Ideas for the future of SPM

[Bolter]

Some great ideas on this thread. Also, it is refreshing to see the Devs so involved with the community. I specially like Kalesin's notion of a more flexible mission creator. Sounds like the Devs see the potential as well.

My input would be for the Devs to decide early-on whether they're going to be just a "historical precedent" game, or a game that allows space lovers to fulfill a grander vision of space exploration. What I mean by that is that we all know how the post-Apollo space era turned-out for manned space exploration. It was, and continues to be, a huge disappointment. By making the game "historical" post-Apollo, rather that "what if", that inevitable disappointment would be built into the soul of the game. Most people don't play space exploration games to putter about Earth's orbit, we play them to reach for the stars. I'd gladly pay for periodic expansions, so long as each one gets MAN, not just robots, further from Earth each time.

Since Mars manned landings are on the roadmap, then one must consider the challenges involved, and the technologies needed to meet those challenges:

APPROACH:
How do you want to get there? A direct ascent mega-ship that takes everything you'll need from fuel to consumables? Well, you'll have to build it in space. A cycler type ship that drops you off on a fly-by, and returns months later after an Earth fly-by replenishment? You'll have to stay on the surface unsupported between visits. Do you want to send the habitats, rovers, ascent stages ahead of time as robotic missions, and only commit to a manned mission when everything is in place? Then you'll need a very high degree of probe technology.

DURATION
Any manned mission to Mars would be at least a YEAR long, and most likely closer to two. That means that extended duration technologies would have to be developed to that degree from the current week-long maximum. Astronaut/Cosmonaut physiology and psychology would have to be developed far beyond the demands on a nuclear submariner with a maximum underwater patrol of 6mo in full gravity, to something that could very well take 2+ years in zero/reduced gravity. Spacecraft longevity and long-term reliability would have to be developed and tested.

PROPULSION
Chemical rockets? Massive non-reusable ship built/fueled in space.
Nuclear rockets? Large reusable ship fueled in space with basic reactors.
Plasma/Ion engines? Smaller reusable ship with advanced reactors in space.
LASER-pumped light sails? would need space based high powered laser projectors.

ACTIVITIES
Do you want just a "Flags and Footprints" mission? Then you can just drop a lander from the mothership during close Mars approach on its way to a high periapsis swing, then meet it on the way back out. You wouldn't need habitats or ground-side supplies; your lander would suffice.
Do you want to do science there? You have to stay for Months on the surface, and somehow get all the supplies you'll need down there.
Do you want to establish a long term base? You'll need regular resupply missions from Earth.

Now, all of that is outside of the scope of the planned next evolution which sounds like it will focus on shuttles, space stations and probes. What is relevant, though, is that a foundation can be laid by WHAT those missions can accomplish in preparation for eventual manned missions to Mars.

Space stations & shuttles are great vehicles for introducing orbital construction, fueling & resupply plus human & systems zero-G endurance.
Extended Lunar duration missions are great to start developing long term habitats & systems reliability as well as human reduced-G endurance and productivity.
Advanced long range probes are great to get started on nuclear/electric propulsion, as well as laying the groundwork for robotic mission components preceding manned landings.

Finally, each different mission configuration would grant not only different levels of prestige, and thus funding, but it also would inspire/disillusion the population. For example, if one were to do just a "flags & footprints" mission to Mars, the population may lose interest as they did with Apollo. If on the other hand, you build a reusable interplanetary ship, perform extended duration surface missions, establish permanent infrastructure on Mars, complete with in-situ resource extraction/utilization, you'll fire-up the imagination of millions. More importanly, perhaps that would loosen the wallets of corporations/billionaires to take over funding when the Soviet Union collapses and NASA's budget tanks because of it. That would be a great mechanism to disossiate space exploration from national policy whims and fiscal vagaries. That would neatly open-up asteroid belt industrialization for the next evolution, and manned missions to the outer stellar bodies on further expansions.

Great game. Keep it up!

[stratochief66]

There are already some pretty spectacular ideas in this thread, but I needed to add my two cents after you mentioned "Project Space Station", the game that defined my childhood.

