Northstar1989

Normally I don't post my failures (I consider them "simulations", as most of these problems could have been easily predicted with a little structural analysis, etc., by real-life engineers), but in this case, I want the "Sparky" distinction in addition to some of the other ones, so... Enjoy this massive FAIL. Surprisingly, nobody got hurt in this incident- although a few Kerbonauts must have been rattled by the Liquid Booster that embedded itself in the roof of the Astronaut complex... Note this is essentially the same design I will be using for the challenge (only with stronger decouplers and some struts on the SRB's to prevent them ripping themselves off the launch platform like this in the real thing...) My challenge submission might also have MOAR BOOSTERS! Because clearly, that's the solution to everything... (only in this case, it actually might be, since additional boosters reduces the load on each decoupler- each SRB has to "lift" less of the rest of the vehicle- which has TWR less than 1 on the launchpad without the SRB's...) The Mods (same as for the challenge entry) B9 Aerospace (cockpit, adapter, one reaction wheel, frontal canards) Novapunch2 (rocket/boosters, shuttle LFO fuselage, struts on challenge vehicle) Procedural Dynamics (aka. 'Procedural Wings'- main wings, rear control surfaces) KSP-Interstellar (thermal rocket nozzle, thermal receiver, microwave power/relay network enabling them to function, payload) MechJeb2 (for guidance/navigation) MechJeb and RemoteTech for all (removes need for a separate MechJeb part by adding the functionality to cockpits, slightly reducing part-count/lag) TAC Fuel Balancer (fuel balancing on challenge run) Regards, Northstar

Nice post Rune. Very well thought-out. Regards, Northstar

Which would be unrealistic. In real life, solar panels eventually degrade- so solar satellites would need maintenance too... Realistically, ground-based transmission is and should be the cheapest way of getting beamed power to orbit, unless you can drastically bring down the launch cost to orbit (ironically, ground-based power may enable this- stick enough power transmitters on Kerbin's surface, and you can launch a Thermal Rocket with nothing but LH2, i.e. LiquidFuel, as propellant... Build a Space-X style reusable launch vehicle or a spaceplane with that, and you've got MUCH cheaper cost-to-orbit...) Regards, Northstar

Nuclear proliferation is a stupid idea anyways. In Thermonuclear War, nobody wins. "The only way to win is not to play", to take a quote from WarGames... Try asking that of the United States government, and you might end up on the terrorist watch-list. Oh Canada, how I love your lighthearted innocence... Which in terms of minimizing long-lived radioactive waste, is a good thing for EVERYBODY. In fact, after reading up on it, IMHO it would be best if EVERYONE switched over to CANDU reactors or other designs with that kind of fuel-flexibility, and abandoned other waste-heavy reactor designs entirely... Regards, Northstar

It's a good idea- but you're going to have to redesign it a little. The actual variant in the book does have jet engines, true- but they're mainly for getting off the launchpad and landing again. In real life, jet engines are heavy and have terrible TWR- thus they're not useful for vertical ascents. The engines on the lower stage of the book variant were designed for raw TWR and power (more similar to LV-30's) as the majority of the power had to come from the rocket engines- not the jet engines, which have much lower ISP in real-life (due to a major dev error- including IntakeAir in ISP calculations, the jet engines have approx. 12-16 times the ISP of those in real life) and become practically worthless at the high speeds a rocket eventually reaches... (real-life orbital velocity is much higher than in KSP, but the velocity curves are much the same) Remove the jet engines (and I suggest the intakes- which will then be useless), stretch the lower stage fuel tank a bit to compensate (the lower stage in the book you're copying used LiquidMethane:Oxygen mix, which is significantly denser than the LH2:LOX used in the upper stage. Since both your stages use the same stock fuel, you need a relatively longer lower stage than in the book to get the same fuel mass ratios...), and consider using LV-30's in the lower stage so the thing can still get off the launchpad (the extra fuel mass you can lift will compensate for the reduced ISP in the lower atmosphere- and the vehicle in the book lifted off with engines similar to LV-30's and a TWR barely over 1...) Oh, and the vehicle in the book uses static solar panels on the upper stage, like the OX-STAT panels, to allow for supply of electrical power even in-atmosphere- they're also lighter, and theoretically more reliable, so I would recommend switching to them entirely over deployables... The one thing you need to do is remove the jet engines. They're simply too OP'd in the stock game. This is why I edited the OP a while back to warn players to avoid using jet engines in their rockets (I'll allow them in "mothership" vehicles, but that's mainly because those use jet engines in real life anyways... Rockets don't.) The rest is just advice I'm giving you on how to make sure the thing can still achieve orbit without jet engines. And no, you won't get the same performance without the jet engines- but neither did the vehicle in the book. The leftover Delta-V values you're reaching orbit with are just absurd (much more than the rocket in the book), and mainly due to your use of OP'd jet engines... You can still get single-stage to the Mun and back with refueling in LKO though... Regards, Northstar

