KASASpace

It would be pretty cool, and maybe some hand held cameras for Kerbals?

And maybe some SRBs that actually have realistic burn times? I mean that the SRBs in-game bun out too fast to be recovered. I would like to recover them, so I could make a cheaper space program.

So, I was thinking, what if cameras could be added? Maybe they could work something like this: 1. For every picture of a biome, you get science 2. If more biomes are in a picture, the more science 3. the farther away, the less science (per biome) 4. Pictures on surface are good if they have certain features in them (like the lander, a crater, a Mun Arch) 5. Pictures of space are good if it is of another spacecraft and/or smaller body 6. Certain pictures of something like a space station will add publicity 7. And better cameras and telescopes later on So, what do you think? And maybe there could be an archive in the R&D building.

I emant in a closed-loop, separate from the main system. TO test if it has any effects on animals if it is a closed loop involvig plants. As a test for humans in a closed loop. And did I mention hydroponics? Or did they use soil in space? I was talking about scaling it up so the ISS can be less dependent of the Earth.

I would seperate it from the bureaucrats. Then I would give NASA a "go do this" budget to get the hardware, added on to the budget they already have. After that, I would give them the ability to take donations. As well as increase the demand for space launches, allowing for the mass-production of launch vehicles and reduction of prices.

I would start investigating orbital Hydroponics, and have few modules, including but not limited to: 1. Transhab 2. Centrifuge 3. Raw material manufacturing (to test if orbital factories could actually be a possibility in the future) 4. Hydroponics Bay ( to grow food and recycle oxygen) And all in an attempted closed-cycle life support system, separate from the main ISS system.

Well, my idea is that it's in the tweakables, but special tweaks unlocked through the tech tree. Maybe if you don't have those tweaks it just removes them?

This is good.......

Now, this would actualyl be kinda cool, like in IRL, meaning that a Low Kerbin Orbit Space Station would be useful, because you could swap out the experiments and process it through the lab. I like this. It adds meaning to Logistics Craft. The Devs need to see this......

To the subject about sharing with others: Well not necessarily, it could be a variable within the part cache that's activated on this ship only, and plus, the smae kind of thing happens with the tech tree, so maybe it can be done. As far as I know. I posted something like this before, but no one was as excited about it;.; Here's the page: http://http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61269-Part-Upgrades

I would think that it should really be like this: 1. You go to mission control to look for contracts 2. You find a contract to land on the Mun 3. You give an estimated budget with a maximum number (to lessen "cheating") 4. You now have three sub-budgets, development, actual mission, and the misc. budget, if going overbudget for other two, misc helps out 5. Now, you have to have at least ONE successful test flight (things work, doesn't have to get to said destination) 6. Now, if flight was successful, and you can do good stuff with the money you have to handle (good rep) you get a budget to engage the mission 7. Now, you do the mission, land on the Mun. But there are other goals you can add too 8. Now, if you get back, and have a complete success, your rep is increased, and more contract "slots" are available 9. I mean that you should be able to have more than one contract at a time, but a limited number, and you use separate funds depending on the craft 10. Now, once you have enough rep, you can start a research budget, this will allow for part upgrades later on, giving better stats to rockets 11. When you start a "program" to accomplish multiple things, you have to set a schedule and a time period that it will last(this is not a mission, it is a long list of missions) 12. these programs require "proof of concepts" which are paid for with the research budget. once go ahead is given, you can begin building a large spacecraft in orbit to go to duna or something Of course, that's only SOME of the stuff I have up my sleeve!

Okay, to the author of this thread, I have a question: You said that science is grindy, which I assume you mean is slow. So, the solution you've come up with is making the only way to transmit science being through a lab, as well as increasing the prices of science nodes and decreasing actual value of experiments? You do realize that this will only make it more slow, right? The science lab is hard to get off the ground, so less experienced players would have to spend more time to get it off the ground, time which they could use to go to the smae biome over and over again to get more science. increasing the cost and decreasing the value is basically SCIENCE INFLATION! That would ruin the kerbal science economy. So, congrats. You have ruined the science economy of the kerbals and have also accomplished the exact opposite of what you where trying to achieve.

Sorry, but I have to do this: Space shuttle had ejection seats. THEN NOTHING. And btw, gemini had the retro rockets to escape with, underneath the capsule.

No one here is thinking of amortizing the costs, are they? For example: The first cars were extremely expensive, until good old Henry Ford began using the assembly line to make it cheaper. Why not the same for space............