In terms of adding multiplayer competition, I have a few suggestions. Players should be competing for revenue sources (contract fulfillment) either through competitive bidding or 'he who grabs it first'. Same for personnel (scientists AND pilots, etc.)
Players could be competing to hire subcontractors to produce their hardware, so if Player 1 chooses 'Shuttle Classic' then Player 1 has an incentive to select a different rocket or shuttle type, or suffers having to wait longer for hardware.

Players could be competing for funds as well as prestige, funds of course are used to progress and acquire more prestige. Various contracts can be fulfilled, both for government or commercial entities for a mix of prestige and funds. Launch a satellite? Here is a lump of cash. Develop a cancer drug? Here is a Big lump of cash + prestige. Perhaps mission chains, to incentivize a a strategy, like focusing on research of a certain type.

I will be very interested to see what missions and hardware you make reachable/researchable that contributes to Part 3. Perhaps lunar sample return, robotics missions to mars to give you a leg up? Research into nuclear or ion engines are a bit of help in Part 2, but give you a boosted start for Part 3?

I also love the idea of planned but never flown hardware finding its way into the game, like the MOL/Gemini space station concept, or a longer lasting Skylab. I prefer the fantasy of a NERVA powered manned mars orbit or flyby to the aluminum space truck of history.

I look forward to seeing a shuttle constructed Freedom Station competing with a Saturn 5 second stage Von Braun style wet lab station.

[Kalesin]

Prompted by a toxic mix of political and financial problems between Russia and its partners in the International Space Station (ISS), Kremlin officials recently dusted off old plans to build an all-Russian space station after the retirement of the multinational outpost in Earth's orbit. - See more at: http://sen.com/blogs/anatoly-zak/russia ... vz5kP.dpuf

The space race begins again.

New ideas for BASPM 2

[Kalesin]

More ideas and posible new agency, ESA (three multiplayer NASA-ESA-ROSCOSMOS ??? )



More info: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia ... tions/ixv/

[peyre]

I know it's a little late and this is kind of nitpicky, but I still find it disconcerting to see British spellings used by NASA. For the Soviets or GSA, either US or UK conventions would work, but it doesn't make sense for NASA to use British spellings--it'd be like a political sim of the UK using US spellings, forever referring to the "Labor Party". I'd like to see US English as a language option for those who prefer it, or at least have the game use US English for NASA and British English for the other two.

[zeromillincrease]

Some great ideas have been suggested. I strongly agree with the need to have Partial Failures on space missions, as an Apollo 13 scenario in the game would right now result in 3 dead astronauts rather than 3 bummed astronauts who didn't get to moon walk.
I also suggest adding some of the proposed Apollo applications missions, particularly the manned Venus flyby. And making a Soviet equivalent for each mission using perhaps the Soyuz.
Another option would be having the earlier American space plane program an X-15/X-20 program. This would allow orbital flights via a rocket-launched X-20. And space programs that make use of 60s-era space planes should experience an R&D boost when developing a full-scale shuttle or Buran later on.
Along with the Gemini MOL, Skylab and Freedom-type stations, it also would be great to see the NERVA mars rocket (and a Soviet equivalent) make an appearance once a lunar landing is achieved. You could make the R&D process for that rocket complex and lengthy to add some realistic challenge.
For American players who eschew the full-scale shuttle route, perhaps offer an automated and/or enlarged Apollo spacecraft option?
I'd also suggest a diverse array of probe mission options -- from actually built probes and landers to some of the proposed yet never-built missions, such as the late 80s Soviet idea for a balloon probe on Mars.

[Kalesin]

Apollo Manned Venus Flyby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby

[Sabratha]

My input would be for the Devs to decide early-on whether they're going to be just a "historical precedent" game, or a game that allows space lovers to fulfill a grander vision of space exploration. What I mean by that is that we all know how the post-Apollo space era turned-out for manned space exploration. It was, and continues to be, a huge disappointment. By making the game "historical" post-Apollo, rather that "what if", that inevitable disappointment would be built into the soul of the game. Most people don't play space exploration games to putter about Earth's orbit, we play them to reach for the stars. I'd gladly pay for periodic expansions, so long as each one gets MAN, not just robots, further from Earth each time.

