Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
53 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Leaving Earth: Stations» Forums » Rules

Subject: The problem with Reusable rockets in Leaving Earth: Stations rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
A casual play of Leaving earth: stations will reveal that the Shuttle feels a bit strong, and the Daedelus feels a bit weak. (for this topic, I'm ignoring the additional problems with Fuel Generator)

But why?

Including rocket and fuel, the Shuttle masses slightly less than a soyuz for a comparable push. Its deeper in the tech tree, so that seems a reasonable tradeoff. Also it carries crew, because that's what a shuttle does.

The problem is that first statement, "including rocket and fuel." The shuttle is most broken when the same shuttle is making a maneuver 3-4 times, spending a fuel tank each time. The mass penalty for the additional maneuver is only 4, the mass of a fuel tank, which means you have a rocket with almost the performance of the Proton, with built in equivilant to a 3 mass capsule (apollo) that effectively masses the same as an ATLAS.

This is most obvious in the "Manned mission to the moon and back." A shuttle can spend 2 fuel tanks to lift a fuel tank to orbit (along with 3 other mass), or 2 shuttles can spend 4 fuel tanks to lift 3 fuel tanks to orbit (along with 1 other mass). simple enough, right? But then 1 shuttle loads up 4 fuel tanks in earth orbit, burns 1 to push 12 other mass through a difficulty 3, burns 1 to push 8 mass to land on the moon, burns another to lift off, and burns the last to return to earth orbit and earth. No other rocket techs, and the mission itself, including all orbital lift, is 58 mil for a single shuttle or 60 mil for 2 shuttle (and you have the extra shuttle for the next mission) and only needs 45 techs- Atlas, reentry, shuttle and landing.(Edit: And rendevous.)

What about the daedelus? It's an in-space engine, right? Unfortunately, while a daedelus+fuel tank can push a single fuel tank through difficulty 3 (Earth orbit to lunar orbit, earth to Inner transfer, earth to earth cycler, mars liftoff, mars orbit to mars cycler, ceres to outer transfer, ect.) it cant carry any other payload with it, so whatever maneuver is beyond that difficulty 3 cant take advantage of the reusable rocket efficiency. You need another rocket to get past those difficulty 3 maneuvers... and since you have to use other rockets, you have to compare Daedelus to those other rockets. The best case I see is a 6 mass lunar lander, using 2 fuel tanks to fly an eagle down and an eagle and 3 sample back up, but you could do an eagle down and 1 sample back up with an eagle and 5 junos for the same mass, and without diving into reusable rocket tech. And if you do get Shuttle tech, just landing the whole shuttle is only 4 mass of fuel down and 4 mass of fuel back up.

In short, The Daedelus is an expensive juno bundle that thinks it's an ion but isnt, and the Shuttle is a cheap super-Proton with built-in capsule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry L
United States
Stockton
California
flag msg tools
He who games with the most dice wins.
badge
I + I = 0
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I had four shuttles running last solo game.

Three shuttles can spend 5 fuel tanks to lift 21 mass to Earth orbit. They put the Saturn to shame.

The only value I can see to the Daedelus is, you don't have to bother developing Juno technology at all. You might send one along to Mars as a Phobos lander (although I'm not sure this is necessary.) If you are developing Shuttle tech anyway, then a single Daedelus represents a cost savings over Juno tech.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
RingelTree wrote:
I had four shuttles running last solo game.

Three shuttles can spend 5 fuel tanks to lift 21 mass to Earth orbit. They put the Saturn to shame.

The only value I can see to the Daedelus is, you don't have to bother developing Juno technology at all. You might send one along to Mars as a Phobos lander (although I'm not sure this is necessary.) If you are developing Shuttle tech anyway, then a single Daedelus represents a cost savings over Juno tech.


Oh, agreed, on the daedelus. The problem is that instead of 5 mass and 16 mil for a daedelus and 2 fuel tanks for the phobos lander, you could spend 8 mass and 8 mil and land the whole shuttle.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
greenjinjo
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I posted this in my Solo Outer Planets + Stations session report from this morning, but I think some combination of the house rules / variants below might be interesting to try:

- The Space Shuttle must be crewed (possibly by a Pilot) for it to operate.
- The Space Shuttle cannot travel beyond Earth Orbit.
- Each Space Shuttle can only be used once per year.
- Space Shuttles can't be combined with other rockets to perform a maneuver, including another Space Shuttle.