Nice vehicle- but I can't help but feel it only gets most of the performance it does due to the use of the (extremely, unrealistically OP'd) jet engines... Try building that without jet engines, or with Advanced Jet Engines mod (which nerfs jet engines to realistic levels for 1970's technology... Which is better in some ways than having jet engines far more powerful than anything that could theoretically ever exist...), and see how it fares... If you can do it without jet engines, I'll be impressed. Regards, Northstar

After an F5/F9 "simulation" which revealed that the Supply Ship didn't actually have enough fuel to make a Munar transfer at all (nevertheless a capture), I reduced its RocketParts load to 1/3rd the inventory of the 350 km spacedock, and sent it off to Munar orbit to deliver its cargo: Note that I detached the Heavy Scrapper Ship from the Munar Spacedock when the Supply Ship came in. This was both to make room for the Skycrane strapped to the top of the Supply Ship to attach, and to allow the now-useless Heavy Scrapper Ship to drift out of physics loading-range to save lag on future rendezvous and docking missions... As for orbital recycling, I've decided to call it quits for such operations in the Kerbin system for now. Since I can no longer recycle debris directly into RocketParts, but have to process debris first into Metal instead, I don't necessarily consider it worth my time anymore... Especially since I would have to design an entirely new line of scrapper ships to work with the new balancing, and I've never actually used any of the Extraplanetary Launchpads manufaxcturing supply chain before other than construction of craft with RocketParts launched to orbit or recycled from debris... The previous recycling system was far too OP'd anyways. The new system much more accurately reflects the extensive time, effort, and equipment that would be necessary for orbital scrapping operations in real life (as well as the inability to reuse all the mass- with the new system I think only something like 70-80% of the mass is recycled). And I have more important things to do- like establishing my Duna colony. Although, relatively early on in that effort I will have to start recycling the armada that got the colonists there for easily-obtainable Metal, so this hiatus probably won't last particularly long... Until next time, my best regards. - Northstar

What real-world mothership plane uses a ballistic insertion that reaches past the edge of the atmosphere? Like the other poster so far, it looks like you mostly tried to re-use an earlier design rather than one made specifically for the challenge (note I didn't put my own example on the scoreboard- I'll save that for something specifically designed for the challenge... Maybe a believable mothership design, since I'd like to show players what I meant by that, and it's an extremely difficult engineering feat to actually pull off...) Regards, Northstar P.S. I've clarified what is allowed for "mothership" designs a bit in the OP- the new rule is that the mothership must separate from the rocket below 32 km in a non-ballistic trajectory. As I've said before, though, with motherships and anchored blimps, as long as it is a stable design that could still conceivably land in one piece (no non-reusable drop-tanks, etc.) without the rocket attached, you don't need to actually recover that portion of the craft...

