Incentive for Space Stations

[TheEpicSquared]

So right now, there is not really a reason for building and sending up crews to a space station, other than for showing off.

What I propose is this: an incentive for sending crews to a space station.

I think that a new science experiment, specifically designed for space stations and about kerbals, should be added. It would require a lot of time and maybe need several kerbals. This would provide a reason for rotating station crews.

In exchange for this "housekeeping" the science rewards would be higher (maybe the rewards go up as the time spent on it goes up?) . However, it would have to be applied carefully to prevent exploitation with time-warp and other things.

So what do y'all think? Agree/disagree, ideas, anything really

 

 

EDIT: Also, this is my 100th post!  

Edited August 29, 2016 by TheEpicSquared

[Warzouz]

Kerbin Space stations aren't that useful. But putting space stations around other bodies is VERY efficient for science and refuel. I used that a lot. Sure the first flight is usually much more expensive and hard, but the next ones are ridiculously cheap (basically a crew rotation transport). Landers and fuel infrastructure stays on target.

Of course, for several bodies (Eve, Tylo, Laythe...) designs have to be specific

On the other hand, I never find Kerbin space stations useful. The only usage I found is an emergency refuel station for badly designed return vehicles. Even science quick contracts can be dealt with a basic satellite.

Some players designed some complex Minmus refueling capacity. But I find that too time consuming to be fun to play. Fuel is so cheap and easy to lift of from Kerbin.

Why build small when you can build big !

 

As for you suggestion : the issue is not about space station, it about purpose in the whole game. KSP doesn't have a real "program management". The title of the game is wrong : it shouldn't be "Kerbal Space Program" but "Kerbal Space Flight" : you don't manage a program : you manage a single mission flight.

Only since 1.1, the game discovers you have existing ships in the save game and offers some minor and not so interesting contracts to upgrade them. But that's still very light.

 

Finally : space stations could be more interesting if they could count as return point for rescue and recover missions so you don't need to do an interminable mission to collect stuff on Kerbin.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

43 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said:

I think that a new science experiment, specifically designed for space stations, should be added. It would require a lot of time and maybe need several kerbals.

Aren't you pretty much describing the Mobile Processing Lab we already have?

Takes time, needs scientists, too large for a satellite...

That said, I do agree with the spirit of the idea that we need more actual reasons to have space stations besides as mission objectives.

[TheEpicSquared]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Aren't you pretty much describing the Mobile Processing Lab we already have?

Takes time, needs scientists, too large for a satellite...

No, but I see where you're coming from. What I meant was a science experiment about kerbals, therefore needing kerbals and long periods of time to operate. The longer you leave them in, the more science the experiment produces, in the form of information about the kerbals' bodies in microgravity, other planets, etc. Kinda like the Mystery Goo, I guess.

[Stoney3K]

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Aren't you pretty much describing the Mobile Processing Lab we already have?

Takes time, needs scientists, too large for a satellite...

That said, I do agree with the spirit of the idea that we need more actual reasons to have space stations besides as mission objectives.

Well, the MPL only churns out science points if you feed it data, crew and power. It doesn't really have a specific objective (like keep 2 Kerbals on board a specific orbit for 200 days) and is therefore not useful in contracts. Great for wiping clean the tech tree, but not really useful for anything else.

There are some contract packs that make building a station or surface base more sensible, though.

[Codraroll]

The mod Station Science has a very elegant approach to space stations, in my opinion:

It offers you a bunch of "experiment modules", basically science parts to be activated in orbit around various bodies. They require a science lab on their vessel, plus some other infrastructure for certain types of experiments (such as a particle generator for zero-G particle experiments, or a zoology bay for animal experiments). The infrastructure for the experiments will require absolutely massive amounts of electricity, though, requiring players to build large solar arrays and power banks. Finalizing the experiment contract requires recovery of the experiment module on Kerbin, so the modules need to be able to detach from the station, fly back to Kerbin and land safely.

