Northstar1989

Errr, not really. From a realism perspective, it doesn't work, as parachutes are a lot weaker and bulkier in real life- meaning that the boosters would sustain damage with this strategy. From a gameplay perspective, it doesn't work either, as the moment one of those boosters exits physics loading-range in the lower atmosphere, it will cease to exist and not be recoverable... Regards, Northstar

By the way, I'm afraid some of you may still not end up understanding what I mean by 64% scale rockets under-performing 100% scale rockets- so let me give an example: Say you have a simple rocket that is a fuel tank 2.5 meters wide and 6.4 meters tall (for a total volume of 125.6 cubic meters) with an engine underneath that consumes 1 cubic meter of fuel per second, producing 1000 kN of thrust (these numbers are arbitrary- to have a standard for comparison). This is the KSP-scale rocket. Now let's say you have another simple rocket that is a fuel tank 3.90625 meters wide and 10 meters tall (for a total volume of 479.12598 cubic meters) with an engine underneath that consumes 2.441 cubic meters of fuel per second, producing 2441 kN of thrust (this engine has precisely the same thrust per square meter of area on the bottom as the first one). The first rocket of the two is a precisely 64% scale version of the second. It has the same ration of height to width. The same ratio of thrust to cross-sectional area. And the same ISP. Yet, it will have a shorter burn-time for the engine than the 100% scale rocket (125.6 seconds vs. 196.3 seconds), and thus in vacuum, a reduced Delta-V... It's only advantage is that it would produce more thrust per cubic meter of fuel stored- and thus might have a higher TWR... It doesn't take a genius to figure out the larger rocket probably has the advantage of the two, at least if both rockets start from orbit... Lifting off from the surface of Kerbin/Earth, things get a little more complex due to aerodynamics and drag- but since Real Solar System and other re-scales don't change the actual gravity exerted by Kerbin/Earth (only the density of the planet), only the planetary curvature (and thus, speed necessary to achieve orbit) and atmospheric height (which effects the minimum stable orbital height, as well as time spent in-atmosphere, experiencing drag) are actually altered... But, since the 100% scale rocket is taller relative to its mass, it out-performs its 64% miniature aerodynamically, and will experience less drag relative to its mass in a FAR-like aerodynamics system (I can only assume anyone playing with RSS would play with FAR as well) and thus will ascend through that higher atmosphere with relatively less issue... The question then remains- which is the more "realistic" re-scale then: a 1:10 re-scale that brings Kerbin up to approximately Earth-size (and atmosphere heights and planetary curvatures), or a 1:6.4 re-scale, which maintains the ratio of the size of equivalent rocket technology to its real-world relationship with planetary radius, but consequently still has a lower atmosphere height and higher planetary curvature (and thus decreased orbital speed) than real-world Earth? Regards, Northstar P.S. At times like these, I just wish Squad had given us an Earth-sized planet and real-world sized rockets to begin with, instead of messing around with a 10% scale planet and 64% scale rockets... (which, in stock game, drastically out-size real rocket technology in size comparison to the planetary radius) P.P.S. I am quite clear on their reasoning for not doing so (quicker rocket launches), however- let me be VERY clear to any moderator reading this, I am NOT suggesting a change, only voicing a bit of discontent in a post-script here...

After trying to calculate impact damage from a predicted asteroid impact with Kerbin, and starting a thread about how gigantic Kerbals are; I got to thinking- what would be the most realistic way to scale up Kerbin to mirror Earth? I started a thread about this earlier under "General Discussion", but somehow it ended up getting moved by a mod to "Suggestions and Development Discussion", and then closed by another mod- as this is on the list of things to not suggest be implemented in the stock game. To any moderator reading this, let me be VERY clear: this is about how to MOD the stock game to reflect the real solar system (using mods such as "Real Solar System", or new ones not yet invented). This is *NOT* about implementing it in any way, shape, or form into the stock game maintained by Squad. Therefore, it is NOT appropriate to close this thread, as it is NOT suggesting these changes be made to the stock game (I am well aware of the reasoning for it in the stock game). I can see several (potentially equally valid) lines of thought here on how to achieve the desired effect with modding: (1) Scale up Kerbin to the real-world parameters of Earth, like is done in the classic version of the "Real Solar System" mod configs... This sets orbital velocity (which is then much higher, though gravity acting on spacecraft remains the same, due to the greatly reduced curvature of the larger planet) and atmospheric height to the correct values, but leaves the interesting problem that all KSP parts are meant to be at approximately 64% scale of their real-world counterparts, and the Kerbals themselves are approximately 40% the size of humans... However, this makes it virtually impossible to build rockets that perform on par with their real-world counterparts (without a procedural parts mod), as, in extremely over-simplified terms, the Delta-V of a rocket is essentially determined by its burn-time: which is determined by its height (ignoring variances in ISP for a moment), whereas the height-limit of a rocket is (for structural/stability reasons) essentially determined by its width... Since KSP parts are only to 64% scale, in a real world-sized game, it is impossible to build rockets as large and effective as could be achieved with comparable real-world technology. (2) Scale up Kerbin by a 1:6.4 scale ratio (as is currently done in a popular alternative config version of "Real Solar System"). This preserves the relationship between the size of KSP parts, and the size of the planetary radius- but sets the Delta-V to orbit as much lower than in the real world, due to the shorter atmosphere and reduced planetary curvature... Still, these values would seem to be best-balanced, and lead to the most similar performance of KSP rockets to the real technologies they are miniatures of- as the performance of a rocket is heavily influenced by the relationship between its burn-time (and thus height) and the Delta-V to orbit.. (3) Scale up Kerbin by an approximately 1:4 scale, so as to preserve the relative size of an individual Kerbal vs. the planetary radius. While it doesn't make a tone of sense from a game-balance perspective, it does from a realism perspective: it might seem more plausible that Kerbals (if they are supposed to emulate humans) simply build relatively larger rockets compared to their body-size than humans, than that Kerbals are smaller compared to their planet than humans (which would be the effect achieved with either of the other scale-ups...) One thing is clear between all the options. Kerbin DOES need to be made larger in order to create more realistic (and also, coincidentally, harder) game balance. The question is, by how to most realistically achieve it with mods (as Squad has declared they will NEVER change the scale...) I'd like to hear what you guys all have to say about the issue. I'm guessing you'll all lean towards (1)- simply setting the parameters to real-world values: but as I've stated, that creates major problems with Kerbal rockets only being to 64% scale. With such a re-scaled planet, you are forced either to have unrealistically restrictive limits placed on rocket size (from an engineering perspective- economic/financial costs be darned) that prevent them from performing as well as comparable real-world technology; or you install mods that let you build at a real-world scale (such as Procedural Parts), but then have the opposite problem instead- 6.4 tons of payload in things like electronics and orbital labs can do all the same things that would require 10 tons in real life... (thus meaning Kerbal rockets then essentially out-perform real world rockets with mods allowing 100% scale rocket-construction). Regards, Northstar