I clarified it a little more in the OP, but I'm trying to keep it from getting too long (it already drags on if you ask me...) Generally, just stay away from jet engines unless you're using them for a "mothership" launch platform (a large plane with no rocket engines- that releases the rocket from relatively level flight), enormous pancake rockets (I can't see any use for them in a reusable rocket anyways- generally they burn through their fuel too quickly to be useful), and infini-gliders or kraken-drives. Other than that, almost anything goes... Regards, Northstar P.S. I hope it need not be said that since a RAPIER is neither a particularly good jet engine nor a particularly good rocket engine, but mainly useful because it encompasses both functionalities, it really shouldn't be used at all... However, I'll make an exception with both jet engines and RAPIER engines if you use Real Solar System- as it makes them relatively a lot less powerful- as long as you stay away from a more than 3:1 intake ratio.

I have three things to report, before I proceed further (mainly, at this point, with my actual colonization efforts- though possibly also with a few craft inspired by some of the Challenges on this forum or my own whims here and there as well...) First, the Crew Capsule I showed you guys the launch of earlier successfully rendezvoused with the Williams Lab/Relay, transferred over its relief crew (Lury and Malman Kerman), and recovered the scientific data and the original crew of Project Williams to the surface of Kerbin... Second, the upper stage of the Reusable Launch Platform utilized for this mission made its recovery to Kerbin. However, I miscalculated on the re-entry, and ended up coming down over water- which caused the primary fuel tank to implode when it hit the water without landing legs to buffer it on what ended up being a rather rough touchdown (I overcompensated with the engines, causing the parachutes to auto-cut early, and then failed to make a sufficiently low-velocity splashdown by throttling back...) From a roleplaying perspective, I'll say it ripped open, flooding the interior with seawater- and damaging the craft beyond (cost-efficient) repair... Third, the Supply Ship I launched earlier made a successful rendezvous with the Heavy Spacedock at 350 km, and loaded up its entire inventory of RocketParts, as well as fully refilling its fuel tanks, for a transfer to one of the moons of Kerbin... (now I just have to decide which) The "Colonization" thread will be coming soon, but not quite yet... Regards, Northstar

OK, that's basically a spaceplane. Didn't I say to stick with *VERTICAL* takeoff? I would've allowed a mothership launch platform- something that releases a rocket from level flight at high altitude- but that's just pushing the rules too far... Why don't you try something more conventional, like a Space-X style launch, or a proper mothership deployment of a real rocket? Regards, Northstar

I don't know how you define believability, but I wouldn't consider that craft even remotely believable- since the only reason it can get to orbit is due to how EXTREMELY OP'd jet engines are in the stock game (their TWR is just crazy compared to real jet engines, for one). I'd like to see you try to build something that actually seems believable- like a rocket or a shuttle... Please try and refrain from anything using jet engines as the primary means of ascent... (spaceplanes might not be quite as unrealistic, but they're not for this challenge) Regards, Northstar

The piping issue is I think the main thing they're struggling with right now, from what I read on China's efforts on MSR's (the main design for Thorium-based reactors they are focusing on). But, I wouldn't put it beyond them to have a functional reactor in 10 years- after all, this is China, the country that sold the USA tea leaves dried by idling trucks with leaded gasoline over the crates, thus giving us tea heavily contaminated with lead; and watered-down milk cut with highly toxic chemicals to hide its lowered protein content (due to the watering-down) in tests... Who said anything about safety? Regards, Northstar P.S. Those were both real incidents I learned about in my Biosecurity class my first tear of grad school... Fortunately the contamination was in both cases detected by random inspections of shipments (which only occur on about 1-10% of incoming cargo, depending on what it is and the available manpower) by customs officials at the seaport. Who know what other stuff *didn't* get caught by random inspections though...

