KASASpace

What's the Delta V Heavy? Are you confusing the Delta IV with the Atlas V? Or is this something far more sinister?

THis looks to me to be of the wrong scale. For one thing, the Mercury capsule is not one fifteenth the length of the shuttle, and Soyuz is much smaller.

Really? Okay. Lasers generate heat, you need a coolant of some kind (hence "gas") and/or radiator (a lot of them) I messed it up? Either way a nuclear "bomb" goes through a nuclear reaction just as a nuclear "reactor." It is a shaped charge, and is an outgrowth of Orion. And by "mini" I meant that it doesn't need to have the full effect as to vaporize a small missile, you could use less than 100 pounds of Plutonium. Or, maybe, more efficient nuclear reactions can be made (by the time we expand to space and start fighting in it, we should have this tech) and thus get smaller, like 25 pounds, and considering Plutonium is very dense, this would be an effective "mini casaba howitzer." And Orion's nuclear pulse drive used very small warheads, that can shoot a lot of tungsten onto the (hopefully ablative) plate.

Electromagnetic fields. Why? Because if you can alter the laser's path enough, you could essentially dodge it by activating the field. Earth's field already renders lasers a pretty much useless weapon, not to mention it requires gases that are expelling colloquially. So, not only do you need a bunch of power, but a bunch of gas. As an anti-missile system I would go with some sort of mini casaba howitzer. It uses a nuclear reaction to heat a material into a plasma and ejects it in a certain direction. THis is good for vaporizing targets at medium range.

This is a good idea, but it needs to be ironed out. How would you maintain the constant Martian Stations? You would need a very capable detection system, to find problems. Then you would have to wait until the launch window to fix it. Thus delaying the manned mission, not to mention that the actual stuff has to get there, and the most efficient rockets we have ever built were NERVAs, allowing for more cargo with the same amount of fuel. But, still, not bad, and needs to be ironed out.

In orbit, eh? Well, wait, if the reactor can go supercritical while in orbit, then it can be a nuclear weapon. Now, by nuclear I mean involving the reaction on the atomic level of the atoms that make up a material which causes it to release energy. Now, when it goes critical, it's "controlled", however, a meltdown is not going supercritical. anyone who thinks it won't go BOOM is dumb, sure, it releases radiation, but that IONIZES the particles of the ship, which isn't exactly dangerous, but the rays would damage everything, and the reactor would be gone., if it goes supercritical, your toast, your cargo is toast, and your rep is toast. All that money, gone to waist. Now, the Soviets had a space program wrapped in secrecy, unlike ours. So, they got away with it. And it's not like it can be enforced. It's just there.

Launch Dates? Before 1967, when the agreement was signed, the USA detonated a nuke in space. And it doesn't matter the "definition" of Nuclear Weapons. Reactors or not, it handles nuclear material and has the possibilty to "go critical" and what if the Nerva stayed on after aburn, no coolant, and BOOM. And "weapon" could mean anything, "nuclear" denotes to it involving nuclear forces. So, if I put a "reactor" into space and it exploded, then I would get blamed, and it would violate the Space Act. Other countries might assume it was intentional, and that it was a weapon, of the nuclear type. Thus violating the Space Act and getting me into serious trouble. And if you want to go into solid nuclear terms, than replace "critical" in this post with "super-critical"

http://history.nasa.gov/1967treaty.html Article IV It says weapons, but anything that undergoes a nuclear reaction can be used as a weapon. And Orion uses actual Nukes, and NERVA could "accidentally" go critical. And let-alone the political reasons, if it goes critical then the USA, if the USA launched it, would be responsible. I would do it if other countries didn't mention this treaty and say, "It can be used as a weapon!"

Guys, the Space Act says you can't put anything nuclear in space. Not a NERVA, not an Orion, no nuclear reactions. Nadda, zip. You would have to wait till AT LEAST 2038 till you can get enough people to accept that it's okay to launch NERVA, but, wait, deadline! So, I would use LH2/Fluorine, but only in space. Of course it's expensive, but I wouldn't need a HUGE base/colony. And I would use Falcon Heavy Launch Vehicle, as well. Coupled with Angara.

Not half bad. Actually, not 3/4 bad, or should it 1/4 bad? Whatever. Good job, though. I don't use mods as much, however.