By the way, I'm afraid some of you may still not end up understanding what I mean by 64% scale rockets under-performing 100% scale rockets- so let me give an example: Say you have a simple rocket that is a fuel tank 2.5 meters wide and 6.4 meters tall (for a total volume of 125.6 cubic meters) with an engine underneath that consumes 1 cubic meter of fuel per second, producing 1000 kN of thrust (these numbers are arbitrary- to have a standard for comparison). This is the KSP-scale rocket. Now let's say you have another simple rocket that is a fuel tank 3.90625 meters wide and 10 meters tall (for a total volume of 479.12598 cubic meters) with an engine underneath that consumes 2.441 cubic meters of fuel per second, producing 2441 kN of thrust (this engine has precisely the same thrust per square meter of area on the bottom as the first one). The first rocket of the two is a precisely 64% scale version of the second. It has the same ration of height to width. The same ratio of thrust to cross-sectional area. And the same ISP. Yet, it will have a shorter burn-time for the engine than the 100% scale rocket (125.6 seconds vs. 196.3 seconds), and thus in vacuum, a reduced Delta-V... It's only advantage is that it would produce more thrust per cubic meter of fuel stored- and thus might have a higher TWR... It doesn't take a genius to figure out the larger rocket probably has the advantage of the two, at least if both rockets start from orbit... Lifting off from the surface of Kerbin/Earth, things get a little more complex due to aerodynamics and drag- but since Real Solar System and other re-scales don't change the actual gravity exerted by Kerbin/Earth (only the density of the planet), only the planetary curvature (and thus, speed necessary to achieve orbit) and atmospheric height (which effects the minimum stable orbital height, as well as time spent in-atmosphere, experiencing drag) are actually altered... But, since the 100% scale rocket is taller relative to its mass, it out-performs its 64% miniature aerodynamically, and will experience less drag relative to its mass in a FAR-like aerodynamics system (I can only assume anyone playing with RSS would play with FAR as well) and thus will ascend through that higher atmosphere with relatively less issue... The question then remains- which is the more "realistic" re-scale then: a 1:10 re-scale that brings Kerbin up to approximately Earth-size (and atmosphere heights and planetary curvatures), or a 1:6.4 re-scale, which maintains the ratio of the size of equivalent rocket technology to its real-world relationship with planetary radius, but consequently still has a lower atmosphere height and higher planetary curvature (and thus decreased orbital speed) than real-world Earth? Regards, Northstar P.S. At times like these, I just wish Squad had given us an Earth-sized planet and real-world sized rockets to begin with, instead of messing around with a 10% scale planet and 64% scale rockets... (which, in stock game, drastically out-size real rocket technology in size comparison to the planetary radius)