Didn't respond to this before- but CANDU reactors look pretty awesome. Very impressive- I'm surprised we aren't building more of them... I'm also always curious to talk about other reactor designs- not just MSR's... Regards, Northstar

I'll make you a deal. Install Real Solar System (create a separate save file for it, remove it again before loading up your standard one), and you can use it as a "mothership" for your launch platform (Real Solar System increases orbital velocity by a LOT). Mothership launches in real life are from planes like the White Knight 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_White_Knight_Two Regards, Northstar

Please try and avoid air-hogging. Oh, and definitely no part-clipping abuse allowed (I assume that's how you can get that out of the atmosphere). In fact, I'm going to add a note about that... I kind of assumed that "no part clipping, no hyperediting, no debug menu functions" was implied... Regards, Northstar

EDIT: I apologize for the missing images- Imgur lost my example craft's screenshots some time after they were first posted... Here is an example of my own reusable launch platform that I've had in operation for some time, to show the challenge is feasible to complete: This would have qualified for the following distinctions: 'Smart' Payload Slow Climber (note that the screenshot it missing proving TWR < 1.1 at liftoff, as it was taken a little late- but I'll take your word for it if it's close in the screenshot) Microwave-Powered Launch (receives a peak of approximately 1.8 GW of thermal energy from an 18 GW reactor set generating 3 GW of electricity, and a 2.3 MW solar power satellite orbiting Minmus, to produce about 1700 kN of thrust at peak power) Regards, Northstar

