Dispatcher

The assumption made seems to be that exotic matter must possess negative mass. Just as E=MC^2, perhaps an equivalent may suffice; in this case, negative energy? The more learned among you may be able to shed some light on this. Edit: The gist of what I'm suggesting is that negative energy (exotic energy?) be used as a substitute for exotic matter.

Thanks very much for this information, Slashy! Its interesting what some research can provide in the way of helpful information. Well done.

@ GoSlash27 & NeatCrown: it would be cool if Numerobis wouldn't mind doing that.

GoSlash27: I'd love to see a comparison of all the air intake parts; similar to the neat comparison you did with wings/ control surfaces, lift, drag, etc. IIRC. Is that something that you'd be willing to do?

Another bit of advice, slightly off topic. If you are required to perform a test with both altitude and speed ranges (and the altitude allows it), I recommend obtaining the parts and fuel to build a jet plane. I find it easier to to reach midpoints in the required ranges with greater control from the use of a jet plane. This works with survey missions too. I also include science parts, which are justified by science gains. Landing the plane at the KSC afterwards allows for a decent recovery compensation. For those who are better at taking off than they are at landing, planes can be fitted with chutes and brought down safely, so that funds recovery to some degree is still an option.

These are good points. While the thread OP deals with the idea that NASA would feel justified to send a crewed mission to Venus prior to a crewed mission to Mars, I think the point is well established that access to a wider range of local resources appears to be had at Mars; if one looks beyond the "dog and pony show" of that first mission and focuses instead on establishing bases. By extension, I think this demonstrates that for similar reasons, Luna becomes a viable step in the roadmap to solar system infrastructure development. Ultimately, equipment and products manufactured on the Moon and destined for another planet will be cheaper to get into orbit (as opposed to those made on Earth, when a dV budget comes into play). Forays into the colonization of either Mars or Venus (or elsewhere) would ultimately benefit from the integration of a Lunar presence.

That's an interesting graphic you came up with. What I had in mind was more like a centrifuge ride, within a room of the Lunar base. Your's is an interesting implementation. It would allow people (and pets or dairy animals perhaps) to stand and walk freely, rather than just being seated/ harnessed at the end of a centrifuge arm. - - - Updated - - - You missed the candidate which is only a few days away: our Moon. As for any discussion about the positive and negative impact of the 17% Earth G environment, this is addressed in some of the posts above. Thus, the Moon is as valid a place for a permanent base as is Mars (even with volunteer personnel permanently domiciled there; should that be part of a testing requirement). It actually makes more sense to have long period staggered personnel rotations at any non-Earth bases, including Mars; these could even be considered "vacations". Lunar base(s) would of course make shorter term rotations practical. As for resources, I'm not aware of anything obtainable at Mars which isn't also obtainable at the Moon. Mars of course has its thin atmosphere of mostly CO2 (which also mitigates radiation and mediates temperatures), but the Moon has water deposits in polar and perhaps other craters; from which water can be used as is and also split into fuel & oxidizer. Bases should be buried in order to mitigate radiation and also mediate temperatures. The "soil" of either could be fertilized and used for growing crops, which also provides additional O2. Each of these two "worlds" also has mineral/ metal/ energy resources which can be exploited. I'd argue against stripping the lunar regolith for He3, as its abundant at our gas giants.

Angel: I think that any craft which enter and leave the atmosphere must be able to carry a significant amount of personnel/ supplies/ imports/ exports. This implies designs which are different than high speed, agile military craft. My earlier point remains unaddressed: even supersonic craft must start and end a flight at subsonic speeds (and are in fact stationary relative to the landing/ take off surface or platform).

Even "classical" music can span a broad range of time, geography and style. This was interesting to learn. Perhaps most people are more familiar with the more limited scope of "classical period" music. Let's see what I can come up with. Here is a playlist beginning with .

Thanks for the link, Nibb31. It was an interesting read. I'll bet those bedpans were fun. When all is said and done, there appears to be no shortage of people who are willing to subject themselves to such test conditions/ requirements. I still think they are under compensated, and there may long term risks which have yet to be identified; even if rare in occurrence. There is no way I'd volunteer for such testing, but to those of you who want that, and are accepted; good luck!

