THE DIRECTOR'S GUIDE TO RACE INTO SPACE(Formerly TIPS AND BACKGROUND FOR BUZZ ALDRIN'S RACE INTO SPACE) by Leon Baradat

Ken Fishkin wrote some great information about the game in his "HINTS AND TIPS FOR 'BUZZ ALDRIN'S RACE INTO SPACE' from Interplay", published in Game Bytes Magazine 1993 and linked to from my BARIS site, the Docking Module. This guide is meant to pick up where he left off. Be sure to read what he had to say; I've tried not to duplicate his information more than necessary, and there are only a few changes I would make to it, which I'll mention as I go along.

This guide is not meant as a basic introduction to BARIS or RIS, as you might have guessed from its size. It's primarily intended for those already familiar with the game who want in-depth tips and might be interested in some of the historical background. If you're looking for a basic introduction, you're probably best off reading Ken's guide and following the RIS Tutorial, which is also available on the Docking Module. Then come back here once you've gotten your feet wet.

Incidentally, I always play the Historical Model; I think it makes the game more interesting to have some substantive differences between US and Soviet hardware. So the information I give will be for the Historical Model, unless otherwise specified. Similarly, I always play at the lowest level, so my estimates of risk and so on assume you're playing at Level 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------CONTENTS

A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE GAMEHOW TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELDLIFTOFF vs. BARISFLOPPY vs. CD VERSIONRIS vs. BARISNAME CHANGES IN RISA WORD ABOUT REENTRYTHE CUTTING-ROOM FLOOR

POINTERS ON PLAYING THE GAME

MISSION CLARIFICATIONSRESEARCH & DEVELOPMENTROCKETSBOOSTERS vs. KICKERSRANDOM EVENTSHALF-OFF SALESDOWNGRADING MISSIONSSAFETY FIGURES DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORYFRITZ's RECOMMENDED STRATEGYUNMANNED MISSIONSASTRONAUTS / COSMONAUTSLUNAR LANDERSLOR vs. EOR, AND OTHER LUNAR LANDINGSUS vs. USSRGETTING TO THE MOONTHE BEST WAY TO THE MOONHOW DO I KNOW WHEN TO DO WHAT?WHY THE US WON THE SPACE RACE-----------------------------------------------------------

A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE GAME

Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space (BARIS) is a game that lets you relive the historic Space Race. Growing up I loved reading about that stuff—the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions (not much was known about the Soviet space program back then), about how we went to the Moon—and wondered why we didn't adopt reusable spaceplanes back with the Dyna-Soar. When I saw BARIS on the shelves in 1993, I'd suddenly found a game I'd been looking for without even knowing it. Now I could manage a space program and actually be a part of the Space Race, not just read about it!

BARIS is a lot like the board game Diplomacy in that it's based on some simple low-level rules, but the actual gameplay is complex and offers considerable replayability. That's part of why people still enjoy this game that's over a decade old. BARIS still has a devoted following, much like Civilization—it's a smaller following, to be sure, but no less deserved.

BARIS is mostly, though not slavishly, historically based. Most of the lunar programs that were seriously considered are represented, and then some. You can recreate Apollo 11, or something like what the Soviets planned to do (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/l3.html). You could take a Gemini to the Moon, as some proposed (http://www.astronautix.com/articles/bygemoon.htm). Or you could use Voskhod, though that wasn't an

option in real life.

Maybe reusable spacecraft are more your thing, and you'd like to see what might have happened with Dyna-Soar or the USSR's Spiral (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm) and (http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/mig10511.htm).

Perhaps you'd rather brute-force your way with the direct ascent approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Choosing_a_mission_mode) and (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lk700.htm).

Or you could reap some of the benefits of direct ascent without all its shortcomings, by building a direct-ascent type capsule in space from smaller components which are launched separately (http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/l31963.htm).

The different approaches all have their advantages and drawbacks, which I'll get into further on.

If you're serious about recreating what the Soviets had planned, you may want to pay attention to crew selection. In the last laps of the Space Race, Bykovksky, Khrunov, and Leonov were training to command a lunar mission (the mission commander was the one who would land, just as the Apollo commander always landed). Cosmonauts training for the other seat on lunar flights were Makarov (who trained as Leonov's crewmate), Patsayev, Rukavishnikov, Voronov, and Yeliseyev (Siddiqi, p. 684). Prior to Soyuz 1, Popovich, Belyayev, Volynov, and Klimuk had also been training as commanders, and Artyukhin had been training for the second seat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Moonshot#Cosmonauts).

BARIS is an adaptation of Fritz Bronner's board game "Liftoff!", and yes, that's the reference in the newscast about a new space game. Most reviews of BARIS complain that it's unreasonably difficult, and they have a point: at least as regards the floppy version, which is especially tough. As Director (US) or Designer (USSR), you face a very aggressive deadline and are under pressure to take risks. Yet when you take those risks, you're often punished for doing so—and when you don't take them, you fall behind. Bear in mind that the following items apply more to the floppy than the CD version.

1. The chances of failure are high, as Ken points out—catastrophic failures occur more often than they did in the historic Space Race. I'll get into the mechanics of this in another section.

2. If a failure occurs during a manned mission and someone is injured or killed, the component that failed (usually the capsule) is now somehow less physically reliable than it was before. Your Gemini might have been at 88%, but since somebody broke a nail during recovery, it's now only 44% reliable. Did the design suddenly become more prone to failure than it used to be? The game seems to think so. Mission deaths downgrade hardware more than injuries do, often to 6%.

3. Re-researching the component will set you back at least a year, but that won't return you to where you left off—you can only research it back to its Max R&D. For example: You're flying Soyuz, which has a Max R&D of 85%. After researching it, you ran a pair of dummy tests and a couple manned flights, and are now up to 89%.

Next flight your cosmonauts burn up on reentry, and the Soyuz drops to 6%. You can research it again to 85% (which should take around 4-5 turns), but to get back to 89% you'll have to do it the hard way, 1% per launch. Realistically,

you won't have time for four dummy tests—your opponent isn't waiting for you to catch up—so you're stuck taking a bigger risk for a while. And bigger risks yield more catastrophic failures.

This is very frustrating—it feels like you're forced to start over from scratch. It's not such a big deal when it happens just once per game, but in some it happens over and over—which can sour someone on the game as a whole.

As Madmax (creator of the spinoff "Blast Off!") pointed out, with this system you don't learn anything from failures—which we clearly did, historically. It also means that even though you presumably fixed what was wrong, the hardware is actually less safe than it was before the accident. That hardly makes sense.

While this system is patently unrealistic on its face, it was used to address a legitimate concern: game balance. Without some mechanism like it, there would be little reason to fly anything but Gemini/Voskhod. Downgrading the Safety solves this problem without complicating the game's R&D model. Unfortunately it means that no matter how good your hardware is, it's always vulnerable to being wiped out. Personally, I'm the type of player who likes to get his key hardware nicely perfected, and I find it discouraging that at any time I could have to start it all over again.

Historically, when either side experienced mission deaths, it was often a couple years before it flew another manned mission, and the developers simulated that in BARIS. Unfortunately, I think they succeeded a little too well. A mission death often degrades the hardware to 6%, especially in the floppy version. Assuming an average R&D yield of 15-20% at 5 teams per turn, it will indeed take you around 2 years (4 turns) to get back to Max R&D. However, you were probably above that when disaster struck, which means you're set back even further.

4. Wouldn't you know it, the computer player cheats. Among other things, when it encounters setbacks, the game starts throwing money at it, allowing it to recover with relative ease. (Inside note from Erik Anderson: the AI was one of the most problematic parts of developing the game; sometimes it worked without cheating, sometimes it didn't—and the release deadline came when it wasn't working right.) The computer gets away with taking chances that you would be punished for, particularly in the floppy version. I've seen the computer pull off complex prestige firsts earlier than it should. I'll be struggling to get Mercury ready, and oh look, the computer just flew the first

suborbital and orbital in the same turn! And if I try to catch up by cutting a few corners myself, I get slammed and fall further behind. Many players, even at the easiest level, are hard-pressed to reach the Moon before 1970. Meanwhile my computer opponent, set to the hardest level, manages

successful landings in 1969! How can that be right? Incidentally, this seems to happen much less often in RIS than in either version of BARIS. The CD version was especially bad about it when the computer played the US, often performing Gemini landings in 1968.

As a result, the computer isn’t punished severely for failures, so it takes extra chances, occasionally even big gambles that a human wouldn't get away with. If they succeed, the computer gets ahead; if not, it's compensated for falling behind. The result is that it’s artificially inched ahead of you over time. I've also heard it doesn't fly dummy tests, which would make sense given its habit of taking chances—I've even seen it win the game with Apollo I!

HOW TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD

So what can you do about it? Some play the game straight, human and computer at the same level and no cheating on the human's part. But I find that just too frustrating for me: you're penalized for taking risks, you're penalized for not taking risks, and the computer seemingly can do no wrong. Instead, I'd recommend one of the following:

1. Play at a lower level than the computer.

The obvious solution! I've found that if you set yourself at level 1 and the computer at 3—for both Game Level and Astronaut Selection—you get a weakened opponent who nips at your heels and keeps you on your toes, but has a real shot at winning only if you experience some serious failures (not that those don't happen, even when you’re being extra-careful). You do still have to deal with the harsh penalties for catastrophic failure, but at least now the computer's getting some smackdown too, and plenty of it. If you watch the Director Ranking graph with the computer at level 3, you'll see it taking a lot of hits—whereas when it's at level 1, you'll see a line moving pretty steadily up. "Human Lowest, Computer Highest" is a great way to go, at least for new players. I'd recommend playing at the lowest level in any case—the game's already hard enough without making it worse. Now if you're interested in going toe-to-toe with an equal opponent, you can adjust the computer's difficulty levels. Try setting it at 2 for Game Level and Astronaut Selection, for instance.

2. Play without an opponent.

Here's an idea! Set up both sides as human players, and Exit out of the turns for the side you're not playing. Getting to the Moon before 1970, even if you're getting all the prestige firsts, is still a challenge. And who wants to play with a cheater anyway?

This method also lets you try things you might not mess with when facing stiff competition: in particular, it gives you an opportunity to play around with the minishuttles or the MOL. (Note: this method is much less convenient in the CD version, at least if it's running in DOSBox, because you have to wait for your opponent's newscaster to start moving before you can press Continue.) This can also be a good way for a new player to get a feel for the game without having to face the pressure of a heated competition.

3. Cheat a little yourself.

Since the game seems to punish you too much and too often, and doesn't do the same for the computer (at least if it’s at level 1), why not find a way to compensate? This may sound like cheating, but I think in the floppy version it helps make the rate and severity of failures more historically accurate. My Special Method to compensate for the high failure rate is to save frequently, and follow this rule:

You are allowed to restore from save if a component is downgraded.

This isn't as much of a gimme as it seems. You still get hit with launch cancellations due to bad weather and crew breakups, plus unmanned mission failures, and any manned failure that doesn't downgrade your hardware. You still have plenty of setbacks, and you do still lose crew members.

For instance, I had an astronaut who went out on a spacewalk, couldn't get back into the capsule, and suffocated when his oxygen ran out. (I had a horrible vision of his shipmate watching helpless through the glass.) I took the usual 10-point prestige hit, lost the astronaut, and made the others unhappy—but the capsule and EVA suits were unaffected for some reason, so I had to take my lumps and keep playing.

Also, you'll still have to take those downgrades that are announced in the news. You can't easily get around it—I've noticed that if I restore from a recent save, the downgrade reappears anyway.

Note: I developed this method (and #2 above) out of frustration with the floppy version. Due to changes that were made in the CD, I recommend these two only when playing the floppy version; it's really overkill with the CD version, or with RIS.

—————————————————————————————————————

LIFTOFF vs. BARIS

Before BARIS there was "Liftoff!", published by Task Force Games in 1989. Liftoff was essentially BARIS on a board, but was for up to four players. The US and USSR were there, but also "Europe" (presumably the ESA) and "Asia" (perhaps an ESA-style consortium of Asian countries—judging by the names, dominated mostly by China and Japan). Europe and Asia were dropped from BARIS due to budgetary constraints.

The mechanics of Liftoff are mostly the same as in BARIS, but some of the gameplay is different. By default, turns last a year; six-month turns can be used, but they're in Optional & Advanced Rules. Rescues could be performed (see THE CUTTING-ROOM FLOOR below), and countries could carry out joint missions with one another for prestige—which would have been pointless in BARIS's two-player environment. Players could also sell space program experience and hardware (safety points, for instance) to each other—which also wouldn't have made much sense in BARIS. Liftoff featured flybys of Mars and Venus, but not Mercury, Jupiter, or Saturn. Also, Duration doesn't seem to have played a part in the board game.

While the names for US and Soviet hardware were largely the same, there were some differences—especially for the Soviets, since they hadn't opened up about their space program back then. The Soviet minishuttle was called Molniya, for instance. The European hardware seems to have been inspired by Greek and Roman mythology: the 1, 2, & 3-person capsules are the Daedalus, Janus, and Prometheus, and their shuttle is called Phoenix (unfortunately not Hermes, a shuttle that the ESA actually had in development during the 70s and 80s). Asian hardware seems to have been given names that were imagined as vaguely Chinese- or Japanese-sounding: the 1, 2, & 3-person capsules are named Hitori, Futari, and Sannin, for instance. Also one of the Asian rockets is named "Sha Goo", which I've always thought was rather silly.

The US astronauts in Liftoff are named after contributors to the game; those for other countries look to be mostly made up. The Europeans seem to be mostly British, and the Asians are—like their hardware—sort of Chinese- or Japanese-sounding. There aren't that many of them, by the way; unlike in BARIS, you don't recruit numerous batches and they don't desert you all the time. And yet, astronauts seem to have played a bigger role in missions: their level of experience (number of missions flown, not BARIS's discrete skills) counted heavily toward avoiding catastrophic failure.

—————————————————————————————————————

FLOPPY vs. CD VERSION

BARIS was originally released in 1993 on floppy disk (v.1.00). Two patches came out (v.1.00a and 1.00b), which added an UNDO button to the Hardware Purchase screens and fixed some bugs that caused the game to crash. A third patch (v.1.01) corrected some issues that had made the game tougher than it should have been—milestone penalties had been doubled, and catastrophic failures reduced hardware to its initial safety factor (the patch has them reduced by half instead, at level 1). Then in 1994, an enhanced version came out on CD (v.1.1). It made a few changes to the game, and reintroduced some things that had been cut from the floppies to save space.

Unfortunately I didn't know about the 1.01 patch until after I bought the CD version, so I haven't played it much. (Thanks to Robert Haidinger for turning me on to it!) So all my references to the floppy version are for v.1.00b unless otherwise specified.

The CD version has a smaller footprint on the hard drive, since the movies run from the CD. It also doesn't prompt you for information from the manual (that annoying copy-protection stuff). The intro and end music is done with real instruments, rather than computer-generated MIDI-like tunes. The inside of the CD cover even shows credits for cello, bass, trumpet, etc. Two new multi-player options are available: Modem and Play By Mail. Of course that's not the TCP/IP option we look for nowadays, but it is more options. Play By Mail still works, clumsy as it is.

Unfortunately the Modem option doesn't seem to work in Windows. I've dialed out successfully on a native DOS 6.22 machine, but in native Windows 98 it insists the modem port doesn't exist. In DOSBox it doesn't give an error, but it still fails to dial out or even wait for a call (it says it's waiting, but won't pick up if a call comes in). It must be something about Windows itself that causes BARIS to not recognize the modem, but I have no idea what to do about it. Oh well, no one plays by modem now anyway.

As you might expect, the most obvious improvement is in the graphics. The intro shows a series of mood-setting photos. The newscasters are animated, even if you turn animation off, and in 1964 they go from black-and-white to color, following developments in TV technology (and reminding the Soviet player that Khrushchev's just been removed from power). The training buildings show a brief movie in the top corner where there used to be a still pic, but otherwise they're just the same as in the floppy version. The hardware in R&D and Purchasing is just as grainy and pixellated. Your dressing-down from the boss is still just a picture (I was hoping to see Khrushchev pounding a shoe!), and when you visit your poor victims in the hospital or cemetery, you still don't see any information about them there.

Remember the Saturn V driving out of Vehicle Assembly down the road to Pad A? There's more of that kind of thing: cargo is lifted into Vehicle Assembly/Integration, the satellite dishes twirl around after you click on the Tracking Station, and the animations have sound now. And storm fronts have thunder and lightning! You often see an airplane fly over your spaceport, or your LM training vehicle (the "Flying Bedstead" for the US, a helicopter with LK controls for the USSR) lift off the Helipad and fly around. I've even seen it make fiery crash-landings! Look for those when the newscast announces that someone's been killed in a training accident, or that the primary crew has caught a cold and will be replaced by the backup crew.

Mission movies are the most spectacular change from the floppy version. The resolution's better, and the animation is less choppy. The movies show more: among other things, you now get to see your Venus and Mercury flybys, and watch Surveyor/Luna crash-land on failures. There's more variation: for instance, most launch sequences have three separate movies, so you're not stuck watching the same launch every time. Some scenes show bits from old newsreels, depicting artists' conceptions of capsule reentry. That was a little strange at first, but I think it's a nice touch.

In the floppy version, while you were watching a mission there were two monitors in the bottom half of the screen that showed a tiny, ultra-pixellated copy of what was being shown above. That's missing in the CD version. Of course, it's more than made up for by the improved graphics of the main movie.

One very nice new feature is that the movies show what you're flying. When I used Gemini in the floppy version, it looked just like any other lunar-landing mission. Ditto for XMS-2. There's very little to show that anything's different because of what you’re flying—you don't see your spacecraft until after reentry. And Voskhod, Soyuz, and Kvartet recoveries all look alike, as do Apollo and Jupiter. The CD, on the other hand, shows your craft in space from the outside. Some Soyuz scenes even have close-ups that were done with a larger model—you can see lights on in the cabin, and it looks very cool! In the Prestige First movies, you can now see what the computer is using, so you have some idea what its strategy is—you no longer have to guess based on your intel. You also get the occasional heads-up. I was once playing against a computer who had chosen direct ascent, and saw it fly a manned lunar pass with a Voskhod—which meant its Kvartet must have suffered a catastrophic failure and was being re-researched. This not only gives you some idea what your opponent is doing, but adds to the feeling of being in the game.

The CD version is more humane about the chances of failure. Most notably, you don't get a milestone penalty on your first suborbital if you've flown an orbital satellite, or on your first orbital if you've flown a manned suborbital. The floppy version had a bug that assigned a penalty for those even if you hadn't skipped the previous step. Also, your first lunar flyby and probe landings don't have a reduced chance of success, which is a relief to those used to losing their first handful of probes (at 15MB+ a pop) in the floppy version.