After trying to calculate impact damage from a predicted asteroid impact with Kerbin, and starting a thread about how gigantic Kerbals are; I got to thinking- what would be the most realistic way to scale up Kerbin to mirror Earth? I can see several (potentially equally valid) lines of thought here: (1) Scale up Kerbin to the real-world parameters of Earth, like is done in the classic version of the "Real Solar System" mod configs... This sets orbital velocity (which is then much higher, though gravity acting on spacecraft remains the same, due to the greatly reduced curvature of the larger planet) and atmospheric height to the correct values, but leaves the interesting problem that all KSP parts are meant to be at approximately 64% scale of their real-world counterparts, and the Kerbals themselves are approximately 40% the size of humans... However, this makes it virtually impossible to build rockets that perform on par with their real-world counterparts (without a procedural parts mod), as, in extremely over-simplified terms, the Delta-V of a rocket is essentially determined by its burn-time: which is determined by its height (ignoring variances in ISP for a moment), whereas the height-limit of a rocket is (for structural/stability reasons) essentially determined by its width... Since KSP parts are only to 64% scale, in a real world-sized game, it is impossible to build rockets as large and effective as could be achieved with comparable real-world technology. (2) Scale up Kerbin by a 1:6.4 scale ratio (as is currently done in a popular alternative config version of "Real Solar System"). This preserves the relationship between the size of KSP parts, and the size of the planetary radius- but sets the Delta-V to orbit as much lower than in the real world, due to the shorter atmosphere and reduced planetary curvature... Still, these values would seem to be best-balanced, and lead to the most similar performance of KSP rockets to the real technologies they are miniatures of- as the performance of a rocket is heavily influenced by the relationship between its burn-time (and thus height) and the Delta-V to orbit.. (3) Scale up Kerbin by an approximately 1:4 scale, so as to preserve the relative size of an individual Kerbal vs. the planetary radius. While it doesn't make a tone of sense from a game-balance perspective, it does from a realism perspective: it might seem more plausible that Kerbals (if they are supposed to emulate humans) simply build relatively larger rockets compared to their body-size than humans, than that Kerbals are smaller compared to their planet than humans (which would be the effect achieved with either of the other scale-ups...) One thing is clear between all the options. Kerbin DOES need to be made larger in order to create more realistic (and also, coincidentally, harder) game balance. The question is, by how much... I'd like to hear what you guys all have to say about the issue. I'm guessing you'll all lean towards (1)- simply setting the parameters to real-world values: but as I've stated, that creates major problems with Kerbal rockets only being to 64% scale. With such a re-scaled planet, you are forced either to have unrealistically restrictive limits placed on rocket size (from an engineering perspective- economic/financial costs be darned) that prevent them from performing as well as comparable real-world technology; or you install mods that let you build at a real-world scale (such as Procedural Parts), but then have the opposite problem instead- 6.4 tons of payload in things like electronics and orbital labs can do all the same things that would require 10 tons in real life... (thus meaning Kerbal rockets then essentially out-perform real world rockets with mods allowing 100% scale rocket-construction). Regards, Northstar

I'm impressed with the level of humor and foolery that this thread prompted though. It's good to see that KSP players still know how to be funny- even as they're sending these ginormous walking cacti to their maniacally grinning deaths. Regards, Northstar P.S. Starting this thread actually got me thinking about what would be the most realistic way to scale up Kerbin and the other planets to an Earth/Sol-like star system... Would it be to simply scale to up the parameters to the real ones, like in the classic Real Solar Systems config version, or would it be to scale it up by 6.4:1 scale (that is, to 64% of the size of the real planets- another available RSS config), in keeping with the part's 64% size compared to their approximate real-life counterparts? Or would it be best to scale relative to the Kerbals- in which case Kerbin would actually need to be made 4 times LARGER than Earth...

That's the whole point I make in the OP. They are if you do the math. Indeed, but the planet is 10% the size... Earth's radius is over 6,000 km (6353 km, to be precise), whereas Kerbin's is only 600 km. It's less a matter of the size of terrain features than the amount of actual square footage of land area available. Cities are built in flat areas- for obvious reasons. The fact that Kerbin only less than 10% the radius means it has a lot less available space. Kerbals are larger compared to the total land area of the planet... Surprisingly, though, the features of Kerbin are completely out of proportion with its greatly reduced size. For instance, the tallest peak on Earth is Mount Everest, at 8,848 m. The tallest peak on Kerbin is still about 75% as tall- 6761 m... I'm a biologist in real life. So I'm going to define organism size in one of the practical ways we define it in biology in real life- as organism volume and biomass relative to the available living area (sq. km). By that measure, Kerbals are absolutely gigantic- once again, if scaled to Earth, they would stand over 7 meters tall! Regards, Northstar

Everything depends on the particulars, once again. I actually benefit from the dry mass in those engines, because I re-use it via my orbital salvaging/scrapping/recycling operations (what I basically do is recycle the spent upper stages into RocketParts using specialized salvage ships). Even if one doesn't use mods, one can make the engines detachable using docking ports, and slip out empty fuel tanks from between them and the payload before reattachment- therefore reusing the upper stage engines on the payload... Generally if you can get a rocket to orbit for less Delta-V, it's worth it- even if this ends up costing you more fuel at first... Maybe I should have clarified: I'm talking about jet engines of the highest quality and most demanding engineering standards, the kind you'd likely see in use on a spaceplane or air-breathing launch platform (if one existed)- NOT the kind of (slightly) cheaper and lower-quality jet engines you see used for commercial airliners and such... (which are hand-made in small batches, NOT mass-produced, by the way) But even those jet engines cost more than the rocket engines used on actual launch vehicles. Jet engines have a lot more moving parts than rocket engines, and therefore have a much higher base manufacturing cost. Combined with the fact that virtually NOTHING of space-quality is actually mass-produced (not rocket OR jet engines), the cost difference is likely to be even more drastic if they're being used for a space program. Jet engines used for large commercial airliners (such as a 747) typically cost over $2,000,000 dollars: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080922115617AAe2XCD Whereas a rocket engine of the same type used to power the Saturn-I costs about $200,000 today: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2068224/Up-sale-online-A-NASA-rocket-engine-used-build-missiles.html Regards, Northstar P.S. Those aren't the best sources, but they'll do... I could find nothing that did not confirm the high pricing of large jet engines at over $2 million, whereas it was difficult to find reliable numbers on rocket engine prices. It's also worth noting that large jet engines are often sold *at a loss* by manufacturers, even at a $2 million pricetag- who make back the loss on overpriced spare parts for the engines...

