Crewed Mars Program

[CXG-2827]

A Crewed Mars Program which unlocks after the completion of the Crewed Lunar Program, Mars rover contract, and the 2nd Generation Science contract (includes the 2yr space habitation experiment).

Program Contract Structure:
The idea is to allow the program to be complete one of two ways.

Option1: Crewed Mars Landing

• Mars orbit.
• Mars crewed landing with a surface stay of a specified duration.
• Collection of Mars Surface samples, and Deep Surface Samples.

Option2: Similar to Project Red Rocks/Mars Base Camp

• Mars Orbit
• Robotic mission to Mars to send back up a surface sample to take back home.
• A crewed mission to Phobos for collection of Surface samples, and Deep Surface Samples.

Phobos crewed landing will be an optional choice if the crewed Mars landing contract is chosen, but will not allow double-dipping if Option2 path is taken. Deimos Crewed Landing contract will be an optional.

Funding and Timeline:

• Program funding on Moderate difficulty is $40M. Normal is $48M, and Hard is $32M.
• 6 Program slots required. Plan for admin to be at 11-12 slots when this is accepted
• Timelines: Normal: 18 Years, Fast: 12 years, Breakneck 9 years
• Pricing modeled around moderate difficulty with mission architecture placing 2,000T to LEO and the construction of a 5k-7kT LC with a second pad. Assuming a design using propulsive capture and chemical propulsion.
• Assumption of 3,600 researchers and 5,000 engineers.
• Researchers account for ~$2.3M/yr
• Net cost is estimated to be ~$2.9M/yr with maxed out subsidy
• New LC will be at roughly half engineering capacity and roll out crafts in ~80 days for non-crew rated payloads.

[siimav]

In case you haven't noticed yet - the cfg validator found some errors.

[CXG-2827]

In case you haven't noticed yet - the cfg validator found some errors.

Thanks. found the missing brackets.

[CXG-2827]

Sharing my thoughts on the funding and timeline for this program.

Facilities and staffing in the post-moon landing era will need $3.5M/year just to stay afloat. Ballpark estimates for launching the Mars mission is based on 9x200T uncrewed payloads and 1x200T crewed payload/habitat totaling $3.5-4M accounting for engineering and rollout. Building a new LC and extra pad will be another $2.5M. I would think at this stage of a playthrough, the player should have 12 slots in the admin building to allow for 2 additional programs to be running concurrent with the Crewed Mars program. Assume $400k/year from the additional programs are contributing to the facilities and staffing budget, and $1.2M/year of maximum subsidy contributing to the researchers salaries.

To run the program on fast, you will need to begin construction on the new LC during the first year, as it will take ~3.75 years to complete. After the LC is complete, it will take another 2 years to construct and launch the 10 payloads, putting you at the end of the 6th program year. With 6 years remaining, it gives flexibility with missing a launch window and having enough time for the 2-2.5yr mission.

the current front-loaded curve will need for you to bank almost $6M by the 4th year, as you will be operating in the negatives for the remainder of the program.

Regarding the funding curve, if having such a large aggressive funding peak goes against simulating a slower post-Apollo era, then I believe Fast will need to be stretched to 20 years, budget changed to ~$50M, and use a Mid or flat funding curve. With Crewed Lunar being a 12 year program, maybe 14 years for Mars is a bit short.

[CXG-2827]

Contracts have been tested in sims and a test save. I've checked the pricing against my current Mars design and increased funding a bit. Cost to launch the Mars mission estimated closer to $6.5M. From a spending estimate 12 years still works ok, but has a slightly shorted buffer for the mars window to complete and hit the program deadline. Build period for the infrastructure is now about 5 years on the Mid curve.

[CXG-2827]

Files have been cleaned up with formatting.

[siimav]

What's the summary after the lot of you played through this program during the Race? Unfortunately I wasn't keeping track.

