Optimally Efficient Science Mission Challenge

[Jasonden]

Given the reduction in the real NASA's Planetary Science budget from $1500M to $1300M in the past 2 years (and this is after Congress restored some of the cuts), it makes sense to try to take what we have and do the most that we can with it. It would be great it we could rank potential missions in terms of Science per Dollar, and then fly the best ones. But we can't in real life, because it is impossible to define "science" in a quantitative and objective way.

But that's what Kerbal Space Program is for! Here, Science only comes in a predefined objective quantity! So here it should be easy.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to formulate and fly a mission that maximizes Science returned divided by dollars spent.

To participate, you should start a new career game and unlock the entire tech tree (as with TreeEdit, for instance).

The fine print: Stock parts only (non-part mods okay, or information-only part mods also okay), no cheats or Hyperedit. Multiple launches are okay, but no parts can be re-launched after landing on Kerbin. Kerballed missions must return all launched Kerbals safely back to the surface of Kerbin.

This is a Planetary challenge -- only Science from primaries other than Kerbin counts toward your science/dollar score (Mun & Minmus okay). Leaders will be tallied by target, and separately for multiple-target Voyager-like missions. What this means is that for your score on the "Duna" leaderboard, only your science acquired with Duna as Primary counts toward your Science/Dollar score. Science in the Sun's SOI does not count toward any Science/Dollar score. Scores will be recorded in Science/mega$ so as to make the numbers look suitably impressive and not have everyone's score in scientific notation.

In your mission description, please include a screenshot of the "science" screens after recovery and a VAB shot with the vehicle cost indicated (as with MechJeb or KER for instance).

[table=width: 1600, class: grid, align: left]

[tr]

[td]Ker-

balled[/td]

[td]Moho

1. 33.44 -- Jasonden lander

2.

[/td]

[td]Eve

1. 4.39 -- Jasonden lander

2.

[/td]

[td]Gilly

1. 120.35 -- Jasonden lander

2.

[/td]

[td]Mun

1. 63.29 -- Jasonden free-return

2.[/td]

[td]Minmus

1. 336.65 -- Jasonden: hopper

2.

[/td]

[td]Duna

1. 56.404 -- Jasonden: lander

2.

[/td]

[td]Ike

1.

2.

[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Un-

Ker-

balled[/td]

[td]Moho

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Eve

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Gilly

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Mun

1. 22.81 -- cantab flyby

2.[/td]

[td]Minmus

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Duna

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Ike

1.

2.

[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Ker-

balled[/td]

[td]Dres

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Jool

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Laythe

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Vall

1.

2.[/td]

[td]Tylo

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Bop

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Pol

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Eeloo

1.

2.

[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Un-

Ker-

balled[/td]

[td]Dres

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Jool

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Laythe

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Vall

1.

2.[/td]

[td]Tylo

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Bop

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Pol

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]Eeloo

1.

2.

[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Ker-

balled[/td]

[td]2 Targets

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]3 Targets

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]4 Targets

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]5 Targets

1.

2.[/td]

[td]6 Targets

1.

2.

[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Un-

Ker-

balled[/td]

[td]2 Targets

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]3 Targets

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]4 Targets

1.

2.

[/td]

[td]5 Targets

1.

2.[/td]

[td]6 Targets

1.

2.

[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

Key: S(Samples) A(Atmospheric Nosecone) T(Thermometer)

Edited April 26, 2014 by Jasonden

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

Hmmm, this challenge is gonna be VERY easy when 23.5 comes out "soon"...

And to make it a bit clearer, can we only visit each planetary body once, or do multiple trips count?

[Jasonden]

Hmmm, this challenge is gonna be VERY easy when 23.5 comes out "soon"...

And to make it a bit clearer, can we only visit each planetary body once, or do multiple trips count?

I will let you define one 'mission' in any way that you like. It may involve multiple separate spacecraft if you want, sure. For instance NASA has this crazy 3-spacecraft plan to return samples from Mars, for instance. So that could be interpreted as a single mission at the submitter's discretion. Remember though that the goal isn't to maximize science, it is to maximize science per dollar. Couldn't you get better science/dollar with just one of those?

[cantab]

I don't think the asteroids will be challenge breakers. I doubt you'll get science just from flying by them, you'll need to grapple, and that means expending delta-V to match speeds.

I might give this a go, I've been playing with Voyager-style missions lately anyway. Though the current prices will create some really weird incentives, for example if Wiki is correct the Rockomax X200-32 is by far the best value fuel tank.

Edited March 31, 2014 by cantab

[gchristopher]

no parts can be re-launched after landing on Kerbin.

What was motivating that rule? Would the hassle of re-launching reflect how NASA and others are trying to save money with reusable vehicles and be a good aspect of the challenge? (Assuming it saves any money at all.)