Catastrophic failures seem to occur significantly less often in the CD version. The difference is especially marked with Gemini/Voskhod. It's not entirely due to differences in capsule Max R&D (see below). Gemini has become safer than the 3% increase would seem to explain, and other capsules work better too—even Voskhod is much less likely to become a flying coffin. There is one flip side, though—Gemini has become so doable that if you're playing the Soviets and you don't see the computer using anything else, you may be in trouble. It's not uncommon to see the computer pull off Gemini landings in 1968 (though it’s rare in RIS).

Changes to Max R&D figures in the CD version and RIS:HISTORICAL MODEL Floppy CD/RIS ChangeMercury 78% 82% +4%Vostok 76% 76% ±0%Gemini 83% 86% +3%Voskhod 80% 80% ±0%BASIC MODEL Floppy CD/RIS ChangeMercury/Vostok 76% 80% +4%Gemini/Voskhod 81% 84% +3%Apollo/Soyuz 84% 87% +3%

These Safety changes were made due to early complaints about the difficulty of the game. Note that in the Historical Model the Soviet hardware is left unchanged. This was done to compensate for the easier time the Soviets have getting into space early on, and was meant to help underscore the Americans' technological advantage vs. the Soviets' lower costs.

One thing that does seem riskier is the Recovery/Landing step. In the floppy version, it felt as though once you got past reentry, you were generally home free—you might have minor capsule-extraction problems, but few fatalities. But in the CD version I seem to get more capsules sinking with their crew, and more hard landings. The movies showing capsules slamming to the ground at 400mph are very impressive, but hard to watch.

The CD is still tough—but I think it's much more fair than the floppy version. It's a lot harder to get it to run on modern systems, though. Mainly, it requires 2.6MB of EMS (Expanded Memory); if you don't at least have that, forget it—and most Windows 9x configurations have XMS (Extended Memory) instead, unless CONFIG.SYS is specifically set to load EMS. In Windows 2000 and XP, the game either errors out, blue-screens the system, or simply fails to run. Also, when I can get the game to run in Win98, it often hangs during the mission sequences, so I had to get in the very tedious habit of saving every turn just in case. I have, however, managed to get it to run reliably in DOSBox (http://www.dosbox.com/). It's complicated to set up and it still has its own issues—the movies play very fast, while transitions, such as opening buildings or changing screens, are slow—but otherwise it works very well once configured, and the game doesn't crash very often.

—————————————————————————————————————

RIS vs. BARIS

Luckily there's now a better option than running BARIS in DOSBox. Michael McCarty, the original lead programmer, has ported it to Windows, Linux, and Mac, dropping Aldrin's name from the title since we don't have permission to use it. Race Into Space (RIS) is based on and strongly faithful to the CD version—.4.7 was almost its clone. The two new multiplayer options (Modem & PBEM) are disabled, and it has a few little bugs that BARIS didn't have. But RIS works much better and installs easily on modern operating systems, and even has some improvements.

For a start, RIS includes an Autosave function, which BARIS never had, and the grammar has been touched up. Starting with .4.8, the 'naut roster is more historically accurate, and a number of little changes have been made to polish the look and feel—better centering of text in buttons, etc. RIS now shows people in a different color once they've announced retirement, it highlights the skills used by different crew members in the Capsule/Shuttle screen, and displays morale boxes next to crew members in more places. Duration missions now show the duration level (B-F), and the Satellite Building shows your highest duration level accomplished. People's names also show how many missions they've flown, to improve the hands-on feel of the game.

RIS .4.8 also corrected some bugs that were present in BARIS. The biggest was the Duration B Bug—the game is supposed to assign a duration penalty of 5 points if you skip a duration step: if you go straight to Duration C from Manned Orbital (which is Duration A), for instance. But instead it assigned a penalty on your first duration mission (which was usually B) no matter what. In RIS, it would often continue assigning penalties to any duration mission for the remainder of the game. Since we haven't been able to fix the duration-penalty system, we've disabled it until we can get it working right.

RIS has made some changes to gameplay as well. In BARIS, and RIS prior to .4.8, the Safety of a rocket with boosters was the average of the two. That's unrealistic, since using boosters adds another major component that has to work right—taking the average lets players occasionally get by with barely-researched boosters that should never have gotten off the ground. Rather than split the Launch into two separate steps, RIS now calculates the Safety of a boosted rocket by multiplying the two together: so an Atlas at 91% with boosters at 85% will have a Safety of .91x.85=.77, or 77%, versus (91+85)/2=88% by the old method. That takes account of the fact that both have to work right or the launch will fail.

RIS has made it easier to manage your 'nauts. Starting with .4.8, when you assemble a crew, you no longer have to wait a turn before assigning it to a mission. Also, starting with 1.0, you’re no longer required to assign a Backup crew—though assigning only one is taking the very real chance of a cancellation should something happen to a member of the Primary. Both of these changes can be turned off in Advanced Preferences, for those who prefer to play the game as it was originally designed.

Another change in 1.0 is that you can now get credit for test flights before you reach Max R&D. That is, if you’re researching Soyuz (Max R&D: 85%) and fly a mission while it’s still at, say, 83%, you’ll now be able to research it to 86%—though Max R&D will return to 85% after a catastrophic failure. Previously, there was no point to flying dummy tests before you reached Max R&D; this change should encourage players to fly more practice tests.

As I’ve hinted, there's another new feature in RIS—Advanced Preferences. We don't have a handy graphical screen for it yet, but you can now change more things about how the game works, by editing the config file under raceintospace in your home directory (in Windows, C:\Documents and Settings\username\.raceintospace; in Linux, /home/username/.raceintospace). Advanced Preferences include:

Shorten Advanced Training from 4 to 3 turns Randomize the characteristics of your 'nauts Adjust the average compatibility of your 'nauts Require waiting a turn before assigning a crew to a mission * Require assigning a Backup crew * Disable Safety penalty on equipment you've chosen not to fix * Set boosted rocket Safety to the average of booster + rocket * Have successful flights raise Max R&D by 1 point

* These options return RIS to BARIS behaviors

—————————————————————————————————————

NAME CHANGES IN RIS

Some of the Soviet hardware names weren't quite right, due to the limited information that was available during BARIS development. To make it more historically accurate, the following changes have been made in 1.0:

ROCKETS CAPSULES A-Series -> R-7 Kvartet -> LK-700 N-1 -> N1 L-3 -> LK Vulkon -> UR-700 Duet -> LKM

What BARIS calls the "A-Series" is called the "R-7" today. During the Space Race, there were many different nomenclatures for Soviet rockets. The Soviets used the R- designation for most of them (the R-1 was their copy of the V-2). They also had production indexes, which were very technical and variant-specific: the Sputnik launcher, for instance, was 8K71PS, while the Vostok was 8K72K. Then they changed the naming scheme, so the Voskhod launcher was 11A57 and the Soyuz one was 11A511, though they were all variants of the R-7.

Meanwhile, the US had two systems for naming Soviet rockets, which were either cumbersome or not very descriptive. Robert Seldon's Library of Congress system used letters, starting with "A" for the Sputnik launcher (hence "A-Series"). It wasn't until some time after BARIS came out that the R-7 name became well known. The rocket (with boosters) is still used to launch Soyuz capsules; in that configuration, it's often called the Soyuz rocket or Soyuz booster. The Proton is also still in service, though it's only used for unmanned flights.

The N-1 ("N" for "Nosityel", meaning Carrier) is better spelled "N1", since the Soviets seem not to have used hyphens with it—possibly because it was often mentioned as part of the N1-L3 program, and "N-1-L-3" would have been awkward. It was prototyped and tested from 1969 to 1972, but all four launches failed on the first stage. The Vulkon is more commonly spelled "Vulkan", but that's just a judgement call of how to transliterate a Cyrillic "а" that's pronounced like an English "o", like the "a" in "all".

However, the Vulkan wasn't part of the Soviets' direct ascent program; it was envisioned for launching lunar bases and so on following the initial landings. Their direct ascent booster was going to be the UR-700, a heavy-lift version of the UR-500 (Proton), equivalent to somewhere between the Saturn V and Nova. The direct ascent capsule that it was intended to lift was called the LK-700. (UR stands for “Universal Rocket”—Chelomei intended to build the UR series as a group of modular rockets, which could be made bigger by adding onto smaller designs, rather than having to design a larger rocket from scratch as happened with the N1.)

Confusingly, a heavy-lift variant of the rocket for the Buran ("Snowstorm") space shuttle was also given the name Vulkan. It was never built (like the other Vulkan), but the standard "Energia" version was, and it performed well. Buran was a lot like the US Shuttle but it lacked the Shuttle's main engines and was launched on a single-use rocket. Its development drained considerable resources from the Soviet Union. It was dummy-tested once in 1988 and made a perfect landing in high wind, only to have its funding cut off. The program was officially canceled in 1993.

The Soviet lander was actually called "LK", the Russian abbreviation for "lunar ship", which explains why the USSR’s landing craft were all given some variant of that name. Of course the game designers didn't know that; they saw only that the name "L-3" or "L3" was associated with the Soviet LM. It turns out that "L3" referred to the entire program of rocket, capsule, and lander (see http://www.astronautix.com/craft/l3.htm). The L-series shows how confusing Soviet designations could be:

L1 was the circumlunar program, which in typical Soviet fashion was separate from the landing program. It was roughly equivalent to the Apollo 6, 8, and 10 missions, though it never had a manned flight.

L2 was a scheme to use unmanned rovers to gather reconnaissance data. The Lunokhod rovers were part of the L2 program.L3 was the lunar landing program, N1 + LOK (modified Soyuz) + LK.L4 was to be an extensive, manned survey and mapping of the Moon.L5 was to be an extensive, manned reconnaissance of the Moon, landing cosmonauts using the L3 complex.

(SOURCE: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/sovjects.htm)

Duet, like Kvartet, was a made-up name which simply reflected the size of its crew complement. The hypothetical two-person lander needed some kind of name, so RIS went with the LKM (LK Modified), which was a proposal for an N1-launched lander which would put a crew of 2 or 3 on the Moon for two weeks. It was a modified and expanded version of the LK, and was part of the L3M project which the Soviets started planning after Apollo 11. The LKM also had the virtue of looking a little like BARIS's Duet.

For the remainder of this guide, when I refer to hardware whose name has been changed, I'll show the original BARIS name in brackets.

—————————————————————————————————————

A WORD ABOUT REENTRY

The heat of reentry is taken as a given in the game and that's as it should be, but I'd like to discuss it for a moment because its cause is widely misunderstood.

It's a common misconception that reentry heat is caused by friction with the atmosphere. It's so common, in fact, that it's often believed by those knowledgeable in the field. Even NASA's Web site is inconsistent about it; some articles get it right, others don't. But think about it: if the friction were so severe as to cause temperatures in excess of 1600°C, wouldn't the Space Shuttle tiles be ground away like a brakepad? They get damaged by the heat, but they aren't worn down by friction. Astronomer Phil Plait's book Bad Astronomy (p. 136) first clued me in to this misconception.

Of course there is some friction involved, but most of the heat (about 90% of it) is caused by supercompression of air in front of the spacecraft. As a body hits the upper atmosphere at Mach 25, the air in front of it compresses. When a gas compresses it heats up (this is also why bicycle pumps heat up), and when you're ramming something into the air at thousands of miles per hour, it compresses quite a lot. NASA's John Balboni explains this better than I can: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/faq-shuttleglass_prt.htm.

—————————————————————————————————————

THE CUTTING-ROOM FLOOR

A few features were planned for BARIS but never made it to the final product. You may have found references to them somewhere; I'll fill you in on what I know about them.

At one point the designers had bigger plans for Voskhod. During beta testing, if a player had developed it and then prototyped Soyuz, after a certain time (three turns?) he/she was given the option to upgrade to the Zond capsule. It cost 15MB and replaced Voskhod but its Safety was equivalent to Soyuz; you had to research and crew it as normal. It sort of worked, but was pulled because it introduced too many complications. You can still see a remnant of it in help.cdr (open it with a hex editor), where it talks about phasing out the "VOSHOD". Scattered references to Zond also remain in the source code. Zond didn't exist in Liftoff, incidentally; it was new in BARIS.

During the Space Race, the Soviets had two programs they identified as Zond ("probe"). The first was a short series of probes to Venus, Mars, and the Moon. The second was a series of unmanned lunar flybys (but carrying biological specimens) using the L1 spacecraft. The capsule for the lunar-landing mission, designated LOK (Lunar Orbital Ship), was essentially an L1 with extra things like docking capability.

The L1 and LOK were based on Soyuz, but whereas Soyuz has a reentry module, orbital module, and service module, L1 and LOK were missing the orbital module. This was necessary due to weight limitations on both the Proton and N1 rockets, but meant the crew would spend the entire journey inside the cramped reentry module. It also meant that no more than two cosmonauts could make the flight. The Zond capsule in BARIS was an attempt to simulate that within the confines of the game. Even though L1 and LOK grew out of Soyuz, in BARIS the Zond came from Voskhod because of its crew size—but in a nod to its historical origins, Zond required that the player also have a Soyuz program.

BARIS was originally going to have rescue missions. At the end of mission.dat (again, open it with a hex editor), you can see four:58 Rescue in Earth Orbit59 Rescue in Lunar Orbit60 Rescue Historical Lunar Landing61 Rescue Direct Ascent Lunar Landing

Rescue missions were available in Liftoff under Optional & Advanced Rules. They were available only if you had the needed hardware ready—you couldn't buy it at the last minute. They also had a 50% chance of not getting off the ground, and suffered a 5% penalty on every step of the mission. Yikes!

It seems the developers planned to have them in BARIS as well, but they never got very far. My understanding is that they were dropped for two reasons. One is that they were nonhistorical and unrealistic: they weren't options during the Space Race; even today, they would be possible in Earth orbit only because the International Space Station is available as a refuge. A lunar rescue would have been (and still would be) out of the question. The other reason rescue missions were nixed is that they were a real nightmare to program—like Zond, they caused more trouble than they were worth.

The manual refers repeatedly to "Navigation and Docking" and suggests that Docking skill is used in places which I've always assumed were Capsule steps. I haven't been able to get much clarification on this from the designers, though, and from watching the pattern of yellow squares in the status box during missions, I get the strong impression that Docking is used only on actual docking steps. I expect this was something that was planned but not actually implemented.

In the recruiting screen, if you look closely you’ll see that each candidate has a line for “SERVICE”. The game was going to show where candidates came from: in particular, military candidates would display their branch of service. I’m not sure what was going to be done with civilians—they might have planned to show things like “NASA ENGINEER” (e.g., Armstrong) and “OKB-1” (e.g., Feoktistov). (OKB-1 was Korolyov’s design bureau.) Other possibilities that come to mind are “FREELANCE PILOT” (e.g., most of the Mercury 13) and “FACTORY WORKER” (e.g., Tereshkova). For whatever reason—probably time constraints—the Service feature was left off and later forgotten.

—————————————————————————————————————

POINTERS ON PLAYING THE GAME

—————————————————————————————————————

Unfortunately, BARIS has a steep learning curve. The Docking Module now offers a tutorial to get you started, but beyond the basics of how to play, there's a lot to know about the game. I'll start with some miscellaneous tips and assorted information.

You get an annual budget, but there are two turns per year. In the spring you'll get lots of money, but be sure to save enough for next turn, or you'll regret it come fall.

Usually, the first thing I do each turn is visit the Vehicle Assembly/Integration Building. It just sucks when you go to assemble a launch, only to find you just spent all your money researching something that could've waited a turn. Prior to RIS .4.8, Autopurchase wasn’t affected by half-off sales, so it made a lot more sense to buy equipment in the Hardware Purchase screen. So if I’m playing an older version of the game and a half-off sale comes up, I normally go to Hardware Purchase first.

Don't skip mission milestones when you can avoid it. Things blow up often enough without adding to your chance of failure at every step. There are exceptions, of course, but by and large you don't want to skip milestones.

In the Future Missions Office, you'll often notice that when a mission shows "A-OK!", meaning no milestone penalty, it gives a -1 anyway. It turns out that when you haven't launched a given mission type before, there's an automatic one-point penalty assigned. The reason is that on the first of any type of mission, there's always a little extra risk involved. That explains (finally!) what that mysterious "-1" was all about. I'd wondered for years if it was a bug.

The manual (p. 16) warns that scrubbing a mission will cost you 3 prestige points. I verified with one of the designers that the penalty applies to any mission, manned or not. However, some time later I happened to be watching the Director Ranking chart and didn't think it was making sense, so I ran some controlled tests—and I didn't see

any effect on my prestige in either the Director Ranking or Prestige Summary chart when I scrubbed missions. So this seems to be another bit of code that didn't work as intended. I hope it's never fixed, because I would find it very annoying, and not necessarily realistic—at least for dummy tests.

Don't skip Mercury/Vostok. It's cheap to develop, and it gets your first manned missions out of the way. Fly a suborbital, then an orbital EVA. Then you can abandon the program, if you're playing the floppy version and are moving on to Voskhod or Soyuz. In the CD version and RIS (or any version when I’m flying shuttles or direct ascent) I also use it to accomplish Duration B—if I suffer a catastrophic failure I just ditch the program and move on—but I haven’t often managed a Mercury/Vostok Duration B in the floppy version. This mission is dangerous prior to RIS .4.8 because of a bug that gives you a penalty for your first duration mission even if you aren’t skipping any duration levels—making it an important hump to get over. It was especially dangerous in the floppy version, much like Gemini/Voskhod.

Ken warns not to skip Gemini/Voskhod. I used to agree, since you'll need to fly unmanned docking tests to get your DMs up to speed and it's much cheaper to do that with Gemini—and especially Voskhod—than Apollo/Soyuz. Still, I've since found I'm better off skipping the two-person capsule if I'm shooting for Apollo/Soyuz or XMS-2/Lapot. More on that later.

When planning duration missions, think twice about having them double as docking tests, if your DMs aren't too reliable yet. Docking comes before duration, and if docking fails, the rest of the mission is scrubbed for some reason: so you end up with a "failed" mission and no duration even attempted.

Try not to schedule more than one manned mission per turn, if the second relies on the first to complete a milestone: don't plan your first suborbital and orbital for the same turn, for instance. It can really mess with your scheduling if something goes wrong. You'll often have unmanned missions that need to be flown, and you can mix them in with your manned ones to spread out your milestones. If you have two such flights in the same turn and something goes wrong on the first, you can't downgrade the second—you're left with a choice of taking a big risk, or cutting your losses and eating a year-long delay.