Well, hear are the probs: 1. Burning "down" 2. explosions 3. Recoil Possible Explanations: 1. perhaps the rods use a more advanced technology to allow for such a huge amount of D-v (Ie, high velocity plasma thusters) 2. eventually all of the particles that are "reactive" will have "reacted" so thus not all of the oxygen is burned (otherwise we'ed be dead here on Earth) 3. Perhaps, using some sort of counter thruster you can counter the recoil and finally, guys, it's an alternate HISTORY situation, so, these things "can" happen (only stuff I mentioned)

That's a good idea, the mission-specific parts. Like only a certain type of engine for getting a rover to Duna or something, and only certain cores and whatnot.

Not to be offensive, but I don't think this idea is entirely good. Telescopes in general is good. But, it shouldn't cost science. In fact, you should start with a fairly powerful one. After all, Galileo saw Jupiter and two of it's moons with a fairly small telescope. Roentgen discovered Neptune's moons (at least) with a back yard telescope. So, no science costs, and should start with a decent one.

I think he means lower the stats, so the upgrades make it the final version.

Well, I meant per part per ship. like on one ship, there's a "tweak" that changes how much Isp the engine gets, but htere's a downside. I see tweaks as changes to performance or perhaps changes to the part itself. Like making an LV-909 lighter and more efficient, but reducing thrust and increasing cost, but this would be a variable "expander cycle" which when activated changes the specs, but it is activated through the tweakables system, but they're unlockable tweaks.

Well, the best thing to do would be to collaborate with ESA and the RSA to create a common launch vehicle (CLV). Why? To reduce average launch costs. I would base it off of current EELV tech as well as Angara, and Ariane 5. It should use common materials, that way everyone can make it. The plan would be to mass-produce the cores, and that these cores could be used as boosters perhaps with cross-feed. We could use the RD-180, an off-the-shelf component that costs about 11 million dollars per engine. Much cheaper than other engines. A semi-rigid structure for the Core, which would be "inflated" to get more structurally sound, like the Centaur and the original Atlas. This makes the entire thing much much lighter and even easier to build, reducing costs. Perhaps if this is done soon, we can actually get some sort of a rocket by 2020. The cost would be amortized, reducing the launch costs to less than 100 million dollars, which is affordable even for NASA.

How about canceling SLS, what if it gets canceled? I would just cancel it and start working with ESA and try to coordinate to creat a common launch vehicle (CLV). This would be based on the Ariane 5, or perhaps the Falcon 9, maybe Atlas 5? This would allow for flexible designs ranging from 9 metric tons to 30 metric tons, thus allowing for the construction of an orbital vehicle to go to Mars/Moon. No heavy launchers! And I would also accelerate the CCDev program, and try to persuade congress to accept an increase in budget to about 30 billion (double what I would start with). I would also help the ESA with a manned program, and get the RSA in on the CLV. I woud promote mass-production of CLV components to allow for amortization of the costs, as well as 3D printing, to get some rapid prototyping in.

Umm, what if I designed a Heli that can take 45 tons all around the world, with a crew of 8. This would mean I could take any payload beneath 45 tons anywhere on Kerbin, and 8 Kerbals at a time, as well. So, do YOU or anyone think that is the most you need.

In my opinion I think it should be more of a RESEARCH system, like currently in War Thunder, but smaller. Like if you gather some science over the Mun, that gives Research points, which can go into some categories for different things, like Aerodynamics, Engines, Fuel Tanks, Structure, and crew pods and what not. So you select a thing to research, and the points you get from flying automatically go in there when recovered/transmitted. If you got more RP than you needed, you select something else to research. So, it would be different than now, but it would at least make some sense.

Umm, not to be a layman, but: Struts? Or maybe two connection points? No, the part hierarchy wouldn't make that easy....... Maybe if they added struts that are place able by Kerbals like in KAS, it could be used to return Satellites?

Well, Laythe is cold, so Kerbals probably wouldn't want to take off their suits. Although I would like to see a Hydroponics BAY!

I'm quite sure they said they weren't going to swap. They already did so much, and it would just take another 6 months to switch, bare minimum, without Career implementation. Cause the file system would have to be reworked depending on the engine.

Well, really I just want cameras, cause it would be really cool, like screenshots, except you can use them for more rep. I just thought they could maybe give you like 20 to 50 science at a time, getting 75% science back with transmitting (problems with the photo, like getting grainy due to losses during transmission)

But really, in orbit over Kerbin, your moving at the speed of Kerbin around Kerbol. Meaning that if you exited Kerbin's SOI, you would be either going slower or faster than Kerbin itself.