KASASpace

So, which way of exploring Deep Space should we attempt: 1.) Build something akin to NAUTILUS-X 2.) Go DIRECT 3.) Start using in-space fabrication craft for ISRU I would say a combination of 1 and 3, but what do you guys propose? Any combo of the three will be a good answer. (Other options added by the community will be present eventually, as long as they make sense)

Actually, only the centrifuge should be spinning, the engine "bell" should be stationary.

Before it fails? How much acceleration will each piece of debris experience? Much more than Orion's LES can offer the capsule. Plus, you have all the fuel burning and the LOX burning itself and everything hitting the fan. All at once. A huge fireball. Bigger than even the smaller rockets (IE Delta) which have large explosions.

Yes, a PAD abort test. It is more probable that tons of debris will go flying towards the capsule faster than the capsule can accelerate away. The shuttle had two total launch failures. How is it going to be the safest? That's completely ridiculous. A HUGE explosion, as big if not bigger than a tactical nuclear warhead, is somehow safe? Yeah, PERFECTLY LOGICAL.

No, it would not be safer than the shuttle was. If you have a large rocket, with tons of fuel, literally tons, and the explosion is almost instant, 10 milliseconds will not be a good safety margin. Plus, what if the computer can't detect anything wrong? Yeah, I know it's fairly advanced and should do it, but from what I hear the software development is getting crappy treatment. And, who in their right mind would call SLS safe? The S-V wasn't even close to safe, but it was flown. Sure it had few problems, but that was because they actually had the money to do it right. Here, they have a shoestring budget and are trying to develop a huge rocket. Heck, every single Apollo lunar flight had an almost fatal problem. Apollo 11 almost got stranded on the moon. It was pure luck they happened to have a pen on the craft. Apollo 13 had a LOX tank rupture, but they pulled through, but BARELY. So, even if you manage to get Orion to LEO, it could still have safety issues. Not to mention waning political support will probably shut it down.

Some sort of 2-kerbal capsule. That and a better variety of engines. So far, we literally have two or three upper stage engines. SQUAD, I love you guys, but please, just add this. Even over many updates would be perfectly fine. Plus, as a side note, could the Poodle and LV-909 have longer engine bells? I mean, it's all out of sync here! The lower stages have higher length to diameter ratios for their engine bells, and the upper engines have lower ratios. So, I suggest flipping it around. This will be big and probably break many saves, but it adds a tiny bit to the realism.

Actually, I just remembered something: When playing a game that makes you think, IE CHESS, you actually get very much needed "brainercise" which helps a large amount to staying sane. So, YES. At least to chess-esque games.

YES. However, not too big. If too big, it might cause "space sickness" Basically, like seasickness, except completely different. although, some Zero-G sports would be awesome! Like Zero-G soccer. (I know it's not actually zero g!) Plus, it should probably have some semblance of home. Maybe even have plants inside that module. - - - Updated - - - I think they did use one in some space mission previously.

I know what happened to Challenger. But even so, something could, and, as one KSP'er has as a sig, "Do not take Murphy's Law in vain". That in mind, everything will go wrong. Everything. Eventually, at least. Which means: Once at least one, that's right, ONE multi-billion dollar LV goes up in flame with crew aboard, or even no crew, NASA dies. More than that, the USA would have no more space interest. Challenger was an Orbiter. It didn't have tons of LH2 sitting right beneath it with only a few tiny solids to pull it away. Now, think of this: If there are TONS of LH2 beneath you, with LOX as well (which can burn on itself!) than what would happen if it all goes up in flame? Let me ask you this as well: Have you seen Skip to around 19:03. That's a big explosion. Now, imagine that, except at least 10 times bigger. I would not want to ride a single one of those SLS'.

Smaller rocket, smaller explosion. After all, riding a rocket is just riding controlled explosions. Less controlled explosions needed, or less powerful ones, than the more safe it is. To go there, not living on there. No, it isn't. The corporations want money, so they increase the actual price required. If it did spur development, than why hasn't Lockheed built their own LV for their own uses, or for more commercial uses? Sure, big corporations can launch satellites, but what about the medium sized ones?

I'd rather ride a man-rated Falcon 9 or Atlas-V into Orbit, rendezvous with a craft such as NAUTILIUS-X built using EELVs and some Falcon Heavy launches (to get the heavy stuff). It's safer, and it doesn't require a massive LV, just a few mediums and maybe two to three heavy launches. Now, an LV like this would only be useful if you wanted a large fabrication facility. But even then, you could just launch an inflatable version, and launch the equipment afterwards. Oh, and: Inflatable Spacecraft for the WIN! I personally think it's what we should be focusing on, build a sort of Had module for Deep-Space, and not worrying about LVs. (for NASA, that is) And also, why does NASA absolutely have to contract out?

