Kerbal Money Value

[rossworkshop]

I've been wondering, how much would Kerbal money be worth in real life US dollars? I'd be interested to know because saying "Jeb you wasted $50,000 joyriding" doesn't have quite the ring to it as if it was a more realistic value, say $50mil.

- - - Updated - - -

Never mind. I used the price and weight of the in game MBeam 200 I beam and compared it with the current price of steel per ton in USD. One Kerbal dollar is about 4.43 USD. Still, Jeb's $50,000 spacecraft would still only cost about $221,250.

[mythbusters844]

I got a quick estimate of the relationship between funds and dollars by comparing oxidizer costs. According to the KSP Wiki, Oxidizer costs √0.04 a kilogram (√ meaning "funds"). NASA, as stated in this site, pays $0.16 for every kg of liquid oxygen. Based on this, the ratio would be √0.04/$0.16, or 1 fund for every 4 dollars. So, based on this, √50,000 would equal to $200,000. It would be better to have a more accurate estimate than this, however.

EDIT: Looks like I got ninja'd by you, but it's cool how close our estimates of the fund-to-dollar exchange rate are.

Also, some more stuff. NASA paid $0.16 for every kg of LOX in 2001, so $0.16 in today's money would be $0.21, so adjusting for inflation the ratio would be √1:$5.25. So 50,000 funds would be $262,500 dollars.

Edited March 12, 2015 by mythbusters844

[SkyRender]

There's really not a 1:1 conversion of prices between KSP and real life. Especially not for building upgrades, as at the moment a fully upgraded space center in KSP costs almost an order of magnitude more than the entire Apollo program cost back in the day.

[magnemoe]

I don't think it translates well, I feel that fuel is to expensive while most parts are too cheap.

Stuff like pods cost serious money. large rocket engines are also expensive.

This is probably done to avoid everyone from making rocket SSTO all the time. As it is now SRB around an smaller core is the cheapest way to make larger rockets unless you use jets.

[samstarman5]

I don't think it translates well, I feel that fuel is to expensive while most parts are too cheap.

Stuff like pods cost serious money. large rocket engines are also expensive.

This is probably done to avoid everyone from making rocket SSTO all the time. As it is now SRB around an smaller core is the cheapest way to make larger rockets unless you use jets.

SRB's are meant to be a cheap choice for propulsion, especially with larger rockets in mind. That would be why the shuttle had two SRB's instead of doubling the large fuel tank's capacity and strapping engines onto that.

As for fuel being so expensive, that can actually help economizing every drop of oxidizer and fuel throughout the mission. Whatever you don't use can easily be left behind on an orbital station to be used for a future mission. That can save you a few kilofunds.

I actually have yet to worry too much about expenditures, even where fuel is concerned. But hints at what adjustments are going to come in 1.0 leave me to believe I may need to start considering such things. It has outright been stated that a lot of engines are going to get nerfed, and that is definitely going to change fuel requirements.

But there is bound to be more balance as far as parts and fuel cost to come, as well, so fuel may very well get cheaper in exchange. Time will tell.

[Flixxbeatz]

1.00$ = 1,000 √

[Renegrade]

There's really not a 1:1 conversion of prices between KSP and real life. Especially not for building upgrades, as at the moment a fully upgraded space center in KSP costs almost an order of magnitude more than the entire Apollo program cost back in the day.

The Apollo program was 20-25 billion 1970s US dollars - the KSP wiki says that a fully upgraded center only cost 9.8 million (that sounds about right to me). Numerically, anyhow. If you assume that you're dealing in kilofunds or such, it gets closer, although the Apollo program is still more (basically 20-25 vs 10 then).

All of this is rather academic though as I'm absolutely certain that the prices are basically numbers that came to Harv after a half-second of reflection. They have a certain.. placeholdery flavor.

[RainDreamer]

There is also the fact that we have no idea how kerbal economy works.

[Flixxbeatz]

1.00$ = 1,000 √

[Deutherius]

According to the KSP Wiki, Oxidizer costs √0.04 a liter (√ meaning "funds"). NASA, as stated in this site, pays $0.16 for every kg of liquid oxygen.

You probably meant √0.04 per kg of oxidizer Otherwise I agree

[Rusty6899]

I don't think it translates well, I feel that fuel is to expensive while most parts are too cheap.

Stuff like pods cost serious money. large rocket engines are also expensive.

This is probably done to avoid everyone from making rocket SSTO all the time. As it is now SRB around an smaller core is the cheapest way to make larger rockets unless you use jets.

It's the fuel tanks that are extortionate. Empty fuel tanks are often much more expensive than the engines that they sit above.

[mythbusters844]

You probably meant √0.04 per kg of oxidizer Otherwise I agree

Oh yeah, sorry. I was going to compare liters first but then changed my mind, and it looks like I forgot to change the units for that.

[Musil]

There is also the fact that we have no idea how kerbal economy works.

Oh, but we do. Have you heard of something called the Shoe Event Horizon? Only, with rockets instead of shoes.

[AbacusWizard]

The true conversion rate:

√1 = 1

√4 = 2

√9 = 3

√16 = 4

...