A cute linguistic easter egg is the Soviet newscaster's name, Svetlana Izvestia. "Izvestia" is Russian for "news", and was the name of the government's official newspaper. "Pravda" means "truth", and was the name of the Communist Party's newspaper. Soviet citizens used to joke that there was no truth in "News" and no news in "Truth". Obviously it loses something in translation, but you get the idea.

Don't sweat adding EVA to a mission; I've noticed that it rarely suffers serious failures (my example above notwithstanding). Fly EVA missions until your suits reach Max Safety, if you can fit them in. Don't schedule missions just to do EVA, though (except to gain a prestige first); add it to other missions you were going to fly anyway. It's not critical to get your suits up to Max Safety.

If you're in a hurry to grab a prestige first with a new spacecraft but it's not yet at Max R&D, resist the temptation to do a fancy Orbital EVA or whatever. Fly a plain old Suborbital instead—you'll still get the prestige for flying the spacecraft, but you'll be taking a much smaller risk. Suborbital missions have only two capsule steps, whereas an Orbital has five. This might mean downgrading at the last minute, but that's ok—you don't actually lose prestige for doing so.

So how accurate are those intelligence reports on what your opponent is doing? The CIA and KGB reports (both the Library and Stats) are correct about half the time, which was Fritz's estimate of how often the CIA got its Soviet intel right (Companion, p. 278). Their accuracy is 60% at Level 1, 50% at Level 2, and 40% at Level 3. Historically, NASA was open to the public—anyone could watch the launches, and it kept the world abreast of what it was doing—but for game balance, each side's doings are largely a mystery to the other.

There's a small annoyance in the game, which probably isn't so much a bug as an oversight. If the game cancels a mission for you (e.g., on a last-minute test failure before launch), it deletes the hardware! Now you'd think the rocket, capsule, etc. should still be available for a later mission, but not so. Similarly, if part A of a Joint mission fails on launch, the hardware for part B is deleted too, even though it was never used. Damned contractors!

—————————————————————————————————————

MISSION CLARIFICATIONS

What do the mission abbreviations mean? You may see a mission labeled something like "ORBITAL-DX" and wonder just what you scheduled. Here's a list of what those letters mean. (Or, press F3 in the Mission Schedule screen to see a list of all the abbreviations.)

D = Docking E = EVA L = LM Test 2E = Two EVAsO = Docking (Orbit) X = Duration U = Unmanned JT = Joint

Starting with RIS .4.8, the length of duration missions will show in parentheses after the abbreviations: so a Duration B with EVA will show as "ORBITAL-EX (B)". In earlier versions, if you want to find out the length of a duration mission, click on its launch pad, and look at "Scheduled Duration" at the bottom.

What's the difference between a lunar flyby and a lunar pass? A flyby is done with a probe; a pass uses a capsule or shuttle. So one way to remember it is that if it could be manned, it's a pass. There's no such thing as a Mars pass, for instance, since your capsules can't go farther than the Moon.

What's the difference between "Orbital Docking" and "Orbital Docking (Orbit)"? There are several docking missions which have near duplicates: the pair looks identical except one contains "(ORBIT)" in its name. #14 Manned Orbital Docking #17 Manned Orbital Docking (Orbit) #20 Manned Orbital Docking EVA #24 Manned Orbital Docking (Orbit) EVA #27 Manned Orbital Docking Duration #28 Manned Orbital Docking (Orbit) Duration #33 Manned Orbital Docking EVA Duration #29 Manned Orbital Docking (Orbit) EVA Duration

The difference is that (Orbit) missions are sent up without a docking module; they rely on one being there when they arrive. This option saves you cash (2-3MB for the module, and often a cheaper rocket), but you will need to have a DM already in orbit. Since DMs stay up for only a year, you must have flown a mission with a docking module either the same turn or the turn before your (Orbit) mission. Also, (Orbit) missions are always manned.

What's the difference between Joint Orbital Docking and Joint Orbitals Docking? There are four joint docking missions that look almost identical: #16 Joint Manned Orbital Docking #18 Joint Manned Orbitals Docking #21 Joint Manned Orbital Docking EVA #22 Joint Manned Orbitals Docking EVAAs you might expect, the "Orbital" missions involve one crew and capsule (or shuttle); the first launch puts up a docking module and the second lifts the spacecraft. In "Orbitals" missions, two spacecraft lift off and dock with one another—like the Manned Orbiting Lab, or Soyuz 4/5 in real life. Personally I can’t see any reason to fly Orbitals missions, but they’re available.

What's the deal with the "Joint Manned Lunar Orbital LM Test EOR/LOR"? There's a "Joint Manned Lunar Orbital LM Test LOR", but not EOR—just that goofy "EOR/LOR". The thinking was that the mission docks in Earth orbit, then performs docking maneuvers in lunar orbit, so "EOR/LOR" is really more descriptive. But EOR lunar landings do the same thing and they aren't named that way. So you can think of this as simply an EOR lunar LM test, the exact equivalent of the LOR lunar LM test. Starting with RIS .4.8, the mission has been renamed, so you'll no longer see "EOR/LOR".

There are, in fact, three Joint Lunar LM Test missions: 49 Jt Manned Lunar Orbital LM Test: LOR 51 Jt Manned Lunar Orbital LM Test: LOR EVA 52 Jt Manned Lunar Orbital LM Test: EOR/LOR (just "EOR" after RIS .4.7)

The main difference between the LOR and EOR missions is that with LOR, part A (the LM) and B (the spacecraft) each goes to the Moon on its own. So if you're flying Gemini/Voskhod or XMS-2/Lapot, you'll need two kickers. If you're flying Apollo/Soyuz, you'll need a kicker for part A, but not for part B. With EOR, parts A and B lauch separately but join in Earth orbit and head out together: Gemini/Voskhod and XMS-2/Lapot should need a B-Kicker, but Apollo/Soyuz won't need a kicker at all. However, there's a bug in BARIS and earlier versions of RIS that makes nothing require any kickers for this mission. That's ok for Apollo/Soyuz, since they shouldn't need kickers anyway—but it gives Gemini/Voskhod and XMS-2/Lapot a free ride on the TLI step. This has been corrected in RIS .4.8.

I can think of few advantages to LOR over EOR, especially given the above. One advantage to LOR would be if you're flying Gemini/Voskhod or XMS-2/Lapot and have the A-Kicker but not the B-Kicker: that is, you're planning to do a Joint LOR lunar landing. In that case it would make sense for your lunar LM Test to be LOR rather than EOR. However, if you're playing prior to RIS .4.8, the game doesn't actually require kickers for the EOR/LOR LM Test. In those versions, you can fly it without kickers at all, but of course the mission won't get your kicker an extra Safety point, which would have been helpful for the landing.

There may also be an advantage to LOR if you’re flying XMS-2 and don’t want to build the Saturn V (see LUNAR LANDERS below). The only other advantage I can think of is that if you really want to add EVA to your lunar LM Test for some reason, LOR is the only way to do it—since there isn't a lunar LM Test EOR EVA.

What's with the Manned Orbiting Lab (missions 32 & 36)? It was added as a special side mission that would net some prestige points: extra credit, if you will. It's a great idea, and historically based—before Skylab, the US Air Force had plans for a Manned Orbiting Lab, or MOL. Unfortunately, in the game (as in real life, I suppose), it didn't work out as well as it sounded. It seems to work ok in the CD version, but when I've tried it in the floppy version it usually ends in catastrophic failure, and either way I've found it's not worth it. (You'll notice that the computer never does the MOL.) Remember that this is two manned missions in one, so each step has two chances to go wrong: two reentries, for instance. Plus, it ties up two crews (four, prior to RIS 1.0), two launch pads, and requires two rockets and two spacecraft, for a whopping 6/4 prestige points. Nifty as it looks, I recommend skipping it, even in RIS and the CD version.

While the name was obviously taken from the MOL proposal, the flight profile in the game seems to have been inspired by Soyuz 4/5. In January 1969, partly as a pale response to Apollo 8's lunar orbital the month before, two Soyuz craft docked in Earth orbit, and two crew members spacewalked from Soyuz 5 to 4. The Soviet press announced the mission as "the world's first experimental space station" (Siddiqi, p. 671)—an exaggeration at best, though as on other flights there were scientific experiments aboard.

If you do want to try the MOL, you can use anything with docking capability: Gemini/Voskhod, Apollo/Soyuz, even XMS-2/Lapot. You can also mix and match—I've flown this mission with an XMS-2 and an Apollo capsule, just to see if I could do it. But that's pretty awkward; it requires you to have at least one crew in each program (two in each program, prior to RIS 1.0).

Historical Notes: The US announced that the MOL would be performing scientific studies, which was a cover for its real mission: it was a spy station to replace U2 overflights of the USSR, which had been suspended after Gary Powers was shot down. The Soviets weren't fooled, and started a space-spying program of their own.

Rather than a two-capsule rendezvous, the historical MOL was to be a Gemini-B atop a cylindrical station. The astronauts would take surveillance for up to a month, then climb through a hatch in the heat shield and return to Earth, while the station deorbited and burned up in the atmosphere. A dummy test of the MOL complex was flown in 1966, showing that the heat shield would perform adequately with a hatch cut into it.

The Soviets were more ambitious. Rather than a single-use item, they built full-fledged space stations with cameras, and even cannon. The series was named Almaz ("Diamond"); three were launched and a fourth was built but never used. They also orbited a series of scientific stations using the Almaz design, called Salyut ("Salute"), the first of which was launched two years before Skylab. Because Almaz was a secret project like the MOL, the Soviets disguised its missions by identifying them publicly as Salyuts—so Salyuts 2, 3, and 5 were actually Almaz. Salyut 2 (Almaz 101.1) failed and could not be boarded. Salyut 3 (Almaz 101.2) was occupied once and, later, its cannon was tested. Salyut 5 (Almaz 103) was occupied twice.

Spy stations proved to be expensive, dangerous, and not very successful. They were thought necessary because of the difficulty of aiming cameras robotically, but by the time the stations were getting ready to fly (or perhaps later for the USSR), advances in robotics made unmanned spy satellites much more practical. I suppose you could say

the MOL and Almaz crews were among those who lost their jobs to automation in those years. Thanks to Nova's "Astrospies" for information about these stations (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/astrospies/).

—————————————————————————————————————

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

The way research works is that for each team of engineers you assign to work on something, the game rolls a six-sided die: i.e., a team will give you from one to six percent Safety. The rules of probability give more varying results with fewer teams, and more regular results with more teams. With just one, you have a range of 1-6, with an equal chance of any number coming up. But with more teams, you tend to form a bell curve. The more teams, the more likely you are to land somewhere in the middle. For simplicity's sake, consider a two-sided die (flipping a coin): the chances of a 1 or 2 are even. But if you roll three two-sided dice, your possible results are: 1 1 1 = 3 1 1 2 = 4 1 2 1 = 4 2 1 1 = 4 2 1 2 = 5 2 2 1 = 5 2 2 2 = 6As you can see, with more teams you'll tend to have more results in the middle than at either end, and this is even more pronounced when using six-sided dice. So you can estimate how long something will take to research by assuming 5 teams will get you about 15-20% Safety per turn. I've also come to expect one team to give me only a 1-2% improvement. I’ve bet foolishly on getting high rolls enough times to learn to hedge my bets on single-team research: I don't assign just one unless I'm only 1-2 percent short of Max R&D, or won't need that component for a bit.

Now and then you'll see a newscast saying that R&D will be stronger or weaker for a season or a year. This will have an effect on your research, though you may not notice it. According to the Companion (p. 284, 285, 290, 291, 292, 299, 307, 308), these announcements will add 1 or 2 to, or subtract 1 from, each of your teams' die rolls for the coming year. The source code also indicates that some announcements will subtract 2 from your die rolls.

—————————————————————————————————————

ROCKETS

Like EVA suits, rockets are surprisingly reliable compared to capsules. This is because the rocket only performs one step of a mission: launch. Once it's off the ground, the game rolls against the capsule instead. So a rocket with 98% Safety can be expected to work right on 98% of its missions, on average—assuming no milestone penalties, of course. Then again, it's a good thing they're so dependable, since launch failures are hazardous.

When planning a launch, be sure to take stock of what your rocket can lift versus what you're putting on it. For instance, a Gemini docking test requires capsule + docking module (1200+300=1500 lbs), which can be done with a boosted Titan (1200+800=2000 lbs max lift). However, a Gemini LM test requires capsule + docking module + Cricket (1200+300+1100=2600). For that mission, you have two choices: either put it on a Saturn V, or fly a Joint mission. Joint missions are a pain, and they're especially accident-prone in the floppy version, but sometimes they're unavoidable. Remember that if you accidentally plan a Single mission you don't have the rocketry for, you can't change it to a Joint mission at the last minute—you'll have no choice but to scrub it.

Joint missions may sound like an easy way out of building that expensive Saturn V or N1[N-1], but once those big guys are researched they're actually pretty cheap to fly. After the prototype, Saturn Vs / N1s [N-1s] don't cost much more than boosted Titans/Protons. So on a per-mission basis, rocketry is almost twice as expensive (32MB versus 18MB) for Joint LM tests and lunar landings.

Also, the Saturn V / N1 [N-1] starts at a very high Safety (usually 60%) due to technology transfer, and is very safe once at Max R&D; I've never needed to test them before putting lives on the line. So they're not even as costly to research as you'd think.

Soviet rockets can lift more weight than American ones. Of course, Soviet hardware is heavier, which makes up for much of the difference—but only some. This is one of the Soviet player's advantages, though it comes into play mainly with Orbital and Docking missions. A Gemini docking test requires a boosted Titan (12+4=16MB), whereas a Voskhod docking test can go up on a boosted R-7[A-Series] (3+4=7MB). An Apollo or XMS-2 orbital needs a boosted Titan, but a Soyuz or Lapot if it's just by itself can ride a boosted R-7[A-Series]. Technically speaking, a boosted N1[N-1] could lift a Jupiter capsule (wouldn't that be nice, to fly direct ascent without the Nova?), but since you can't capture each other's hardware, it's a moot point.

Historical Notes: During the Space Race, "Nova" was the name given to any design for a rocket bigger than the Saturn. There were many Nova designs proposed, some actually smaller than the final version of the Saturn V. You can read about it at http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nova.htm.

The limited muscle of the Atlas and Titan reflects the reality that, during the early Space Race, the US had trouble building rockets powerful enough to meet its needs. It eventually caught up with and surpassed the Soviets: the N1 had much less lifting capability than the Saturn V (opposite the way it is in BARIS), which is why the Soviets had a 2-man capsule and 1-man lander—they wanted a full 3-man Soyuz and 2-man lander, but weight restrictions prevented it.

—————————————————————————————————————

BOOSTERS vs. KICKERS

It took me a while to figure out what the difference was, and what that mysterious C-Kicker was all about.

BOOSTERS are added to rockets so they can lift more weight. A Titan can lift a Gemini capsule, but if you want to fly a docking test, you need either a Joint mission (which is a hassle and ties up an extra pad), or the Saturn V (which you probably aren't yet in a position to develop), OR a boosted Titan. Unless you're flying direct ascent and skipping Gemini/Voskhod, invest in boosters—they make life a lot easier. They save you money and give you flexibility in your lift options.

You can boost anything but a Nova/UR-700[Vulkon]. You'll never need to boost these anyway; there's nothing heavy enough to need it. And no, even a boosted Saturn V / N1 [N-1] can't lift a Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet]. Historically, the Atlas wasn't able to use strap-on boosters, but the capability was added for game balance.

KICKERS A & B exist to push a Gemini/Voskhod or XMS-2/Lapot (or a lunar module, on LOR missions) out of orbit toward the Moon—that's it. The Apollo/Soyuz, Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet], and unmanned probes have kickers built in, so they don't need them: but on Apollo/Soyuz LOR, the LM will need a kicker, since it goes to the Moon on its own (see "WHAT TO PACK FOR THE TRIP" in the Quick Reference Guide). Unlike rockets and boosters, kickers aren't rated on how much weight (actually, mass) they can push, but how many major components (capsule, shuttle, LM). An A-Kicker can send one capsule/shuttle or lander to the Moon. A B-Kicker will push both together. Prior to RIS .4.8, this wasn't necessary with EOR; the game accidentally allowed you to fly an EOR lunar landing using an A-Kicker, and an EOR LM Test with no kicker at all.

If your lunar strategy includes kickers, carefully consider which to use. In RIS .4.8 and later, the only landing that can be done with an A-Kicker is LOR (BARIS and earlier versions of RIS mistakenly allowed the A-Kicker to be used for EOR). Historical landings will require a B-Kicker. On the other hand, the A-Kicker is more convenient for those Lunar Pass and Lunar Orbital missions, since it's cheaper and may let you use a less expensive rocket/booster combination. One option, of course, is to develop both—but that's wasteful, and if you've flown your Lunar Pass and Orbital on the A-Kicker, you then need your unflown (and therefore less reliable) B-Kicker for the landing. So, in older versions, if you're planning to fly a Joint lunar landing, you're probably best off with an A-Kicker. In RIS .4.8 and above, however, kickers work as intended—so an A-Kicker is all you'd need for LOR, but EOR will require the B-Kicker—so plan accordingly. If you're doing the Historical landing in any version, you'll need the B-Kicker (except with Apollo/Soyuz, which won't need one at all).

The C-KICKER is a special Soviet technology. It works only with a Soyuz capsule, and takes the place of both the kicker and the LM. It lands the whole capsule on the Moon, and lifts it back off. It's very heavy and isn't used for anything but lunar landings, which means you can't build up its Safety with lunar orbitals or lander tests.

Where did this oddball come from? Information on the Soviet lunar program was just starting to trickle in when the game was written; remember, this was back in 1992. They were seeing pictures of the N1 for the first time ever, and anything less well known was very sketchy. One thing they saw was an early design (though they didn't know it) for a direct-ascent-type vehicle to be assembled in Earth orbit from three separate N1 launches. It was designated "L3-1963", and can be seen at http://www.astronautix.com/craft/l31963.htm.

The way the game works, capsule programs are single-piece: you can't launch half an Apollo on one rocket and dock it with the other half to form a complete Apollo capsule, for instance. So, it seems they got around that limitation by adding this as a sort of base that docks with a capsule and lands intact on the Moon. They moved the docking to lunar orbit for game balance, however.

—————————————————————————————————————

RANDOM EVENTS

There are several newscasts that supposedly affect your space effort; some do what they say, while others don't—most of which, incidentally, I'm perfectly happy to see NOT fixed.

You may be told that The Powers That Be demand the next mission be manned, or be a satellite, or whatever. These are carryovers from "Liftoff!", where they were optional assignments you could accept for extra prestige points; in BARIS they were made mandatory. However, the developers could never get the code to work right, so they don't actually penalize you for ignoring them. Instead, congratulations! You just got extra cash for a mission you don't have to fly.