I think the nail was hit squarely on the head here.

I think we should certainly allow the big historical programs, but also make room for speculative ones. Of course I do not think that the player should be able to do everything at once. Still, I think it would be important to give the plyer more freedom and allow him to choose of a wider more branched-out tree of options than in the first game. The first installment had a clear goal - go to the moon, everything else was somewhat a sideshow.

I think this time it should be different. Victory should be more nuanced and there should be many competitive manners in which you should be abel to expand your program. I think the main spheres should be:

1) Shuttles. Historical, we all know how it went and why the US "won" this race against the soviets in this field. The soviet player should be able to pursue the Buran more effectively should he decide to move funds and have enough prestige for it.

2) Space stations. Historical, we al know why MIR and the soviet program "won" over the less focused and smaller scale US programs in this field. I think the US should be given a speculative option to pursue a larger, complex program on pair with the MIR if the US player decideds to funnel funds and research into it.

3) Probes, including deep space ones. Voyager is of course a great example, but I think we should give the Soviet player a speculative option to instead pursue such advanced probes too. I think you are starting to get my poitn here - both sides should be given similar possibilities and let the player decide where he wants to focus his attention.

4) Moon bases. Back in the early 70s both the US and the USSR had long-term plans for these. These were not pipe-dreams, thse were advanced and feasible notions highly favored by the serious scientific communities of both states. The USSR in particular had an advanced and wel designed moon station modules (aka "Barminograd") and it seems only the N1 failures prevented this from going forward. Even after the US moon landing, the Soviets were convinced that they could build a moon base sooner than NASA.

This is also a great idea for the GSA campaign. I'm quite certain that if USA and USSR joined forces in space exploation and the Saturn rocket was available for use in soviet moon base plans, then we would have seen Barmin's moon base established by Saturn rocket launches in the early 80s.
Here's a good link for it: "http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dlbrbase.htm"

5) Planetary manned flybys. Now we are going from the "clearly realistic and possible" to the "could it really have been possible back then?" area. USSR had a TMK-MAVR program (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tmk1.htm) that again was dumped because of N1 falures and lack of a suitbale large sized rocket replacement. USA had a planned venus orbiting mision as well (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/manssion.htm)


There is also the big question of USSR-NASA cooperation, which had some sucess during detenteand then again plummeted. Later on we have the flal of the USSR and the corresponding collapse of its space program. I think this could really be made into a very good and fascinating game mechanic where you get an entirely ifferent level of "victory points", with the goal of bringing the two competing superpowers to cooperation in space. This should be especially pressing for the USSR side, who will face the historial collapse in the early 90s unless it integrates its pogram with USA and the international community.

Speaking of international communityl the integration mechanic could allow historic european or japanese programs to enter the scene, possibly leading up to a large international project like the historical ISS.

This last cooperation game mechanic could actually be used to make the more grandiose speculative programs (Venus manned flybys etc) available the players. If you can multiple rich and advanced countries to back you up, contrbute fnds and integrate with your program (Germany, France, Japan, China etc) then it becomes a much more plausible scenario.


That's my 2 cents so far. I'll certainly come back to sugest individual programs I'd like to see in the game.

[Sabratha]

Ok, in this post I will offer some of my own suggestions on specific soviet projects:

SHUTTLES
1. Buran. Well, we all kno about this one I think, so no sense to elaborate.
2. LKS. A smaller, more economical alternative to Buran (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lks.htm)

[Kalesin]

There are good ideas.

I think there is much, we should also indicate where you can PolarMotion collect bibliography, data and images (http://www.astronautix.com/ for example)

For Russians programs, I recommend reading http://www.russianspaceweb.com/, Anatoly Zak blog.