I actually still find use for the Juno rocket even with the presence of the Daedalus. I used it a few times on low mass, low difficulty maneuvers, particularly Venus Flyby to Jupiter Flyby and a Mars Orbit -> Phobos -> Mars Orbit trip. It's less weight than the Daedalus by far for a Phobos and back trip with just the Eagle, though you do have to factor in purchasing the tech and testing it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry L
United States
Stockton
California
flag msg tools
He who games with the most dice wins.
badge
I + I = 0
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rakaydos wrote:


Oh, agreed, on the daedelus. The problem is that instead of 5 mass and 16 mil for a daedelus and 2 fuel tanks for the phobos lander, you could spend 8 mass and 8 mil and land the whole shuttle.


Yes, it is a fringe case where you need to save 3 mass. Which is unlikely if you are using the shuttle to get you to Mars in the first place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry L
United States
Stockton
California
flag msg tools
He who games with the most dice wins.
badge
I + I = 0
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
greenjinjo wrote:
I posted this in my Solo Outer Planets + Stations session report from this morning, but I think some combination of the house rules / variants below might be interesting to try:

- The Space Shuttle must be crewed (possibly by a Pilot) for it to operate.
- The Space Shuttle cannot travel beyond Earth Orbit.
- Each Space Shuttle can only be used once per year.
- Space Shuttles can't be combined with other rockets to perform a maneuver, including another Space Shuttle.


I think next time I play solo, I will just forgo the shuttle tech. altogether and see how it plays.


Quote:

I actually still find use for the Juno rocket even with the presence of the Daedalus. I used it a few times on low mass, low difficulty maneuvers, particularly Venus Flyby to Jupiter Flyby and a Mars Orbit -> Phobos -> Mars Orbit trip. It's less weight than the Daedalus by far for a Phobos and back trip with just the Eagle, though you do have to factor in purchasing the tech and testing it.


I haven't played it with Outer Planets yet. The footprint is too large for me to have a chance in the near future.

The shuttle can be shut down by Jupiter's radiation. I guess there is that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
greenjinjo
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
RingelTree wrote:
I think next time I play solo, I will just forgo the shuttle tech. altogether and see how it plays.


Yeah, that is a possibility for me as well, but I think the concept of a reusable rocket in the game is really neat and I'm happy to see it in the expansion. I think adding some additional limitations to it might provide a fun, balanced approach to using the Shuttle.

RingelTree wrote:
I haven't played it with Outer Planets yet. The footprint is too large for me to have a chance in the near future.


The shuttle can be shut down by Jupiter's radiation. I guess there is that.


Hah, yeah, the footprint was rather large. My particular game had intense radiation at Jupiter, so I didn't even bother sending a Shuttle to the outer planets.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry L
United States
Stockton
California
flag msg tools
He who games with the most dice wins.
badge
I + I = 0
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
greenjinjo wrote:
RingelTree wrote:
I think next time I play solo, I will just forgo the shuttle tech. altogether and see how it plays.


Yeah, that is a possibility for me as well, but I think the concept of a reusable rocket in the game is really neat and I'm happy to see it in the expansion. I think adding some additional limitations to it might provide a fun, balanced approach to using the Shuttle.


Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to dismiss your ideas. I agree it is worth exploring house rules for it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
greenjinjo
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
RingelTree wrote:
greenjinjo wrote:
RingelTree wrote:
I think next time I play solo, I will just forgo the shuttle tech. altogether and see how it plays.


Yeah, that is a possibility for me as well, but I think the concept of a reusable rocket in the game is really neat and I'm happy to see it in the expansion. I think adding some additional limitations to it might provide a fun, balanced approach to using the Shuttle.


Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to dismiss your ideas. I agree it is worth exploring house rules for it.


No problem, I didn't take it as dismissal. I think your solution of just removing it is certainly valid, there's a lot of other awesome material in Stations even without the Shuttle.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pawel Garycki
Poland
Gdansk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Any solution to those two problems cannot change the cards, so the following solutions are off:
- changing mass of Shuttle/Deadalus, thrust of Shuttle/Deadalus, price of Shuttle/Deadalus/fuel tanks, amount of outcomes on Shuttle tech, changing the meaning of the damaged Shuttle/Deadalus/fuel tank, printed outcomes on the Shuttle technology.
Why cannot we directly modify cards? Because this would create a need for printed ammendments on components themselves, not to mention tables with Shuttle/Deadalus performance. It's better to write an optional rule in the Rulebook. Advanced players will know what it is meant for.

