For a science system to be really integrated in a way that makes sense, there's a significant amount of underlying gameplay changes that need to occur on top of just the valuation of transmission/return of data. To cover what's been said in the thread so far, I'd like to see a system where 'data based' science (like thermometer readings) could be covered 100% with transmission, 'materials based' science only being fully researchable with a return, a balanced diminishing return that allows some additional value from multiple readings, and a relevancy system where the data gathered assists with directly relevant unlocks. But here are some of the underlying, more system-oriented changes I think really need to happen to let the above blossom into a solid long-term science setup: 1) Robots first. This means that incentives need to be balanced such that manned spaceflight has to have riskier mission planning and greater rewards than unmanned spaceflight, as well as an incentive to send the robots before the manned missions. Right now, using an unmanned vehicle is generally more prohibitive than using a manned vehicle because of the electricity burned off by the robo-brain (especially in career mode where solar panels/RTKs aren't immediately available), and it offers no benefit whatsoever - only the drawbacks of no crew reports, EVA reports, or surface samples. On top of simple things like manned pods being an unlockable after unmanned controls, there needs to be an introduction of overhead costs for manned vehicles; rations, life support, etc. Probes should be the primary tool for initial exploration because of their low cost to maintain and their only resource being easily and directly renewable (electricity). This can obviously play into talk of things like hydroponics etc, but that's out of scope of the discussion. 2) Modularity within modules. Within a given module could be several different 'slots' for sub-modules. These could be as broad as things like Hitchhiker containers holding four slots that can be filled with seats or storage (for supplies, etc) or direct improvements like a science module being improvable with better hardware, providing a new fount of science. This would allow for individual modules to continue being useful within a specific envelope with only a relatively small amount of effort required to upgrade them and gather more data. This would be especially pertinent when money is triggered - you could have an extremely expensive space telescope that gathers/transmits huge amounts of scientific data but it eventually loses value due to diminishing returns. Later, instead of launching a new space telescope when you research better optics, you launch a small manned mission to improve the existing telescope, allowing it to gather much more science at a small fraction of the cost of launching a new telescope. 3) Modules as containers, stuff as objects. The two ideas above require not just modules that can store objects beyond a simple meter (100/100 snacks) but modules that can store discrete objects within a shared storage space (60/100 storage, with 40 snacks, 1 mystery goo sample, 2 mun rocks). This could work for abstract 'data' as well, letting you store different results on a hard drive while keeping the results discrete. This would serve a couple different goals: this would be a vehicle for the greater overhead on manned spaceflight (you would have to budget weight and physical space for snacks, etc), a larger amount of hard drive space can be baked into robo-brains while a larger amount of physical storage can be baked into manned pods (pushing probes' role as exploratory data gatherers), and it could open the door for 'consumable' items to be loaded up, like emergency extra batteries for the life support systems. These three fundamental changes could allow for far deeper interactivity with science. For example: Science lab modules that can convert samples to data for transmission. These could have a varied efficiency based on quality and sub-modules slotted. It would allow for a sizable portion of the 'return' value to be gained remotely, but would also require a significant amount of infrastructure to run (a space station, rather than hot glued to an OKTO2). Research gathered from a specific celestial body can unlock sub-modules that can boost later research from the same body. You would be motivated to send a probe into orbit around Duna to gather data from orbit which would then be folded into 'extra research gained from Duna' sub-modules for the later manned mission. Stuff like 'mystery goo module' could be changed to simply a 'what does a sample look like module'. Mystery goo can be loaded up in your cargo and you can run it through tests (exposing it to the environment, setting it on fire, looking at it, etc). If you haul up a dozen goo, you can run a dozen tests. This could also play into things like seeing what happens when you release Eve water into Jool's atmosphere, creating an incentive to have a large network of science gathering rather than having a single manned vessel touch down and leave with 100% of the science (and 100% of the incentive to be there). Also, kind of unrelated, but a minor balance tweak that I'd like to see to make the rocketry side of research a bit more useful: when you switch up to bigger fuel tanks, there should be a weight savings due to economy of materials for the empty tank. Say, instead of a Jumbo-64 weighing 4 tons empty (which 64x T-100's would weigh), it could weigh 3, making it objectively better to use single bigger tanks over multiple smaller tanks but not so much that it would override staging/etc.