[DarthJeb]

On 3/12/2015 at 10:14 AM, Deutherius said:

You probably meant √0.04 per kg of oxidizer Otherwise I agree

Which makes a ratio of KSP 1:4 Realistic cost

 

Although,we have to compare certain parts,excluding those such as struts which are much cheaper in real life,and then find an average

Edited December 24, 2015 by DarthJeb
Additional information required

[JKerman]

A big rocket costs about 500,000 VF (probably stands for Virtual Funds), and a real one is about $500 million, so my guess is that a fund is about $1000, although that would mean that struts would be $25000 apiece, and that isn't true. Stuff is probably just priced differently in KSP.

[MaxL_1023]

Your talking about a planet where fully functional rocket engines can literally be round lying on the side of the road - I doubt normal price ratios apply. 

[Deddly]

I can't remember if there was a rebalance of the stock prices, so bear in mind that the early posts in this thread may or may not be innacurate now (it's an older thread).

But this looks like a fun discussion

[MinimalMinmus]

I tend to say 1 fund = 1000 dollars, as it makes sense for buildings (several millions for buildings, and up to a few billions for experimental ones such as research) and most rockets.

[Razorforce7]

Currency value is based on many mathetmatical variables in real life. Let me stress the word many. Request/demand, inflation/deflation is the tip of the iceberg although definitely the main factors in this.
We don't know all in real life variables unless your a financial expert with both current and historic knowledge about finances.
And these Variables in the Kerbal space program are unknown.

So I take it your asking about my gut feeling?

I'd say 1 fund is $0.0000001 USD..
That way I can easily fill my gut and buy the Kerbal Universe and be supreme ruler over all green goons. Only if they accept Visa or MasterCard

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Razorforce7

[John FX]

It would be nice if prices, EC, fuel and other units of measurement were rationalised to closer match real world numbers, like 1000EC would be 1KW (or KWh), fuel in litres, 1 fund roughly $1000 and so on.

Then `balancing` of those values would just involve looking at the prices of things. This would lead to early tech being way more expensive than later tech for the same function, or later tech would allow more function at the same or lower cost.

The computer on Apollo 11 for example was very limited, heavy, and cost a great deal. Later computers of similar power now weigh grams, cost pennies, and are far more capable.

Rocket tech has gone through a similar change although nowhere near as dramatic, from early engines with no throttle, low Isp, low burn times to modern engines which are approaching proper re usability in the real world.

Anyway, back on point, the real world is a great resource for information about balancing the costs of items, fuel and so forth.

[Starslinger999]

On 4/13/2017 at 3:58 AM, MinimalMinmus said:

I tend to say 1 fund = 1000 dollars, as it makes sense for buildings (several millions for buildings, and up to a few billions for experimental ones such as research) and most rockets.

So the basic fin would cost 25,000 dollars in real life!?!?!?!?!?!?!? FOR A BOLT ON ALUMINUM FIN SMALLER THAN A METER?!?!?!?! Thats just ludicrous 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Starslinger999

[Ty Tan Tu]

On 3/12/2015 at 4:45 PM, AbacusWizard said:

The true conversion rate:

√1 = 1

√4 = 2

√9 = 3

√16 = 4

...

I think you are getting close there, and you might have arrived at the solution. The character encoding problems make it hard to tell. The clue we need to decipher the Kerbal currency is the fact that the Kerbal spoken language is Spanish backwards. So, we need to reverse the number system as well. We have been dealing on the wrong side of zero. Cents have to been calculated as negative numbers, not positive numbers.

Square root of -1 = 1i

Square root of -4 =2i

Square root of -9 =3i

Square root of -16 = 4i

 

[Starman4308]

2 hours ago, Starslinger999 said:

So the basic fin would cost 25,000 dollars in real life!?!?!?!?!?!?!? FOR A BOLT ON ALUMINUM FIN SMALLER THAN A METER?!?!?!?! Thats just ludicrous 

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised. It's not the cost of the aluminum fin, it's the cost of making sure it works on spacecraft and has been inspected to within an inch of its life.

There's a comment in "The Martian", where Watney gripes about how duct tape probably cost "thousands of dollars, because NASA". That's honestly not too far from the truth, because you do not want a $1 widget endangering your $100,000,000 medium launch vehicle, nevermind your so-many-billions-of-dollars manned mission to Mars, because nobody bothered to realize that your duct tape had some outgassing problems, or broke down in the extreme conditions of space, etc.

[Starslinger999]

Just now, Starman4308 said:

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised. It's not the cost of the aluminum fin, it's the cost of making sure it works on spacecraft and has been inspected to within an inch of its life.

There's a comment in "The Martian", where Watney gripes about how duct tape probably cost "thousands of dollars, because NASA". That's honestly not too far from the truth, because you do not want a $1 widget endangering your $100,000,000 medium launch vehicle, nevermind your so-many-billions-of-dollars manned mission to Mars, because nobody bothered to realize that your duct tape had some outgassing problems, or broke down in the extreme conditions of space, etc.

I guess thats why. But why would it cost that much for a junkyard run by Jeb? Maybe its just that its more when he sells it to the KSP.