Torquemadus

It's worth noting that the Orion capsule is re-useable, but the hugely expensive SLS rocket required to launch it is not. A re-useable Shenzhou is nice, but it isn't the part of the rocket that needs to be re-useable. Remember that the Space Shuttle orbiter was re-useable, but turned out to be more expensive to launch than the expendable rockets it was supposed to replace. This was due to the cost of maintaining the standing army of workers needed to prepare it for each launch. Also, although it was technically a heavy lifter, most of the mass it lifted to orbit was it's own dry mass, not payload. It's been said that the Shuttle was designed "upside down" and that the first stage is the part that should have been re-useable. If China could engineer a fully re-useable launch vehicle that costs less per launch than current expendables (as SpaceX are currently trying to do), then companies and governments all over the world would queue up to buy their launch services. ESA are currently flying a licenced version of the Soyuz launcher from French Guiana because it's cheaper to do that than launch everything on their own Ariane and Vega rockets.

Bearing in mind the transportation costs involved, there will be an incentive from the outset to encourage crews to spend longer on Mars, especially once a permanent base is established. Remember that the real risks involved come from getting to Mars and getting back, not from living on the surface. Once the base has grown into a settlement, there will be those who decide not to go home at all. Once permanent settlements exist, families will be raised. The first children born on Mars will be the first true Martians. However, the location of the first base needs to be chosen carefully. Ideally, it should be built in a location with access to geothermal energy, which would provide a source of power for the base and a source of liquid water (geothermally heated subsurface water is also where you should look for life, not on the cold irradiated surface). This site will need to be found by explorers. The main reasoning given for marooning early explorers on Mars is not for practical reasons, or even to make a serious effort at starting a colony, but merely to save the bother of figuring out how to do the mission properly and return them safely to the Earth (which is easily done with in-situ propellant). The aim is apparently to strand a bunch of people on Mars and hope that someone is guilt tripped into making a real humans to Mars programme before they die (of old age if nothing else). Buzz Aldrin has advocated the construction of Aldrin Cyclers (space stations that cycle in continuous free returns between the two planets), but nothing I've read in his books advocates a cynical marooning strategy.

I'm 34 years old. I got hooked on space when I visited the Apollo exhibit at the London Science Museum. Tom Stafford's Apollo 10 command module "Charlie Brown" is on display there. It's the only Apollo command module on public display outside the United States. They also have a British Black Arrow satellite launcher on display. I can't remember how old I was, but I know I was old enough to read, since the first thing I did when I got back was to grab load of books on space travel from my local library. They mentioned a base on Mars during the 1980s (1980s? That's now!) They also mentioned something called Project Orion, which was a means of travelling to other stars and was powered by something called "new killer bombs". I wasn't sure what those were, so I asked one of the really smart kids at school how they worked and he said they were powered by "weapons grade urine". Unfortunately, the books were out of date and didn't mention that the Apollo programme had long since been torn to shreds by the Nixon administration. Undeterred, I watched the launch of the "school teacher in space" aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger on BBC Children's Newsround. Space exploration was apparently so important, that they have to send school teachers just like my school teacher to teach us kids how to be astronauts. Obviously, astronautics was something that every school kid had to know how to do. Afterwards, it was made clear that space exploration was so important, that the astronauts and the school teacher were gladly prepared to die to make sure it happens. After all, if these people are prepared to die, it must be important. Heavy stuff for a primary school kid.

The most obvious plan would be to adopt an Apollo style "Mars within a decade" approach. When Kennedy announced the Apollo programme, Alan Shepard had recently completed his 15 minute sub-orbital flight aboard Freedom 7. By the end of that decade, NASA had completed Project Mercury and Project Gemini and developed the full bag of tricks needed to perform manned Moon landings. If you want an example of an expensive long term international space project, then the International Space Station is a good example. Using a similar approach, NASA could offer seats on their Mars missions to other space agencies in exchange for a contribution to the programme. For example, the Orion spacecraft currently uses a service module provided by ESA. Another obvious option would be to use the commercial model NASA have used to develop cargo and crew transportation to the ISS. My thinking is that once the ISS programme has run it's course, it should be replaced by a international humans to Mars programme. I would timetable one decade from programme inception to send the first crew to Mars, followed by a further decade of exploration where successive crews explore the surface and establish the best location for a permanent base. At this point, all further crews and freight would land at the base, which would perform a similar function to McMurdo base in Antarctica, allowing expeditions to be sent out to explore the entire planet. The base would then be expanded to become the first settlement.