Example: LOS - LUNAR ORBITAL STATION



A lunar lander (foreground) arrives at the lunar orbital station, LOS (center). After a successful docking, the crew, which arrived at the LOS onboard a separate transport ship (background), will board the lander for the final leg of its journey to the Moon. The ascent stage of the lunar lander from the previous sortie to the Moon can be seen parked at the peripheral docking port of the LOS. Copyright © 2008 Anatoly Zak


In my opinion, part two should, apart from being continued Road to Moon, overcome budget cuts that were after the moon landing, and try to survive the Agency.

Another aspect would be to add a new type of score, similar to prestige, as "Science"; and to send satellites to the Moon or Mars "good for something" besides prestige, if a player sends seven programs satellites to the Moon, is easier to explore and land on the Moon than one that has sent only two programs.

[ChrisMDw]

I think some sort of way to encourage the more 'mundane' missions would be a good addition. I see two ways of achieving that.

1) Adding an additional score (call it "utility" or "productivity" or whatever) that the player has to manage in addition to the budget. This score would drop every turn and could be increased by successful missions. Obviously, different types of missions would be more 'productive' than others (so programs like Earth orbiting communications satellites would still appeal to the player) and would be a score representing the generic benefit of the launch. Commercial satellites and research probes would be more 'productive' in this sense than, say, the early space stations. Like prestige, the productivity could depend on whether it was the first, second or subsequent launches. I think this would be a way to encourage the player to "show results" rather than just sit back and R&D what they need for the next big step.

2) Making prestige something you have to 'spend' to be able to open some programs. In this way, the player would be "using their reputation" to be able to convince industry, science and the government to support a project. This would be another way to encourage the more mundane missions since they would build the prestige necessary for the more big leap-type programs. It'd also encourage more diversity in the programs the player uses since they couldn't just spend all their budget on these big leap programs (they'd have no more spendable prestige).

Just my thoughts on ways to introduce the change in the space race after the lunar landing away from prestige. After the moon, prestige wasn't really the primary motivator anymore. It wasn't enough to throw tons of money at space programs so the US or USSR could claim a first. There was the demand for more tangible results like scientific or technological knowledge, or commercial applications.

Chris

[Nils60]

I'd second the above mentioned ideas. Me too is playing with the names of the original Astronauts (and Cosmonauts) and I'd love to be able to mod their pictures into the game.

One suggestion:
Whereas the first part of the game is all about the "Race to the Moon" I'd suggest to dedicate the 2nd part to the "Race for Knowledge". Why that? Well, the ultimate goal, as I understand it, will be to set a foot on the Mars. But you can't just take a rocket and a capsule, stuff in some astronauts and bring them on their way to Mars and back again. First you've got to know about which dangers space is holding in the long run and how to keep them healthy and alive for at least one year (there and back again). I think, that's where all those Shuttles, space probes, Earth orbit and lunar stations come in handy. For you need some place in space to do experiments and research the knowledge needed for further space missions. The building of a space station (Mir, ISS, Lunar station) should unlock the availability of several experiments that each give you a certain amount of knowledge points (just like prestige in the 1st part). And the safety of a trip to Mars should be dependent on the amount of knowledge points accumulated so far. So you want to skip those long term space experiments like space duration VI, VII or VIII (e.g. 3 months, half a year in space)? No problem, but your astronauts may have big problems after coming back to good old earth because of having deteriorated bones as vulnerable as glass. You want to skip a Lunar base? No problem, but you may encounter several problems in establishing a Mars base when your astronauts are on this rocky planet far from home. Skipping several experiments in the space station? Well your astronauts might encounter dangers they're not prepared for or turn into maniacs on that long flight to Mars because of having nothing other to do each day than wait for being there. I hope you got the gist. In the end a safe flight to and return from Mars would only be possible with a certain amount of knowledge and the first to have accumulated that amount of knowledge would be the first to start a manned Mars mission with the chance for success.

Just my two cents ....
Nils

[N_Molson]

Well, a space-stations-centered BASPM Part 2 would make a lot of sense, IMHO. Servicing and supplying them with spacecraft such as Soyuz-T/TM/TMA/TMA-M, Apollo/Orion/Dragon/CST-100 or Shuttles (including a few mini-shuttles derived from the HL-20 or the PKA ?) would be part of that. I also agree that around that "core", it could be fun to have some extra "what if ?" programs, like longer manned lunar expeditions.