[quietsamurai98]

Is MechJeb autopilot ok?

Edited April 1, 2014 by quietsamurai98

[Keldaria]

What was motivating that rule? Would the hassle of re-launching reflect how NASA and others are trying to save money with reusable vehicles and be a good aspect of the challenge? (Assuming it saves any money at all.)

I believe the thought behind this is that you shouldn't be able to launch a vessel to orbit, offload a payload come back to kerbin then recover and relaunch with new payload over and over again without having to recount some of the vessel cost...ie fuel as that's likely a large part of launch cost.

It would however stand to reason that you should be able to land a rocket or spaceplane and create a refueling / reloading setup similar to what has to be done in the reusable spacecraft challenge. You just wouldn't be able to recover your vessel or fueling/launch equipment without purchasing them again

[Jasonden]

Is MechJeb autopilot ok?

Sure! MechJebs cost $700, tho, so you can always get better science/dollar without them. That being said, you might be more efficient in fuel use with them, so maybe it works out.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe the thought behind this is that you shouldn't be able to launch a vessel to orbit, offload a payload come back to kerbin then recover and relaunch with new payload over and over again without having to recount some of the vessel cost...ie fuel as that's likely a large part of launch cost.

Right -- or not recover the payload back on Kerbin, but just refuel your interplanetary spaceplane and then head off to a new destination.

[gchristopher]

Right -- or not recover the payload back on Kerbin, but just refuel your interplanetary spaceplane and then head off to a new destination.

Would it be okay to have a Kerbal take the data out of a cockpit, recover the Kerbal from EVA carrying all the data, then refuel the plane and send it off again? Or have the kerbal climb into a spare command pod, and recover that. You'd have to pay for the fuel and whatever it cost to have a refueling apparatus. plus the crew cost of a Kerbal from a command pod?

[Jasonden]

Would it be okay to have a Kerbal take the data out of a cockpit, recover the Kerbal from EVA carrying all the data, then refuel the plane and send it off again? Or have the kerbal climb into a spare command pod, and recover that. You'd have to pay for the fuel and whatever it cost to have a refueling apparatus. plus the crew cost of a Kerbal from a command pod?

Once any spacecraft returns to Kerbin, it cannot return to space. The idea is to figure out the max science from a single mission, not a series of missions from a re-usable spacecraft (interesting as that might be).

[Jasonden]

Here's a first try as a bar to set -- a cheap mission to Duna. This is based on my mission for the Duna for Less thread -- with science and the bigger SRB's.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Target: Duna

Science: 731

Dollars: $12.96M

S/$: 56.404

[Jasonden]

Well, I had THOUGHT that the new ARM release wouldn't break this challenge. And I don't think that it's broken, but it may affect things: the three new giant fuel tanks each cost $2600, which is the same as an old Rockomax-32 despite the big one being *way* bigger. So I guess this means that for now bigger tanks don't cost you more!

[cantab]

The new long SRBs stand out. They're about equal to the Skipper in both thrust and price, but come with a bunch of fuel into the bargain. Or to look it another way, they're the same price as the BACC solid boosters but have twice the thrust and a few times the fuel. These alone may make it hard to be competitive in .23.

I've checked several of the experiments and they give the same science values. No idea if any multipliers for different worlds have changed, but probably not.

EDIT: A couple of things I need clarifying:

Can we transmit science, or do we only get to count what's brought back to Kerbin? (The amount of transmitted science can be found by before and after screenshots of the tech tree screen.)

Do we have to count the cost of launch clamps?

Edited April 3, 2014 by cantab

[Jasonden]

Summary of new hardware:

[table=width: 1280, class: grid, align: center]

[tr]

[td]Name[/td]

[td]Thrust (kN)[/td]

[td]Mass (t)[/td]

[td]TWR[/td]

[td]Isp (s)[/td]

[td]Cost[/td]

[td]Thrust

Efficiency

(kN/k$)[/td]

[td]Vector

angle

(deg)[/td]

[td]Total Impulse[/td]

[td]Impulse

Efficiency

(t m/s /$)[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]S3 KS-25x4 Engine Cluster[/td]

[td]3200[/td]

[td]9.75[/td]

[td]33.45[/td]

[td]320-360[/td]

[td]$5900[/td]

[td]0.5424[/td]

[td]0.5[/td]

[td](w/one S3-14400)

226022 t m/s (atmo)

254275 t m/s (vac)

[/td]

[td]26.6 (atmo)

29.9 (vac)

[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]KR-2L[/td]

[td]2500[/td]

[td]6.5[/td]

[td]39.2[/td]

[td]280-380[/td]

[td]$2850[/td]