What is left to consider?
1. an additional rule for fuel generation / Deadalus outcome handling, e.g. "You do not draw outcome card for fuel synthesis, small tank firing if there are 1 less outcome than initially on the related technology" - this helps fuel generators and Deadalus to be cleared faster while making counterpart testing (Shuttle/Hydroponics) harder, as desired
2. time restriction for technologies (e.g. 2nd tier technologies allowed in 1966+), a promising solution
3. an additional rule requiring more outcomes if prerequity tech is not fully tested (a promosing solution to the Shuttle but not Deadalus, this may affect also Synthesis, Proton and Aerobraking)
4. an additional rule restricting Shuttle amount or use per year
5. an additional rule implying a prerequisite for a Shuttle (e.g. an astronaut), however this is counter-historical as Buran did it uncrewed
6. an additional rule changing prices of next units built (leaving the printed price as the first case), e.g. each next possessed Shuttle costing 2 times more, each next possessed Deadalus costing 2 times less, rounded up.
7. an explicite recycling mechanism for small fuel tank and possibly supply components
(I like 1. combined with 2. or 3.)

I welcome other ideas to solve the issue without changing printed game content (other than the Rulebook). Perhaps the solution liked by players might chosen by the designer as an "optional advanced rule" in the next printing of Stations. Note that at least one clarification is needed there - regarding Supplies from Outer Planets, so we arrive with some fixes nevertheless.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
I think that, if this had been caught in playtesting, the solution would have been to rejigger the thrust/mass ratios so that a shuttle's payload through difficulty 5 is less than the mass of a shuttle fuel tank. Likewise, a daedelus should be able to push 2 small fuel tanks through difficultly 3.

Also the fuel generator should work without spare parts just like the hydroponics, but that's a different issue.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
Rakaydos wrote:
8+4+8+(7) throught difficulty 3, and 4+8+(7) throught difficulty 5, needs how much thrust?

27=t/3
19=t/5

27x3=t
19x5=t

81=t
95=t

If the shuttle had 95 thrust instead of 75, and the fuel tanks massed 8 instead of 4, the shuttle could lift 7 mass to orbit, but couldnt lift it's own fuel tank.

With thrust of 75 (on card), and tank mass of 8 (discard 2 large tanks instead of 1)... hmm...
3 mass to orbit, with 2 extra suborbital lift. And a ridiculus price tag for the lift.


If tank mass was 6 (discard a large and small fuel tank) and thrust was still 75...

5 mass to orbit, 4 extra suborbital lift. Price tag of 12 mil for 5 mass, vs 18 mil for 7 mass for soyuz, or 30 mil for 20 mass for Saturn, but includes a free apollo.

Erratta'd shuttle thrust cheat sheet (with 6 mass tankage)
Difficulty 1: 75/1-10= 65 mass
Difficulty 2: 75/2-10= 27 mass
Difficulty 3: 75/3-10= 15 mass
Difficulty 4: 75/4-10= 8 3/4 mass
Difficulty 5: 75/5-10= 5 mass
Difficulty 6: 75/6-10= 2 1/2 mass
Difficulty 7: 75/7-10= 5/7 mass
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will H.
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RingelTree wrote:
I had four shuttles running last solo game.

Three shuttles can spend 5 fuel tanks to lift 21 mass to Earth orbit. They put the Saturn to shame.


The rule book states, "A reusable rocket cannot consume more than one fuel tank for a single maneuver." [pgs. 18-19]

Does this alleviate the issues above?

Still waiting to play my first game. I have it on the gaming table waiting to be set up, but... homework.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris in Kansai
Japan
Otsu
Shiga
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't have the expansion yet but I'm following these threads with interest.

My impression from following the historical space program was that the shuttle's weakness,if any, was its complexity. If the shuttle is too powerful as is, could a yearly maintenance cost in supplies be added for longer missions?