Indeed, everything depends on the relative sizes and numbers of craft being launched... For instance, if you're launching several equal-mass payloads to assemble a multi-part ship in orbit (I'm working on something like this right now in my Career save, in fact), you DON'T want to park at a 70 km orbit (the first craft should be launched into the higher orbit, as it will have a lower speed over land that way, and thus will be easier to time additional launches to require less phasing to reach...) You SHOULD launch straight into a 250 km orbit, however... That flight profile (circularizing at 70 km and then transferring to a 250 km orbit) is less efficient than launching straight to a 250 km orbit in the first place. The reason for this is the Oberth Effect. I'm sure you're aware of what it is (more energy is obtained from thrust when traveling at higher speeds), and that it is the reason you always want to raise your apoapsis from periapsis, rather than, say performing a burn at apoapsis until it becomes your new periapsis, and then burning from there... Yet, this is precisely what you're doing if you circularize at 70 km first. You're burning at the apoapsis of a sub-orbital trajectory until that apoapsis becomes your new periapsis (or very close to it- your orbit won't be very elliptical), and THEN burning at the nee periapsis to raise your apoapsis... That simply isn't an efficient way to get your rocket to 250 km... Why? You will be moving more slowly at 70 km than you will at, say, 50 km- if your engines are powerful enough that you have to cut throttle and cruise to the edge of the atmosphere at that point to avoid overshooting 70 km (they should be, or else you're wasting fuel on a low TWR and the high gravity-losses that result...) You still experience drag at 50 km, but it is extremely low- in fact so little that your terminal velocity is actually quite a bit higher than orbital speed at that point... As a result, you are losing a lot more energy to not taking full advantage of the Oberth Effect than you are to increased drag in the uppermost atmosphere, if you don't continue firing your engines on the prograde vector until your apoapsis lies at 250 km... (you should then straight-out circularize at 250 km). I've performed numerous experiments in the past with launching to 250 or 250 km using MechJeb (to eliminate steering losses) directly vs. first to 70 km in order to confirm this... Try it out for yourself if you don't believe me. Regards, Northstar

I see detached boosters flying off in every direction in the final screenshot. How can that possibly be reusable? Regards, Northstar

You could use winglets near the bottom of the rocket as stabilizing fins... It works great in the atmosphere, which is I assume where you're using the Kerbodyne-sized parts. You can dump them with the launch stage- you don't need nearly as much control authority once you're already in orbit... You are correct, adding 2.5 meter parts to the middle of 3.75 meter (Kerbodyne-sized) stacks is generally a bad idea... Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible to build highly maneuverable 3.75 meter stacks- although it will come at quite a mass penalty in aerodynamic control surfaces and reaction wheels... (I wouldn't suggest doing it) That's actually *EXACTLY* where you should be putting all your reaction wheels. The further they are from the Center of Mass, the *more* effective they are (assuming you're not having problems over-steering). Think of your rocket as a giant lever... Based on what you said earlier about "putting all your reaction wheels far from the Center of Mass seeming strange to you", I'm guessing you might be missing quite a few things actually. I *HIGHLY* recommend you take a look at the rocket-building tutorials on the KSP Wiki, particularly the one on "Intermediate Rocket Design" (it sounds like you're beyond "Basic Rocket Design" being useful to you, and the "Advanced Rocket Design" tutorial isn't about new concepts- only the underlying math...) http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Intermediate_Rocket_Design If you really want 3.75 meter reaction wheels, you can install "NovaPunch2" or "KW Rocketry" mod- both of which have been using 3.75 meter stack sizes LONNNNGGGGG before they were introduced to the stock game. In fact, I'd highly recommend using one of these mods (I play with NovaPunch2 myself...) Regards, Northstar EDIT: Actually, I was thinking of RCS thrusters, when I said SAS works best when located far from the Center of Mass. It doesn't matter where you place SAS- though RCS still works best when placed far from the CoM. The top of your rocket is probably still the best place for your reaction wheels though- that way you keep them as you shed lower stages, and your rocket will become more maneuverable as you shed each stage...