I suppose you could do the most basic experiments with elements launched on a single rocket, but you soon discover that orbital assembly is a lot more practical, since you can re-use the infrastructure for several experiments. Just fulfilling the contracts will eventually lead you to build rather large space stations, although you're never explicitly told that you have to. It's just that, in order to do the tasks given, a space station is the most practical solution. It also helps that the infrastructure parts (Laboratory, particle generator, zoology bay) are multi-ton, 3.5 m parts, so you kind of have to launch them separately. The experiments themselves, however, are about the size and mass of a Materials Bay, so sending them up separately is a trivial matter.

I'm having a blast putting together a station powered by 16 Gigantor XL arrays in Kerbin orbit, so I can perform some of the more advanced experiments in the mod. I also found a use for the heavier engines in stock and mods, since some parts are so heavy that you need the Mammoth at a minimum to even get them to Kerbin orbit.

 

I think this approach would suit Vanilla KSP too. High-return Science experiments that require a lot of infrastructure, most notably on the power generation side. Relatively high-return contracts that ask you to perform the experiments over again, inciting you to launch several missions with more experiments to your station. Experiments that require parts that are too unwieldy to launch together, requiring you to do some orbital construction. You're not telling players directly to build a space station, but it becomes obvious that space stations are the only practical solution to the challenges presented.

[Wjolcz]

I'd like to set up permanent station for a few reasons:

1.To grow food (if LS ever becomes a thing)

 2.To serve as an outpost/gateway before going somewhere else (visit the Laythe station with your interplanetary shuttle, transfer the food from the station into the SSTO, transfer the crew in there too and go land near your surface base to do science/drill for ore and bring it back to Kerbin to sell it/take care of tourists).

3.To bring the tourists in. Space hotels! Woo!

4.To do science (and I mean REAL science, not setting up an tech-points-collector-with-one-lab-and tons-of-power "station")

5.To maintain it (move the radiator from here to there, add a new solar panel or two, add a new outside experiment, etc.)

Edited September 11, 2016 by Veeltch

[Stoney3K]

On 30-8-2016 at 1:07 AM, Codraroll said:

The mod Station Science has a very elegant approach to space stations, in my opinion:

It offers you a bunch of "experiment modules", basically science parts to be activated in orbit around various bodies. They require a science lab on their vessel, plus some other infrastructure for certain types of experiments (such as a particle generator for zero-G particle experiments, or a zoology bay for animal experiments). The infrastructure for the experiments will require absolutely massive amounts of electricity, though, requiring players to build large solar arrays and power banks. Finalizing the experiment contract requires recovery of the experiment module on Kerbin, so the modules need to be able to detach from the station, fly back to Kerbin and land safely.

I suppose you could do the most basic experiments with elements launched on a single rocket, but you soon discover that orbital assembly is a lot more practical, since you can re-use the infrastructure for several experiments. Just fulfilling the contracts will eventually lead you to build rather large space stations, although you're never explicitly told that you have to. It's just that, in order to do the tasks given, a space station is the most practical solution. It also helps that the infrastructure parts (Laboratory, particle generator, zoology bay) are multi-ton, 3.5 m parts, so you kind of have to launch them separately. The experiments themselves, however, are about the size and mass of a Materials Bay, so sending them up separately is a trivial matter.

Well, the reason Station Science is set up is the reason it works very badly with the "Bases and Stations" contract pack: The contract pack requires you to have a science lab component (an MPL) on board to complete a contract for a new station, but the Station Science modules combined with the MPL are currently overpowered and can be used for unlimited science farming. Also, the fact that Station Science requires every experiment to be recovered on Kerbin, means that it quickly becomes impractical to run experiments outside of Kerbin's SOI, especially when you're doing them for contracts. You will need to wait for a transfer window to send the experiment, perform it, and then wait for a proper return window to recover it and hope the contract hasn't expired in the meantime.

I am absolutely in favor of more surface-based and station-based science experiments and contracts. My favorite mod sets still remain Station Science, SCANsat and DMagic.

[Corona688]

There's plenty of incentive for space stations.  They earn science.

[Kerbart]

Aside from significantly reducing operating costs, no real use. So what if you can put tourists on the Mun surface for about 15,000 kerbucks per head?

Signed Kerbart, aka Evil Tour Operator

[tater]

Any "incentive" stuff is career, and you cannot really fix career without starting with a coherent plan from the ground up. Every aspect of career, plus things we do not have, like Life Support, as well as Kerbals who can do stuff on their own (resupply missions, for example).