Edit: or if that's too harsh, something like - every time the shuttle moves to a new location card it must expend one unit of supplies...?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
gar0u wrote:
RingelTree wrote:
I had four shuttles running last solo game.

Three shuttles can spend 5 fuel tanks to lift 21 mass to Earth orbit. They put the Saturn to shame.


The rule book states, "A reusable rocket cannot consume more than one fuel tank for a single maneuver." [pgs. 18-19]

Does this alleviate the issues above?

Still waiting to play my first game. I have it on the gaming table waiting to be set up, but... homework.



2 shuttles can lift 34 mass through difficulty 3 with 2 fuel tanks.
-3 fuel tanks=12 mass
-3rd shuttle=4 mass
-max 3-ship payload= 21 mass
=37 mass

Doesnt quite work, but you can still put 18 mass up with 5 tanks that way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
greenjinjo
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
gar0u wrote:
RingelTree wrote:
I had four shuttles running last solo game.

Three shuttles can spend 5 fuel tanks to lift 21 mass to Earth orbit. They put the Saturn to shame.


The rule book states, "A reusable rocket cannot consume more than one fuel tank for a single maneuver." [pgs. 18-19]

Does this alleviate the issues above?


The maneuver in question is to take 2 Shuttles from Earth to Suborbital Flight (with 1 more Shuttle as cargo), then 3 Shuttles from Suborbital Flight to Earth Orbit, so they are different maneuvers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will H.
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see. One shuttle piggybacks on another and fires its own fuel take from Suborbital Flight. Interesting...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Fatula
United States
Blue Tent
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Just to let you guys know, I am following this discussion, even if I don't have much to add yet.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Dillenbeck
United States
Deerfield
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RingelTree wrote:
I had four shuttles running last solo game.

Three shuttles can spend 5 fuel tanks to lift 21 mass to Earth orbit. They put the Saturn to shame.

The only value I can see to the Daedelus is, you don't have to bother developing Juno technology at all. You might send one along to Mars as a Phobos lander (although I'm not sure this is necessary.) If you are developing Shuttle tech anyway, then a single Daedelus represents a cost savings over Juno tech.


So the shuttles in your example cost $30 million in research and $50 million in hardware, for a cost of $80 million to lift 21 mass plus $20 million per additional 21 mass payload delivered to orbit. Lets use 4 launches for a total cost of $110 million payload delivery cost.

[EDIT: Reversed my maneuver difficulties, need to correct this]

What is a saturn rocket like? $10 million in research and $15 million per rocket. 1 saturn can boost a playload of 20 to suborbital flight, and 46 2/3 from suborbital flight to orbit. This means 3 rockets will put 1 rocket and 40 mass into suborbital flight, then finish with 1 rocket into orbit at a cost of $60 million per launch. (Alternatively, each one can put 5 mass directly into orbit, which is only 20 mass total for 4 rockets or half as efficient.) 1 Saturn can boost 46 2/3 to suborbital flight. This means it can deliver 26 2/3 mass (46 2/3 - 20 for another Saturn rocket), and then it can deliver 20 mass to orbit.

Getting mass into orbit: Saturn vs Shuttle, round 1

To put 20 mass in orbit, you spend $40 million to the shuttles cost of $80 million. This is 1 1/3 years versus 2 2/3 years of annual budget in launch costs - giving you 1 1/3 years head start (half the time). For 40 mass, it is $70 vs $100 or 2 1/3 years versus 3 1/3 years annual budget (1 year ahead); for 60 mass, its $100 versus $120 or 3 1/3 years vs 4 years (the advantage is in money to cover payload costs); for 80 mass its
$130 vs $140, so 4 1/3 vs 4 2/3 years; and finally at 100 mass or 5 launches you have $160 vs $160 - you are at the break even point. It takes 6 launches for your megashuttle to become more profitable.

Now the difference might come in once you get into space, where maneuvers are significantly lower and twice the tanks as payload compared to rockets means twice the maneuvers.


To put 40 mass into orbit, the Saturn rocket cost $70 million while a shuttle costs $100 million. To put 80 mass into orbit, the Saturn costs $130 million and the shuttle costs $120 million. To put 120 mass into orbit, the Saturn costs $190 and the shuttle costs $150 million.