[td]0.8772[/td]

[td]1.0[/td]

[td](w/one S3-14400)

197769 t m/s (atmo)

268401 t m/s (vac)

[/td][td]36.39 (atmo)

49.25 (vac)

[/td]

[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]LFB KR-1x2[/td]

[td]2000[/td]

[td]42(wet) 10(dry)[/td]

[td]4.85(w)-20.4(d)[/td]

[td]320-360[/td]

[td]$5900[/td]

[td]0.3390[/td]

[td]0.5[/td]

[td]100454 t m/s(atmo)

113011 t m/s(vac)[/td]

[td]17.02(atmo)

19.15(vac)

[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]S1 SRB-KD25k[/td]

[td]650[/td]

[td]21.75(full) 3(empty)[/td]

[td]3.05(f)-22.1(e)[/td]

[td]230-250[/td]

[td]$800[/td]

[td]0.8125[/td]

[td]-[/td]

[td]42305 t m/s(atmo)

45984 t m/s(vac)

[/td]

[td]52.9(atmo)

57.5(vac)[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

Analysis: The KR-2L is by far and away the best engine in the game by every measure. Finally, something that eclipses the venerable 24-7S. I would say that the new 4-engine cluster looks cool. But I'm not seeing why you would ever use one of those instead of a KR-2L -- particularly in this price challenge. As you mention, the new SRB with the same cost as the old one and WAY more power may be quite competitive in this challenge, at 0.8125 kN/$ WITH fuel.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Jasonden

[Jasonden]

Can we transmit science, or do we only get to count what's brought back to Kerbin? (The amount of transmitted science can be found by before and after screenshots of the tech tree screen.)

Ah yes, forgot to mention this. Transmitted science is fine. Not sure how to verify it easily -- maybe a screenshot of the new Science Archives? Challenger's discretion.

Do we have to count the cost of launch clamps?

Yes, launch clamp costs to be included. They're pretty cheap

[Jasonden]

Since we're looking to maximize Science/M$, I calculated Science/M$ as a function of instrument. In case it is of use, here are the data:

[table=width: 1024, class: grid, align: center]

[tr]

[td]Experiment[/td]

[td]Cost[/td]

[td]Mass[/td]

[td]Science Base[/td]

[td]Science/M$ (returned)[/td]

[td]Transmit %[/td]

[td]Science/M$ (transmitted)[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mystery Goo[/td]

[td]0.15t[/td]

[td]$800[/td]

[td]10[/td]

[td]12.5[/td]

[td]30%[/td]

[td]3.75[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Materials Lab[/td]

[td]0.20t[/td]

[td]$880[/td]

[td]25[/td]

[td]28.4[/td]

[td]20%[/td]

[td]5.68[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Thermometer[/td]

[td]0.005t[/td]

[td]$990[/td]

[td]8[/td]

[td]8.1[/td]

[td]50%[/td]

[td]4.04[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Pressure Gauge[/td]

[td]0.005t[/td]

[td]$3300[/td]

[td]12[/td]

[td]3.64[/td]

[td]50%[/td]

[td]1.82[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Seismometer[/td]

[td]0.005t[/td]

[td]$6000[/td]

[td]20[/td]

[td]3.33[/td]

[td]45%[/td]

[td]1.5[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Gravioli[/td]

[td]0.005t[/td]

[td]$8800[/td]

[td]20[/td]

[td]2.27[/td]

[td]40%[/td]

[td]0.91[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Atmo Nose Cone[/td]

[td]0.08t[/td]

[td]$2300[/td]

[td]20[/td]

[td]8.70[/td]

[td]36%[/td]

[td]3.13[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

Actual science gets multiplied by the bonus values from each body, of course.

[Jasonden]

Here's a second mission -- Minmus hopper for 2117.5 science.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Cost: $6.290M

Science per dollar: 336.65

Those biomes sure help!

[Jasonden]

Here's a Moho shot -- going nuclear did seem to be an improvement here. The smaller payload led to a much lower-mass rocket which kept the costs down as a whole.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Cost: $25.55M

Science: 855

Science/$: 33.44

[cantab]

Those are some pretty neat missions.

My plan is for a minimalistic multiple flyby probe, the Smith 2, named after economist Adam Smith.

VAB shot:

I've stripped it down as minimalistic as I can go. $600 for a reaction wheel is way too expensive on a rocket that only costs $2690 (not including the science experiments), so it's launched canted over 5 degrees and flies ballistically, the capsule torque offering a degree of control over the apoapsis. $600 for a launch clamp is also too expensive

The actual delta-V figures are 4377 in the booster and 3661 in the probe, KER gets confused. The probe has to do the circularisation and the transfer burns, but will have loads left for manoeuvring after.