(Picture of SpaceX's "Grasshopper" rocket performing a flight-test of technologies to be used on the Falcon 9r) This is a challenge to create a 100% reusable vertical launch platform to carry payloads to orbit of Kerbin. This is NOT a spaceplane challenge, but rather more in the spirit of creating Space-X style rockets (if the image of the Space-X test rocket above didn't queue you in) Please try and keep in (at least somewhat) believable- for instance please don't air-hog (more than 3:1 ratio of intakes to engines) or use the jet engines as a launch platform- which is in fact banned in the rules, as jet engines are very OP'd... (generally, jet engines have little place in this challenge, except as mothership craft- although I'll make an exception on the jet/RAPIER engines for any player using Real Solar System or Advanced Jet Engines, since it indirectly/directly limits the fraction of orbital velocity they can achieve...) The Rules: 1. Your rocket or shuttle MUST take off vertically (exceptions made for "mothership" plane designs- see below). No spaceplanes allowed for this challenge. 2. ALL parts must be landed and/or recovered on Kerbin. IF you use drop-tanks or boosters, they must safely touch down back on Kerbin while loaded (in stock, this means they can only be decoupled right off the launchpad, or as a late drop just before making orbit...) EDIT: I have just learned about Flight Manager for Reusable Stages. You are allowed to use this mod. FMRS will allow you to drop stages deep in the atmosphere (where they would normally be destroyed after exiting physics-range), and manually fly them back to the ground- once landed it lets you recover the vessels and/or merge them into your main save. This should make more realistic Space-X style launches (with the Falcon 9r, the lower stage would never actually exit the atmosphere) and Space-X style launches while using Real Solar System without insane upper stage TWR values possible. 3. Balanced mods are allowed. Examples include: Novapunch2, KW Rocketry, B9 Aerospace, Near Future Propulsion, Firespitter, Space Shuttle Engines, and KSP-Interstellar (with special restrictions- see below). Vessels using KSP-Interstellar are restricted in the following ways: - No use of fusion, antimatter, or fifth-generation fission reactors may be used (the ones not unlocked until you discover fusion power- the fourth gen MSR reactors are as high-tech as you're allowed). - If making use of ground-based Microwave Beamed Power (this is not only allowed, but in fact encouraged for awesomeness) no more than 18 GW of thermal power in reactors with solid-state generators attached are allowed (that adds up to around 3 GW of electricity to beam- hint, 4 Akula reactors are worth *precisely* 18 GW). The reactors must all be located outside of loading distance from both the launchpad and runway- but need not be located near the KSC (mountains and the island runway both work well as reactor sites, for different reasons). - You may supplement your ground-based Microwaved Beamed Power with up to 3 MW of beamed solar power from orbit (no orbital reactors allowed). Relay networks are allowed to help get this power to your craft, as well as the ground-based beamed power (only really useful if you circularize on the far side of Kerbin). - No use of DT-Vista engines. No use of upgraded plasma thrusters (the basic ones, however, are allowed). 4. Alternative launchpads on Kerbin ARE allowed. This means you can set up an Extraplanetary Launchpad anywhere on the surface if you want. Launches from platforms supported by securely anchored Hooligan Labs blimps are also allowed, as are drop-launches from "mothership" type planes (like is being done by Copenhagen Suborbitals in real life). If you use a mothership plane, it MUST separate from the rocket at below 32 km in altitude in a non-ballistic trajectory. 5. Your rocket/shuttle may only detach payload with mechanical decouplers or docking-ports (this is, from a roleplaying perspective, to avoid potential damage to the reusable vehicle from explosive decouplers). Strut it if you're worried about stability... 6. You may stage your reusable vehicle a MAXIMUM of three times- this includes detachment from "mothership" platforms, detachment of drop tanks, and separation of any upper/lower stages. This is to keep complexity reasonable. 7. Your entire system (including blimps, alternative launchpads, drop tanks, payload- anything that comes within physics loading range) may have a maximum of 128 parts. This is to keep things fair/accessible for players with older CPU's (turn up the graphics so you get better screenshots if your CPU is awesome, don't whine about part-count limits). 8. Screenshots must be provided of: launch, staging, at least two different points in your ascent, the circularization burn, recovery of all parts (except alternative launchpads/mothership-planes/blimps obviously), at least one point during re-entry of the final stage, and any additional burns you perform. 9. Payload fuel/engines may be used in ascent. 10. Payload must achieve a stable orbit with a semi-major axis of over 100km (SMA = periapsis+apoapsis/2). That's an 100 x 100 km, or 110 x 90, or 120 x 80 km orbit, etc... For players running Real Solar System in a real-sized scale-up, simply making it to a stable orbit past the atmosphere is enough... 