This means for 40 mass, you spend about 2 1/3 years on the Saturn and 3 1/3 years on the shuttle (in annual budget costs for launch) before the payload coasts... a Saturn Rocket system can get into space 40 mass a full year earlier.

For 80 mass, you are looking at 4 1/3 years to 4 years of annual budget in launch costs, so those are comparable.

For 120 mass, you are looking at 6 2/3 years to 5 years of annual budget in launch costs, so the shuttle finally pays off,

Getting mass into orbit: Saturn vs Shuttle, round 2

Okay, lets do a rush. Your shuttle was $80 million or 2 2/3 years of annual budget in launch costs to get 21 mass into orbit. A rush with a Saturn Rocket would be the tech plus 4 rockets, that's $70 million or 2 1/3 years - the Saturn has a slight edge. The edge grows larger in terms of a major disaster; you have to spend $30 million or a full year of annual budget to rebuild plus the full payload costs. The Saturn Rocket needs $15 million or a half year of annual budget to rebuild and only needs to replace 1/4 of the payload for a major disaster. Thus the Saturn Rocket is a lower risk option for a rush to get a 20 mass rocket into orbit in a space race to VP.


Other Factors

These numbers can be further affected by testing costs. Think how much money you will be spending on perfecting reusable rocket technology compared to perfecting a Saturn rocket - you will get a reliable delivery system sooner.

So, yes, in the long run a Shuttle stack will pump a lot more cargo into space for a much lower cost - but in the short run a 1 year jump to put a 40 mass explorer rocket into space to score a high value VP card might make all the difference in the game.

Some ideas before my first play

I'm still not convinced that reusable rockets with their 1 tank per maneuver limit can be that unbalancing. However, some possible house rules I am considering at the moment if play shows me to be wrong include:

1. Shuttles are considered to always have a small crew on board. If a shuttle is destroyed, it counts as a dead astronaut. (Thus the Daedalus as a test technology becomes more valuable to ensure you don't lose VP at the end of the game; imagine if your triple shuttle blew up on you - that would be -12 points for such a big disaster!)

2. Tanks also require the purchase of spare parts. Smalls need 1 card, large need 2. This increases the cost and mass of tanks, but it then gives players the options. You can use the spare parts as cargo to be used later, or you can eject the parts with a maneuver and just eat the cost of the now discarded tanks.

There are a couple of other ideas as I crunch the numbers, but I'm not sure how well they would work out. I have to see some of this in play. For example, restricting a shuttle to being a fixed number - no adding or removing shuttles from the design, only cargo modules and/or other rockets (so you could make a 3 card shuttle but it will forever be a 3 card shuttle, no creating three 1 card shuttles out of it). Also requiring either disposable rockets or chemical rockets to be used for a maneuver but not both. As I said, I'm not convinced reusables are as broken as people think, but play will tell me if I am right or wrong.

EDIT: Here is an alternate to idea #2 I am developing as a variant:

Another addendum to my possible ideas: instead of having spare parts with fuel tanks, make it supplies (and unused card). Why? Rules for constructing space stations and habitats as follows:

Build Space Station: 6 supplies, 4 spare parts, 2 mechanics and 1 pilot at the same time to build it, and an additional $12 million to build (10 vs 9 mass; $22 million lost goods and $15 million reusable goods for $37 million versus $20 million - overall, building a space habitat isn't efficient; however, this can be done in stages and that means small amounts don't get wasted. Think of the build cost as maintaining the space junk in orbit).

Science: 1 supply, 1 spare parts, 1 mechanic, and $3 million to build (2 mass and $5 million in lost goods is equal to the module itself, and then you have the $5 million reusable needed that you probably have left over - its basically an even exchange).

Medical: 1 supply, 1 spare parts, 1 medical supply, 1 mechanic, and $3 million to build (3 mass and $6 million in lost goods is $1 million more than getting the module directly, and again you have the $5 million reusable cost that is probably already done for a different module).

Hydroponics: 1 supply, 1 spare parts, 2 food, 1 mechanic, and $6 million to build (4 mass and $10 million is the same as the module, and again you have the cost of a mechanic - so all the modules are about the same to build on earth or in space).

Ground Habitat: 4 supply, 2 spare parts, 2 mechanics, and $9 million to build (6 mass and $15 million means transporting 1 mass extra in materials to the planet for break even; and, of course, you need $10 million in reusable costs to build the thing).