[ezsnackeur]

-The program needs more programs before it to "feel good" progression wise, going from 2 years in LEO with crew rotations to 3 years in interplanetary space is a bit of a jump. Lunar habs or long duration heo/lunar stations should do the job.

-An additional level of the AC building should be added as a damper to progression, same as we have it for moonboots, the program already pays a lot but this is a speedrunners opinion xd

-The curve is too backloaded and the duration of the program is too long for the current requirements (fund/year are in the ballpark imo).

-The program is also balanced around building a new LC according to @CXG-2827 (correct me if im wrong) but it feels more natural to perform orbital assembly from the Moonboots LC since its already huge and doesnt perform any other task.

-Most of the station parts are not balanced, in particular the volume/surface ratio, also recommended to add sspx to express install if the long term goal is to add more crewed programs.

-None of the station habitats have configured Proficiency and Mission training yet.

-Kerbalism radiation system is bad and should be looked into but its not a trivial task ofc.

-The program funding has been balanced around this broken system which requires insane shielding mass, if opting for a fast Mars mission you can get away with no shielding at all which is also weird.

-The stress for nauts is hard capped at 4 years unless you have the "sick bay" but its futuristic tech.

-Big diameters SM tanks (>3-4m) have ridiculous tooling costs, they dont make any sense and youd rather not tool them at all,
on the same note unlock credits scales bad into late game, especially as the research bonus from science gets bigger and bigger, reducing the need for hired researchers.

-I said it before and i will say it again, landing on 2 potatoes should not count as enough to complete the program, if you dont wanna land on Mars then dont take the program. These should totally be optional contracts.

-Add an optional contract for Venus flyby or add it as an optional parameter to existing contracts.
(or maybe split the program in Opposition and Conjunction missions, just like moonboots is split in direct and rendezvous, you can only do 1 but they both count)

[byt3c]

2 cents on my end - this program is made with assumption that everything would need to be built from scratch. I found out that unless speedrunning heavily there is a lot of surplus money - too large funding removes incentive for optimization - thinking ahead of reusing pads/ architectures. I've used the same LV / diameter since crewed moon missions in all of my program.

My suggestion would be to slightly under funding the whole program, which incentivize smarter management. Crewed mars program in late 70s is still remarkable achievement with having tons (millions) of surplus money and research.

[CXG-2827]

-The program needs more programs before it to "feel good" progression wise, going from 2 years in LEO with crew rotations to 3 years in interplanetary space is a bit of a jump. Lunar habs or long duration heo/lunar stations should do the job.

I agree with this. Gating it behind an Early Lunar habitation program, or a 6-9 month contract from that program would be best.

-The program is also balanced around building a new LC according to @CXG-2827 (correct me if im wrong) but it feels more natural to perform orbital assembly from the Moonboots LC since its already huge and doesnt perform any other task.

RiS modified the radiation shielding density so it was a lot lighter, correct? Like you mentioned, the program funding was based around the existing kerbalism settings for the shielding mass. You might not have built a new LC for the Mars program, but that shielding change for RiS was likely a contributing factor.

The idea with the funding was to give an opportunity for the player to build a UR-700/ SaturnV-25(S)U LC. Assuming a Kerbalism shielding revamp is a North Star goal, it might be best to keep funding to allow these new LC for the meantime. a new 5-7kT LC plus pad is ~2.5M, so really not a huge portion of the program funding anyway.

[ezsnackeur]

As i said the radiation system is bad so if your total travel time is shorter than 2y you dont need any shielding at all, if you take more than that then the shielding becomes the bigger fraction of your crafts mass with default settings, i think the setting that were used for RIS were too generous in foresight but they still dont address the fact that the system itself is flawed

[byt3c]

"he idea with the funding was to give an opportunity for the player to build a UR-700/ SaturnV-25(S)U LC. " it is there already with lunar program. If you play on fast with normal difficulty there is so much money that you can build enterprise and fly to the pluto and back with those money by 80s - obviously that is when you try to aggregate a lot of programs at the same time. We are not the average player. My rocket had 50t leo capability which was 1k1t pad. Taking into consderation most players would need 2kt pad it is still way enough for mars mission. 5-7kt is a speedrun pad basically as it is not needed in any other setup than large interplanetary missions built quickly or with absurd shield sized like Kargath 12m frontal one.