Good to know a KSP-Interstellar pack is being at least thought about... I was actually thinking when I wrote that of how KSP-Interstellar has its own specialized LiquidMethane (another resource unique to KSP-I) engines, but I believe it's true that RealFuels has methane-burning engines as well. The problem with simply converting the methane to "LiquidFuel" is that then you have it burning in a completely non-stoichiometric ratio. The stock LFO engines burn "LiquidFuel" and "Oxidizer" in a ratio of 10:11, and the fuels have equal density. No real-world fuels burn in that mass ratio, and the density ratios don't correspond to any known real-world fuels. More importantly, though, methane burns in a 1:4 mass ratio of methane:oxygen (CH4 + 2 O2 --> CO2 + 2 H2O, with each O2 weighing twice as much as each CH4). So if you simply have the Sabatier Reactor produce "LiquidFuel", you'll be producing a fuel that is a lot higher portion of a methane:oxygen engine's fuel supply than its real-world equivalent (only 20% of methane:oxygen's fuel supply will be methane), and thus, is *LESS* useful for using in combination with the In-Situ Resource Utilization system of KSP-Interstellar, which allows you to easily produce virtually unlimited amounts of Oxidizer on the Mun by electrolyzing aluminum-oxygen regolith (such regolith makes up a large percentage of Luna's surface in real-life). Assuming the KSP-Interstellar pack allowed players to produce the mod's "LiquidMethane" resource from your mod's reactor, they would be missing out on the opportunity to produce a resource that could burn in a 4:1 mass ratio with easily-available Oxidizer (KSP-Interstellar's methane engines work on the real-world stoichiometric ratios), and instead having to settle for obtaining a resource that only burns in a 10:11 mass ratio with Oxidizer, drastically reducing the potential for mass-leveraging to the point where burning it with Oxidizer harvested from the Mun could not possibly be economical... Regards, Northstar

P.S. Curious where I got my estimated loss of life? These are *conservative* estimates based on multiplying the area decimated by the Tunguska Event (2150 sq. km where all trees were cleared) by (38/15)^2, which assumes the Tunguska Event asteroid airburst was a full 15 Megatons. It was probably less- meaning *this* estimated 38 Megaton-equivalent impact (impact force would be MUCH less due to the asteroid's actual size if it were to hit Earth- but MUCH higher for its size hitting Kerbin, due to its thinner atmosphere. So I just use the figure for a 100-meter asteroid hitting Earth after a 45-degree re-entry angle. This asteroid is 1/10th the size, but Kerbin's atmosphere is only 1/10th as tall, and the predicted re-entry angle is much steeper: more than 60 degrees...) would be even more deadly by comparison. I assume that blast radius only increases linearly (it actually increases exponentially, but with a low coefficient). I then take Earth's population density, divide it by 4 (as Kerbals are 4 times larger than humans in relation to the radius of their planet), and multiply this number by the first number- which is the estimated area that would be obliterated. Even if it's inaccurate to use the same blast radius as a 100-meter asteroid hitting Earth for a 10-meter asteroid hitting Kerbin, it's also entirely reasonable to assume Kerbals are more tightly packed in due to their smaller planet. And, even if not, I like to think of most things in this game as and analogy for Earth anyways in some sense (though if this were Earth with humans, and the asteroid size were increased proportionally, the estimated average casualties would be over 185k, as humans are smaller relative to their environment- and thus should be more numerous relative to their planet size.) P.P.S. It's worth noting that if the asteroid hit a rural land area, casualties would be much lower, but if it hit the sea (which would cause a major tidal wave) or a metropolitan area, casualties would be MUCH higher... Regards, Northstar

While I roleplayed in a bit of a delay between my detection of AST IXX-684, or as I shall hereafter call it, Asteroid-684, and the launch of Project Amadeus- which I hope will be a true masterpiece worthy of its namesake (Wolfgang Amadaeus Mozart, of course), the Duna Magsat arrived at its destination, and performed some !SCIENCE! Of course, this doesn't avert my focus on Asteroid-684 one bit. It still hangs over my poor Kerbals like the Sword of Damocles... Estimated time until impact is now less than 40 days. Estimated loss of life if impact is not averted: 47,230 Kerbals (based on size-adjusted average population density comparable to Earth- casualties vary depending on impact location) Regards, Northstar

It's ironic that you call yourself "Phoenix" on the forums, yet call an orbital recycling program impossible. Because your username is precisely the name of the real-life "Phoenix Program" that is going to be the first to demonstrate the effectiveness of orbital recycling of satellites: http://www.space.com/25628-darpa-phoenix-satellite-recycling-project.html Enjoy the read (and video). I know it's a far cry from the kind of full-scale junkyard-recycling I'm talking about, but the robotic systems needed for it are precisely the ones that would begin to enable an unmanned salvaging plant like I'm talking about. Try actually digesting it, instead of just ignoring what I have to say, forcing me to repeat myself over and over, like these other guys Regards, Northstar