Similarly, a newscast may say you have to accomplish Duration E before you can attempt a Moon landing. That doesn't work either—much to the relief of anyone flying minishuttles, which max out at level D.

If you're told that research will be stronger or weaker for a year, it will. You may not notice the difference, though (see "RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT" above).

Often you'll hear that something will suffer x% Safety on its next mission unless you spend y MB to patch it up. This didn't actually work in BARIS or earlier versions of RIS, but has been fixed in .4.8. The game can still be played the old way, though, as an optional "cheat" in the config file—if you select that, you'll still be asked if you want to patch your hardware, but refusing to pay won't have any effect.

You'll be glad to know you can disregard announcements saying your next mission has a 50% chance of exploding during launch. This was something else they couldn't get to work right, thankfully. Of all the bugs in the game, this is the one I'd most like to see not fixed.

Another news report that didn't actually work was the one saying that Gemini/Voskhod capsules will cost an extra 2MB apiece. This has been fixed in RIS .4.8 and above. Oddly enough, the equivalent random event for Apollo/Soyuz capsules (saying they will cost +3MB) always did work.

Announcements saying that the next failure in a given program will be averted are for real. Ken's guide recommends that if you get one of these, you should scrub any scheduled unmanned missions using the affected component. I disagree; you usually can't afford it. He's right that failure avoidance is extremely valuable, but timing is crucial in this game, and interrupting your schedule to make that save card available when lives are at stake can delay your program unacceptably.

When one of your people is killed in an accident and the newscaster says that all manned missions are canceled this turn, they really mean that all missions that turn are canceled, manned or not. I guess maybe the engineers are overprotective of their creations.

The newscast about Eisenhower announcing there will be a freeze on the manned program is fluff. It's there to reflect the historical fact that he was unenthusiastic about the Space Race (Companion, p. 284).

—————————————————————————————————————

HALF-OFF SALES

Another random event, which Ken's guide also mentions, makes hardware purchases half price for a season, and he says he's seen them only in the fall. I've seen them in the spring as well; they do seem to happen more often in the fall, though that may be confirmation bias on my part.

Note: The discount doesn't apply to launch pads or recruiting 'nauts. It also didn't work in Autopurchase prior to RIS .4.8—so if you're playing BARIS, or earlier versions of RIS, buy the parts you need in Hardware Purchase instead of using Autopurchase in the VAB/VIB. Either way, while you’re at it, go on a shopping spree! It's very rare for a player to see this twice in a game. Even if it means delaying needed research, you can stockpile lots of equipment at a huge discount—which is helpful in a game where you're always short of money. Just don't plan any missions for next season if you get this in the spring, unless you have all the parts you need for them (you can buy them now at the reduced rate, but make sure you get everything you'll need!). There are limits to how much you can purchase, though—you can't have more than 6 of any component at any given time.

Sale prices are rounded down, so if you still need Atlas/R-7[A-Series] rockets, Mercury/Vostok capsules, or Cosmos probes (or docking modules if you're the US), stock up! They've just been reduced from 3MB to 1MB. Same goes for Ranger probes; they're reduced from 5MB to 2MB. Sorry, though—Explorer/Sputnik isn't offered for free; that and EVA suits are the only hardware not affected by the discount.

This is also a great time to buy prototypes. Think carefully, though, about starting a program if the one before it is below 75% (e.g., think twice about starting Gemini or Apollo if your Mercury is 74% or less), since you'll have to research it from a lower starting point. The extra R&D you'll have to do might cost as much as you saved by buying on sale. This doesn't apply to the minishuttles, of course, since they don't benefit from tech transfer.

If you're doing direct ascent and have already bought your prototypes, you may want to avoid making a lot of purchases—you need to pay those huge research costs and probably don't need a lot of hardware right now, and by the time your R&D is finished, you shouldn't have a substantial cash-flow problem anyway.

—————————————————————————————————————

DOWNGRADING MISSIONS

So Mercury/Vostok is ready to fly. You're all set to do the suborbital this turn and the orbital next turn. But what if something goes wrong with the suborbital? You could be faced with the choice of proceeding with the orbital at a milestone penalty, or scrubbing it and rescheduling both missions, delaying the suborbital by an entire year. What to do? Fortunately, there's a third option: you can downgrade the orbital to a suborbital, then schedule another orbital for next turn. Thumbs up!!

Certain missions can be downgraded in certain ways. Basically, downgrading means removing steps from a manned mission (e.g., duration or EVA). You can't add anything to a mission, only subtract—and downgrades can't affect the hardware, though lunar missions don't completely follow this rule. I've found that a Lunar Orbital LM Test can be downgraded to a simple Lunar Orbital. Also, oddly enough, a Historical Lunar Landing can be downgraded to a Lunar Orbital, but not a Lunar Orbital LM Test. Also, while you can remove duration from a mission, you can’t reduce its duration level: you can downgrade an Orbital Duration C to a simple Orbital, but you can’t downgrade a Duration C to a Duration B.

The manual (p. 17), the Companion (p. 221), and the game itself warn you that downgrading a mission costs 3 prestige points. As with scrubbing, I’ve never seen the game penalize me for downgrading. You can probably do it with impunity; this is another issue I'd rather not see fixed.

The manual also says you can only downgrade a mission once. That's close, but not quite right. You could downgrade an Orbital EVA Duration to an Orbital EVA, then come back later and downgrade it again to a simple Orbital. But you couldn't return it to its original profile (or a previous one) once you've left Mission Control; clicking Continue there finalizes your choice.

How to perform a downgrade: in Mission Control, under "SCHEDULE: ORIGINAL MISSION", there's a box that tells what the mission is. Clicking on it cycles through what you can downgrade to—and it does come back to the original in case you change your mind.

—————————————————————————————————————

SAFETY FIGURES DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY

As mentioned above, this is a difficult game—some would say too difficult, especially its early reviewers. The punishments for failure seem overly severe, and the chances of failure exaggerated (though this is true mainly for the floppy version). Remember that your capsule's Safety doesn't represent its chances of succeeding on a mission, but its chances of success on each individual step of a mission. This is also how it works in "Liftoff!".

The chances of a flawless performance are the component's Safety multiplied by itself for each time it's used on a mission. Most Earth-orbital flights have 5 capsule steps; lunar missions have 10 or 11 (prior to RIS 1.0). Bear in mind that on a manned mission, a failure just means something's gone wrong, not necessarily catastrophically. Sometimes the problem is fixed by the crew, sometimes the mission is scrubbed in-flight, and other times you'll be ordering flags for the caskets.

RIS 1.0 has made lunar missions a bit safer, reducing the number of steps. Specifically, Earth Orbital Insertion Burn, Earth Orbital Activities, and Earth De-Orbit Burn on return to Earth have been replaced with a single Reentry Corridor step. In addition to reducing the stark contrast in risk between Earth and lunar missions, this action has made lunar missions more true to life. Apollo and L1 capsules returning from the Moon didn’t insert themselves into orbit and do things up there before coming down—they went straight into the atmosphere. They faced an extra complication, however: there was a narrow window, called the reentry corridor, which they had to hit. If they came in a little too steep the capsule would burn up; if they hit too shallow they would bounce off into deep space. So the Reentry Corridor step has been put in, giving lunar missions 8 or 9 capsule steps rather than 10 or 11.

Your Mercury may be rated at 79%, but a simple suborbital has two capsule steps, which means the game rolls against it twice: so its effective Safety is .79x.79=.62, or 62%. An orbital has five capsule steps, so your 79%-reliable capsule actually has a 70% chance of failure (.79x.79x.79x.79x.79=.30). Of course that's not a 70% chance of a toasted astronaut or even a failed mission (it includes problems solved by the crew), but it still makes these flights very dangerous: you wouldn't fly a half-dozen manned Mercury missions like we did in the '60s.

Considering that the game is a simplified simulation, this works ok for Mercury/Vostok: they're really meant to be fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants missions, and there are very few of them. However, when you're doing numerous flights with something more advanced, you're looking at some nasty odds stacked against you.

Gemini has a Max R&D of 86% in the CD version and RIS. You don't have time and money to bring it up much more with dummy tests, so let's assume you start your manned flights at 87%. Most Earth-orbital missions have 5 capsule steps, so your effective Safety works out to .87x.87x.87x.87x.87=.5 (50%) on those. This is better than the 30% with that old Mercury capsule, but you need to fly a lot more missions with Gemini—duration, docking, maybe LM tests, etc.—remember, we flew ten manned Geminis during the Space Race. If you're doing a lot of flights with a capsule that starts out at a 50-50 chance of some kind of problem per mission, how far are you likely to get before something goes really wrong?

Another example: it's late in the game, and your Apollo is up to Max Safety, 94%. You fly a Manned Lunar Pass, which has 10 capsule steps in BARIS and 8 in RIS 1.0—so your effective Safety is 54% or 61%, respectively. Historical manned lunar landings have an additional capsule step, which brings you down to 51%/57%—not counting the launch, docking, EVA, and LM steps. Would these odds really have gotten us safely to the Moon and back half a dozen times?

I realize we did have a major problem on Apollo 13, but 14 flew just nine months later, about the same as other Moon missions. In the game, Apollo 13 would likely have caused a safety downgrade to 40-something, and Apollo 14 would have had to fly more like a year and a half later: it would usually take around 3 turns to research back to Max R&D—and even then, it would only be at 89%, too risky (28%/35% effective Safety) for a Moon shot. You would then need to fly five dummy tests, which would take at least two more turns, to bring the capsule back up to 94%—so this might feasibly set a player back more than two years. And anyway, with almost fifty-fifty odds of trouble per mission at its highest Safety, shouldn't we have had more disasters?

The compounding of the chances of failure means that at higher Safety, a few points can make a big difference. Let's compare the effective Safety for a typical Earth-orbital mission (5 Capsule steps) versus a lunar pass or orbital (8 or 10 Capsule steps).

Total Capsule Safety

EffectiveSafety:Earth1 Dif

EffectiveSafety:Lunar2 Dif

Effective Safety:Lunar3 Dif Comment

76 25 11 6 Max R&D for Vostok77 27 +2 12 +1 7 +178 29 +2 14 +2 8 +1 Max R&D for Mercury (floppy version)79 31 +2 15 +1 9 +180 33 +2 17 +2 11 +2 Max R&D for Voskhod81 35 +2 19 +2 12 +182 37 +2 20 +1 14 +2 Max R&D for Mercury (CD version, RIS)83 39 +2 23 +3 16 +2 Max R&D for Gemini (floppy version)84 42 +3 25 +2 17 +185 44 +2 27 +2 20 +3 Max R&D for Soyuz86 47 +3 30 +3 22 +2 Max R&D for Gemini (CD version, RIS)87 50 +3 33 +3 25 +3 Max R&D for Lapot88 53 +3 36 +3 28 +389 56 +3 39 +3 31 +3 Max R&D for Apollo, Jupiter, LK-700 [Kvartet]90 59 +3 43 +4 35 +491 62 +3 47 +4 39 +4 Max R&D for XMS-292 66 +3 51 +4 43 +4 Max Safety for Voskhod, Mercury, Vostok93 70 +3 56 +5 48 +594 73 +3 61 +5 54 +6 Max Safety for all other capsules/shuttles

1 Earth Orbital (5 steps) 2 RIS 1.0 and above (8 steps) 3 BARIS, and RIS to .4.8 (10 steps)

The occasional strangeness where a change is larger or smaller than expected is due to rounding issues. But as you can see, with Earth-orbital missions, 1% more Safety gets you 2% more effective Safety up to the mid-80s, and 3% above that. The difference is more striking with lunar missions, especially in BARIS and earlier versions of RIS: through most of the 80s, 1% Safety gains 2% effective; in the upper 80s, 3%; in the low 90s, 4%; and in the mid-90s it goes even higher.

—————————————————————————————————————

FRITZ's RECOMMENDED STRATEGY

As I mentioned toward the top, you will occasionally suffer catastrophic failures, resulting in 2-3 year setbacks each time. In a tight race such as this, one of those late in the game can sink your lunar ambitions. To hedge your bets, Fritz recommends on p. 218 of the Companion that you maintain two lunar programs: a primary and a secondary. This approach is fairly workable if you've gone from Gemini/Voskhod to something else: you just keep it waiting in case of a failure in your main program.

As elegant as this idea sounds, it does have its complications. It's not so handy if your Gemini/Voskhod suffered a catastrophic failure: you'll have to re-research it, which might cost around 40MB—which isn't that bad, but you probably have other things you need the money for. You'll also then need dummy tests. This approach may be difficult if you've skipped Gemini/Voskhod. And if you're flying that as your main capsule, you’d have to develop a backup which costs more than your primary.

Also, it's awkward to shuffle people around. To switch to your backup you'll have to break crews and reassign—then you'll have to wait a turn before you can schedule them on a mission, in BARIS and RIS prior to .4.8. In either case reassigning crews is a headache, since it's so hard to match up compatible ones (though this can be made easier now in RIS by lowering the compt_nauts score in Advanced Preferences).

Another complication of the Primary/Backup Plan is that it usually requires that you develop a kicker, and the Cricket/LK[L-3], which costs twice as much to research as Eagle/LKM[Duet]. You pay a heavy price for the flexibility that a single-seat lander provides, and whether that's a sound investment is up to you. Certainly if you're flying direct ascent, it's worth thinking twice: you'd have to develop a very expensive lunar module that you may not use at all.

So, is this strategy worthwhile? If you've flown Gemini/Voskhod and moved on to Apollo/Soyuz or XMS-2/Lapot, quite possibly. It will mean investing in the one-man LM, but it gives you an easy backup plan—and if you're flying minishuttles you'll need a kicker anyway. If your two-person capsule suffered a drop in Safety, you can re-research it gradually as funds come available, and keep it waiting around in case you need it. On the other hand, if you're taking Gemini/Voskhod or Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet] to the Moon, buying a backup plan may not be worth it—though the extra money you have later in the game flying Gemini/Voskhod could be put toward a contingency option, and with direct ascent, Gemini/Voskhod is a great way to fly your Duration missions.

There is one other circumstance where it may be worth building a backup program. When you're starting your lunar missions, you often have extra money because you're no longer spending on R&D (if you aren't working on Saturn/N1[N-1], anyway). Lunar missions are much more likely to go awry than Earth orbitals, and a catastrophic failure at this point can really set you back. So, if you have money to burn at this stage, it may be worth starting a backup program just in case. Keep in mind, though, that your backup program might require a kicker or a different lander, and it will need its own dummy tests.

—————————————————————————————————————

UNMANNED MISSIONS

Don't skip Explorer/Sputnik. As Ken points out, it's cheap to develop and paves the way for more complex missions. He also mentions that it has a use beyond putting up (yawn) orbital satellites. Certain missions have a Hardware Power-On step, which is rolled against your "orbital satellite" level: i.e., your Explorer/Sputnik Safety. In fact, on Soviet missions, during Hardware Power-On you hear Sputnik's beep-beep-beep, and hear the technician say "Satellite is transmitting."

I verified with one of the developers that this is all true—except lunar modules roll against the LM's Safety, so Orbital Satellite applies only to docking modules. It can be worth your while, though, to fly Explorer/Sputnik until it reaches Max Safety, but there's no need to rush since you won't have a Hardware Power-On until your docking tests. Also for that reason, there's no need to worry about it if you're flying direct ascent. It rarely fails in any case, so getting Explorer/Sputnik above Max R&D is entirely optional. But unless you're flying direct ascent, you must develop the satellite or your DMs won’t power on successfully.

The rest of this section may not apply if you've chosen direct ascent. If you go that route, docking is irrelevant and the cost of developing and deploying flyby probes (and the rocket to carry them) may outweigh the benefit.

When you perform an unmanned docking test, if your capsule fails late in the flight (e.g., burns up on reentry), the mission will show as a failure, but that doesn't necessarily mean the docking test failed. You'll still get the usual increase in your DM safety: 10% if it succeeded, 5% if it failed. Of course, if the capsule never made it into orbit or the DM refused to turn on, docking is never attempted and your module gets no improvement.

To increase your chances of a successful landing, it's helpful to have good lunar reconnaissance from flybys, and ideally, a probe landing. Good recon will help the eggheads find a suitable landing site. Coming down somewhere too rough can trash your lander with people inside, which ruins everyone's day—except your opponent's.

About the time you manage a successful lunar flyby, you should have started your Surveyor/Luna program—if you want to do a probe landing.

Do two or three successful lunar flybys. You get 5% recon for each, and that will bring you up to 65-70%. It really sucks when your Surveyor/Luna gets all the way there just to crash on the edge of a crater. Even 30-35% is a big chance to take on a multimillion-dollar mission with a 5-point penalty for failure, but you can't afford too many flybys. Remember also that you can't downgrade a probe landing to a flyby.

Don't try for three or more probe landings; I've always failed after my second success (though I haven’t tried for that many since the floppy version). You really don't need that much reconnaissance anyway. You get 15% for each successful landing, and 5% for failures. Then later in the game, you get still more recon from the Manned Lunar Pass and Orbital—so even two probe landings is overkill.

In the CD version and RIS, I skip the probe landing. While it gives you 16/9 prestige points and eliminates a milestone penalty on your Manned Lunar Pass, I find it's not worth it. It's expensive to develop (~70MB), it means some additional launches (at 19/18MB apiece, plus tying up launch pads), it's not as reliable as Ranger/Cosmos, and failures cost 5 points. In RIS and the CD version that milestone penalty doesn't usually cause me trouble on the Lunar Pass anyway, provided the capsule/shuttle is near Max Safety and I haven't skipped any other milestones. Even the Companion suggests (p. 265) that the probe landing is optional. If you're playing the floppy version, though, it often pays to do it. It's much riskier to face a penalty on the Lunar Pass—the flight has a good chance of failing, which can set you back many turns this late in the game.

In the floppy version, if the lunar flyby or probe landing you're planning hasn't had a success yet, schedule two or even three if possible. Your chances are considerably lower until you've succeeded once. This is another part of the game that was made easier in the CD version: the floppy assessed a hidden extra penalty on your first flyby and first probe landing, but RIS and the CD version don't. It was done to reflect the fact that both sides failed several times before managing to get a probe there, but it ended up hurting gameplay.

What about planetary flybys? Ken says to leave them alone. I've found they're often good filler when I have some money and launch pads to spare, or am recovering from a catastrophic failure. If I'm not doing much in a given turn and it looks like I can pull off the first Venus or Mercury flyby, I'll often shoot for it—but rarely do I try for anything farther out. In particular, though Jupiter and Saturn net you 8/4 and 9/4 points respectively, it takes 7 turns to get there, so the game might end before you benefit from them! To arrive before 1970, for instance, you have to launch no later than Spring 1966.