In science fiction, the galaxy is filled with habitable worlds with breathable atmospheres. Some might have challenging environments such as deserts (Tatooine) or glaciers (Hoth), but you don't need a space suit. Convenient transportation between these worlds is provided by faster than light drive technology, which is either invented in the near future by humans, or learned through contact with aliens. It's important not to confuse science fiction with real life! It's been pointed out that many parts of the Earth are not "habitable" for humans unless we use technology to adapt to the conditions. For example, much of our planet is subject to freezing winters that we cannot survive without technologies such as clothing, shelter, and control of fire. We feed our populations through farming, which involves modifying the land and the use of domesticated plants and animals. We use technology to adapt to new environments, but we also modify our environment to better suit our needs. Living things have been modifying their environment to their benefit long before humans came along. If we want to settle a new world, we don't have to wait for fantastical warp drive spaceships to be invented to fly to a distant solar system with a ready made Earth for us to live on. We can settle Mars with our existing technology. We can then modify the environment there over time to make it more suitable for our needs. As well as being a destination for colonisation in itself, Mars is within easy reach of the main Asteroid Belt, allowing supplies sent from Mars to mining bases there. It has been suggested that a "triangle trade" could be set up, with high tech goods and colonists going to Mars, supplies going from Mars to the Asteroid Belt, and precious metals going from the asteroids to Earth. The next question would be how best to settle the outer solar system in order to exploit the rich supplies of Helium 3 fuel present in the atmospheres of the gas giants. Titan has been suggested as an ideal base location to support this (Jupiter's high gravity and nasty Van Allen radiation belts make it less attractive than Saturn). Helium 3 is not only an excellent fuel for fusion reactors, it is also an excellent fuel for fusion rockets, which can be used to reach speeds that are adequate for interstellar flight. If we can master the resources of our own solar system, the next step is to begin expanding into new ones. It's worth bearing in mind that the Earth has only been "Earth-like" since the relatively recent Cambrian period. Before that, it had no multicellular life and no oxygen atmosphere. Post-Cambrian earths might be rare, but pre-Cambrian earths might be more common. Mars had such conditions in its early geological history and could well have been a home to simple life just as the Earth was. There could be many planets that never develop the right conditions to become a post-Cambrian earth on their own, but would nonetheless be easy for us to settle and terraform. The discovery of a post-Cambrian Earth-like world with complex life would of course be of immense scientific interest.

Robert Zubrin wrote a book called The Case For Mars that explains how a Mars mission could be implemented with existing technology and without massive budget increases. Essentially, older plans for going to Mars assumed that all of the propellants and consumables needed for the return journey would have to be lifted from Earth. This required on orbit assembly of giant "Battlestar Galactica" interplanetary spacecraft. This in turn would require massive orbiting shipyards and propellant depots. The crew make a brief two week landing on Mars before returning to Earth via a Venus flyby. Zubrin's Mars Direct plan uses some straightforward chemistry to produce the return propellant on Mars from atmospheric carbon dioxide. This also provides fuel for ground vehicles and provides an extra source of life support oxygen for the crew. The crew stay on the surface for a year and a half while they wait for the next launch window to open up to return to Earth. During this time, the crew use the mobility provided by their ground vehicles to perform extensive exploration. Over successive flights, a suitable location for a base would be found and subsequent flights would land there. The plan assumes that a rocket with similar performance to the Saturn 5 could be made available. Each mission requires two launches. One sends the unfuelled Earth Return Vehicle, while the other sends the crew. This can be reduced to one launch per mission if nuclear thermal propulsion is used. The book also explains how to deal with the various supposed show stoppers, such as radiation and zero gravity.

I tend to find that as the excitement builds for an upcoming patch, I find myself playing more KSP, not less. If I didn't already have a Career Mode save in progress, I'd be starting one now.

I've been playing a stock career on 20% rewards. It was difficult at first, since I had very little tech, very little money, and no easy way to earn more of either. However, once I made my first landing on the Mun it got much easier. The Explore The Mun contract pays handsomely compared to those that come before it and opens the door to income from science transmissions and flags. This then makes it possible to farm money and, if desired, to farm science via the Outsourced R&D strategy. Even when taking care to avoid exploits, the game gets much easier at this point. The changes coming in 0.90 should hopefully make Career Mode a lot more interesting and challenging.

This would suggest that the Shuttle SRB is an air breathing rocket and would therefore need some kind of air intake. The oxygen from the atmosphere would have to somehow get inside the SRB so that it can be used to burn the fuel. Otherwise, the fuel wouldn't encounter the atmosphere until after it had exited the exhaust nozzle.

I accepted a contract to test the LFB on a Mun escape trajectory. Trouble is, I play on custom difficulty, so it can be hard to make a contract like that pay for itself. I managed to get some other contracts done on the same flight though.

The triangular wing parts sometimes fall off my planes.

As a career mode player, I'd get a lot of use out of a larger SRB. I don't use liquid fuel parts for a first stage, since on the difficulty settings I use I can't afford not to recover them. At the moment, I cluster large numbers of solids as a first stage even for fairly modest sized launches. On the rare occasions when I want to launch something really big, I use a bigger fly-back booster. However, the number of SRBs required for the first stage can make for very fiddly construction. A big SRB would be very helpful for these!

I've been enjoying the challenge of playing on custom difficulty with the following settings:- In order to save money, I made a recoverable booster that also doubles as a rescue ship. Alas, it kept tipping over and smashing after landing. I added some winglets to aid steering. Bouncy wings saved my rocket from smashing! Yay!