A total teardown-rebuild is precisely what I've described, several times now. And performed by robots, not humans- so the time it takes is a lot less of a factor. Are you actually reading my posts? I'm not proposing something like a wet-lab (that's what those proposals were called "Wet Lab" proposals), and I never made use of it myself. What I'm proposing is ripping out and re-using individual sub-components. You clearly didn't read my posts at all. The inspection and refurbishment work would need to be performed entirely by robots. Designing and building those robots on the ground here on Earth would be the biggest challenge associated with such a project. And you DO NOT need something the size of the VAB to build a rocket it space. First of all, the vast majority of the structure is concerned with simply sheltering the rocket from the elements (hence the large hanger). You wouldn't build new rockets/stations/satellites etc. in an enclosed environment in space. In a worst-case scenario, you'd deploy a debris-shield retrograde of the vessels under-construction. Second, much of the rest of a VAB structure would be filled with things like offices (unnecessary in a robotic facility) and labs to test new components (any component already in space would have been previously tested on the ground- and once again, there's no need for testing for damage to be performed in an enclosed space. You don't need an enclosed room, or floors for humans to walk around, in a robotic zero-G facility. Third, as I've stated multiple times, SUCH A FACILITY WOULD BE UNMANNED, and entirely run by robots (perhaps with occasional visits from maintenance crews on the ground or at nearby manned stations- though the station would have a large degree of self-repair capacity, as the very tools used to disassemble/salvage a rocket could be used to repair damaged systems on the salvaging station by remote-control... I already addressed that issue. Read my bloody posts! That's the main, in fact only, cost associated with such a salvaging station, once you get it all in orbit and assembled, aside from occasional repair visits (if the need for these was frequent enough, you might have a one or two-man repair crew on-board a manned section of the station, which might double at filling many of the research roles of a station such as the ISS when the crew was not busy making repairs...), and the cost of launching the fuel to orbit is a lot less than the cost of all the mass and expensive equipment you save having to launch to orbit this way... In the words of an earlier poster, even a single nut/bolt might be worth hundreds of dollars (though that's a bit of an exaggeration, it DOES cost over a hundred dollars to get a single kg to orbit...) And, you can reduce this cost to ZERO by obtaining all your propellent through ISRU on the moon and near-Earth asteroids... The tanker spacecraft, first of all, could be made 100% reusable to avoid that problem. Space-X style launches will probably be the main enabling factor that makes orbital recycling worthwhile. In KSP, on the other hand, there's no need to wait for Space-X: I already have made several such launches myself, and will probably be making a LOT more of them once budgets are implemented and I have sufficiently advanced through the tech tree again (I plan on starting a new Career game with 0.24, as I suspect many players do...) You're also making assumptions again- you're assuming that the tankers wouldn't be significantly larger than the rockets being refueled (the larger a fuel tank, the relatively less mass it needs to have compared to its volume, so you save mass if you use on large tanker to refuel several smaller rockets- this is simple geometry), that the only vessels being built would be interplanetary rockets (a large number, in fact the majority, of salvaged parts would probably best be used to construct new space stations and satellites. That way, if something goes wrong with a re-used part, it's a lot easier to access and fix it than if that part is on an interplanetary vessel- and large numbers of structural panels built out of the material of salvaged rockets would make for useful supplementary/extra shielding against micrometeorites and radiation on the crew compartments manned stations, after the chipping paint were removed...), and that the total mass of debris salvaged wouldn't add up to anything significant- despite debris being 10% of each spent rocket's original mass... (looked at objectively, that's actually a rather significant mass to salvage) How many times do I have to say that the salvaging station would need to be UNMANNED, run by robots? You wouldn't be sending up people (except repair crews), only hardware. Regards, Northstar

Agreed. And I want to ACTUALLY SEE THAT MISSION (and I bet those retirees do too). So that's why we need to take this first bold step, and "bravely go where no man has gone before". Planetary Sciences are never going to inspire children to enter into careers in math and science (and, at least in the US, not nearly enough young people do that anymore). Manned missions are. Regards, Northstar P.S. The current NASA space program has become the laughing-stock of the world, even here in America. For instance, the popular television show "The Big Bang Theory" openly mocks the space program with their treatment of one of the main characters going to the ISS, and at another time the characters stealing a spare camera for the Mars Rover to film their friend, like extra-planetary rovers are just some joke to use the spare parts from to pull practical jokes and spy on people...

NASA's problem is precisely that it is *too cautious* now. Exploration has been, and always will be, dangerous. People need to accept that, and not make too big a deal of it if a few astronauts are lost in the process (thousands more people die every day in Africa, after all). The risks they undergo for the greater good is precisely what makes astronauts heroes worth looking up to. Of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria, for instance, only two made it back to Europe... (I bet you didn't know THAT) As a wise man once said, "You can't discover new continents without losing sight of the shore". Regards, Northstar

It's a matter of different government types, and different ideologies. Older doesn't mean better, and there is no question that the Communist Chinese government is oppressive, totalitarian, and antithetical to freedom and democracy around the world. In fact, half the reason China is doing as well as it is is not because of their government (which is actually newer than the US government- the current Chinese government has its roots in the 1940's), but because of their long history, large territory, and huge population- all of which stem from history *BEFORE* the current government took power. It makes perfect sense to frame this as a battle of ideologies in order to touch off another space race and win popular support for further human progress in space exploration... It's true that the ultimate measurement of success is what humanity accomplishes- but competition in the form of a space race is one of the best ways to encourage further progress and accomplishment for all parties. And one other measure of the success of humanity is the triumph of freedom and democracy vs. oppression and totalitarianism. Trust me, I'm just as concerned about the increasingly anti-democratic tendencies of American politics as I am about the totalitarian Communist regime of China. If China is moving towards a Big Brother style dystopia, America seems to be moving towards a cyberpunk Corpocracy dystopia, where the rich control everything (and are above the law) and the poor have no say in how their own government is run... Regards, Northstar