If you're stuck on the ground and see the computer carrying off a series of successful manned flights, your unmanned program can be a handy way to pick up some firsts and help make up for points the other guy's getting. This can bump up your budget a little, and keep you from feeling left in the dust when your opponent is enjoying a string of successes. You can win back some lost prestige and get some unmanned goals out of the way while you're unable to fly manned missions. Unfortunately this option is only available if you already have the right hardware ready or have the money to develop it.

—————————————————————————————————————

ASTRONAUTS / COSMONAUTS

Recruit 'nauts on your third turn, which is as soon as the game lets you—IF you have enough money to spare. If you have to choose between starting Mercury/Vostok and recruiting people, start on the capsule. You usually don't have the funds to do both. Be sure to leave enough cash to research the rocket, satellite, and capsule for the rest of the year, plus pay for launches: usually 20-30 MB. It's better to pull people out of Basic Training than to slow your capsule development. Don't be afraid to pull them out early when you need them: the difference in skill level is minimal—though I usually avoid withdrawing anyone with a Capsule skill of 3, since it might rise to 4 if I leave them alone. In other words, I typically pull out recruits with a Capsule skill of 4 (for primary crews) and 2 or less (for backup crews, or for primaries if there are no CA4s available).

Basic Training takes 3 turns to complete. If you still have people in Basic when your capsule is almost ready, pull out one or two* in time to form crews for your suborbital flight. In RIS .4.8 and above, by default, this would be whenever you want to schedule the mission; if you've turned the Training option on or are running an older version, this would be one turn before you want to schedule (i.e., two turns before you expect to launch). Either way, next turn pull out one or two* more to form crews for the orbital. After pulling them out of Basic Training, be sure to send them to the capsule program and assign them to crews! I've forgotten that a few times.

* Prior to RIS 1.0, you must pull two. Starting with 1.0, you’re no longer required to use backup crews, so you can pull just one person from Basic Training if you prefer.

As time passes, keep an eye on your crews; when you start seeing a lot of yellow morale boxes and a few reds, recruit people—you're going to need them soon. In BARIS, or RIS .4.7 or earlier, or in later versions with Training enabled, when you put together a new crew it needs to train for a turn before you can assign it to a mission—so if you're down to one, you can't just assemble another and assign it to a mission, even as a backup. This isn't an issue in RIS .4.8 and above, by default.

How soon you can select a new group of 'nauts depends on when you last recruited—it's not done at preset times. So the sooner you recruit your first batch, the sooner you can have your second, and so on. This is important to remember if your manned program is delayed because you’re researching something big like a shuttle or direct ascent capsule.

In general, don't send people to Advanced Training. It's tempting, and the manual sort of encourages you to, but it's usually not worth it. It costs money and takes two full years (4 turns), or 3 turns in RIS .4.8 and above with Short Advanced Training turned on in the config file. People don't stick around forever, and Advanced Training doesn't encourage them to stay any longer. Meanwhile they're unavailable at a time when you probably need them. It does give you two extra points in a given skill, but all told it's usually not a good investment. Even the Companion (p. 266) says that Capsule Pilot is the only one that's worthwhile. If you have leftovers after assigning people to crews, you might consider sending one or two CA2s or CA1s to Capsule training, since you probably won't need them for a bit. But even that's kind of questionable, since they're likely to be the guys who are harder to match up in compatible crews anyway. Something to think about.

Watch your newscasts, especially if you're playing BARIS or an old version of RIS. When someone announces retirement, they'll be dropping out in a couple turns. More than once I've had a mission canceled because both the primary and backup crews broke up due to retirements. So when someone announces they're leaving, send your unassigned folks to that program, break the affected crew and assemble a new one to replace it. Of course, in BARIS or RIS before 1.0 (or RIS 1.0 and above with Backups

enabled), if you have only one other crew available and want to schedule a manned mission, hold off. In RIS 1.0, by default you are no longer required to assign a Backup crew to missions (it's your space program, after all), though it's still recommended.

Likewise, if the short timer's crew is currently assigned to a mission, you can't break the crew. That's ok; it'll break up (probably) after the flight, and you can deal with it then. In any case, if members of two crews have announced retirement, don't assign both to a mission, unless you have no others available! Starting with version .4.8, RIS makes it much easier to tell who's announced retirement by showing their names in a different color (black/purple/gray), so you no longer need to write them down during the newscast.

Assemble crews for compatibility, not skills. As much as possible, put together people who like each other. Anyone might start checking the want ads if they can't stand their coworkers—so your crews will break up sooner if they don't get along. If I have enough to assemble a team, but they don't like each other and I'm not desperate for crews, I leave them in the Astronaut Complex / Cosmonaut Center. "You don't get along? Fine. You don't fly." People who aren't assigned to a program lose morale faster than those in a compatible crew—but, not as fast as those in a mismatched one.

When assembling crews, place the the highest Capsule skill in the driver's seat—then worry about the rest. Catastrophic failures are common enough that having a good pilot to boost your capsule safety by 2-4% is helpful, since that’s added to every capsule step of a mission. Docking, EVA, and LM come into play only a few times per mission at most, and a failure there won't usually get people killed. But capsule steps can easily turn fatal, and they represent the lion's share of most flights.

Consequently, you want to recruit the highest Capsule skills. Typically this means signing up those with a CA2 or above. The other skills are much less important; probably the next is Docking, unless you're flying direct ascent. LM is very handy for LM tests and lunar landings, but nothing else—so it's helpful later in the game (usually Group III and above), but you won't need it early or often. EVA gets more use, but it's very unusual for EVA to fail catastrophically, regardless of skill. Endurance doesn't make any difference at all as far as I can tell, even though it's supposed to reduce milestone penalties and the manual hints at it helping with duration and lunar missions. Notwithstanding my doubts about it though, I still take Endurance into account just in case.

Another reason not to worry too much about non-Capsule skills is that, because people are so picky about their crewmates, you often can't take advantage of the best talent available. The guy you hired for his DO4 might not get along with anyone, or might find himself in the pilot's seat since he's a CA2 and the rest of his crew is CA1. Another common scenario is someone with a high skill stuck on a team serving permanent Backup duty because its pilot is a CA1. So even though you might have someone who's incredibly good at a given specialty skill, he might never get to use it due to the realities of crew assignment. In short, don't invest too heavily in plans to put together the perfect team.

The Quick Reference Guide includes a list showing my advice for how to recruit the best candidates. I give first priority to Capsule, but take some account of other skills. Group III is slim pickings for both sides in terms of piloting, but it gets better again after that. Those listed by name are in order from most to least desirable (in my estimation), with the skills that make them attractive candidates in parentheses. Below them are persons whose Capsule skills are low, but who might be worth recruiting because of other abilities they have—though I rarely do.

The equation changes, of course, if women are available. So how about them, anyway? The Americans are decent pilots—they’re not amazing, but only a couple are poor at it. They don't really stand out in other areas, though. And sadly, the cosmonauts are even less exciting—probably because the first Soviet female group (and the only one, during the Space Race) emphasized parachuting skill since the Vostok pilot had to eject from the capsule. I placed women to the side of the chart because the number you'll want to recruit will vary. Remember that there's no prestige value to flying women after the first time (I personally like to keep flying them, but that's my modern sensibilities speaking).

These are the skills needed of crew members:Spacecraft Crew Member Roles Skills Required

Abbreviations: CA = Capsule LM = Lunar Module EV = EVA DO = Docking EN = Endurance

Gemini/Voskhod Command Pilot – Docking Specialist CA, DOLM Pilot – EVA Specialist LM, EV

Apollo/Soyuz & XMS-2/Lapot

Command Pilot CALM Pilot – EVA Specialist LM, EVDocking Specialist DO

Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet] Command Pilot CALunar Pilot LMEVA Specialist EVEVA Specialist EV

[EN doesn’t show under Skills Required, since it's used (or not) by all crew members.]

So, Gemini/Voskhod is easy: put the better Capsule pilot in command, and hope the other guy has decent LM and EV skills. With three-person crews, put in the best pilot, then assign the other two as best you can. Prioritize EV over LM early in the game and LM over EV toward the end. For direct ascent, choose the best Capsule pilot, then highest LM skill, then whoever else.

The general rule is to make sure they all (or mostly) get along, and always put the best Capsule pilot in command. Just to clarify: I will put two CA4s in a crew together rather than place one of them in an incompatible crew; that's how important compatibility is. And if someone with a specialty skill of 4 has the highest Capsule skill on his team—even if it's just CA2—he becomes the pilot.

On some missions, in the status box at the bottom of the screen you'll see not only green and blue bars, but also some with a yellow square between the green and blue. The yellow square indicates that that step is being handled by someone with a 4 in the relevant skill. If there's no blue showing, that often means your crew's skill has prevented a failure (whew!). Occasionally, a skill of 3 (or even 2!) will show the yellow square, but it's unusual, very rare for a 2, and I don't know why it happens on some occasions but not others. It’s possible, of course, that I'm misjudging which skills are being used on certain steps.

The manual (p. 35) advises you to rotate your crews through missions, so everyone gets to fly and they all stay happy. Well, don't. Your crews won't stick around forever no matter what you do, and you need to put your best skills (mainly Capsule) to work where they're needed. I often use morale as a tiebreak between crews of similar

ability, but I rarely assign teams with a CA1 pilot as primaries. In fact, those with a CA1 (or 2, when I'm lucky enough to have lots of 3s and 4s) usually act as Dedicated Backup Crews in my space program.

One advantage for the US is that astronauts tend to have higher Capsule skills than cosmonauts, especially in Group I. The reason is that the BARIS equated Capsule skill with airplane pilot skill. Historically, for their first recruitments both sides selected test pilots—but while the US chose its most experienced, the Soviets recruited greener ones. They reasoned that rookies would train better as cosmonauts, that they would have the right skills but be more flexible than seasoned pilots. Then as time went by, both sides started opening up to nonpilots. That explains why Capsule skills are so much higher for Group I than for later groups.

What about other skills? It depends how you count them. Taking the averages of all skills added up, Group II has better LM for the US, Group III has higher endurance for

the Soviets, and Group IV and V have somewhat better docking for the Soviets. But these straightforward averages include all those untalented guys you never recruit anyway, so it's not a very good indicator. If we take skills above two, the differences are more marked. Counting a skill of 3 as one point and a 4 as two points, we get these figures:

United States Soviet UnionCA 24 (26) CA 11LM 8 LM 10EV 11 EV 15 (16)DO 11 DO 14EN 18 (20) EN 28 (29)

So, the Americans clearly have the lockdown on piloting. The Soviets have higher Endurance, and slightly more talent in each of the other categories. If only any of those (or even all of them combined) were any substitute for better Capsule skill! The difference widens further if females are included (numbers in parentheses).

How do you get female 'nauts, anyway? Unfortunately, you won't be able to recruit them unless a newscast says you're required to. That announcement isn't enabled until 1958 (Companion, p. 288), so you're highly unlikely to get women in your first Group (though I have seen it happen), and you may never get them in an entire game. The Soviets are more likely to see this random event, making this one of their (small) advantages.

For background about how the 'naut roster was drawn up—how people were chosen, how scores were assigned, etc.—see the Readme in the Historical Recruitment Mod, or "Changes to the Naut Roster.txt" on the Sourceforge site for RIS.

Historical Notes: crew member roles in BARIS/RIS are anachronistic. On Apollo, the three crew members were the Commander, the LM Pilot, and the Command Module Pilot. On Apollo 11, these were Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins respectively. The Commander and LM Pilot descended to the surface while the Command Module Pilot stayed in lunar orbit. Contrary to what you'd expect, the LM Pilot didn't fly the LM; the Commander did. Instead, he watched the gauges and gave a running count of what was happening: speed, fuel level, etc. The only one to actually fly the LM was Bean on Apollo 12—Conrad turned the controls over to him for a while because he felt the LM Pilot should have a chance to pilot the LM. BARIS's Soyuz is even more anachronistic: the Soviet lunar capsule had a crew of two, the Commander and the Flight Engineer. As on Apollo, the Commander would have piloted the lander, leaving the Flight Engineer in lunar orbit.

While I hate to see BARIS/RIS do something ahistorical, I completely understand why crews are done like that. In the game, each function (capsule piloting, for instance) is done by one dedicated crew member. If we had the crew Commander handling both capsule and LM piloting, there would be little for anyone else to do. (And historically, even though the Commander did the flying, it's not like the LM Pilot didn't contribute to the success of the landing.) I think that given the game mechanics, it makes sense to divide up responsibilities—even if it bites into the historical accuracy, it helps with gameplay.

—————————————————————————————————————

LUNAR LANDERS

Which lander do you choose? The only time you must develop the single-seater is when you're taking Gemini/Voskhod to the Moon. The Cricket/LK[L-3] is nearly twice as expensive as Eagle/LKM[Duet], and only a little lighter. The way the numbers work, the weight difference isn't enough to affect your choice of rockets or boosters, except with certain combinations—and most of those are just a question of adding boosters, not upgrading to a more expensive rocket, which would be a real incentive to do the smaller lander. So in terms of launch weight, there's very little advantage to Cricket/LK[L-3]. These are the cases where it does make a difference for the lunar landing:

Historical ModelApollo Joint LOR: you won't need the Saturn V for the landing if you use the Cricket OR the Kicker-A (if you're doing LOR

you're probably using A-Kickers anyway, so the LM wouldn’t matter)Joint EOR: on part A, you'll have to boost your Titan if you use the Eagle.

XMS-2 Historical landing: you'll have to boost your Saturn V if you use the Eagle.Joint LOR: you won't need the Saturn V for the landing if you use the Kicker-A AND the Cricket.

Basic ModelSoyuz Joint LOR: you'll have to boost your Proton if you use the LKM [Duet].XMS-2 Joint EOR: you'll have to boost your Titan on Part A if you use the Eagle.Lapot Joint EOR: you'll have to boost your Proton on Part A if you use the LKM [Duet].

So the only place where there would be a significant advantage to the single-seat lander is with an LOR XMS-2 landing in the Historical Model: as long as you're using A-Kickers and the Cricket, you won't need to develop the Saturn V to win the game.

Of course, if you're using Fritz's method of keeping Gemini/Voskhod as a backup, Cricket/LK[L-3] is important to consider. If you're using the backup for everything short of the landing, there's no need. But if you want to be able to land with your backup program, you will have to build the 1-person LM. This may seem like a no-brainer: hey, it's worth taking a chance on that one mission to save the cost of the expensive lander! And while that is a valid strategy, it's not quite as good as it looks. What if you're on

your backup program when it's near time for the landing? You can't fly—or test—a two-person LM with a two-person capsule. So in a situation like that a backup program would do you no good.

Historical Notes: The US considered using a single-person, open-cockpit lander with a Gemini capsule, as mentioned in one of the newscasts. It had the advantage of being very light, slightly over 10% the weight of the Eagle, but would have been very limited in capability ("flags and footprints") and time on the surface would have been restricted by the limitations of the EVA suits, to somewhere in the four- to six-hour range. The space scooter also lacked backup systems, and in the end the idea was rejected as too dangerous (Companion, p. 140). A hopper design was experimented with for "Liftoff!", but its very low cost and safety made it more of a crap shoot than a strategic decision, so the idea was scrapped—one might say, for reasons similar to the historic proposal.

The US lunar module didn't have a particular name; NASA and Grumman (the manufacturer) both simply called it the LEM (Lunar Excursion Module), which was later shortened to LM (though everyone still pronounced it "lem"). The Soviets did the equivalent in Russian, calling theirs the Lunar Ship ("LK" in Russian). To assign a name to the US lander, BARIS of course chose Apollo 11’s. "Liftoff" used the name given to the first module flown with a crew, "Spider", which was tested on Apollo 9 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module). That was likely the inspiration for using a bug theme for naming the Cricket.

—————————————————————————————————————

LOR vs. EOR, AND OTHER LUNAR LANDINGS

The terms LOR and EOR are used more narrowly in the game than they were in the historic Space Race. Here, they apply specifically to Joint lunar landing missions—where your spaceship and lander go up on separate rockets. The difference lies in where they meet.

With Lunar-Orbital Rendezvous (LOR), your capsule/shuttle and lander fly to the Moon separately. Once in lunar orbit, they dock, the 'nauts cross over to the LM, and detach for the landing.

With Earth-Orbital Rendezvous (EOR), your capsule/shuttle and lander dock in Earth orbit and fly together to the Moon. Then the 'nauts enter the LM and detach.

There really isn't much difference between LOR and EOR, except LOR requires two kickers instead of one (except Apollo/Soyuz requires one kicker for LOR and none for EOR). LOR is somewhat more prone to failure since the two craft are rolled against separately en route to the Moon, and during that time the LM doesn't benefit from the crew's Capsule skill or ability to recover from failures. In BARIS, and RIS before .4.8, there was a bug that let you fly EOR with an A-Kicker, and in those versions I can think of hardly any advantage to LOR over EOR—since EOR’s only real drawback is that it’s supposed to require the more expensive B-Kicker. The exception would be XMS-2 in the Historical Model (see LUNAR LANDERS above).

HISTORICAL MANNED LUNAR LANDING is your typical Single lunar landing: one spacecraft and LM on one rocket. This is what you would use to recreate Apollo 11 or what the Soviets were planning. This would also include a Gemini/Voskhod or XMS-2/Lapot that's launched, with lander, on a single rocket.

SOYUZ LUNAR LANDING is for those who really want a change of pace. A Soyuz docks with a Kicker-C, and the whole thing lands on the Moon. These are always Joint missions, even though technically, the UR-700[Vulkon] has the muscle to lift a Soyuz and Kicker-C together. It was done this way because the design on which they based the Kicker-C was to be launched on separate rockets and assembled in space.

DIRECT ASCENT LUNAR LANDING is just what it sounds like: Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet] on a Nova/UR-700[Vulkon]. It's simple and straightforward, but awfully hard to pay for and difficult to crew, especially before RIS 1.0.

Historical Notes: What BARIS calls the "Historical Manned Lunar Landing" was called "LOR" during the Space Race; in its naming conventions, NASA didn't draw a distinction between single- and multiple-launch missions the way the game does. Even the "Historical Manned Lunar Landing" involves rendezvous; the distinction BARIS draws between Single and Joint missions is anachronistic, though useful in the game. Historically, EOR meant building a direct-ascent-type craft in Earth orbit and then sending it to the Moon. BARIS's EOR differs in that players construct a capsule & lander package in orbit, rather than an all-in-one spacecraft. Soyuz Lunar Landing would be equivalent to historical EOR, except it's assembled in lunar rather than Earth orbit; oddly, the Constellation program (until cancellation in 2010) was going to send people to the Moon using a BARIS-type EOR method. There was no real historical equivalent that I know of to BARIS's LOR.

