Would this be a fun campaign?

I think here of the old computer and board game Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space - completion of each "first" increases your budget to achieve other firsts, and eventually reach the Moon - and of the old Soviet movie Road to the Stars - which I have not seen, but am very keen to.

Here are two cosmonauts saying "yippee, comrade!" as they walk on the Moon:


I also think of Ben Bova's Privateer or Sam Gunn, Unlimited, where he writes about rivate spaceflight and commercialisation of space.

We could have a reasonably realistic campaign of space exploration, beginning either in the 1950s as a "first effort" and nostalgic sort of thing, or else set it in the modern day and see how we can do. It could be government or private.

What do you think? I was thinking perhaps that it could be done Ars Magica style, in the sense that players would have three characters each (in AM, it's Mage, non-Mage and mook) - say, an engineer, an astronaut and atechnicians or member of the PR section or something.

Thoughts?

Yes, that sounds fun.

I'd enjoy constructing the lunar lander from various kinds of equipment and assembling a crew that's small but still covers all the nessisary skills.

Personaly I'm burnt out on Ars Magica, if only because the players found it easier to create new characters than to negotiate with NPCs. But if you do go that way, I'd make aquiring new personale the result of in-game missions like, headhunting rocket scientists, or conducting a nationwide search for "the right stuff."

Quote from: Kyle AaronWould this be a fun campaign?

See the anime movie Wings of Honneamise, AKA Royal Space Force.  It's hard to describe and do it justice, but involves a first space flight and is definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it.

I'd be interested in a War for the Moon -- when competing corporations and national agencies start using mining equipment as weapons against one another. (Hey, those Pepsi reps just put up a sign on our mining claim! Kill them!) Hard science WWI-in-space, with the later years marked by the introductions of ever-improving weapons of war.

How about updating the idea into a "Race to Mars" ?

 In real life the USA is seriously considering and planning a trip or two to Mars.

 Also we are supposed to g BACK TO THE MOON.

 There is talk that China is trying to organize a mission to the moon and they have been buying Russian space equipment and vehicles over the past several years.
Japan is also thinking about it.

 Set it sometime within the next 10 years with the USA, China, Japan and maybe Russia as the competing countries trying  to get to the moon  and then Mars.


- Ed C.

I'm with Koltar, but then I seriously believe that some official in China has it in his head that colonizing Mars would be a sound longterm solution to both the resource and population needs of his country.

Spaceship one may prove to be a watershed. The X-prize competition and it successful win has ignited the alt-space community. There are several serious companies working on sub-orbital spacecraft. Some have system that can be extended into orbital launch.

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com is and example of one such company.

As for traditional government programs. NASA has been switched from the access to space mode of the Space Shuttle program to a exploration mode involving a return to the moon and a mars landing. However NASA suffers from problems of bureaucratic turf wars, very visible in public eye, and being subject to the latest political winds.

The ESA is poking along preferring to buy time and space on Russian and American launch vehicles. They are launching their first man-rated craft the Autonomous Transfer Vehicle, the Jule Verne in 2008. It is man-rated not because it will carry people but provides a pressurized environment and will be accessible by astronauts once docked to the International Space Station.

The Russian continue to supply the ISS using Progress Vehicles and is the primary mode for transferring crew via the Soyuz-TMR spacecraft. They continue provided a multi-million dollar seat for space tourists and it one of the major revenue streams keeping their manned space program afloat. The Soyuz-TMR is the only current spacecraft that existed from the 60's era moon race and it the only one currently flying capable of being used to return to the moon. There are persistent rumors that the Russians will fly a circum-lunar flight (think Apollo 13 style flight path, not accident) in the 100 million dollar range. Note that the Soyuz-TMR has rigid restriction over the height and weight of the cosmonaut riding. This is expanded over the Soyuz-TM but still excludes a lot of NASA astronauts for being too tall or too short.

The Chinese continue with their slow but steady manned space program. Despite appearance the Shenzhou spacecraft is a native Chinese design and built completely from Chinese made components. The only thing that it shares with the Soyuz is the shape of the re-entry capsule.

The major known significant different between the Shenzhou and the Soyuz is that the mission module (the most forward of the three components) is designed to operate independently once detached from the Shenzhou. So far it has sported it own set of solar panels.

I recommend that any "realistic" based rpg or game using space should use the following for it's movement rules.

The primary characteristics of rockets is its specific impulse. This number represents the efficiency of the rocket in converting fuel into motion. The higher the specific impulse the more places a rocket can go for the same amount of fuel.