I'm not the one verging on turning some of this into a personal attack. You might want to tell that to some of the other guys- who criticized me, for instance, for saying "6 months" without even bothering to read any of my thread to see that I was indeed doing a lot of stuff over those 6 months (and I didn't always even post every time I carried out a scrapping operation- so even more such operations ran in the background than were posted on my thread). I never suggested downcycling things back into their constituent elements. That wouldn't be cost-effective, and will probably never happen. Why don't you give it a try yourself? It's challenging, and requires a considerable amount of infrastructure to do it properly (an orbital station to collect the recycled materials, and orbital construction equipment to re-use them at a minimum, but preferably also ISRU fuel production on the Mun or Minmus...), but then you can say you've given it a chance yourself rather than just talking about it. And if you think the current mods that allow this are too oversimplified or easy- then why don't you work on a mod for it of your own (if you have the programming expertise), or give feedback to the authors of existing mods? Personally, for instance, I think one good way to increase the realism/difficulty factor would be to make the Recyclnig Bin produce a "salvaged parts" resource, that then had to be processed into RocketParts at a specialize facility in order to use them. And I also think the current Orbital Construction/ Extraplanetary Launchpads system for orbital construction is a bit too easy- there used to be an inefficiency factor in building new vessels this way (you needed something like an extra 20% of the mass of the new vessel in RocketParts to build it), and I think this factor should be re-introduced (it is no longer present in the newest versions- construction is 100% efficient). All this is the furthest level of difficulty that I, or most other players, would be willing to put up with though. As I said, the margins are already pretty low if you're shipping up the fuel to run your salvaging operations from Kerbin, and even though it's a *LOT* more profitable with ISRU fuel-production, it still already requires a large investment of player time, design, and effort to carry out salvaging operations properly: which is why I am (AFAIK) the first, and still the *only* player to have so far ever successfully established a significant orbital scrapping operation in Kerbal Space Program... (at least, the only one to have ever posted about having done so on the forums) Regards, Northstar

How do you dismantle a used car in a junkyard? You look at the vehicle, and you decide based on its form and structure what the best way is to get at the components you really want- doing as little damage as possible to less valuable but still useful components in the process. Any such station would be equipped with a variety of robotic arms, grippers, and cutting tools- and probably several independently-mobile robots powered by umbilical cords as well... You would be aiming to cut things like batteries, engine components, and working electronics out of debris most of the time- doing as little damage to the rest of the structure as possible, so you could re-use some of the undamaged fuel tanks or use some of the structural components (metal sheeting, girders, nuts/bolts/screws, etc.) to build new rockets, stations, satellites, etc... You would NOT equip such a station with any equipment for melting down large amounts of metals, etc.- though you might have a couple *very small* such (electrically-powered) devices for melting some of the softer, rarer, and more valuable metals with lower melting-points (such as gold, silver, and platinum) out of non-reusable (damaged) circuit boards and other electronic devices on a small scale... Regards, Northstar

I ran dozens of missions during that time, and even more scrapping operations. I suggest you actually take a look at the links I posted to my thread before you start talking out of ignorance of what I actually did... Actually, you can see where the scrapper ship is getting its fuel in several of the screenshots. Not only does it obtain leftover fuel from some of the debris itself (sometimes it's the best strategy to drop a stage before it's 100% empty), but it also obtains a large amount of fuel from the orbital station you see it returning to in several of the screenshots. That station is at a convenient 350 km equatorial orbit, and is where I drop off all the debris I salvage, as well as pick up more fuel for the scrapper ship. Most of the station's fuel came from several very-heavy tanker launches shortly after it was established (before the scrapping operations ever got underway), but once that starts to run low, I will be establishing ISRU fuel-production on the Mun and Minmus (electrolyzing available water-ice). If the water-ice wasn't available, or I had some reason to roleplay save the water-ice for other purposes (such as life-support for an eventual Munar colony), though in KSP-Interstellar the amount of water ice is assumed to be so large as to be effectively unlimited for a player's purposes (however in real life, though evidence indicates Luna has some rather considerable ice deposits in some of its northern craters in, the deposits are probably by no means vast or unlimited...), then I would just run all my operations off Aluminum-Oxygen hybrid rockets: which obtain all their fuel from electrolyzing aluminum-rich regolith (which *IS* available in effectively unlimited quantities in real life). You're talking about "downcycling" again, probably inspired by how we recycle paper or plastic... See my other post- this isn't the way you would run a salvage operation in space (at least not until you had a VERY significant presence there, centuries ahead of where we are now). Instead, you would run recycling operations in a manner more similar to how we recycle used cars, cellphones, or computers- where the individual components are valuable, and can often be re-used without doing anything to them other than detaching them from the rest of the vehicle/device. Regards, Northstar