If you think supersonic craft are impervious to weather (winds, crosswinds, lightning, etc.); I differ with that notion. Besides, supersonic craft begin and end flights transitioning with subsonic (relative) speeds. The very thing you mention about the Moon makes it nearly ideal due to its proximity to Earth. Unlike other permanently crewed bases further away, Lunar bases allow reasonable and regular personnel rotations to and from Earth. This should negate any harmful effects of the 0.17 Earth G Lunar gravity. At just days away, the Moon is ideal for establishing our first "real" base "out there". If we want to keep personnel at the Moon for extended times (or they get stranded), limited centrifuge rides could be used to simulate 1 Earth G periodically. Learning from this, it might still be necessary for any Mars base personnel to use such centrifuges to keep them more fit. We don't yet have enough information on the effects (or lack of effects) of the Martian gravity on human and animal health. As I'm sure you've pointed out, Venusian gravity is likely to be well tolerated by humans.

Thanks for sharing this. This is the kind of science which will produce tangible results that people on Earth can relate to.

Good points, RainDreamer. Since we developed in a 1 G environment (at least on the surface of the planet), it would be no surprise if we need some amount of gravity force while in flight. This would pretty much require such missions to include simulated gravity. This could be done by rotating the craft sufficiently or using a setup where the crew cabin is on one end of a tether and the remainder of the craft at at the other end; the ends would rotate about a common center. Of course the ideal would be a constant 1 G acceleration/ deceleration, but our technology doesn't yet allow for practical constant burns.

I always name my craft with the name of the test or requirement. So I have craft with simplistic names such as Launch, 5K, 22K, 56K, Orbit, LVN Orbit 85K to 94K, 909 Splash, Turbo 8K to 12K 250 MPS, etc. But they do the job.

Nib, there are no surprises in your reply. However, I do not consider someone who isn't already bedridden to be undergoing either routine testing or extreme short term testing, when said testing is on the order of months. Also, clinical studies involving test subjects often are testing new methods or substances for people already suffering from a particular set of maladies and who may deem the risks to be acceptable. In the case of the proposed NASA testing, this is presumably subjecting healthy subjects to potentially harmful circumstances. Astronauts take the risks of their profession in stride, as volunteers; their profession also has enough perks to make their decisions to be guinea pigs in orbit worth the risks. I'm not sure who you are referring to by "you guys" in your comment. As for NASA employees inherently being more useful by functioning at their pay scale in their current jobs, you seem to be implying that those who would allow themselves to be subjected to such testing are more useful as test subjects than they are as contributors to society in their present capacities. Of course such testing might appeal to someone who already lives under extreme conditions (such as being temporarily homeless) or who wants to selflessly aid in the advance of science (but the fact that such testing is desired implies that there may be dangers associated by undergoing them, regardless of promises to monitor and rectify identified short term problems). If NASA wants healthy people to take such risks, then at least the recompense ought to be more equitable (and include in that package the premiums for the mandated insurance coverage).

If NASA wants guinea pigs (and there are laws against treating prisoners inhumanely), let the good folks at NASA volunteer. Besides, their pay scales are better than what is being offered.

Some reminders: Mars' surface gravity is about 1/3 of an Earth G. Its CO2 dominant atmosphere is roughly 1% the density/ pressure of Earth. This means that launching from its surface requires less dV than from Earth's surface, even with weather challenges. But even that relatively small air density allows for some aerobraking and chuting during entry/ landing. The stationary landing target can relatively easily be acquired and landed at. There are pros and cons regarding the dV required for a round trip to and from Mars. A base can be partially or completely buried in order to provide radiation protection and moderate temperatures. Space suits required outside. Venus' gravity, even at 55 KM high, is roughly 0.9 Earth G. While its air pressure is about the same as Earth sea level, the dominant CO2 makes for denser air than the less dominant nitrogen at Earth. Even with aerodynamic assist (and weather challenges), this means that launching from the clouds would require at least as much dV as from Earth's surface. While aerobraking and chuting would be practical at Venus, even at high altitudes, a problem which presents itself is the ability to target a relatively delicate moving platform and successfully match its speed and actually safely land there. There are pros and cons regarding the dV required for a round trip to and from Venus. A floating base would generally be protected from deadly radiation by the atmosphere. Enclosed hazmat suits required outside. While resources are available at both Mars and Venus, it would be much easier to exploit surface resources at Mars. Overall, it would make more sense to establish a base on ... our Moon first. Its surface gravity is about 0.17 Earth G. No atmosphere in practical terms, so no aerobraking. But at less than 1/5th of an Earth G, landing at a fixed target and launching are relatively trivial, as is the dV for a round trip to and from the Moon. A base can be buried in order to protect from deadly radiation and to moderate temperatures. While there are no atmospheric resources (unlike at Mars and Venus), the logistics of exploiting surface resources on the Moon are more feasible than doing so at Mars. Space suits required outside. Since the Moon is days away (rather than months or years), personnel and animals can be rotated such that any negative effects of low G can be mitigated. We can learn how to extract resources at the Moon and how to live there, which will help us know better in some ways how to live on Mars and even at the clouds of Venus. I may have erred on making a distinction between air pressure and density. I'm sure that if there are inaccuracies with anything in this post that someone will point those out and supply better information. Thanks.