—————————————————————————————————————

US vs. USSR

So which side's easier to play? Each has its strong points, but all told, in my estimation, the Soviets are at a bit of a disadvantage. The Americans' edge is more pronounced in the CD version, where Max R&D for Mercury is 82% versus Vostok's paltry 76%, and the Gemini gets a generous 86% over Voskhod's 80%. In fact, Gemini has a higher Max R&D than Soyuz, and Apollo’s is higher than Lapot’s! Also the names of astronauts and US hardware will be more familiar to native English speakers. So if you're new to the game, even if you find the Soviets exotic and intriguing, play the US until you've got a pretty good handle on things.

My general impression is that the Soviets are very good at Soyuz, good at Lapot and (in RIS and the CD version) Voskhod, and fair at LK-700[Kvartet]. The Americans seem to be good at all the approaches, except Gemini in the floppy version and especially Gemini in the CD version.

Much is made of the lower prices on the Soviet side, but it's often forgotten that while the Soviets pay less for some hardware, their budget is usually smaller, which more or less negates the cost advantage. Plus, they pay the same prices for launch pads and recruitment. Also their lower Max R&D levels make catastrophic failure more expensive for them, since it takes more flights to get back to Max Safety.

This is my tally of the advantages each side has over the other, in order roughly by how important I consider them. The Soviets look impressive because they have a lot of pluses, but some of those are pretty minor. The items I consider really important are boldfaced, and the marginal ones are in gray.

US ADVANTAGES SOVIET ADVANTAGESComponent reliability More powerful rocketryGenerally higher budget Generally lower costsAstronaut Capsule skill Docking is cheaper, slightly saferHolds the advantage later on Holds the advantage early onBetter spacecraft choices Soyuz Lunar Landing (Kicker-C)

Cosmonaut skills (except Capsule)Easier to get female cosmonautsLM Max R&D is slightly higher*

* the Player's Aid Card gets this one backward

Contrary to what you’d expect, while purchases go both ways, the few times there’s a difference in research costs, it’s always the Soviets who pay more. Below is a chart of the price differences in the game. You'll notice that all the US advantages come later on, with lunar-grade hardware—probably a reflection of how the advantage in the Space Race shifted from East to West. The higher research cost for LK-700 [Kvartet] is definitely intentional, as the designers felt that direct ascent would be a more difficult undertaking for the Soviets.

PROBESCosmos 20 vs. 24 (-4, or 17% less) to Prototype

3 vs. 5 (-2, or 40% less) per UnitLuna 26 vs. 30 (-4, or 13% less) to Prototype

6 vs. 7 (-1, or 14% less) per UnitROCKETSR-7 [A-Series] 20 vs. 26 (-6, or 30% less) to PrototypeN1 [N-1] 84 vs. 90 (-6, or 7% less) to Prototype

7 vs. 6 (+1, or 14% MORE) to Research **Boosters 15 vs. 18 (-3, or 17% less) to PrototypeCAPSULE/SHUTTLEVostok 18 vs. 20 (-2, or 10% less) to PrototypeVoskhod 24 vs. 30 (-6, or 20% less) to Prototype

6 vs. 7 (-1, or 14% less) per UnitSoyuz 36 vs. 40 (-4, or 10% less) to Prototype

12 vs. 14 (-2, or 14% less) per UnitLapot 65 vs. 55 (+10, or 15% MORE) to Prototype **LK-700 [Kvartet] 60 vs. 65 (-5, or 8% less) to Prototype

9 vs. 8 (+1, or 11% MORE) to Research **LKM [Duet] 35 vs. 30 (+5, or 14% MORE) to Prototype **LK [L-3] 48 vs. 42 (+6, or 13% MORE) to Prototype **MISCELLANEOUSDocking Module 15 vs. 18 (-3, or 17% less) to Prototype

2 vs. 3 (-1, or 33% less) per Unit

** More expensive for the USSR than the US

—————————————————————————————————————

GETTING TO THE MOON

There are four ways to go to the Moon, most of which (or something like them) were considered during the Space Race: Gemini/Voskhod 2-person capsuleApollo/Soyuz 3-person capsuleXMS-2/Lapot 3-person minishuttle (reusable)Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet] 4-person capsule (direct ascent)

GEMINI/VOSKHOD

Don't take Gemini/Voskhod to the Moon in the floppy version. The numbers don't show it, but they're very unsafe. These babies just love to burn up in the atmosphere! In the CD version and RIS, however, Gemini is actually a very good way to get there. Even Voskhod is now a reasonable alternative, though it's still risky and needs a lot of test flights.

With Gemini/Voskhod, you lose out on some prestige points (15/5 for three-person capsule or 20/6 for four-person craft or minishuttle). That's not a big deal really, except it does make it a little harder to afford that expensive lunar module. In the floppy version, I might use Gemini/Voskhod to knock out Duration B and maybe C, boost my EVA a little, and run unmanned docking tests. Meanwhile, I move on to a 3-person craft. I have taken Gemini/Voskhod to the Moon, but that can be a long frustrating process, with lots of restoring from saved games. But in the CD version and RIS, the two-person capsule is good to go all the way.

If you do settle on Gemini/Voskhod, you'll need the Cricket/LK[L-3] and a kicker. You'll also want to develop the Saturn V / N1 [N-1], or your lunar landing will have to be a Joint mission. But luckily, by the time you're needing that rocket, you'll often have the cash to develop it since you're not spending money on a more expensive

capsule. The Saturn V / N1 [N-1] also starts at an impressive 60% Safety (as long as your Titan/Proton is up to speed), making it quick to develop compared to other rockets. So apart from the cost to prototype—which can be formidable—you'll find it less of a hassle than you'd expect.

It seems impractical to consider a backup program if you're flying Gemini/Voskhod, since anything else will cost more than your main program! Preparing a backup may make sense toward the end of the game though, when money is fairly plentiful and you're reaching a point where a catastrophic failure would really mess you up. Apollo/Soyuz would be the obvious choice.

Historical Notes: As the manual indicates (p. 2), Voskhod did not have a docking capability, so it couldn't have been used for a Moon landing. The capsule also couldn't change its orbit, and its heat shield wouldn't have withstood reentry on return from the Moon, meaning in game terms that it couldn't have performed docking or lunar missions. BARIS gave it added capabilities (and cost) in order to balance gameplay and provide a true equivalent to Gemini. I think that also makes the game a bit more interesting, though I'm not sure I would have done it that way.

Gemini was based on Mercury; likewise, Voskhod was based on Vostok, but Gemini was a much better spacecraft. Voskhod was really no more than a glorified Vostok—the Soviets created it by making mostly internal changes to Vostoks that had already been built! The second manned Voskhod accomplished the first spacewalk, with an inflatable airlock. The poor guy outside (my near-namesake, Leonov) had a hell of a time getting back in. Then when it was time to come down, the automatic guidance failed, and manual guidance was difficult partly because the viewfinder, like everything else, was at an awkward angle—the seats on Voskhod were rotated 90° from where they had been on Vostok, making the crew reach over their heads to access the controls (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voskhod_programme).

In the end, Voskhod was abandoned not because it was incredibly dangerous but because there were delays preparing for Voskhod 3 (a duration mission), and in the meantime Gemini rapidly overtook it, performing most of the firsts that had been planned for Voskhods 3-6. So by the time Voskhod 3 was ready to fly, it would have been too little too late, and—ironically—the Soviets realized that additional flights could expose how primitive the capsule was (Siddiqi, p. 526). Several other Voskhod missions had been planned, including an all-female crew with spacewalk, and an artificial gravity experiment (which was done on Gemini 11).

APOLLO/SOYUZ

These are spaceworthy craft. In fact, of all the capsules in the game, Soyuz is the only one still in service. China's Shenzhou capsule is based on it, and the Orion capsule was going to be based on Apollo. So you get an idea how sound these capsules are in design. This is one of your best bets to win the game. It's also pretty straightforward, so it's good for beginners.

I used to recommend the historical approach of going from Mercury/Vostok to Gemini/Voskhod to Apollo/Soyuz or XMS-2/Lapot. I've since changed my mind; now, I recommend that after the one-man capsule, go straight to whatever you want to take to the Moon (unless you're flying direct ascent). I think by and large, an intermediate program costs more in time and money than it's worth. Of course, this would mean not using the Primary/Backup Plan that Fritz recommends: so if having a backup works well for you, you'll want to ignore this suggestion.

One drawback to skipping Gemini/Voskhod is that since anything else takes longer to develop, you're likely to miss out on some prestige firsts. Also, if you're playing the Soviets, you give up the ability to fly Voskhod docking tests on boosted R-7[A-Series] rockets. Still, that's not critical; I find that missed prestige firsts really aren't a big deal in the scheme of things, and the Voskhod docking advantage wears off after a few years.

An Apollo/Soyuz capsule includes the capability of a Kicker-B, so one of its advantages is that you won't need to develop a kicker to get to the Moon. Be aware, though, if you're considering a Joint Lunar Landing: LOR will require a kicker for the Lunar Module, which flies to the Moon on its own. EOR and Historical landings won't need one.

Apollo/Soyuz missions with docking steps don't always need docking modules. You don't have to buy them for your LM tests or lunar landings, but you do need to have them prototyped, and when you dock with something, the current Safety of your docking module is what's rolled against. You do need to buy a DM for docking tests or the Manned Orbiting Lab. Docking tests require it probably so your capsule will have something to dock with, which would make it a stand-in for the Agena Target Vehicle. For the MOL, perhaps it represents something like a male-male adapter between your spacecraft. In any case, the built-in docking capability is historical—both Apollo and Soyuz had it, whereas Gemini needed an adapter.

If you choose the Soyuz Lunar Landing, remember NOT to develop the Kicker-A, Kicker-B, or a Lunar Module, since the Kicker-C replaces all of those. The C-Kicker has a couple advantages. There's no need to develop the N1[N-1], since Soyuz Lunar Landing is a Joint mission and uses Protons. Then again, the fact that it's a Joint mission is also one of its weaknesses, since those take up two launch pads and can be accident-prone. Remember that you'll need to have purchased and tested docking modules for the Soyuz Lunar Landing. Going this route will also make it impractical to use Fritz's strategy of keeping a backup, at least a backup you could land with—since nothing but Soyuz can dock with a C-Kicker.

A seeming drawback to the C-Kicker is that you can't boost its Safety with dummy flights or LM tests, since the only mission it can fly on is the lunar landing itself. On the other hand, this also means it doesn't require LM tests, so you can go straight to the Moon without spending time and money and risking lives testing the equipment.

C-Kickers aren't as pricy as they seem at first glance. While replacement units are high (20MB), the C-Kicker costs about the same to develop as the LK[L-3], and saves the cost of performing LM tests and building the N1[N-1]. All in all, this may be the best approach if you're flying Soyuz.

In my experience, even in RIS and the CD version, the Kicker-C has an affinity for non-lethal failures: seemingly more often than other landing approaches, it runs into problems at the Moon which don't hurt anyone but do force an early return to Earth, making you try again next turn. So the Soyuz Lunar Landing is a good option for someone who wants to minimize the risk of catastrophic failure and is willing to accept delays caused by having to make several landing attempts.

XMS-2/LAPOT

The minishuttles are great for the long-term thinker, but less so in the race to a stated objective. The shuttles, though, are more reliable than Apollo/Soyuz—they sail beautifully through reentry over and over, even in the floppy version. Also, once you've bought a shuttle you just keep reusing it, so later on you end up with extra money—a luxury in this game—since you're saving 14/12MB per mission on Apollo/Soyuz capsules or 7/6MB on Gemini/Voskhod.

Of course the shuttles are very expensive. The high cost of initial purchase plus research means an unavoidable delay before you can use them. If you have a Gemini/Voskhod program, you may find yourself stretching it out longer than you had planned. However, the strategy laid out in the Companion (p. 257) recommends skipping it: fly Explorer/Sputnik, Mercury/Vostok, and then go straight to the shuttle; perform lunar flybys, but skip the probe landings. I've tried this approach in the CD version and RIS and it works well. The author is right: Surveyor/Luna is expensive and time-consuming, and you don't really need it. Ditto for Gemini/Voskhod. It's to your advantage to fly docking tests with the minishuttle anyway to raise its Safety, and with its superb reliability you shouldn't need a backup program—which means you also won't have to fret about whether to invest in the single-seat LM. With Lapot you can probably expect no more than one catastrophic failure per game, and with XMS-2 you might get away without any.

I suspect that the author of this approach mostly played the US; what he says about the shuttle's safety rings truer for XMS-2 than for Lapot. Of course, while XMS-2 is amazingly reliable, it's very hard to get off the ground—since, in addition to the high cost of the shuttle itself, and boosters, you also need the Titan. Lapot isn't as remarkable for its safety, but it's much easier to get up and running. Since it can go up on a boosted R-7[A-Series], you can afford to delay the Proton and get your shuttle going much sooner than you can with XMS-2.

Overall I've found that the shuttles are a very reasonable way to get to the Moon, but they're not as fast as Apollo/Soyuz and it's trickier to get everything together for the landing. In fact, because they delay your program so much, I would say the shuttles can be a somewhat marginal option if you're playing to win. I take it as a hint that I've never seen the computer choose the minishuttle path, and only once heard of someone seeing it fly XMS-2. The shuttles are good to play for fun though, as a "What If?" scenario, or to give yourself a handicap against a less experienced player. This is not an approach for beginners, though veteran players can have fun with it, especially if their budget's healthy early in the game.

I've noticed it works best to delay Ranger/Cosmos and put all my resources into the shuttle until it's ready to fly. This may mean missing a couple of prestige firsts, but it's important to get the shuttle up and running as soon as you can.

One significant disadvantage of the minishuttles is that they don't benefit AT ALL from technology transfer. All of the capsules do, but not the shuttles. That means they take about one extra turn's worth of full-tilt (i.e., 5 teams) research compared to Apollo—a hidden price tag of around 35MB. Another extra cost is that, as with Gemini/Voskhod, you'll have to develop a kicker to go to the Moon, which isn't usually necessary for Apollo/Soyuz.

A lesser drawback is that the minishuttles have the shortest duration capability of anything you can take to the Moon. Their maximum is Duration D, which is enough to do the job—but it doesn't let you grab some extra points with a Duration E (5 pts) or F (7 pts). If the newscast saying you have to fly Duration E before going to the Moon actually worked, you'd be in trouble when flying shuttles!

A quick observation is that if you choose the minishuttle path, you're essentially betting that you'll have no nasty surprises at that stage of the game. If someone dies on a Mercury/Vostok mission, your budget will drop and you'll have a hard time raising the money to complete the shuttle. It takes a while to get it up to snuff even under ideal conditions, and delays are more of a problem than they are for direct ascent, since the shuttles still need docking tests, a lunar lander, and a kicker, which all take time.

While almost everything (including Lapot) can fly a Lunar Pass and Orbital using Titan/Proton, if you're flying XMS-2 and have the B-Kicker but not the A-Kicker, you will need the Saturn V for these missions. Basically that means that with XMS-2 you'll need to get your Saturn up to speed a year (two turns) earlier, or take the questionable path of developing both kickers, or choose LOR for your landing strategy (or EOR, prior to RIS .4.8).

Incidentally, there's a bug that makes XMS-2/Lapot a more viable option than it would otherwise be. Minishuttles are indestructible! You can have one burn up on reentry, then launch it again next season as if nothing happened. I've never had to buy more than two shuttles in a game. Considering they cost 30MB apiece, that's a big savings. EVA suits are the same way—no matter what happens, you never lose one. It's just that it's more easily overlooked with those, since additional suits are free anyway.

Historical Notes: In the US, there were several minishuttles and lifting bodies considered back in those days; the best-known was the X-20 "Dyna-Soar" (for Dynamic Soaring, the Air Force's term for skipping entry, envisioned for the Sänger bomber), which ran from 1957-63. It reached the mock-up stage in 1962, but never made it to a working prototype (see http://www.aerospaceguide.net/dynasoar.html for more info). The USAF planned to fly two unmanned and eight manned missions between 1966 and 1968. Significantly, Dyna-Soar was military, not NASA—just as Explorer was an Army program. In the end, it was canceled because the Air Force could never settle on a solid military use for it; for a history of the X-20, see http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch1.htm#49.

Fritz decided the X-20 wasn't suitable for BARIS: it was a single-seater, was too heavy, and lacked fuel cells to generate the power needed for a lunar mission. It was also black, which wouldn't have shown well against a space background. One designation it briefly had was "XMS-1" (for eXperimental Manned Spacecraft), so the designers envisioned the X-20 going through a second, more advanced, iteration that made it fit for the rigors of a Moon mission (Companion, p. 136-138). For game footage, they used the HL-10, M2-F2, and M2-F3* for both XMS-2 and Lapot. In "Liftoff!" the US shuttle is called the X-24, but the name was changed for BARIS since that's the designation of a historical plane. I think a less contrived name would have been "Lunex", from an Air Force minishuttle direct ascent proposal back in 1961 (http://www.astronautix.com/articles/lunex.htm). It's a fairly obscure proposal, though, so I'm not surprised no one thought of it.

* These lifting bodies were used as part of the research into the design of what became the Space Shuttle. The HL-10 underwent testing from 1966-70, the M2-F2 from 1966-67, and the M2-F3 from 1970-72. The HL-10 was considered the best of the bunch, and was even proposed at one point for a pair of space flights: one dummy and one manned.

The USSR prototyped the MiG-105 Spiral, nicknamed Lapot ("wooden shoe") for the shape of its nose. The program ran from 1965-69, then was revived from 1974-78 when the Soviets were looking for an answer to the Space Shuttle. Spiral's wings folded up during spaceflight, then down for improved handling in the atmosphere. The subsonic prototype is still sitting at an air museum outside Moscow (see http://www.deepcold.com/deepcold/spiral_main.html for more info, and http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mig10511.htm for a picture and timeline). Like the X-20, it landed on skids, since it was feared tires could melt or burst during reentry.

There were three prototypes: subsonic (105.11), supersonic (105.12), and hypersonic/orbital (105.13). The Soviets built the subsonic prototype with fixed wings. They also built the supersonic one, but never flew it. They constructed only the fuselage of the hypersonic prototype, and used it for heat and pressure testing. The program was finally canceled in favor of the Buran space shuttle.

The idea was to launch Spiral from a hypersonic mother ship (this was called the 50-50 concept), which was never built. For test flights it was dropped from an existing bomber or took off with an airbreathing jet engine—most of these flights were made by Fastovets (Group V). There were also plans to launch it on an R-7, which works in BARIS, so the game was able to use one of the historically-planned lifting methods. Likewise, Dyna-Soar was going to be launched on boosted Titans, just like XMS-2 in BARIS—another nice historical continuity.