Life Support would include new parts, and adding LS to existing parts, for example. The way to R&D new LS parts would likely be to learn something about LS systems via putting kerbals on a station for long periods of time. That's a different R&D paradigm---that you'd unlock tech with specific science. Like "Keep 4 kerbals in a space station for 1 year to unlock the next generation LS node." The LS available before that would require more resupply than the next gen LS, too, so you'd need to resupply every couple months, maybe.

Resupply is boring? KSP career was supposed to be a tycoon like thing, but since it is exclusively a space flight sim type game, the player is not a manager, but a micromanager. He or she needs to fly to the station, dock themselves, and even EVA themselves. The very existence of skills for kerbals in KSP implies autonomy, IMO. If there is something boring, you should be able to schedule it. If skill is to matter, then you assign a pilot to that mission, and the chances of some failure are predicated on that.

[Bombaatu]

On 8/29/2016 at 7:11 AM, TheEpicSquared said:

I think that a new science experiment, specifically designed for space stations and about kerbals, should be added. It would require a lot of time and maybe need several kerbals. This would provide a reason for rotating station crews.

Both the Station Science and Mark One Laboratory Extensions mods do this.

[Giskard]

There are many reasons for me to build space stations.

-They can give you science from the lab.

-You can use them to fulfill "transmit science from space around..." missions. Ok, this can also be done with simple orbiters, but:

-I want it realistic and economic. Sooner or later I start to launch reusable "space only" vessels that stay in space instead of lauching the 2983776724st Minmus shuttle/lander combo or interplanetary ship. For that I need a central hub which everything is parked at, can be refueled and where the crews can be transfered. This is also the place where I dock my modular space ship sections to adapt my ships to different mission profiles.

 

[tater]

1 hour ago, Giskard said:

-I want it realistic and economic. Sooner or later I start to launch reusable "space only" vessels that stay in space instead of lauching the 2983776724st Minmus shuttle/lander combo or interplanetary ship. For that I need a central hub which everything is parked at, can be refueled and where the crews can be transfered. This is also the place where I dock my modular space ship sections to adapt my ships to different mission profiles.

Are there any real reasons for space stations that are economic? It's pretty dubious, frankly.

[Wjolcz]

There really should be a way to turn them into space hotels for tourists. The problem is it can't be easily done with the contract system we have now, as it is random. I'd rather point at my not so usable anymore stations and say "Hey, this station is being useless! Let's turn it into a space hotel!" and then create my own contracts offering tours there and back.

I mean, that's the only way to make them any useful once their scientific mission is over. Maybe if LS became a thing they could serve as food growing and processing facilities, or something like that.

[Jonfliesgoats]

What if some sort of science can be gained by doing research on Kerbals in space?  If, say, we add a professional classification of "test subject" to "pilot, engineer, scientist", you could add a bunch of science experiments that need to be conducted on Kerbals in prolonged space flight.  This would be similar to things we learned from long term stays on Mir and the ISS regarding muscle atrophy and loss of bone density.

Viola!  Right there you have incentive for an orbital research station chock full of Kerbal interns.  

Just as spacewalks are achievements, you could get different science from Kerbals in command pods, hab modules, etc. in orbit near Kerbin, in deep space, subject to cosmic rays, and so on.  A lab module that requires a scientist and so many "test subjects" may be handy.

A similar incentive for space stations could be gained if you fly representatives of specific Kerbal companies to your space station.  They could generate some small amount of money per day in orbit as they conduct "research" or whatever.

[TheEpicSquared]

@Jonfliesgoats Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

[Giskard]

9 hours ago, tater said:

Are there any real reasons for space stations that are economic? It's pretty dubious, frankly.

In this game? Probably not. I have to admit that I often also just pay for another launch instead of tediously mining fuel from somewhere else.

But in the real world? Yeah, sure there are reasons. And in KSP: If it is not for economic reasons, then it is because it just feels right to me to do it that way. In KSP you are defining your own goals and one of my goals is to do something that look would resonable in the real world.

[ImmaStegosaurus!]

Gathering urinal samples and observing human bodies slowly deteriorate in low gravity is basically what ISS is for. It would be hilarious and awesome if this was included in the game somehow, either in stock or in a mod.