One of the strategy selections for the game involves making your debris more recoverable. I don't recall the name of the strategy, but the rationale mentions something about better tracking devices in the parts. I've not made any comparisons between using that strategy vs. no strategy to see what the differences may be in practice.

This would be a good thread to place in the "Tutorials" subforum.

I think that most of the "mainstream media" caters more to emotions and less to facts and logic. The media sells "the sizzle, not the steak". Going to Mars seems more doable and desirable to most people; there is a romantic element of seeing the sun rise or set from the surface of a new world. I don't believe that the Russian masses are beating the doors down to exodus to the Venusian skies. In fact, having perused the Mars One site, I've noticed plenty of Russian volunteers who want to go to ... Mars. It didn't take "the media" to convince me that we should explore the solar system; I figured that out myself. Also, "the media" (perhaps you really mean the "non-Russian media") does not appear to be promoting a return to the Moon; most of the hype is about Mars. It sells more ad time and space than the moon does, apparently. If you are aware of "Russian media" which constantly promotes going to Venus, please provide us with links to such sites as those would be interesting to see. Angel, I know you must have a strong desire to go to Venus and you are doing all that you can to promote the idea. I think its commendable. I personally don't think our choice is "either Mars or Venus; pick one". I think our choice should be "let's go to the Moon, then Mars, then other solar system locations; including the skies of Venus". Its not an either/ or situation. It is however my belief that we have much to learn by going to other places before we send people to Venus.

I'll clear up a few misconceptions ... with regards to myself anyway. I'm not pessimistic or hostile to the idea of going to the Venusian atmosphere. I however do think we should get good at dealing with other solar system locations first. These would include more learning at the ISS or some later space station, establishing a Moon base, establishing a Mars base and perhaps a few jaunts to the asteroid belt. After that, we would be better equipped to deal with missions to Venus. Achieving the earlier goals would give us a more sound footing, and make it easier to justify spending by the world's various tax payers, for crewed Venusian air missions. To me, its all about the order in which we take on solar system exploration. As for some kind of competition between the US and Russia in terms of where any of us should direct our resources, I don't accept that as a valid argument; Russia has interests on landing on Martian moons and so has not limited its interests only at Venus. But for the sake of argument, if Russia wants to send Cosmonauts to Venus, I say, let Russia do so (assuming the economics of the project are tenable). Let NASA or ESA or private industry send missions where they will. I, for one, think we can learn much by establishing and maintaining an international base on the Moon before trying to do so at Mars, let alone Venus or any other solar system destination.

This recent thread has some really good selections: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103158-Music-for-Ksp ... as does this older thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83746-Im-making-a-big-music-playlist-for-ksp

If we look at it from a gameplay point of view, there are generally multiple ways to look at a contract's requirements and interpret them. There is the rationale that an ordinary player might use (for example, fly a rocket using the test engine, after landing, since the contract says "landed"). Then there is a broader interpretation (landed can mean that its may be launched from the land launch pad or runway without having been flown first). Then there is a more creative approach which is simpler, cheaper, faster and still technically satisfies the contract (fire an LFE with no fuel tank used or fire an SRB with all propellant having been emptied out in the VAB first). The player may learn how to think of the contracts as puzzles, most of which are solvable. The same is true of the testing of parts after splashdown, as discussed in other posts above. Its kind of like an IQ test; hopefully you and I will score better than most Kerbals would, if left to themselves. Edit/ spoiler: For contracts requiring tests after splashdown, I use a crewed capsule, all the science instruments I want to (or can carry), a small SRB and one test part (usually mounted on the capsule nose; I use radial chutes). I fly eastward shortly after launch. Its a fairly cheap way of doing splashdown tests, yet tends to maximize rewards.

SpaceEngine is limited to Windows machines; Celestia and Stellarium are available for all the major platforms. All three are free.

Actually, since the most significant part of such journeys in space IS travel into, through, out of and back to, through and out of interplanetary space; I think my reasoning makes perfect sense. We need to get good at doing so before we commit personnel to the Venusian atmosphere. As for some kind of argument about the Venusian wind(s): where are you quoting me on that? I think Venus has a hostile environment, but what is it about winds that you think I'm making a comment about? Merry Christmas to you as well, and a Happy New Year!