Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'budget'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
    • KSP 2 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP 2 Dev Diaries
    • Show and Tell
  • Kerbal Space Program
    • The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP Discussion
    • KSP Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Community
    • Player Spotlight
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (Console)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



Found 6 results

  1. Internet says Intercept Games is at 40 employees + consultants. Using an average of 5000$ per month per employee for a 4 years development period: 40 * 5000 * 12 * 4 = 9.6 mil. $ for salaries Marketing budget should be about twice that, let's say 20 mil. $. I would round it up at ~40 mil. $ Let's account for the fact that KSP2 will probably cost 60$ at launch. Lower sale estimates would be 1 mil. copies. So there's some budget headroom up to 50 mil. $ What do you think? Other games with ~50 mil. $ budgets: Half-Life 2, The Division
  2. If anyone playing Career mode has ever gone bankrupt - or even gotten close to it - feel free to share your stories. If you haven't and still want to post on this thread, when did you spend a good chunk of your space program's money within (let's say) a 24-real-world-hour period? DISCLAIMER: This thread does not apply to Sandbox or Science mode players, since money isn't an issue. I'll start us off here. I had just made a 20-person docking-capable self-refueling SSTO, but the downside was that it could not land safely at some places due to a poor TWR there. Since I planned to use this as the new standard tourist transport craft, I had to launch ore transports and more landers so that I could complete landing contracts and refuel the plane in orbit without worrying about crashing on the surface due to poor thrust. I soon sent several spacecraft to multiple locations in preparation for this new change; I also had to send a space station to Eve to complete a contract. Here are the expenses I incurred that day EXPENSES Quantity Item Destination Price Total 1 Hera-class Space Station Eve Orbit 1111771.0 1111771.0 1 (STANDBY) Gilly Lander Gilly 157399.4 157399.4 1 35-person Surface Outpost Ike 747688.3 747688.3 1 19-person Self-mining Lander Vall (SB) 639425.0 639425.0 2 Station Expansion Module Duna Orbit Gilly Orbit 235702.2 471404.4 4 Mass Ore Transport Ike Vall Dres Eeloo (SB) 552223.0 2208892.0 2 Mass Ore Transport (LITE) Mun Minmus 255799.0 511598.0 TOTAL Items Price 12 5,848,178.1 Expenses calculated with Excel Some of the items in the picture are not mentioned in the expenses chart, since they were standing by for their exit burns for weeks IRL. I also have some of the items in the expenses chart on standby (and two on the Mun and Minmus), so they won't show up on this picture. What about you?
  3. Are there mods to add more aspects to KSP's management? I feel like the budget system in KSP was just tacked on and never fully explored, and I hope some mods could change that.
  4. Something that occurred to me whilst looking at a mining rig. And apologies if this has been suggested before. Whilst craft have an energy budget/requirement the KSC has the benefit of Kerbins worst utility suppliers in that there are no running costs. Okay a one off payment upgrades a facility presumably increasing the energy requirement (especially R&D) but it remains a once only expense. How about each facility having an energy requirement that has to be met? Like comnet this would only be turned on if wanted. The requirement would scale up along with the building. Initially this could take the form of a bill that must be paid at a set interval, penalties for non payment could perhaps be reduced capability or some facilities unavailable until payment. On the flip side there could be researchable techs giving sub-upgrades such as solar power, improved building insulation or even a receiver for beamed power. These sub-upgrades would have to be paid for and in the case of beamed power orbital facilities built and deployed. This opens up the possibility of selling excess energy to the non space obsessed citizens of Kerbin (wherever they are).