[tater]

5 hours ago, Giskard said:

But in the real world? Yeah, sure there are reasons. 

Name a couple real world examples where a space station has justified itself economically (i.e.: has made money). I won't hold my breath.

[_stilgar_]

14 hours ago, Veeltch said:

 

There really should be a way to turn them into space hotels for tourists. The problem is it can't be easily done with the contract system we have now, as it is random. I'd rather point at my not so usable anymore stations and say "Hey, this station is being useless! Let's turn it into a space hotel!" and then create my own contracts offering tours there and back.

 

As I remember one of the devs said, that is basicly the idea behind the current tourist contract. You get a contract to send one tourist to Eve fly-by, another to Jool and third to Minmus. So, you should send them all to a space station, and when you have a mission to Eve, you dock, pick up the tourist and go there. Another ship goes to Jool. 

This way you have all those space hotels with tourists waiting for their transport to arrive. No need to make every tourist contract a grand tour project

[Giskard]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Name a couple real world examples where a space station has justified itself economically (i.e.: has made money). I won't hold my breath.

As I said, it starts to justify itself as soon as we start to create a reusable infrastructure in space. For example imagine satellites that do not have to be dumped in a graveyard orbit when you can service them in space, refuel them in space and all you have to launch are spare parts and fuel instead of a completely new satellite. Imagine moon shuttles and landers that stay in space instead of having to throw them away and lauch a new one every time. Imagine a fuel infrastructure that harvests fuel on the moon. Imagine a large mars transporter that is flying back and forth instead of a single use mission.  This sounds like future? Yeah, but this is most of what I do in KSP.

Apart from that economic is not only about money its also about science. On a space station you can do long term experiments that you can not do on a orbiter that can only stay in space for a short time. You can also do experiments that you can not do in small orbiters, because you just do not have enough space in them. And you also learn things on space stations that will be helpful for the design of long term missions deeper into the solar system.

[linuxgurugamer]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Name a couple real world examples where a space station has justified itself economically (i.e.: has made money). I won't hold my breath.

People said that about rockets back in the 60's.  Now, we couldn't get along without them.

Space stations are still in their infancy.  

[KerbMav]

To have done it? There is not much in KSP that grants a ingame reward for doing it.

I give the question back: What makes you play KSP?

[tater]

11 minutes ago, Giskard said:

As I said, it starts to justify itself as soon as we start to create a reusable infrastructure in space. For example imagine satellites that do not have to be dumped in a graveyard orbit when you can service them in space, refuel them in space and all you have to launch are spare parts and fuel instead of a completely new satellite. Imagine moon shuttles and landers that stay in space instead of having to throw them away and lauch a new one every time. Imagine a fuel infrastructure that harvests fuel on the moon. Imagine a large mars transporter that is flying back and forth instead of a single use mission.  This sounds like future? Yeah, but this is most of what I do in KSP.

I said name a single actual economic example. The answer is there are none at all. Science fiction doesn't count. Skylab, Mir, ISS... all cost money, make nothing to speak of. The most realistic economic near-future argument might be Bigelow habs as hotels.

The idea of servicing satellites is likely not a thing, frankly. Its like servicing Hubble---it would have been cheaper to just build and launch a new one than repairing it (had they used a decent LV instead of Shuttle).

11 minutes ago, Giskard said:

Apart from that economic is not only about money its also about science. On a space station you can do long term experiments that you can not do on a orbiter that can only stay in space for a short time. You can also do experiments that you can not do in small orbiters, because you just do not have enough space in them. And you also learn things on space stations that will be helpful for the design of long term missions deeper into the solar system.

Science is a circular argument. You need stations for long term habitation so you can learn about long term habitation. I think that is a good reason in game---add life support, and tie LS pimprovements to long term habitation (i.e.; you make a station to learn stuff to make better LS parts for farther missions).

 

7 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

People said that about rockets back in the 60's.  Now, we couldn't get along without them.

Space stations are still in their infancy.  

There are zero examples of economic reasons to build a space station. There are few reasons that are plausible even as science fiction.

 

 

I think there should be contracts to create space hotels. Any craft created to fulfill such a contract then gets tourism contracts to deliver passengers to it.