11. Jet engines may be used as following- for a "mothership" vehicle, which must detach the actual rocket or shuttle below 32 km in a (relatively) level flight pattern; and for controlled landing of a shuttle or reusable rocket stage (they may ONLY be activated below 12km on the way back to the ground). Otherwise, they are banned- especially for rocket liftoff! At no time, even when used in a "mothership" vehicle or in a shuttle for return, may the intake:engine ratio exceed 3:1. And, of course, hopefully it goes without saying: no hyperediting, no part-clipping, and no debug menu functions. Distinctions Scoring for this challenge will NOT be in terms of points. It will be in terms of "Distinctions". This is to encourage friendly and cooperative spirit instead of brutal competition, as well as to allow players more freedom to invent something creative and awesome. Some distinctions will be very difficult to earn, however... You will not be able to earn all of them in one submission, but multiple entries are allowed. Iron Man- Complete the challenge without quicksaving after launch (or takeoff of a mothership design). I'm relying on your honesty for this one. 'Smart' Payload - Make use of your payload's fuel or engines to help bring a larger marginal payload to orbit (one that your rocket/shuttle could not otherwise manage to lift to LKO). Heavy Lifter - Lift a "dumb" payload of over 20 tons on a reusable rocket. Super Heavy Lifter - Lift a "dumb" payload of over 50 tons on a reusable rocket. Motherland Lifter - Lift a "dumb" payload of over 100 tons (naming inspired by Russia's new proposed 100-ton lifting capacity super-heavy lifter, which would be one of the largest launch platforms in the world since the Saturn V or Russia's previous Energia design- only exceeded by the USA's SLS Block 2 and China's proposed Long March 9 rocket...) Reusable Shuttle-Transit-System - Launch a payload of at least 24 tons to orbit using a shuttle-style (VTHL) vessel. Buran Mk2 - Launch a payload of at least 30 tons to orbit using a shuttle-style (VTHL) vessel (the Russian space shuttle 'Buran' was capable of outperforming a US Space Shuttle in nearly every way, from crew capacity of 10 instead of 7, to a superior thermal protection system, to a cargo capacity of 30 tonnes instead of 24. However the Russians only built one, launching it 8 years after the American STS program began, and never re-used it...) Slow Climber - Launch with a Thrust-Weight-Ratio of less than 1.1 from a ground or blimp-based launchpad. Fast Climber - Launch with a Thrust-Weight-Ratio of more than 3.2 from a ground or blimp-based launchpad. Piggyback Launch - Launch a shuttle "piggyback" on a larger fuel tank or booster (note that this will take inward thrust to keep stable). Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot - Experience and document (in screenshots) a major error, oversight, or design flaw that by all rights should have caused your rocket or shuttle to crash and burn. Home in Time for Dinner - Launch a reusable vehicle with a manned command pod that detaches as part of the reusable stages and returns to Kerbin. EXTREME Reusable - Deliver a payload to Munar orbit before returning the reusable section home to Kerbin. Green Mountain Men - Launch your reusable launch platform from a ground-based launchpad at over 3600 meters above sea-level. High-Altitude Balloon Testing - Launch your reusable launch platform from a blimp-based launchpad at over 6400 meters above sea-level (this is possible while staying anchored to one of Kerbin's tallest peaks- some of which reach to over 6700 meters). Microwave Powered Launch - Launch with a microwave-powered thermal rocket in your launch stage initially producing over 840 kN of thrust. Plasmodynamic Flyer - Launch with a winged shuttle utilizing one or more (KSP-I or NearFuture) plasma engines producing over 32kN of total thrust in-atmosphere, which separates from all other forms of propulsion before reaching 32 km in altitude (your best bet in achieving this is using microwaved beamed-power from the KSC). Glider Return - Return one or more stages to Kerbin via an unpowered glide which does not make use of standard parachutes (drogue/semi-deployed parachutes less than 300 meters from the ground and fully-deployed parachutes 50 meters from the ground are allowable, *IF* the stage can continue in a horizontal descent rather than hanging from the parachutes.) Shuttle-Style Return - Return the uppermost stage of your reusable launch platform to KSC's runway utilizing drag chutes (parachutes deployed just prior or after touchdown) on the runway, and S-shaped banking turns to aerobrake in the upper atmosphere (if you're not sure what those are, - note that he does it wrong, however, as the real Shuttle turned up to 70 degrees of bank on each curve, and he maxes out at much less...)Lift vs. Drag - Complete the challenge with a shuttle-style launch platform while having FAR installed. The ULTIMATE CHALLENGE - Complete the challenge with any style of vessel with both Real Solar System and FAR installed... I look forward to seeing the entries! Successful Missions List (in order of submission) 1. Jouni - Motherland Lifter 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. And above all, HAVE FUN! Regards, Northstar