The only problem with this that I see, is that you would need some seriously strong materials for the Centrifuge. It has to have an Angular Velocity at the outer edge, of approximately 4.55 km/s to match up with RL-10s. But, that means you would need either a really big centrifuge, or a really strong. Perhaps both. And if done, I recommend Carbon-Nanotubes. - - - Updated - - - Adding mass.

Wow, double quote....... Okay, let me point this out right now: Even the Apollo LES wasn't guaranteed to save the crew, in fact, it was doubtful if it at all would. Small rockets work well with LES', but not HUGE ones. If the Orion capsule is more massive than the Apollo (which it IS) than more thrust is needed for the solids on the LES, and thus more weight. Plus, having a small nuclear bomb blast underneath you isn't the safest thing on the block.

Um, I said that the SLS will have a "stage". I did not say which one, apparently. The Core Stage is much longer than the S-IC, and while it may be not as wide, it more than makes up for it in length. Plus it has those SRBs, and I'm guessing it also has those O-Rings on them. Now, imagine Challenger, but with a bigger EXT, and an LH2 Upper Stage. Yeah, not a good idea.

Didn't you mention this previously?

Yeah, but KSP has time-warp. I wish IRL had that feature..... The manufacturers of the engines (IE the F-1) were ordered to keep the designs. They didn't really do that well at it. No, that's no where near the payload of the SLS. SLS will have an LH2 stage that will be just as big or bigger than the first stage of the S-V. Umm, not to be the contrary, but that was when NASA was heavily committed. Now, NASA has a shoestring budget, one flop, and it goes down the toilet. It's mainly a political thing. Plus, Apollo 1 was a capsule fire, not an LV explosion.

Well, part variants, like maybe an LV-909B that gets selected by right clicking the icon in the VAB/SPH, would be useful. Maybe like: LV-909B Isp (vac): 400 Isp (SL): 290 Thrust: 45 kN Mass: 0.4 That could be a variant unlocked further down the tech tree. It could cost the same, but it would have better stats in some ways and worse in others. Plus, this makes the rockets shareable, as upgrading parts threads have brought up, sharing would be an issue. Unless it was a different part, using the same model, but different stats. Maybe in the LV-909 config, there could be a second "section" for the LV-909B?

Very true. Especially Gemini VIII......... Very fateful mission that was, in fact, one of the crew members was quite important........

Like the original Atlas-Centaur. Now, Apollo 13 was a good launch, except for the second stage. The center engine's pogo got too intense, and it was pure luck the computer realized it last second. Now, Apollo 4 had only a few parts fail, that's 99.99% reliable. The Saturn I, on the other hand, has had, out of only 10 launches, no failures.

Gemini Cheap Small Light Effective And most important, It got the job done.

I say it's too idiotic. Let's look at it: It has taken a decade for the "finalized design" (counting Constellation, which is the disabled brother of the SLS) to even come out of hiding. And one launch every couple of years? Even the Saturn C-5 beat that, and it's payload was smaller, but it did a similar job. It took a few years for the Saturn 1 to take off, albeit with a dummy second stage. But it was there soon. Plus, we don't have the S-V anymore, no one knows how to build it. All the papers were lost. That's why they had to look at an old F-1 to do a study for F-1As. Now, this is a big waste of time building one huge rocket like this. Especially with an LH2 core stage. SERIOUSLY! That rocket alone could probably wipe out a decently sized town! And what if on the first launch (if it launches at all, I think it's going to get cancelled) it explodes. All the funding evaporates.

Yes, but it increased more after fire cooked the meat, which made it safer to eat than it was previously.

That's why it was cooked. Cooking kills (or neutralizes) the majority of diseases. Now poisons, eh, I'll give you that. But now we can actually prevent the meat sources from getting any of that.

Reminds me of pulse jets. Very interesting.

Meat should be eaten in conjunction with plants. If I recall correctly: After the mastery of fire, the meat from hunting was cooked regularly. This increase in protein ultimately led to the size of the brain increasing. So, protein is good for the brain, and meat has more protein per x unit. Plus, meat has more proteins, and so less meat is eaten to get specific proteins, whereas multiple plants would have to be grown to get those same proteins.