Motion in space is represented by delta-vee. Delta-vee being the total amount of motion needed to execute a maneuver. For example a rocket going into earth orbit needs to go from zero to about 7700 meters/sec. This means a rocket needs have efficient enough engines and enough fuel to produce 7700 m/sec worth of delta-vee.

 One of the reason that getting into earth orbit is considered to be halfway there is that the delta to get into orbiter is about the same as the delta-vee needed to get from earth orbit to mars orbit. This is why in Project Apollo the Saturn IV-B third stage and the CSM were sufficient to do the transfer to lunar orbiter and back to earth.

In a game using realistic space, rockets should be rated in terms of how much delta-vee they produced. Different maneuvers should have their delta-vee calculated and made available on a chart. The player then needs to subtract the delta-vee of their maneuver from their total delta-vee of fuel. If you used up half of your fuel's delta-vee you know you have half of your fuel remaining.

This also allows technically adept players to use knowledge of orbital mechanics to create their own maneuvers or to simulate rockets other than those provided with the base game.

It allows regular players the benefit of using a movement system based in realism but not be so complex to be unplayable.

The one thing I don't have a good handle on representing is the idea of windows. As two objects travel in orbits there are only certain times when it is optimal to make the lower delta-vee. You can try it out of window but your delta-vee cost will steadily climb. For most orbits the optimal transfer happens twice or once an orbit.

Also understand EVERYTHING is in a orbit. Even if it is continually accelerating. This means every maneuver is a transfer and has a optimal window for it to happen. In general if two objects are within 1000 meters of each other traveling in the same general orbit then the effects of orbital mechanics can be ignore.

Not that even objects on an escape trajectory are in a orbit. It called a hyperbolic orbit and it shape is like a hyperbola than a ellipse. If you are using some type of simulator and you try to decelerate from a hyperbolic orbit, what you will see is the two arms of the hyperbola closing in until they meet forming an ellipse. At which point you are no longer at escape velocity.

One effect of orbital mechanics that in order to catch up with an object in a different orbit. You need to DECELERATE. That right you need to slow down. This is because the closer an orbit is to the central body the faster it move relative to objects in higher orbits.

So to catch up you need to slow down, which kicks yourself into a lower orbit, wait until you catch up, and then accelerate again to put you into the same orbit as the target.

If you want to try this concepts in a more intuitive way and have some fun try the Orbiter Space Simulator at

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

Plus my own Mercury and Gemini simulations at

http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit

If you can run a last generation first person shooter then you are capable of running Orbiter.

Enjoy
Rob Conley

That's excellent stuff, estar! Thanks for those ideas, science notes and links. I was a bit inspired by this article about how the government should put out a contract for 1,000 launchers, must be priced at $1.25 million or less, capable of putting 2,000kg into low Earth orbit (a respectable satellite size, and also - for the adventurous - more than the weight of the Mercury capsule!), and will be launched daily until they run out; sold to commercial groups for cost+25%, any remaining going to educational institutions, etc at cost. His idea is that this would definitely prove whether it's possible to commercialise space, and would provide a good base of knowledge and experience in the industry as a whole.

It could be another race to the moon, definitely

Quote from: jrientsI'm with Koltar, but then I seriously believe that some official in China has it in his head that colonizing Mars would be a sound longterm solution to both the resource and population needs of his country.

Well, better a war en route to Mars than on Earth...even if you are the largest nation in the world.

- Q

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's excellent stuff, estar! Thanks for those ideas, science notes and links. I was a bit inspired by this article about how the government should put out a contract for 1,000 launchers, must be priced at $1.25 million or less, capable of putting 2,000kg into low Earth orbit (a respectable satellite size, and also - for the adventurous - more than the weight of the Mercury capsule!), and will be launched daily until they run out; sold to commercial groups for cost+25%, any remaining going to educational institutions, etc at cost. His idea is that this would definitely prove whether it's possible to commercialise space, and would provide a good base of knowledge and experience in the industry as a whole.

It could be another race to the moon, definitely

Yes I advocated this idea. The cost per launch is quite low compare to what you have to pay for a facility. More launch means the less each will cost even if they are expendable rockets.

One wrinkle I would do is make sure the contract is like this

500 to the lowest bidder
250 to the next lowest bidder
100 to the third lowest bidder
10 lots of 15 rockets to other bidders.

This way you build up an industry of people experienced in rocketry.