. 0.3048 meters per second per second. Not fast, but like an Ion engine it builds up over time, so you get there quickly.

I'm saying even with a TWR of 10/322, you can get to Mars in just over 2 weeks, I discovered this quite recently, and due to the best part of rockets: TWR increases over time. So you would actually get there much much faster with it on one throttle setting. Now, on to the ship, I was thinking something the size of a few XTs powered by a Nuclear Lightbulb.

I'm no expert, but: 1.) deploy vehicles to create water from the CO2 in atmosphere and H2 stored onboard 2.) crash a bunch of stuff on Mars, it needs more mass to have a thin atmosphere 3.)send a setup crew to setup the first bases 4.) create farmhouses, with classical music playing for some plants (it could actually increase growth and Oxygen production) 5.) use beamed power from orbit to power the most power-demanding facilities (like if you "magnetized" it) 6.) slowly convert the amount of CO2 and Nitrogen, however this might need nuclear reactions (hence the beam-power) Of course, I am not an expert, anything I got wrong or missed just clarify.

So, using modern technologies it would take quite a while to get to Mars...... However at constant acceleration, even at 1 foot per second per second, you can get there within a month. Now, this equation assumes Uniform forces, which I know is not true, but it is close. d is distance g is acceleration t is time According to the equation d=1/2gt^2 we can solve for time: (2d/g)^1/2=t Now, assuming that Mars is at its closest distance, which is more or less 35 million miles, we can discover how long it takes at 1 foot per second per second. However, we must convert miles to feet first. Multiply 35,000,000 by 5,280, than by 2. 35,000,000 * 5280 = 184,800,000,000. 184,800,000,000 * 2 =369,600,000,000. Since acceleration is 1, just leave it alone. Find the square root.... ~607947.3661428265 Now, divide by 86,400. You get about 7. That's only counting acceleration, no deceleration. So you need to multiply it by 2, but it is a little bit over that.... 2 weeks to our neighbor!

So, I heard somewhere that some people did a study on plant growth, and found that plants that have at least sounds of the natural habitat actually grew better. I have no idea if this is true, so could someone bring me up on this? It would be helpful on a trip out to Mars....

Well, they're similar. It's in a way like how Perfect Conductors aren't Superconductors. A Perfect Conudctor has a magnetic flux of nonzero OR zero, whereas Superconductors is zero. Change direction to ANY direction, not sent back in the same general direction like mirrors when facing straight.

Actually no. Deflect means change direction in this context, whereas reflect means to send it back in the same general direction in this context.

Well, a few of them, not counting private ventures, and us not planning for shuttle's cancellation since the 80s (we should have, we(USA) would actually be in space!) Russia wasted time a lot while NASA was driving forward in a sprint.

No no. Just little upgrades. Like tiny parts and tweakables.

Actually, the IRL NERVA has a TWR of just over 1. Like 75,000 lb of thrust while weighing 74,999 Lbs. The good ones that is. Maybe the Kiwi reactor. They did make a bunch of them.

Well, maybe in the VSB you can make changes to the vehicle. Like in IRL they upgraded the Shuttles after the fact. So, why not here?

Maybe at first, like if you have a bigger capsule they do experiments that require two people.

Well, I haven't built a solar sail, so you may be right about that. Reflect and deflect are not the same thing. In the case of light/lasers there is a difference. Deflect changes course, but reflect shoots it back in the same general direction.

It's been theorized that the immense pressures would create solid Hydrogen. So that seems most likely.

My regrets? A fairly long list. 1. Got rid of Gemini. No examples for future use, either. With only a few improvements over the course from 1966 to 1969 it would have been greater than Soyuz is now. 2. Not enough funding. Seriously, why does Congress do that? 3. Gov controlled space programs. These are inspired by the need to beat everyone else, not exploration. 4. No modular rockets in use today. Saturn 1 was a great example. Jupiter tank and redstone tanks on the first stage. Beautiful. And OTRAG would've been amazing. 5. Not using Orion. Even for upper stages! It would've brought us to MARS in 1970. 6. Actually trying to go and build SLS. Really, NASA? Build a modular rocket and build the ships in LEO. 7. No continued presence on the Moon after 1972. Relates to Problem number 3. 8. Too many meetings. That's about half of them.

Wait, is this essentially a nuclear ramjet minus the nuclear reactor plus the rocket engine? If so, you could get extra thrust, but no necessarily more Isp, probably less total Dv. That's because of the equation used to calculate multiple Isp's. It's complicated, but you would get less D-v in your rocket. Might not be a good idea. Unless you had a horrible rocket Isp, then it could improve chances.

What would you want powering your rocket? Solar sails, ion drives, NERVAs, chemical engines, *fusion*? Lasers? Or, better yet, *antimatter*? Put asterisk(*) if tech hasn't been invented. Please put a reason why you would choose that drive. My choice: Chemical engines. The technology has been proven and we humans have a lot of experience dealing with them.

I think we need to deflect the lasers, rather than reflect. So steep sides akin to the F-117, although probably some kind of mirror-esque material.