By a rather simple measure- how many rocket launches I have to make to maintain my operations in space. It would have taken me a LOT more launches to get as much mass to orbit as it did to simply recycle what was already there. It took a lot FEWER launches to get the fuel up- and like I said, you can actually produce fuel on the Mun using ISRU- in which case, fuel consumption doesn't matter. No. In fact, I salvaged debris from all kinds of orbits- inclined, elliptical, low, high, even in orbit around the Mun. The debris was scattered all over the place. I would appreciate if you would stop acting like a cynical and hostile %#$% though. This is supposed to be a *friendly* gaming community. It's more than a "few tons" of material. Most of what I was recycling was spent upper stages used to carry payloads to orbit, or drop tanks from interplanetary transfers (which meant it was in a *HIGHLY* elliptical orbit). The fuel consumption wasn't pretty, which is why I said the margins were "a bit low", but it was worth it for what literally added up to HUNDREDS of tons of recycled material (in fact, over a thousands tons in total- I have a very active space program). In-game, I can immediately re-use it. I build a new rocket, or space station, or satellite with the RocketParts I get from salvaging- simple as that. In real life, you're making the *HIGHLY INACCURATE* assumption that you have to make use of a recycling pattern known as "downcycling"- where you degrade something to be recycled into its base components before making something new from scratch. I don't entirely blame you for making that assumption- most people are only familiar with recycling through the common processes of recycling things like paper, cardboard, metal, glass, etc. That is NOT the type of recycling that would be useful in space, however. Think of something more similar to how we recycle computers or cell phones in real life- we either clean and fix up reusable components, sometimes re-using an entire part or product (as with cell phones), or we only salvage the highly valuable metals and minerals that can be easily accessed- such as gold and other rare metals from some computers, and throw out the rest... In such a case, you don't need *nearly* as much energy, and you don't need to smelt large amounts of things in orbit. You end up tearing apart some things to get at valuable components (and throwing the rest away), whereas with others you simply reuse it whole: as with a drop tank, which you should simply be able to re-attach to another rocket (in fact, although it is a bit more complex, if I wanted I could actually do this by only attaching my drop tanks with radially-placed docking ports instead of decouplers...) What I'm talking about is more comparable to a junkyard tearing still-serviceable parts out of used/wrecked cars, than a metal recycling plant melting everything down and starting again from scratch (on Earth, we downcycle because the financial costs of doing so are less than junkyard-type recycling, as labor is more expensive than heavy infrastructure, and the atmosphere convects away hear. In space, the opposite applies for nearly every factor when using a robotic disassembly strategy- so a junkyard strategy is superior.) You wouldn't need a giant station to run an orbital junkyard. In real life you might have a station half or a third the size of the ISS easily performing all the necessary functions. Not cheap to build, to be sure, but if you're producing fuel on the Mun/Luna you have an essentially unlimited supply of free fuel available for your scrapper ships (establishing 100% reusable supply lines from the Munar/Lunar surface to anywhere in the Kerbin/Earth system is comparatively trivial), whereas every single ton of Dry Mass you ship to orbit is going to cost you dearly. The same principle applies in real life. Regards, Northstar

The energies required to perform the actual recycling/disassembly (in real life) hardly matter first of all- solar panels provide a virtually unlimited supply of power (at a slow rate), assuming your disassembly plant is mostly or all robotic, and doesn't need to waste most of its energy on energy-hungry life support systems for a large crew... Also, once a solar panel is launched and deployed on a space station, it's a more or less one-time cost (except for small costs in maintenance and a tiny % increase in station-keeping costs: the latter of which are less significant in higher orbits), so it doesn't add much to the fuel costs of a long-term high-capacity scrapping operation like I demonstrated here. Admittedly, there are no energy costs to recycle the rocket debris in my system, aside from the solar panels necessary to run the Scrapper Ship itself. But, that's because the mods are abstracted and built for simplicity/fun... Sure, they *COULD* require me to launch a heavy and electricity-hungry robotic-disassembly/recycling plant to orbit that would carry out the actual recycling of hauled/towed debris- but it wouldn't actually change the economics at all, aside from requiring a one-time heavy launch cost to launch the recycling plant in the first place... It would only make my scrapping operations more boring, less fun, and a bit slower to pay for themselves- but no less profitable in the long run. Regards, Northstar P.S. If what you meant is that all you saw is my flying at the debris at slow speeds, that's because that's virtually all there is to see in that album. In a few of my other albums, I show the RocketParts inventory of the Scrapper Ship before and after recycling a ship. But there's not much to see in terms of the actual recycling- it's not animated or anything. You simply fly at the debris, and it disappears- with an equivalent mass of "RocketParts" being deposited in your ship's RocketParts storage modules after a few seconds... Once again, they could have required a slower and more energy-hungry recycling process, and a heavy disassembly/recycling module to perform it- but all that means is that I would have had to use an Advanced Grabbing Unit (which didn't exist back when the mods this relies on were introduced) to grab the debris, and tug it back to a space station- where it wouldn't matter how slow, heavy, or power-hungry the actual disassembly/recycling plant was... That would have cost exactly the same fuel/Delta-V, and just been a lot more annoying.

Do you have *ANY IDEA* how expensive a rocket like that would be, in real life? Jet engines are MUCH more expensive than rocket engines, for ones of equal size and comparable thrust... That's why we tend not to rely on jet engines for rocket ascents in real life- despite the potential fuel savings (spaceplane designs are a different story, since their engines are a fall smaller portion of their total cost- as wings allow them to get by with far lower TWR and cost money in themselves, and they would tend to spend LONG periods of time in-atmosphere before kicking out to orbit, compared to traditional rockets...) Regards, Northstar