  5. I'm sure most of us have been there: your mission plan didn't quite estimate delta-v right and now your probes are drifting in interplanetary space, out of gas and lonely. I've been working on a ksp career save for about a year now, slowly working away shooting off probes in every which direction, and while I've had many successful missions and many on the go, my biggest failure to date on this career has been Operation Infernus. The goal was to place three probes at Moho. One a lander, one an orbital cartography satellite, and one an orbital science satellite. All were for not however, as none were capable of slowing down enough for capture and now they're drifting in low solar orbits, entirely useless to me. So I gotta get to Moho eventually (for science!) but I'm working on a very tight (hard mode) budget. I wanna plan the second attempt a little better, so that I can get to Moho and do all the intended science for as cheap as humanly possible. Now, efficient engines are swell and all, but efficiency in hardware comes at a price. I wanna know what kind of clever planning and design can get me to Moho for the lowest possible funds cost. And that's my challenge to you! Construct a rocket that can get a minimum 1.5 ton payload to Moho, for as little funds as possible. I wanna know your design tricks, I wanna know your wacky but efficient manoeuvring techniques. I want to see the cleverest, cheapest way to send a 1.5t payload to a low Moho orbit. GROUND RULES: >payload must have a mass of at least 1.5 tons. >final Moho orbit should have an apoapsis no greater than 500km and a perhaps is no greater than 100km >bonus points will be awarded if you perform the mission after year 2 day 250 >further bonus points will be awarded if you come up with a manouver that's particularly clever. (as judged by me ) >a specific set of mods are allowed as follows: -RLA stockalike -Kerbal Engineer Redux -Dmagic (though it won't really help) -Ask about any others, but those should be it for part mods SCORING: Score will be directly determined by launch cost. Since payload is only being judged by mass, not content, the cost of the launch should be recorded without a payload. Without a payload, the vehicle should cost no more than about 80000 funds. So, from this I'll determine score. The cost of your vessel at launch, minus the payload, is to be subtracted from 80000. The difference will be your score. Highest score wins. If you performed the mission after y2d250, you'll be awarded an additional 5,000 points. If I found your manoeuvring particularly clever, you'll earn an additional 10,000 points. Thus the theoretical maximum score is 95000, but of course I expect the best submission won't crack 50000. To submit an attempt, simply reply to this post with a photo of your payload, with either KER or the engineer's report demonstrating that the payload's mass is at least 1.5ton, as well as photos of the vehicle at launch, and in the designated Moho orbit, including a detailed explanation of your flight plan. Video submissions are of course also welcome. Best of luck, and happy flying! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CURRENT LEADERBOARD: Maccollo 75079 points Jetski 36334 points
  6. http://spacenews.com/esa-members-give-space-agency-an-18-percent-budget-boost/ ESA's budget has recently been increased 18.4% to $5.71 Billion- an increase fuelled by increased investment by the European Commission, along with several European governments- especially Italy. One major area where this funding increase is concentrated in is the Galileo navigation satellite program, along with the Copernicous Earth Observation program- both of whom are owned by the European Commission (But operated by ESA). Thus, the increase in funding the Commission is giving to ESA is largely going to these two programs- which are in the manufacturing and deployment stages, and require the most money at this point. A 72% increase has also been given to ESA for "launchers"- most of which is going to fund the Vega-C and Ariane 6 projects. Italy and France, with majority stakes in the Vega-C and Ariane 6, respectively, have thus increased their funding of ESA by 55% and 18% repectively. However, with the concentration on Earth observation, navigation, and rocket development, some programs have still remained underfunded. One high-profile program is the ExoMars mission, a two part joint program with Rocosmos (the Russian Space Agency) with launches in 2016 and 2018. Woerner, the Director-General of ESA, has stated the 2018 may have to be delayed to 2020 to make up for the underfunding- though this will increase overall mission cost. This portion, which is at risk of delays, includes a lander and a rover being sent to Mars. This possible delay of ExoMars, if undertaken, would be due to ESA underfunding, not Rocosmos- Rocosmos has stated they do not have any delays on their side of the mission. ESA's ISS contributions are also at risk- Weorner has stated that he will do his utmost to convince his member governments to fund ESA's use of the ISS to 2024, from 2020. ESA members are sceduled to meet in December 2016 to determine their future role in the ISS. TL;DR: ESA has been given more money, but it's mostly to new rockets and Earth Observation and GPS-esque satellites. ExoMars may be delayed due to lack of funding, and ISS's ESA use to 2024 is being reviewed.
  • Create New...