The logic behind it: supply represents the raw material left over from the tanks to serve as the main structure (metal plates, some wiring, etc), spare parts represent the hardware that needs to be installed (computers, solar panels, consoles, etc), mechanics are required to build the darn things, and when building a specialist module it requires the right supply type (medical or food). You then pay 60% of the cost to actually make the object (as a game balance issue). However, I'm not convinced this is needed - but it is thematic.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Zscheile
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Verbosity wrote:
1 saturn can boost a playload of 20 to suborbital flight, and 46 2/3 from suborbital flight to orbit.


Wrong, it is the other way around. A Saturn can boost 46 2/3 mass payload (200 Thrust = 66 2/3 mass (payload plus Saturn itself) * 3 difficulty) from Earth to Sub-Orbital Flight, and 20 from there to Earth Orbit (200 Thrust = 40 mass * 5 difficulty) , meaning two Saturns can bring 20 payload to Earth Orbit.

For the rest I can't say anything as I do not have my Stations copy yet, but the thing with testing I think is that you would not want to risk your shuttles in it, but rather Daedalus rockets, and capsules for re-entry and whatever for Landing. Once the shuttle can come back, you get much more payload for your buck, and also you have a system that can re-fuel itself and go further than Earth Orbit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pawel Garycki
Poland
Gdansk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
For thematic reasons Shuttles should have also Saturn prerequisite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

- this is a good balancing solution since then Shuttle would require one more tech and thus will be made less accessible (to complicate life we could make an option to demand Reentry and either Atlas or Saturn to have Shuttle tech, and then: for Deadalus Atlas would suffice and for Shuttle Saturn would suffice).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Dillenbeck
United States
Deerfield
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dagar wrote:
Verbosity wrote:
1 saturn can boost a playload of 20 to suborbital flight, and 46 2/3 from suborbital flight to orbit.


Wrong, it is the other way around. A Saturn can boost 46 2/3 mass payload (200 Thrust = 66 2/3 mass (payload plus Saturn itself) * 3 difficulty) from Earth to Sub-Orbital Flight, and 20 from there to Earth Orbit (200 Thrust = 40 mass * 5 difficulty) , meaning two Saturns can bring 20 payload to Earth Orbit.

For the rest I can't say anything as I do not have my Stations copy yet, but the thing with testing I think is that you would not want to risk your shuttles in it, but rather Daedalus rockets, and capsules for re-entry and whatever for Landing. Once the shuttle can come back, you get much more payload for your buck, and also you have a system that can re-fuel itself and go further than Earth Orbit.


Sorry, my mistake - I got my numbers backwards in my calculations. wow Haven't played in a bit and reversed my maneuver difficulties. shake You are correct and I need to rework my examples. Expect an edit shortly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brent Pollock
Canada
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
buffalohat wrote:
Just to let you guys know, I am following this discussion, even if I don't have much to add yet.


Joe, did you ever test out having Earth Launch Pad total mass limits, and making it expandable by an Advancement? For instance, I do find the idea of a rocket consisting of more than one Shuttle a tad strange. It does seem to defy ground facility infrastructure limits. How many of those enormous launch tractors can you run in a year?

Or, for the sake of game play, are huge rockets really just meant to represent multiple launches in a year?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pawel Garycki
Poland
Gdansk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
WBRP wrote:
buffalohat wrote:
Just to let you guys know, I am following this discussion, even if I don't have much to add yet.


Joe, did you ever test out having Earth Launch Pad total mass limits, and making it expandable by an Advancement? For instance, I do find the idea of a rocket consisting of more than one Shuttle a tad strange. It does seem to defy ground facility infrastructure limits. How many of those enormous launch tractors can you run in a year?

Or, for the sake of game play, are huge rockets really just meant to represent multiple launches in a year?

Will such restrictions remove the Shuttle vs. Saturn "issue" or make it even worse? If you impose a limit on Pad mass, Saturns will lose in favour of Shuttle. Perhaps even Soyuz will lose with Shuttle.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Fatula
United States
Blue Tent
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
WBRP wrote:
Joe, did you ever test out having Earth Launch Pad total mass limits, and making it expandable by an Advancement?


Way back in initial development of Leaving Earth I tried it out, but it seemed like an extra rule the game didn't really need.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.