That and a new set of more advanced robotic missions obviously, including the famous Voyager I & II probes.

Commercial satellites are another aspect that could be implemented. Successfully deploying satellites in various Earth Orbits (like Molnya, GEO, GSO...) could be a way to make extra money. You could have communication satellites, GPS satellites, governmental "classified" satellites, etc... with various masses.

And yes, a few space shuttles seem to be very relevant for station-building or satellites deployment duties (including the Shuttle/Centaur-G program that was cancelled right after Challenger). Also, there were "full cargo" applications of the Shuttle Launch System or Energia on the drawing boards.

On that timeframe, GSA could become a real "third faction", as an alliance of ESA and other "independents". Or maybe prestige could be a way to gain geopolitical influence, that would give you access to foreign programs (Japan (JAXA), GB (UK Space Agency), France (CNES) for NASA ; China, Germany, India for SSSR...). That last idea would serve the cold-war background quite well IMHO.

There could also something to do with space stations and Science. One possible goal of Part 2 could be to set up Orbital Laboratories working like "Science Factories", earning you Science Points as long as they are operational, crewed and well-supplied. Of course, "simple" programs like Salyut or Skylab would not earn a lot, especially because they had a limited lifetime in orbit. But they would also unlock goals paving the way to build permanent space stations (or science points could be spent to buy/unlock space stations modules).

To sum it up we could have a gameplay built around three axis :

1) Science, the ultimate goal being to unlock advanced techs required to prepare the Mars trip (in different domains, like Medical Science, Biology, Particle Physics, Engineering etc...)
2) Economy, with commercial satellites or even space turism earning very welcome extra cash,
3) Geopolitical, with manned missions (Earth Orbit, Moon, NEO...) allowing you to gain influence.

All missions would earn Science and Prestige points, but some would be very geared towards Science (Earth Science satellites or manned long-duration missions), some very geared towards Prestige (like complex crewed missions on the lunar surface involving as many 'nauts as possible), some other being a nice balance (interplanetary exploration robotic missions). The exceptions would be : commercial missions, that would only earn money using proven technologies, and Orbital Laboratories (as station modules) operations, working like "science farms" and basically converting Money into Science (through supply and servicing missions).

My two cents

[Kalesin]

For what it's as help or inspiration, years ago I played a game of building a space station; Space Station Manager, by a company named Mistaril




Add link page (postmortem) and link to download trial version:

http://web.archive.org/web/200410092208 ... em_ssm.php

Mistaril - Space Station Manager Trial

[ultrasu]

I'd love to see a small expansion of the museum, like a more detailed timeline of landmarks in the space race, one that includes the employees that were involved. Right now the building doesn't really make sense, imagine going to the United States Astronaut Hall of Fame near KSC, seeing the names of the smartest astronaut, the fittest astronaut, the richest astronaut, and the most enthusiastic astronaut, but no mention of Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin. It should also be easier to see the number of missions employees have worked on (rather than how many seasons they've spent idle).

I'd also like to see some sort of benefit for keeping researchers on the same project for several seasons. Now you can just swap them around willy nilly every season without drawbacks, as if they're equally familiar with all concurrent projects in their specialisation(s).

Oh, and another thing to add some more realism: back-up crews, in case one of your key men catches a cold or gets pregnant at a crucial time or something. I feel like the current employees are a bit too reliable.

[stratochief66]

This thread has really filled with many excellent ideas!

The trajectory through game #2 will probably be determined by the developer's intentions for game #3. If Game 2 was intended to be the last one, then I can think of a lot of cool ways to balance things such that there is no real wrong way to play, while at the same time the player must make real choices and will not be able to do everything in one playthrough.