Science is temperature and gravity. Despite the high price of the gravity detector, I believe it will pay for itself in returned science. No other experiments were viable, being either single use or useless in space.

So far I have 0 science, since it's still sitting in the parking orbit and I've been doing other stuff in the save. (But careful not to do any science!) I'm planning on sending it to Eve at the right time to use Eve's gravity for an inclination change to match Moho, and I want to make a Mun flyby on the way out into the bargain.

[Justy]

Well, I thought I had a winning strategy; a manned/kerbed flyby of Eve. Eve was the perfect choice; reasonably accessible, high science multiplier, and most importantly, different biomes (land/ocean). That makes the crew pod a HUGELY valuable scientific instrument, with results for crew report and EVA in high orbit, and crew report and two EVAs in low orbit (one EVA report over each biome).

...except it doesn't work that way. First, I forgot that you can only hold one crew report no matter what biome it came from; you can transmit it without penalty, but I didn't bring an antenna. Second, there is only one "space low over Eve" biome, regardless of whether it's over land or sea (I didn't know this, I'd never visited Eve before!).

I'm out of town and away from KSP for a couple of weeks. When I get back, I have a revised plan for the kerbed Eve flyby that *should* allow a science-per-megabuck in the high 50's. I need to recalculate my unkerbed lander's potential, since all my assumptions for its science yield were wrong too.

[Jasonden]

...except it doesn't work that way. First, I forgot that you can only hold one crew report no matter what biome it came from; you can transmit it without penalty, but I didn't bring an antenna.

Yah, I too learned this the hard way The cheapest antenna is only $100, tho, so Crew Reports should still be very science-efficient.

Here's a Kerballed Munar Free-Return. I didn't carry an antenna on this one either, because doing so would have required a solar panel, too, and maybe a battery. And I decided to keep it stripped-down. I might try another one with a thermometer and an antenna and see if I can do better.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Cost: $2.702M

Science: 171

Science/$: 63.29

[Justy]

Adding an antenna to your circumlunar flight will yield one additional crew report, which earns you 5 science * 3 science multiplier for Mün space * 100% transmission efficiency = 15 more science returned to Kerbin. But is it worth the cost?

The cost will be the antenna ($150) plus, maybe, one battery. Don't bother with a battery to power the antenna; there's enough power in the capsule. Each transmission burst sends 2 Mits of data, a crew report is 5 Mits, the cheapest antenna uses 10 power per burst, so 3 bursts = 30 electricity). But that leaves you with only 20 power for reaction wheels. You made it there and back with the 50 power in the capsule and no solar panels; can you manage maneuvering with 20 power, or do you need the insurance of a battery that would give you an extra 100? One small battery ($80) is still a lot cheaper than a solar panel ($300).

Total cost then for the antenna + battery is $230. Yielding 15 science, that's 65.22 science per megabuck. Since that's higher than the 63.29 your mission has without it, it will raise your efficiency.

The antenna with a solar panel costs $450, or 33.33 Sci/M$. Since this is lower than the 63.29 your mission has without it, spending this much on the extra science would bring your efficiency DOWN.

If you can go without the battery, the antenna adds 100 science per megabuck that you spent on it (15 more science for $150).

EDIT:OH! The dish is cheaper! But it uses 1.5x the power. Sending the crew report home will use 45 power, leaving you only 5 for reaction wheels if you have no battery. With one battery, 15 science for $180 total = 83.33 Sci/M$. Such a deal, you can't afford NOT to.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Justy

[cantab]

The medium-gain antenna is six times heavier than the low-gain one though, and is liable to throw a small spacecraft off-balance. Certainly it did to my Smith probe when it was mounted on the side (and I decided it looked too stupid on the top to be worth saving $50 with). Jasonden's manned craft is heavier and has more torque, but the off-balance load still might cause an issue.

[Jasonden]

With one battery, 15 science for $180 total = 83.33 Sci/M$. Such a deal, you can't afford NOT to.

Nice analysis -- I agree this is quite clear that adding the antenna and a battery is worth it, even for just the single crew report. Similarly, it clearly would not be worth it to carry the thermometer, which would give just 12 science for $0.9M. Excellent! This is the kind of trade space that I was hoping to investigate . . .

[Aedile]

Is picking up data allowed?

If so - bring gravioli to minmus - yes it's expensive, but...

you get points for each biome at surface, near space and far space (30km or up) that adds up to 27 readings. Bring antenna - send one, take measurement again, collect it and keep it.

Going on eccentric polar orbit and wait... you will pass over each biome.

You will need a kerbal to pick the data up, but- you get eva for each biome at near space, and eva and soil sample.

Edit - or don't - just noticed I looked at the price wrong...

Edited April 11, 2014 by Aedile