One of the articles lists that for the original timeline that China planned to develop Thorium power on before they decided to accelerate it to 10 years. I think *that* is what you're getting mixed up with estimates being that it WILL take 25 years... Regards, Northstar

Actually, ISP *IS* measured in meters/second, so you're wrong. There are two equally valid ways of measuring it- in units of time (seconds), which is the one used in KSP, and in units of velocity (m/s), which is basically equivalent to exhaust velocity, and sees some use in the real world... SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse As for Orion, ORION IS NOT NERVA . Orion is a type of nuclear-pulse rocketry, and achieves the ISP-equivalent of over 43,000 m/s (actual velocity of the explosions in higher- but spreads out in multiple directions...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 Regards, Northstar

You're right- nuclear reactor designs large/powerful enough for ultra-heavy lifters like the Saturn V haven't ever developed before. That doesn't mean they CAN'T be developed- just because something hasn't been bothered with doesn't mean it is impossible... Of course, at the weight and power levels of a heavy lifter, you're MUCH better off just building a really, really big array of smaller nuclear reactors (existing designs, instead of developing an entirely new one for space) on the ground near a launchpad, and beaming the thermal rocket power for a thermal receiver (essentially a big heat-exchanger) via microwave beamed-power. And no, I'm not just talking about a strategy you can use in KSP-Interstellar: this exact plan has been proposed in real life. The rectennas (no, that's not a typo) necessary for microwave-based wireless power transfer have been around since 1964, the means to produce the necessary microwaves at high efficiency and low cost since 2005 with breakthroughs in gyrotrons... In fact, the first demonstrated use of a rectenna was in aerospace- with the powering of a small model helicopter by microwave beamed-power in 1964... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion Regards, Northstar P.S. If you didn't see my hyperlink in the article, I've actually used an array of really, really large of ground-based fission reactors (4.5 GW thermal power EACH- with pebblebed reactors, a next-generation technology currently in development) for microwave-powered launch vehicles in KSP already. I used 18 GW of ground-based reactors (raw thermal power) which generated around 5.4 GW of electricity, which equated to around 1.8 GW of power reaching the receiver over a distance of 5.4 km at sea-level (the microwave beamed-power system simulated in KSP-Interstellar is short-wavelength, as longer wavelengths require much larger receivers- even if they are much less affected by atmosphere). http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/57509-Kerbin-and-Beyond-a-Maturing-Space-Program?p=1184839&viewfull=1#post1184839 It's true, I did assist the launch vehicle with four heavy (Novapunch2) aerospike engines; as well as 8 smaller radial boosters in the launch shown- but the technology is perfectly viable in KSP as well as in real life (in real life, proposed thermal receivers for thermal rockets are MUCH cheaper than rocket engines...) And with more thermal power, one could easily scale a 3.75 meter thermal receiver like that (which would be even larger in real life due to KSP's 64% scale) to use at least 10-12 GW of beamed power (which would equate to upwards of 30 GW electrical generation capacity on the ground- more electrical generation than some small countries, so the greatest challenge would be acquiring funding to build such a large array of nuclear reactors...)

The devs should probably nerf the panels' EC production. It's currently way too much for the size/mass of the panels. Then they should add larger panels that players could use to keep producing tons of EC/s. It's not like it's really going to hurt most players- most have no use for all that poser anyways... If you're looking for a GOOD use of all the power from larger panels, though, see my suggestion to implement VASIMR engines in the stock game. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81368-VASIMR-engine/page3 Regards, Northstar

I don't know where you get the 25-year figure. The only country making a truly serious effort to develop Thorium reactors is China (other countries are researching it, but at much lower budget and labor levels). Their original estimate was that it would take 25 years, but then the government stepped in and massively increased funding and asked that it be completed in 10 years. And ambitious goal, but with enough money, by no means impossible. There are few problems you can't solve by throwing enough money at them... Forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but the Soviets already had a working molten-sodium cooled reactor design (TOPAZ-II) developed for use IN SPACE by 1991 at the very latest (this is when they first presented the design to the US, with an interest in selling it. God only know when they actually completed the design with Russian secrecy...) Isn't that essentially the same thing as a Molten Salt Reactor, or is there a distinction between the designs I'm missing? Also of interest, they launched two TOPAZ-I reactors to LEO in the late 1980's (aboard COSMOS 1818 and 1867), each capable of generating 5 kW of power for 5 years off 12 kg of reactor fuel... That doesn't sound very impressive to most KSP players since solar panels are DRASTICALLY overpowered for their size/mass in this game (assuming 1 EC = 1 kW), but that's actually a MUCH better power density than solar panels of the time (and later designs would have been even better). Regards, Northstar

MSR can *technically* be done with Uranium, but Thorium is VASTLY superior for MSR due to its much higher melting-point (it's right in the articles I listed in the OP). I think that's what he meant by the real benefit of Thorium being MSR designs... Regards, Northstar

This is a thread intended to promote discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of Thorium-based nuclear power, primarily in comparison to Uranium-based nuclear power, but also compared to other energy sources. Some required reading (read at least one article, or you'll have no idea what this is about) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generation/thorium/ http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0328/Thorium-a-safer-nuclear-power http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0328/Thorium-a-safer-nuclear-power http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-breakout-thorium-global-idINBRE9BJ0RR20131220 Regards, Northstar