Obviously this is my opinion, so i'll be fine with whatever is decided at the end.

About radiation - i really miss the option to :

• make shielding lighter with tech,
• Adding magnetic shielding at the later nodes
• Adding possibility to remove radiation from kerbal (like scrubber that has capacity to "heal" / process kerbal radiation out of it.) or have a cryostat in near future nodes that prevents it from impacting the kerbal or make it slower. in exchange for some wake up stress penalty.

[Not-a-flying-brick]

Hello i am limedread from your ris comment. From my experience the program is a bit underfunded and i mostly rely on funding from stations program to build LCs and rockets. I accepted the mars program just before my launch, and after launch financials goes bankrupt pretty fast.
I saw @byt3c mentioning the overfunding problem, so my post-launch bankruptcy is pretty much intended? Idk.

[jimmymcgoochie]

In my experience in RIS2024, having to complete the full 2 years of multi-month habitation in the stations program before even starting crewed Mars was a bit unnecessary. One year would probably be sufficient to start the Program, with the contracts gated behind the full 2 years maybe?

I can't comment on funding as I fired all my researchers after starting the crewed Mars program and built my (slightly overkill) 6000t launch complex using the funding from stations, completing it before starting crewed Mars.

[CXG-2827]

Sharing some data from spyware:

Looks like 3 of 5 did opposition-class missions. Concerns about underfunding/backloaded is a result of only reaching $2.75M/yr by the second year of the program, as the funding curve peaks at year 6 (see graph from October 1st comment I made).

Putting the current feedback together, what about the following changes:

• Timelines: Normal: 12 Years, Fast: 8 years, Breakneck 6 years
• Moderate Funding reduced to $30M
• Funding Curve: Flat ($3.75M/year on Moderate Fast)

Any thoughts on requiring 2 Mars landings for the program, with the second one being targeted?

Does the crew requirement of 4 make sense, or should it be reduced to 3 to line up better with the capsules available in express install?

I'll also look into adding an optional contract to incentivize an E-V-M or M-V-E flyby

[byt3c]

I like the proposal.

"I can't comment on funding as I fired all my researchers after starting the crewed Mars program and built my (slightly overkill) 6000t launch complex using the funding from stations, completing it before starting crewed Mars." - That is what i'm saying. You did the mars mission without mars funding- extreme but this is how much money this game has in surplus.

Any thoughts on requiring 2 Mars landings for the program, with the second one being targeted? - I'd say optional with huge science and confidence bonus

Does the crew requirement of 4 make sense, or should it be reduced to 3 to line up better with the capsules available in express install? - I'd rather prefer having 4 crew apollo alternative (mk3 redone?)

I'll also look into adding an optional contract to incentivize an E-V-M or M-V-E flyby - that would be awesome!

[ezsnackeur]

Additional landings and orbits as optional contracts make sense imo as thats what most other programs do.
Maybe wait for siimav feedback on the feedback before doing more changes

[Not-a-flying-brick]

• Targeted landing on mars is too hard to be compulsory
  I agree with byte's idea, can be made not needed but strongly recommended(even targeted landing on duna is hard, weak atmospheric landings are not suitable for spaceplanes nor actual rockets)
• 4 is a smart number, means that all early capsules cannot be cavemanned with 1 voskhod ball goto everywhere. It forces realistic designs while keeping life support not a mess.
  Another new part idea unrelated until merged :make shielding IRSU(light and small, early in tech) so that ppl can mine from phobos or mars for lighter stage overall.

[ezsnackeur]

I agree with limedread, 4 is good because you cant caveman it too much but i wouldnt be against requiring even more nauts for more realism