Okay, here's what should be done: 1. Cancel SLS before it dies a slow and painful death 2. Retire the VAB at the KSC and dismantle it 3. Build a horizontal VAB at KSC 4. Build a factory for mass-production of modular EELV rockets (IE Atlas V) 5. Begin making deals with contractors for mass-production 6. In order for high demand to meet that mass-production, begin the biggest space program ever: SETTLING, on the MOON. P.S. You know, it's funny. I mean we had the technology to get a man into space in 1948, and the tech to get a man on the moon in 1959. We just didn't use it.......

Umm, vernier thrusters? But seriously, it's nor really particle friction, it's atmo friction. Because the atmosphere still reaches so high into space, it's actually kind of difficult to just get out of the atmosphere, where you'd start running into the Van Allen belts, if I remember correctly. And that is a serious threat to radiation sensitive cargo, IE, humans, or other animals.

Umm, are we forgetting that we could have a centrifuge that isn't a whole circle? Maybe three modules, each being suspended by steal cables, that retract and start spinning. Now, I don't know what the optimum distance for 1 g is, but it would be far from the center, so that the angular momentum is felt less.

Gemini. It was the best spacecraft ever designed. It was so versatile that it could have gone to the moon cheaper than the Apollo program, and by 1967, or even late 66. It was cheap, effective, and got the job done. It was the biggest mistake to throw it away like garbage, stupid Apollo requirements. Specifically designed so Gemini couldn't qualify. On;y 1 ton and 1 crew slot short.

Oh, I've seen this before. I think. So, instead of actually building a huge interstellar spacecraft, I would just retreat to a safe distance, with a nuclear pulse propelled spacecraft. Along wit ha huge hydroponic farm and maybe a few million people.

So, I was thinking, a lot of people say that we shouldn't go to space, that it isn't worth it. And some guy on the forums said that exploration is not natural. But, maybe instead of exploring or getting information on things, we have to go for survival. Think about it, eventually there will not be enough farms on earth to keep everyone fed, by about 2055 or so:(. So, maybe before then, we could have a huge space expansion. Perhaps gigantic farms, many cubic kilometers, in high orbits over earth. Utilizing artificial heating and lighting methods combined with hydroponics, hundreds of tons of crops can be grown, IN SPACE! This is perhaps the only way to sustain ourselves. I don't want us to stagnate as a race. This isn't about a race or anything, this about human survival. Food is a necessity. What about water? Other places have water, for example, Luna (the Earth's moon) has water, in the form of ice. But, this would cost trillions, perhaps quadrillions of dollars. But it isn't about profits, it's about SURVIVAL. Now, here's my question to you guys: What reason is there for expansion into space? Post your ideas here!

You do realize that Energia give 5 tiem the payload of Proton, more or less, right? Now, do you realize that if scramjets have bad TWR, than so would a normal jet. You see, the Vespucci effect can be utilized to accelerate the to mach 2 at mach 0.7. So, use an epic solid rocket to get to that speed and bring up an RL-10, weighs about 600 lbs. YOu might want to look it up.

I think that their should be a sort of research that you can do on the ground. That is funded. Like an R&D budget, which over time converts the budget to science points, but it takes a loooooooonng time. As well as determining the efficiency of the science gathered in a mission, the higher the science budget, the more science, to a degree. Well, and maybe something like this: 1. You go to R&D building 2. Scientists notice something cool or an improvement to parts that can be made 3. You go to the gov building to get a preliminary budget for "proof-of-concepts" 4. If proven, full funding is given 5. If not, then it will be harder later, so, you need a decent science budget for upgraded parts. (IE better Isp for LV-909, fuel capacity upgrade for fuel tanks, etc) 6. If something "cool" is discovered you do similar thing, requiring a decent science budget, and then missions to go to the new place or the place already known about are funded. Like, if an astronomer discovered another gas-planet, and you wanted to go there with a budget of well over a few millions kerbbucks, you go to said planet and get a reward, a bigger budget for exploration.

Are we forgetting that scramjets have gotten planes to Mach 12? Which is 11,000 mph, or only then you need 6,000 mph to gain with rockets, not counting drag.

Do you even no about Energia? about 100 tons to orbit, weight of shuttle is over 100 tons, cargo to orbit for shuttle was 30 tons.......

The way I see it, stations will only have two uses, and now, only 1 is in play. The uses are: 1. Long term science with lab over a celestial body with multiple biomes but is easy to take off from (IE Minmus) 2. Cheaper Interplanetary missions, which requires the money system and resources (fuel, other stuff, etc.) to be mined from said celestial body