Funding and prestige can be government derived through 'big cheese' missions like Shuttle variants, stations, exploratory probes and rovers, or advanced lunar stations or landings. Funding and prestige could also be derived through commercial contracts, through developing a cost effective satellite or probe deployment fleet (other Shuttle variants), carrying out commercial science on a space station, or investing in re-usable and recoverable elements (for example, this proposal http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnvb.htm) I have been working on a modded tech tree for another space sim, so I have invested some hours into turning all these potential technology paths into a tree.

However, some of these paths might be mostly useless distractions or excluded from game 2 if the only way to win game 3 is placing men and women on mars. I imagine part of the planning process for game 2 could include work to line the goals and missions up to flow into game 3, but this could be a mighty challenge. Just as with so many mission options the player cannot choose to do everything, the game developers must decide what aspects of the game to develop and which ones to leave in forum posts. The developers have finite staff and time. Adding more complexity and balancing more features and options becomes exponentially more complex.

I am very interested to hear from the developers what ideas they thing warrant exclusion and inclusion for games 2 and 3 before I speculate and brainstorm further.

[Blacklight]

I have a few nit pick things that I would like to see added to the game that bug me by their absence. This is a minor thing, but It would be a HUGE help in planning to have the current date shown on the main menu bar. That way, you can plan your budget a LOT better.

My next nit pick is probably something that others have brought up. Something that really gave the old game flavor was that it used archival footage for the missions. Instead of using the animations, real archival footage would be a HUGE plus in adding to the genuine historic feel of this game.

My third nit pick is in the original game, I seem to recall that you could click on the "CIA" building or something like that and get "Intelligence" reports on what the other side was up to. Sometimes, the reports were true, and other times, they weren't. This would add some interesting elements to the game as you would have to wonder, "Are they really actually rushing to do this?" and adjust your activities accordingly. Anyway, I would like an element in the main screen where you could actually check up or get "intelligence reports" on what the other side is doing. Not just at the beginning of the turn. I would like to be able to refer back to it from time to time during my turn. As a matter of fact. It would be nice to be able to refer back to the briefing that we get at the beginning of the turn during our turn as well.

Another nit pick I have is the Museum. The Museum in this game is like an "Employee of the Month" wall. I would think that the "Museum" should be a LOT more like the museum of the original game where it has a timeline and it shows the patches of the accomplishments and feats of each competing country along the timeline. It was simple and brilliant and should be put in there. The closest thing this game has to this is the "Goals Comparison" section in the "Public Affairs" building and it's just not the same thing. In the old "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space", nothing put your standing in the space race in perspective more than to look at and scroll through that time line and see all the US and Russian patches along it. The museum shouldn't just be an "Best Employee" board. It should be a "Museum of all space accomplishments by all countries so you can compare how everyone is doing".

[kane544]

All of these suggestions in here are certainly wonderful ideas. If there is anything I would like to see added, its the Soviets getting a shot at sending probes to Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury and the Sun. They had such ideas on paper but just left it to NASA instead. I was wondering if such ideas might make it into the game?

[CondoritoChilensis]

Hello Ignacio and other players.

This are my ideas.
1-Project NERVA.

2-Project Orion (Nuclear Propulsion).

3-TUPOLEV Tu 95LAL.

4-Valentina Thereskova First Woman in Space.
That was a big deal for the soviet Propaganda.


At the second Part
India.
China
ESA
JAXA

all independent so would be a more interest race
i would add Brazil, they made some developments and they have the funds and economy
to start a space Program.

Thanks a million

CondoritoChilensis

[peyre]

Condorito has a good point there. The second part of the game could include potentially more space programs. Though historically they started later--and less ambitiously--than the US, it might be fun to allow other player(s) in our space sim. This would be similar to Colonization and FreeCol, where all the colonial powers start the game in 1492 even though in reality they all started their American colonies at very different times.

An Indian, Japanese, or Chinese space program might be a little far-fetched, given the state those countries were in back in the '60s, but why not at least include the ESA? With greater focus the ESA might feasibly have started a manned program, and the game could include manned spacecraft such as the Hermes shuttle.

I don't know if the addition of other space program(s) would be better or not; I'm just throwing the idea out there to see what people think.