While Spiral was a lifting body, the X-20 was more like a conventional aircraft. Another difference was that Dyna-Soar had a small cargo bay that could carry weapons, a satellite, or even up to 4 passengers. Spiral was single-seater only with no cargo capacity, but carried a turbojet for better landing options. A summary of the differences between them is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105.

JUPITER/LK-700[KVARTET]

Direct Ascent! This one's straight out of the science fiction novels. It's just what it sounds like—a spaceship that flies to the Moon, lands, takes off, and comes back to Earth. The landing apparatus is left on the surface, and everything but the reentry section is jettisoned before hitting the atmosphere.

Direct ascent is tempting, and it's easily the simplest option. You don't have to deal with lunar or docking modules, boosters, or kickers. That means no docking or LM tests, and few things to research. But direct ascent has its drawbacks. It's extremely costly to purchase, research, and fly. There's a reason why the capsule can do everything needed for a lunar landing: it's complex and huge! Plus it's extremely heavy so it needs a massive rocket, which is...massively expensive. To make matters worse, you may not benefit much from technology transfer, and you'll probably miss out on some prestige firsts.

Because you don't need docking or lunar lander tests, you'll have fewer manned launches, which means fewer chances for things to go wrong. Unfortunately it also means you have more riding on those missions, and a catastrophic failure can really wipe you out—imagine re-researching from 20% at 40MB/turn, and redoing your dummy tests at 60MB apiece. This is an all-your-eggs-in-one-basket approach: though using Gemini/Voskhod as a backup (at least short of the landing) can help a bit.

Another consideration is crews: if you think it's a nightmare to keep your three-person crews together, imagine four-person crews! You don't need many of them, but it's hard to keep enough stable teams to fly all the missions you need. By the time you've finished the research, you need to get going ASAP, and you often don't have enough crews to fly all your missions—especially if you skipped Gemini/Voskhod. More than once I've had to postpone an important launch by a whole year just because some slacker dropped out of the program at a moment's notice. This is less of a problem in RIS starting with .4.8 (which doesn't make you wait a turn after assembling crews) and 1.0 (which doesn’t make you assign Backup crews).

Although this is a viable way to get to the Moon, I've found it's not a very interesting way. Due to the cost of development, you may find yourself waiting through two whole turns to save up for that rocket prototype, and you'll sometimes skip turns to save up money for research. For a while the game can fall into a pattern of "Research capsule and rocket, End turn. Research capsule OR rocket, End turn"—especially if you skip Gemini/Voskhod, since you'll have very little to do while you're working on the direct ascent hardware.

In spite of the difficulties, direct ascent is actually a very feasible alternative. You save a lot of time by skipping docking and don't need to develop a lander, and if you can get by without thorough lunar recon, you should be in good shape. In fact, several of my pre-1970 landings have been by direct ascent. Its simplicity also makes it a good strategy for beginners. Jupiter is clearly the better of the two; though it costs 5MB more to prototype, it costs that much less per turn to research (at 5 teams). Safety and rocketry are identical for both, so I can't think of any real advantage to LK-700[Kvartet] over Jupiter, except that if you use a 2-person capsule for your duration steps, Voskhod is less costly than Gemini (but more dangerous).

One small advantage of this approach is that since you fly so few missions, you won't need to buy all three launch pads. When I skip Gemini/Voskhod, I often play the entire game with only one pad.

If you're going this route, these are my recommendations.1. Fly Explorer/Sputnik and Mercury/Vostok. They're cheap to develop, and will knock out several milestones so you don't have to spend 60MB per mission on your

basic manned suborbital and orbital—and possibly another 60MB on your first Duration B. Remember also that four-person crews are hard to maintain, you won't have many of them, and those you have you really need for the more advanced missions. Plus the satellite and one-man capsules are cost-effective: the prestige firsts they yield will get you a bigger budget without digging very deep in your pocket. However, since you won’t be doing docking, there’s no need to keep investing in your satellite once you’ve flown it successfully.

2. Whether to fly Gemini/Voskhod is up to you, though I usually do.A. If you skip it, then after Mercury/Vostok, put everything into Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet] (and Ranger/Cosmos, if you want to do flybys). This has the advantage of

getting your direct ascent hardware up to speed in the shortest period of time. It has the drawback that you'll have to fly all your duration missions (except B) with the direct ascent capsule, at 60MB/launch, and with limited crews. Of course, flying duration isn’t necessary in RIS .4.8 and 1.0, though it’s a good way to pick up extra prestige points, and your capsule will need flight-testing anyway.

B. If you fly Gemini/Voskhod, research direct ascent as you're able. If you plan to skip Ranger/Cosmos, develop boosters instead of Titan/Proton. Boosters are much cheaper, and you need the cash for the monster rocket and capsule. While those are coming up to speed, you can fly duration with the 2-seat capsule. This helps keep your 'nauts happy, and gives you a big savings on those missions (though it's offset by the cost of developing the two-person hardware). It minimizes the risk of catastrophic failure to your big capsule, and lets you knock out duration while the big stuff is still in development.

If you want to use the 2-person capsule as a true backup, you'll need a kicker and Cricket/LK[L-3]. That lander is very costly, plus you'd have to fly docking tests, and develop Titan/Proton and boosters unless you're willing to fly everything on Novas/UR-700s[Vulkons]. Instead, I would use Gemini/Voskhod as a backup for everything short of the landing.

3. Recruit 'nauts. You'll need them for your Mercury/Vostok anyway, but as those guys start to fade away, recruit your second batch, even if you're not flying Gemini/Voskhod. The third and fourth Groups are larger, and you'll need the manpower for your 4-person capsule. If you're not flying Gemini/Voskhod, your second batch will become disaffected and eventually leave; screw them and keep your eyes on your research.

4. Whether to invest in probes after Explorer/Sputnik is up to you. Ranger/Cosmos and Surveyor/Luna will cost a lot in R&D, plus the cost of the Titan/Proton. Skipping these probes will mean losing out on reconnaissance, though you can gain enough from manned lunar passes and orbitals to make up much of the difference. It would also mean taking a hit on the lunar passes and landing, but usually not an insurmountable one. On the other hand, if you do invest in the probes and the rocket for them, the technology transfer from Titan/Proton will start your Nova/UR-700[Vulkon] at 35% instead of 10%, an R&D savings of around 50MB: nearly the cost of prototyping Titan/Proton. If you choose to invest in unmanned missions, you might consider skipping Gemini/Voskhod, and vice versa. Of course, you could always

launch your lunar flybys on the giant rockets—though that sounds wasteful, it would let you save the cost of developing Titan/Proton, and might be cost-effective if you only do it a few times.

Historical Note: Both sides looked seriously at direct ascent. Webb was one of its biggest proponents, but eventually decided it couldn't be done before the end of the decade. Apollo began as a direct ascent capsule, then was scaled down to LOR. The BARIS designers wisely chose to make up a plausible alternative name for the original design. The Soviets (specifically Chelomei's bureau) proposed the LK-700, which would have been launched on the UR-700 rocket (see NAME CHANGES IN RIS above). The LK-700 was developed halfheartedly alongside N1-L3 and wasn't scheduled for a manned flight until 1973. Both countries' designs looked a bit like the Jupiter. The direct ascent Apollo and LK-700 would have had a crew of 2 or 3 (it’s hard to pin down sources for the exact complement). For BARIS, crew size was raised to 4, probably for game balance—though one has to wonder what the third and fourth people ("EVA Specialists") do; they're made to look almost like passengers.

—————————————————————————————————————

THE BEST WAY TO THE MOON

To recap our four ways to do the job: Gemini and Voskhod can be iffy. They just aren't designed to handle the rigors of the full lunar mission, in the floppy version. Notwithstanding there were some historical proposals to take Gemini to the Moon, it really isn't practical in the floppy version—though it is very doable in the CD version and RIS. Apollo/Soyuz is an excellent method, possibly the best one for the USSR. XMS-2/Lapot is also very good, but trickier and often slower, especially for the US. Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet] is sound, but requires a very different strategy.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to rank the different approaches by complexity. Some of this may be arbitrary: is it really simpler to fly a two-person capsule than a shuttle, for instance? Well, here's my best shot at it—in my estimation, the approaches would rank this way, roughly, from most to least complicated:

XMS-2/Lapot (Kicker, trickier rocket combinations)Gemini/Voskhod (Kicker, 1-person LM, but only 2-person crews)Apollo/Soyuz (Call this the average)Soyuz Lunar Landing (No LM tests, less docking involved)Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet] (Simplest by far)

One thing to bear in mind is that budgets are optimized for flying Gemini/Voskhod followed by Apollo/Soyuz. Your income gradually increases at a rate that assumes you're going from 1- to 2- to 3-person disposable capsules. Recruiting also assumes that 1-2-3 pattern: until Group V, the number of recruits keeps rising, and the smaller early groups make it hard to put together 3- or 4-person crews early in the game (though in RIS 1.0 and above you can get by with fewer crews).

If you stop at Gemini/Voskhod, you'll later find yourself with extra money you won't know what to do with. If you fly minishuttles, there's a larger initial outlay you'll have trouble affording, followed by surpluses from not having to buy more shuttles. If you've chosen direct ascent, the initial cost is much more onerous, possibly grounding you for several years—and then, once your research is complete, you may have more cash than missions to fly, due to a shortage of crews (especially prior to RIS 1.0). In this context, Apollo/Soyuz may be the most balanced approach: it can be hard to afford and crew at first, but not prohibitively so. And you don't end up with the big surpluses that the others sometimes give you—not that surpluses are a problem, though it can be frustrating to have money to spend yet be held back by other factors.

Another item in favor of Gemini/Voskhod and Apollo/Soyuz is technology transfer. When you buy a prototype, if any related programs are at least 75% reliable, your new component starts off at a higher Safety than the usual 5%. This often means saving a whole turn's worth of research at 5 teams. So, if you go from Gemini to Apollo, the latter will start at 20-25%, whereas if you go to XMS-2, you start at 5% no matter what. Direct ascent hardware gets some benefit from technology transfer, but usually less than the other capsules.

Technology transfer is mentioned on page 9 of the manual, which is vague and refers you to the Player's Aid Card—which accidentally left out the relevant information. However, the last patch for the floppy version (v.1.01) included a readme file with the missing Technology Transfer Chart, which shows the total Safety a given item will have as a result of tech transfer. The chart is now included in the Quick Reference Guide.

In my experience, if Mercury/Vostok isn't going well (i.e. you're experiencing prestige setbacks), direct ascent and the minishuttles probably aren't feasible options. If your prestige isn't very high by the end of Mercury/Vostok, your budget won't be robust enough to afford the prototypes and research. If your one-man capsule is doing very well, though, that's a good time to consider direct ascent or the minishuttles. Even better is if you're lucky enough to get a half-off sale just when you're ready to buy prototypes.

Another consideration with Gemini/Voskhod and XMS-2/Lapot is that they require a kicker. Kickers A & B are cheap and easy to research, so they're not a huge inconvenience—but they do add to the cost, and they're easy to forget. In the floppy version they also seem to be less reliable than the built-in kickers on other spacecraft. Of course a kicker gets extra Safety only from missions that leave orbit (the lunar pass, orbit, and landing), whereas the built-ins get points for every use of the capsule—so standalones are rarely at Max Safety when you're really counting on them. More importantly though, like Gemini/Voskhod they're less dependable in the floppy version than the numbers suggest. Kicker failures are often catastrophic (they like to explode), so buyer beware. In RIS and the CD version, though, kickers seem to work very dependably and I don't worry about them backfiring.

Because of the built-in kickers and docking modules, Apollo/Soyuz capsules aren't quite as expensive as they seem. Apollo costs 14MB, Soyuz 12MB. Subtract from that the cost of a docking module—3MB for the Americans, 2MB for the Soviets—and you get 11/10MB. Then subtract the cost of a Kicker-A (3MB) or Kicker-B (6MB) and you're looking at an effective price of anywhere from 5/4MB to 8/7MB, versus 7/6MB for Gemini/Voskhod. Of course, these features aren't used on all missions, and you still need to buy a DM for docking tests—so on many Apollo/Soyuz flights you're paying for built-ins you don't use.

When choosing a lunar strategy, it's good to know what duration level your spacecraft can handle, since flying E or F can net you some extra prestige points. Thanks to ijuin

for this one (http://www.thespacerace.com/forum/index.php?topic=64.msg11716#msg11716):SPACECRAFT MAX PRESTIGE FROM DURATION OF:Mercury/Vostok B B 3 pointsGemini/Voskhod E C 5 points

Apollo/Soyuz F D 1 pointXMS-2/Lapot D E 5 pointsJupiter/LK-700[Kvartet] F F 7 points

As mentioned earlier, one drawback to the minishuttles is that you can't grab an extra 5-12 prestige points by flying Duration E or F. And Gemini/Voskhod misses out on that 7-point F mission. (Note: Duration is the only prestige item that gives you as many points for coming in second as for being first.)

—————————————————————————————————————

HOW DO I KNOW WHEN TO DO WHAT?

Timing is critical in this game, and one of the hardest parts of playing is knowing when to do what. Unfortunately there's no hard-and-fast answer, but I'll do what I can. For a start, remember that you should begin one program well before you plan to use it—usually while the previous one is starting to fly missions.

For your first year (i.e., the first 2 turns), you'll want to work on Explorer/Sputnik and the Atlas/R-7[A-Series]. At the start of the second year you should start Mercury/Vostok, and recruit 'nauts if you have enough money. You should have just about enough cash to do that (usually minus the spacemen) and nearly complete your rocket+satellite. Launch that as soon as you dare; remember that you'll want to schedule it one turn before you expect the research to be complete, or (in this case) close enough to take a chance on. Next turn, if your components are reliable enough, proceed with the launch. Otherwise, consider scrubbing it. Remember that if your rocket malfunctions it may blow up the launch pad, which just sucks this early in the game, when budgets are low and you don't have a spare pad. It's at this stage that I experience the most pad destructions, because I'm using my rocket before it's fully researched.

Meanwhile you should be developing Mercury/Vostok as much as possible. You may have to choose between researching the capsule, rocket, and satellite; this is one of many judgement calls you'll have to make. Also you'll want to develop EVA suits when you can—though they're less urgent since you don't need them unless you specifically add EVA (i.e., a spacewalk) to a mission. Whether you buy more suits after the prototype is entirely esthetic, since you never lose or run out of them. In fact, I've played entire games, all the way through the Soyuz Lunar Landing (which puts three cosmonauts on the Moon), without ever buying more than one suit. I even saw two guys together in the Lunar EVA movie!

Make your first manned mission a suborbital—don't go straight to the orbital; it's not worth it. These missions only cost 6MB apiece, and skipping the suborbital will give you a milestone penalty you really can't afford. I usually schedule my manned orbital in the same turn that I assemble and launch the suborbital, so that the orbital flies one turn after. If something goes wrong with the suborbital, I can downgrade the orbital and schedule another for the following season. If you plan the suborbital and orbital for the same turn and the suborbital fails, you won't be able to downgrade the orbital at the last minute—you'll have to choose between delaying your first manned mission and facing a milestone penalty.

Fly a suborbital and an orbital EVA. Then, if you're playing RIS or the CD version, it's worth attempting Duration B, especially for the US—you have a fair chance of success, and if you experience a catastrophic failure, you were going to cancel the program anyway. Plus you only lost one person—not that it'll matter to the widow or to world opinion, but it's still better than losing several. Once you've achieved Duration B or suffered a capsule wipeout, abandon Mercury/Vostok and move on.

In the floppy version, attempting Duration B in a one-man capsule is asking for trouble—instead, save it for your more advanced craft (unless you choose direct ascent or the shuttles—see below).

Note: in RIS .4.8 and above, you don't have to wait a turn after assembling a crew before you can assign it to a mission, unless you enable the Training option in the config file. In the list below, "Training disabled" means running RIS .4.8 and above with Training left disabled (the default). Training could not be disabled prior to .4.8. “Backup disabled” means running RIS 1.0 and above with the requirement to assign backup crews disabled (the default). The requirement to use backup crews couldn’t be disabled prior to 1.0.

To recap, my typical early-game strategy in RIS and the CD version runs something like this: Research Explorer/Sputnik and the Atlas/R-7[A-Series] for the first two turns, and schedule your first satellite launch for the third turn.

If you're playing the Soviets, use your leftover funds at the end of 1957 to buy an extra R-7[A-Series], just in case. On your third turn, launch the satellite if you're ready to take a chance on it. Repeat for the next turn or two. Also prototype Mercury/Vostok and start researching it,

and start on EVA suits if you can afford to. If you're playing the US in the CD version, in Spring 1958 buy a couple extra Atlases if possible. It's often next turn that you're told manufacturers won't be able

to deliver any rockets for a year. When you have the money (usually not before Spring 1958), recruit astro/cosmonauts. By this time your capsule should be about two turns from Max R&D, so if you're within about 40% of that (or within 20% with Training disabled), pull two people out

of Basic Training—yes, even Basic Training I—and assign them to crews (in RIS 1.0 and above you can get away with just one). If you're not quite there yet, wait a turn before pulling them out. * If possible, pull one CA4 (for primary crew) and—if Backup is enabled—a CA1 or CA2 (for backup crew). Don't pull a CA3 if you can avoid it, since it might

rise to 4 if left alone. If all goes well, you'll be using these guys for your Duration B mission. Prior to RIS .4.8, your first duration mission always faces a penalty, so you'll need all the piloting skill you can get for that flight. Starting with RIS .4.8, this is no longer critical.

If Training is disabled, schedule a suborbital for next turn; otherwise you’ll have to wait a turn to schedule it. When you do schedule the suborbital, pull out two more people (only one if Backup is disabled) and assign to Mercury for the orbital. It's much less important to get someone with a Capsule skill of 4 for the orbital, since those crews shouldn't face a duration penalty. (You’ll never face them at

all in RIS .4.8 and 1.0.) Next turn assemble the suborbital, and schedule the orbital—with EVA if the suits are almost ready. If Training is disabled, you'll want to pull people out and assign

them to crews right before scheduling the orbital; otherwise, you’ll have to assign them to crews one turn before scheduling the mission. In RIS .4.7 and earlier, if you didn't have a CA4 to pull out for your suborbital, check to see if there are any now—either in Basic Training or your astronaut pool

—and if so, assign one to Mercury/Vostok.

Next turn assemble the orbital. If you're playing the floppy version and aren’t going to fly shuttles or direct ascent, move on to your next manned program once you accomplish an orbital. Otherwise, schedule a Duration B (again, with EVA if that's ready).

Next turn assemble the Duration B and schedule another, just in case. Repeat until you fly a successful Duration B or suffer a loss of capsule Safety. Your more advanced spacecraft should be nearing completion then; you can switch your people over to it and move on.

* About when you're putting up your first manned missions, it's time to decide which approach you want to take to the Moon. This is probably the single most important decision of the game—no pressure or anything.