Today I landed on the Mun and sent Bill on EVA to plant a flag. It's times like these I'm glad I play with quickloading enabled.

If you have some time to spare, you might want to check this out. http://www.nss.org:8080/resources/library/shuttledecision/index.htm This is an e-book I read a while back that discusses the design of the NASA Space Shuttle. I was particularly interested by chapter eight, which shows the different configurations that were considered. http://www.nss.org:8080/resources/library/shuttledecision/chapter08.htm#intro

It turns out that when you use very low difficulty settings such as Normal, Moderate, and Hard, the game gives you effectively unlimited resources. I applied this simple in-game fix to solve the problem. Playing at this level slows down game progression considerably. It is still possible to use Outsourced R&D, but the start-up costs are a major drawback, and diverting more than a modest amount of income is impractical. I managed to get by on 10% commitment without hurting my finances too much.

I launch mine using my partially re-useable "stack shuttle", which I call the Kerbooster. It uses an expendable solid first stage, a re-useable orbiter, and a re-useable lander. After stopping to pick up a passenger, the Kerbooster sends the upper stage on it's way to the Mun, before looping around and returning to Kerbin. The Kestrel upper stage lands vertically on it's landing legs. The undercarriage is used for surface mobility, with small amounts of rocket fuel used to give a gentle push when needed.

VAB/SPH: My suspicion has been that there might be restrictions on what parts you are allowed to use. For example, you might have to upgrade in order to use the larger diameter rocket parts. This could give players an incentive to get by with smaller rockets and planes to avoid paying to upgrade until more money is available. Pad/Runway: While the VAB and SPH may well restrict the size of vehicle that can be built, it seems likely that the pad and runway will also set limits. There might be a set limit on how much a rocket or plane is allowed to weigh. Tracking Station: This one is open to some speculation. It seems clear from the appearance of the tier 1 tracking station that it has very limited capabilities. In principle, this should prevent you from tracking and communicating with a spacecraft beyond a certain distance from the KSC. The question is what the consequences of this might be. Causing the spacecraft to be "lost" if it flies too far away seems harsh (especially for any kerbals on board). The most likely consequence is that you can still fly the spacecraft, but you can't transmit science back to the KSC beyond a certain distance. Contracts could also be affected; how does anyone know whether you planted that flag on the Mun or not? Admin Building: There might be a restriction on how much commitment you can choose for each policy. This creates the dilemma of whether to activate early at a low level of commitment, or wait until you can afford a higher tier admin building later on. Remember that there are no refunds, so you probably wouldn't want to pay to activate a policy more than once if you can avoid doing so. Astronaut Complex: A better complex should be able to provide better training facilities. I expect that upgrading will raise the "level cap" for your kerbonauts. R&D: This will most likely restrict what tech tree tiers are available, which would give an incentive to try to get by with lower tech parts until more money is available to upgrade. Mission Control: More complex missions require a more complex control centre.

The tank is probably still there. Debris is not shown in the tracking centre by default.

I've been experimenting with custom difficulty to see how hard I can go and still play a successful stock career. The aim here is to make the game challenging without going too far and turning it into a boring resource grind. Setting resource gains to 20% made me re-learn how to play KSP. Efficient rocket designs and careful mission planning are essential. You have to think carefully about which contracts to accept, bearing in mind the potential costs versus rewards. Part unlock costs can be crippling, making strategic use of experimental parts very attractive. Limited money makes recovery and reusability very important. Verdict: An enjoyable challenge! At 10% resource gains, the game is just barely playable. You make very little science and money per mission, making game progression very slow indeed. The pre-set game progression contracts don't pay enough to cover the cost of game progression, so you have to make up the difference by grinding lots of part test contracts between missions, which soon starts to get boring. Verdict: Challenging but grindy.

Mine has landing legs fitted at the back for a vertical landing. I then use the undercarriage as wheels for surface travel. The trick is to land on high ground and explore downhill so that you can exploit frictionless wheels to travel long distances. Gentle bursts from the engine can be used to give the lander a push if needed, the fuel useage for this is negligible.

I set my SRBs to 70% thrust to delay their burnout until after I've cleared the dense portion of the atmosphere. This means that they give their best TWR at a point where they aren't fighting against terminal velocity. This allows my SRBs to provide a larger share of the work needed to lift my vehicle into orbit.

I was trying to get some mates of mine to read The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin (check it out, you'll never look at a mission to Duna the same way). Every time I raised the subject, they kept saying to me: "Three words; Kerbal Space Program!" I kept up my end of the bargain, they didn't keep theirs. They still don't know what "in-situ propellant" means.

You can also fix this by transmitting lingua code at the correct frequency and rate of speed.

Don't be too proud of these technological marvels you call the Voyager probes. History has shown that when ancient space probes travel too far from our solar system, they become the V'Ger Entity. Woe betide any squadrons of Klingon Battlecruisers that stand in their way!