If you choose direct ascent or the minishuttles, try for Duration B in the one-man capsule even in the floppy version. Then either focus all your resources on developing the advanced equipment (shuttle, or monster capsule and rocket), or start Gemini/Voskhod and begin saving up for the advanced hardware. Be sure to recruit the second group of 'nauts along the way, since you'll need the larger third group for your three- or four-person crews.

If you're flying Gemini, Voskhod, Soyuz, or Lapot, you'll want to develop boosters and put off Titan/Proton for now. It's awfully expensive to buy that this early, and these craft can go up on a boosted Atlas/R-7[A-Series]. When you're able, develop the Titan/Proton and Ranger/Cosmos (the Atlas/R-7[A-Series] can't launch anything out of orbit, even with boosters). You'll also want to purchase a docking module when you have the funds. Unless you're using Voskhod, be aware that a boosted Atlas/R-7[A-Series] can't lift the spacecraft and DM together, so any docking tests will have to be Joint or (Orbit) missions until your Titan/Proton is ready.

If you're flying Apollo or XMS-2, you'll need to develop the Titan and boosters, since these require at least a boosted Titan. That makes for a difficult hump at this stage of the game since it's rather expensive to develop the spacecraft and the Titan at the same time. The good news is that once you're ready to fly, you should have smoother sailing than if you had chosen the easier start that Gemini offers.

At this stage, what to focus on when really depends on your judgement. This is about when you want to start on your docking modules. DMs can't be researched—you need to test them to boost their reliability. Fly unmanned docking tests until the module reaches at least 55-60% before you try a manned docking. Expect docking tests to net you 5% on average, especially early on. Also don't forget that manned docking is a prestige first, so you'll want to fly that somewhat early if you can get your DM's Safety up faster than your opponent. I find the computer usually beats me to it, though.

Unmanned docking tests can double as dummy flights; this is especially good for Voskhod, since its docking tests can be launched on boosted R-7[A-Series] rockets. Anything else will have to use boosted Titans/Protons—which may not be ready in time—for Single docking tests. So, if you're flying Voskhod, be sure to schedule your dummy tests as Unmanned Docking missions instead of just Unmanned Suborbital/Orbital—that'll net you some big savings.

A related strategy—which works for Gemini, Soyuz, and Lapot—is to fly Joint docking tests, using boosted Atlas/R-7[A-Series]: that will let you test your DM and bring your capsule Safety up a bit while you’re working on Titan/Proton. You can even fly a Joint unmanned docking test, followed by a single Orbital Docking (Orbit). That way your entire second mission will be on one boosted Atlas/R-7[A-Series], and you won't need a second rocket to lift the DM—plus it won't tie up two launch pads. Unfortunately, the second flight will have to be manned, as there are no unmanned (Orbit) missions. Also, if the first mission never achieves orbit—if the launch fails, for instance—the DM won't be there for your (Orbit) test and it will become a simple manned orbital.

If you're flying minishuttles, expect development to take a while. Once researched, XMS-2 (like Apollo) can be very handy for unmanned docking, since it uses the same rocket with or without a DM. Lapot does need a bigger rocket for docking tests, though by itself it will fit on a boosted R-7[A-Series]. One drawback to using shuttles is that you may have trouble affording a second one just now, which limits you to one shuttle launch per turn. Though the game doesn't delete shuttles that have supposedly been destroyed, it does remember not to let you launch the same one twice per turn.

Once Ranger/Cosmos is up and running, you should consider whether to take your unmanned program to the next level with a landing probe. My advice is, generally, fly it in the floppy version and skip it otherwise (and always skip it if you're flying minishuttles or direct ascent). Landing probes research pretty fast, so you don't have to plan them as far in advance as you did the flyby probe—but still, you don't want to be caught suddenly remembering to develop a lander at a time when you should be launching it. Remember also that Surveyor/Luna is good only for Moon landings; you can't send it to a planet. Viking and Venera aren't options here.

You should purchase an LM about midway through the game, generally after your first lunar flyby. Both the one- and two-person module take a long time to research. If you're flying Gemini/Voskhod or XMS-2/Lapot, you'll also need to develop a kicker; that should usually be purchased around the time you start the lunar module.

If you've decided the C-Kicker is the way to go, make sure you DON’T spend money on an LM or an A- or B-Kicker. Purchase the C-Kicker when you have the money (usually around the time you'd buy an LM), research it, and forget about it until the landing. You can't increase its Safety with test flights (unless you count failed landing attempts)—in fact you can't fly it on any mission besides the Soyuz Lunar Landing. So ignore the following paragraphs on LM tests.

You're supposed to get 3 LM Points, which requires three Earth-orbital LM tests, or one Earth-orbital and one lunar-orbital. In the floppy version, lunar LM tests are hazardous, but in the CD version and RIS they're about the same as plain Lunar Orbitals. The game counts an Earth-orbital test as one LM point, and a lunar-orbital as two. If you have fewer than three points, you'll take a penalty on the LM steps of the landing (manual, p. 23). You're docked 3% for each point you're missing, so if you have two points, you lose 3%, but if you have none, you lose the full 9%. Of course this isn't all or nothing; you don't have to commit to either the full testing program or nothing at all—and if your final test doesn't work out, it doesn't have to interrupt your launch schedule. In fact, in the CD version and RIS I usually don't go out of my way to perform any LM tests, though I often do some when I can fit them in. Of course, LM points above three won’t make your landing safer (apart from the extra 1% the LM will get from each test).

If you lose track of where you are on your lander tests, check the L.M. Program building: it will show how many LM points you have, and starting with RIS .4.8, it also shows whether your lander will avoid its next failure. I find LM tests to be the hardest missions to squeeze in; I'm usually a bit short of free launch pads by then and am running out of time. Remember that LM tests are always manned, so you'll need crews for them.

Note that the penalty for skipping these tests applies only to the LM steps of the landing, not the whole mission—so you won't be warned about it in the Future Missions screen. It also means that skipping the tests is far less risky than skipping mission milestones, which dings you on every step and makes a catastrophic failure much more likely. It's often worth skipping LM tests if you're pressed for time, especially in the CD version and RIS. Keep in mind that your LM steps will be more hazardous, and

you may suffer the disappointment of getting there only to turn around and come home—or worse, something may even go seriously wrong. But in my experience the risk is usually acceptable.

Specifically, I've found that if I'm planning to do the Historical Lunar Landing in RIS and the CD Version, I can skip LM tests altogether if need be; the LM penalty doesn't usually affect my landings. It does seem to make a difference on Joint lunar landings, though—especially in the floppy version—so if you're planning to do LOR or EOR, try to get at least 2 points.

It's also worth remembering that LM tests double as docking tests, which is an added bonus to flying them. You can take advantage of this by skipping some of your regular docking in favor of LM tests later on, though a docking failure may mean not getting the LM point you hoped for. The money you save by skipping docking tests can help you develop the Saturn V / N1 [N-1] (without that, LM tests must be Joint missions). But then you have to make sure you do fly your LM tests, or your docking modules will be unreliable.

Before you try a Manned Lunar Pass, there are three milestones you need to worry about. One is the lunar flyby, which should be well behind you by then. The second is a probe landing, which would be helpful (and is important in the floppy version), but in the CD version and RIS I find it's not worth the time and money. The third is a Duration C mission (not actually a milestone but a duration requirement). I’m unlear whether it must be C, or whether a D, E, or F will satisfy the duration requirement. If you've skipped the probe landing, you'll take a suicidal risk without having first completed Duration C. Note: this isn’t an issue in RIS .4.8 and 1.0 since the duration penalty system has been disabled pending a fix.

Likewise, it's important (again, except in RIS .4.8 and 1.0) to have accomplished Duration D before you try a Manned Lunar Orbital—again, I’m unsure whether E or F will satisfy the duration requirement. Luckily, Duration missions in the CD version are pretty safe—except for your first one, due to the "Duration B" Bug. In RIS prior to .4.8, half the time it's like in the CD version and half the time you get a bogus penalty on every duration mission you fly—but starting with .4.8 the duration penalty system is disabled, so all duration missions should now be pretty routine.

To schedule duration missions, I usually select Manned Orbital Duration, with or without EVA. By default, that's only level B—but you can set it to C by turning on 3 pie slices and locking that button before flipping through the available missions—or set it to Duration D by turning on 4 slices, etc. If you don't want a docking or EVA mission—just a straight orbital duration—you may have to flip through to a docking or EVA mission, then flip down. This part of the UI can be finicky.

Once your spacecraft is at (or maybe a point from) Max Safety, it's probably time for the Manned Lunar Pass. If you're flying Gemini/Voskhod or XMS-2/Lapot it's helpful (though completely optional, especially in RIS and the CD version) to do an unmanned pass or orbital first, since that improves the Safety of your kicker. But otherwise I wouldn't worry about lunar dummy tests; they don't affect your chances on a manned pass, except for the usual 1% added by any mission, and the only thing different about a lunar dummy test is that it improves the safety of a kicker, if one is used.

If you're facing more than one penalty on your Manned Lunar Pass, that mission will have a pretty high chance of failure, so expect trouble. Fortunately though, if you have an orbital (without LM test) scheduled for the turn after your lunar pass, and the pass fails, you can downgrade the orbital to a pass and schedule another orbital for next turn.

Once you've had a successful lunar orbital, it's time for the landing. When you're assembling hardware for it, schedule another landing for next turn—just in case the first has to come home empty-handed. I've had many of them fail non-catastrophically for various reasons. I've even had times when my people landed on the surface but couldn't get out due to an EVA failure—they had to lift off and come home! So close, yet so far away... More maddening were the times when the game used a minor injury or step failure as an excuse to deny me credit for a successful landing (where other types of missions would have docked my prestige but given me credit for what the mission accomplished). The last thing you need at a time like that is to know you'll be delayed an entire year because you didn't have a backup mission scheduled. If your first landing does fail, assemble the next one and schedule another. I've had times (especially with the C-Kicker) when I went through several landing attempts before finally succeeding.

—————————————————————————————————————

WHY THE US WON THE SPACE RACE

Could the Soviets have gone to the Moon? Almost certainly. Could they have done it with minimal loss of life? Probably. Could they have done it before 1970? Ah, now there's a question.

So why did the Soviets lose their bid for the Moon? There's a whole variety of reasons, but this would be my take on it.

1. While the US had one central agency planning and coordinating everything, the Soviet space program was split between several military engineering agencies, called design bureaus, that sort of appointed themselves players in the Space Race. In the US, NASA decided which proposal was best and then built it; by contrast, each Soviet bureau would design its own programs and then compete for acceptance of its plan. This approach was wasteful, disorganized, and—since decisions were often made for political reasons—didn't always result in the selection of the best proposals. It wouldn't be too much to say that the Soviets never really got their act together.

2. The USSR wasted considerable effort on political infighting. To simplify things, the three bureaus, from most to least influential, were Korolyov's, Chelomei's, and Yangel's. Yangel was mainly a designer of ICBMs who dabbled in space projects, but Chelomei was a serious contender who actively opposed many of Korolyov's proposals. Khrushchev's son was employed at his bureau, which made Chelomei especially powerful until 1964. Also in the mix was Glushko, the country’s top engine designer—originally he and Korolyov were close friends, but they fell out over the issue of propellants (see #8). They became increasingly bitter enemies over time, and his relationship with Mishin was even worse, possibly because he once publicly insulted Mishin to his face. Glushko eventually arranged a coup where he absorbed Mishin's bureau, revoked his clearance pass rather than let him stay on in a lower-level position, and summarily canceled most of his programs.

To put the game into context, the R-7[A-Series] and N1[N-1] rockets were products of Korolyov’s/Mishin’s bureau; Proton and UR-700[Vulkon] were Chelomei’s. Likewise, Vostok, Voskhod, and Soyuz were Korolyov’s/Mishin’s, while Proton and the UR-700[Vulkon] were Chelomei’s. Lapot, however, was part of the Mikoyan-and-Gurevich design bureau (hence the “MiG” designation), which was an aircraft designer.

3. For the N1, Korolyov was unable to collaborate with Gluskho (as you might expect), so he had to make do with Kuznetsov, whose bureau was new to rockets and couldn’t deliver giant engines. Consequently they had to use 30 on the N1's first stage, compared to 5 on the Saturn V—which made the plumbing very complicated. It was too big to move intact by rail, so it had to be disassembled for transport and reassembled at Baikonur, adding to the chances for things to go wrong. But worst of all, the whole project was starved for funding, even sitting idle while early versions of the Saturn were being tested. Also it was developed without ground testing. That was exceptionally risky, but was necessary because Korolyov couldn't procure the money to build test stands for it. That meant the N1 would undergo "all-up" testing, where the whole stack is tested live—which made the N1 a very expensive firework, especially on its second launch where it destroyed the entire pad. It was close to ready, though, in 1974 when Glushko came in and shut down the N1-L3 program.

4. Korolyov died in surgery in 1966 (hence the newscast about a top Soviet rocket designer dying in surgery). His successor Mishin was a competent engineer but didn't have Korolyov's management skill or political clout. More importantly, he lacked Korolyov's sense of when to insist on what was right and when to give in to what was demanded. He was stubborn and abrasive and alienated other designers. Mishin took the reins at a very difficult time, just as the Soviets were about to have a string of setbacks. This would have been a challenge for the best of managers, but for someone of middling ability it was insurmountable.

5. The Soviets wasted resources in the early days focusing on impressive feats and prestige firsts. One big mistake was Voskhod, which got them the first two-person flight, the first three-person flight (barely), and the first spacewalk (barely), after which it was scrapped. The capsule was basically an expanded Vostok, and in the end it amounted to a dangerous and time-consuming distraction from the development of Soyuz.

6. The USSR took longer to get in the game. Khrushchev at first dismissed Kennedy's Moon speech, assuming it was empty rhetoric. (The Soviets did big projects first and gave speeches about them later, so Kennedy's accouncement sounded hollow to them.) It wasn't until two years later that they woke up and made the lunar landing an official goal. Part of their problem was that the deadline "by the end of the decade" didn't make sense in the Soviet system; they scheduled events to mark anniversaries such as the October Revolution, and each bureau was expected to offer something spectacular as a "gift" to the Party (space firsts made irresistible gift ideas!). Competing with NASA required a shift in perspective—and because the deadline was outside the Soviet way of doing things, it didn't resonate with the higher-ups. So even after making the lunar landing an official goal, the government failed to consistently support it. As late as 1967, the minister of defense declared himself opposed to Moon missions and blocked some funding requests.

7. One big reason why the US won is that it redefined the race. The early Space Race was dominated by the Soviets performing novel and unprecedented feats, but without a well-laid-out plan. It was largely the efforts of a single personality, Korolyov, taking matters into his own hands and then talking his superiors into letting him go ahead. That worked well early on when missions were simple—but didn't lend itself to a major objective like the Moon landing. It also tricked the Americans into thinking they were further behind than they actually were, spurring them into action. Kennedy's solution was to change the Space Race to something the US could beat the Soviets at: a long-term colossal undertaking that would benefit from the US's technological superiority and would require sustained, coordinated effort—which it turned out the USSR wasn't prepared to match.

8. The Soviet space program was dominated by the military, which begrudged funding space ventures, and interfered with the development of rocketry by insisting that space rockets must double as ICBMs. The two have different needs: mainly, cryogenic fuels are better for spaceflight since they're safer, more efficient, and environmentally friendly, while hypergolics are ideal for ICBMs because they're simpler, and easier to store for use at short notice. Korolyov managed to resist some of the military demands while he lived, but his early death made it harder to swim against that current. Other bureaus, particularly Chelomei's and Glushko's, simply built less efficient rockets that were easy to justify to the brass.

9. The effects of military control were made worse because the military fought among itself. The Soviet space program wasn't primarily under control of the Air Force, but of Artillery (which was a separate service) and later the Strategic Rocket Forces, which split off from Artillery. The reason is historical: early on, the Air Force saw missiles as a threat, much like the US Navy saw aircraft carriers before WWII. But Artillery saw them as bigger, better successors to the Katyusha rockets it had used against the Nazis. As a result, Artillery and the Strategic Rocket Forces always had a stranglehold on the space program, preventing the latter from taking advantage of occasional Air Force interest in space. The Air Force did have primary control of the cosmonaut corps, and tried to use it as a lever to gain influence in the space program—further getting in the way of beating the Americans.

10. As if all that weren't enough, the Soviets didn't fund their program as well as the Americans. The US spent around $23 billion on the manned lunar program, while the USSR is estimated to have spent about half that, somewhere around $12-13½ billion, in 1960s dollars (Siddiqi, p. 838). Now, labor and hardware tend to cost less in a command economy, but that still leaves a substantial disparity in what each program had to work with. And of course, the Soviets suffered from the usual production problems of their economy: subcontractors (yes, they had them—bureaus subcontracted work out to each other) often failed to deliver on time, or delivered hardware with faulty or substandard parts. That led to numerous little setbacks over time.

The Soviets' lunar lander, the LK, was almost ready when Apollo 11 touched down, and the lunar Soyuz (L1/LOK) was close: they flew several unmanned L1s around the Moon. With more funding early on, both could have been ready for a 1969 landing. That leaves rocketry, which is trickier. The N1 might have been ready on time if it had received a lot more funding. Or, a landing might have been accomplished using two or more R-7s or Protons for a BARIS-style EOR mission. And yet, these are all very marginal scenarios, especially considering that many of their unmanned lunar passes experienced failures that killed the biological specimens on board, or never reached space at all because the rockets kept failing—the Proton didn't really become flightworthy until 1970, and still isn't man-rated. Even if things had happened differently enough to let the Soviets try a landing, they would have been less prepared for it than the Americans, and would have taken some rather frightening risks when making the attempt.

Among other things, weight restrictions forced a lack of backup systems on the LK. To compensate, the Soviets discussed sending a backup LK to the Moon which could be used if the original failed(!) That introduced the complexity of landing them within EVA distance of each other, which was a lot to expect at the time—and given the limited duration of EVA, this plan didn't lend itself to the proper solemnity of the occasion. In short, while I can realistically imagine a rather hurried Soviet landing, I doubt they'd have made many repeats, and history might have judged them somewhat eclipsed by the more serious, better equipped, and frankly more professional Apollo landings.

Some good sources on this subject are at: http://astronautix.com/articles/whynrace.htm http://www.historyshots.com/space/backstory.cfm

Asif Siddiqi, "Sputnik and the Soviet Space Challenge" and "The Soviet Space Race with Apollo", 2000

I'm always interested in finding additional pointers or observations to add to this guide, and to correct mistakes I've made. If you have any corrections or suggestions, please email me at raceintospace@yahoo.com.

Last Modified: August 24, 2011