[CHAIN ISSUE CONCEPT] Mars Mission Proposed

[Atomic Utopia]

So, I have decided I would like to do a chain issue, why? Well because I am insane. Anyway, I was wondering, what would make a good chain issue, and then it hit me like an orion drive propelled spaceship coming straight from mars. A manned mission to mars issue. It would be valid only for nations with a "keen interest in space".


Now here is the basic, simplified idea, I would like help if that is possible:

First you get a proposal to go to mars, you either accept, dismiss, or defund all space research. Then you get to choose how they will get there, chemical rocket, nuclear thermal rocket, and, of course, orion.

After that things get complicated, if you choose the chemical rocket you will get the option to decide what food to pack, I feel that picking one of them should result in attempting to find a way to get one of them back if they get stranded. If you did not pick the special one you will then decide what things to say in a speech, and then they return.

With the NTR you get to decide what you want to carry extra besides food, this includes a research lab, some rovers, or something else. Then they have an accident with the reactor in flight or something, prompting some intense decision making, and then they land, use ISRU equipment, do some science, and return.

With the Orion you get to decide what you want to carry. This will include rovers, a research lab, and a mining equipment system, or extra fuel and a shot for saturn as a new target due to a magnetic anomaly found in your backyard. The first will result in them going there, doing some science, mining and having an accident if you choose correctly, and then returning.

These are just ideas and if you have any ideas please tell me them. If you would like to join, just post on the thread, I need as much assistance as I can get.

[The Democratic Nation of Unovia]

So, I have decided I would like to do a chain issue, why? Well because I am insane. Anyway, I was wondering, what would make a good chain issue, and then it hit me like an orion drive propelled spaceship coming straight from mars. A manned mission to mars issue. It would be valid only for nations with a "keen interest in space".


Now here is the basic, simplified idea, I would like help if that is possible:

First you get a proposal to go to mars, you either accept, dismiss, or defund all space research. Then you get to choose how they will get there, chemical rocket, nuclear thermal rocket, and, of course, orion.

After that things get complicated, if you choose the chemical rocket you will get the option to decide what food to pack, I feel that picking one of them should result in attempting to find a way to get one of them back if they get stranded. If you did not pick the special one you will then decide what things to say in a speech, and then they return.

With the NTR you get to decide what you want to carry extra besides food, this includes a research lab, some rovers, or something else. Then they have an accident with the reactor in flight or something, prompting some intense decision making, and then they land, use ISRU equipment, do some science, and return.

With the Orion you get to decide what you want to carry. This will include rovers, a research lab, and a mining equipment system, or extra fuel and a shot for saturn as a new target due to a magnetic anomaly found in your backyard. The first will result in them going there, doing some science, mining and having an accident if you choose correctly, and then returning.

These are just ideas and if you have any ideas please tell me them. If you would like to join, just post on the thread, I need as much assistance as I can get.

Sounds fun. This could create a new percentage in Government stats, Research and Development.

[Atomic Utopia]

Sounds fun. This could create a new percentage in Government stats, Research and Development.

I do not believe that the mods will use their modly powers to create such a stat when technological advancement and other such stats would be sufficient to show the effects, though I do agree it would be cool, I feel it would be unnecessary. Now, do you have any ideas? I would like ideas for what astronauts would do on mars and what decisions you would make in relation to that. All ideas are good ideas as long as they are not bad ones.

[The Democratic Nation of Unovia]

Sounds fun. This could create a new percentage in Government stats, Research and Development.

I do not believe that the mods will use their modly powers to create such a stat when technological advancement and other such stats would be sufficient to show the effects, though I do agree it would be cool, I feel it would be unnecessary. Now, do you have any ideas? I would like ideas for what astronauts would do on mars and what decisions you would make in relation to that. All ideas are good ideas as long as they are not bad ones.

There could be a way to include terraforming as a part of the issue chain.

[Atomic Utopia]

I do not believe that the mods will use their modly powers to create such a stat when technological advancement and other such stats would be sufficient to show the effects, though I do agree it would be cool, I feel it would be unnecessary. Now, do you have any ideas? I would like ideas for what astronauts would do on mars and what decisions you would make in relation to that. All ideas are good ideas as long as they are not bad ones.

There could be a way to include terraforming as a part of the issue chain.

This is just a land and plant flag/research, I think colonization would be another can of beans.

[Trotterdam]

First you get a proposal to go to mars, you either accept, dismiss, or defund all space research. Then you get to choose how they will get there, chemical rocket, nuclear thermal rocket, and, of course, orion.

Don't forget electric rockets (nuclear or solar). They're good for longer voyages - I'd definitely prefer them for any mission to Jupiter or beyond, but it's less clear whether they'll pay off when you're going to Mars (which, of course, is good, since it makes it a real choice).

Also, you probably shouldn't use the actual "Orion" name, that was the name of the US research project into nuclear pulse propulsion and probably doesn't exist in the NationStates universe. You'd be doing your own work.

After that things get complicated, if you choose the chemical rocket you will get the option to decide what food to pack,

Exactly what food to pack seems like a rather uninteresting decision compared to scientific objectives/equipment, or even packed-food-only versus onboard hydroponics, or whether or not to send separate automated supply deliveries to Mars to make sure everything you need is set up before you even send the first live astronauts (modular delivery can be easier than a single really big rocket). Finding edible stuff that can be preserved for a few years is something any space agency that can even think about a Mars mission should already have solved.

I feel that picking one of them should result in attempting to find a way to get one of them back if they get stranded. If you did not pick the special one you will then decide what things to say in a speech, and then they return.

That would definitely not depend on just what food you packed. More on how robust the habitat module is.

On which note, you'd need to think about how long you want to stay - the Apollo astronauts only made brief spacesuited excursions onto the moon, but it's only three days away. Mars is 8-9 months of travel unless you can manage a really good rocket (certainly not chemical), so if you're bothering to go there you're probably planning to poke around for longer than an hour. Days, months, years?

or extra fuel and a shot for saturn as a new target due to a magnetic anomaly found in your backyard.

I love Saturn (its rings are beautiful, the planet itself is pretty sleek too, Titan is the most Earthlike place in the solar system after Earth itself in many respects, and Enceladus is at least as promising as Europa when it comes to liquid water), but that opens so many possibilities that it oversteps the bounds of the narrative. It's too awesome to treat as an afterthought.

I would like ideas for what astronauts would do on mars and what decisions you would make in relation to that.

• In-situ scientific research (geologic, atmospheric, trying to learn more about either the planet's history or its current environment) with a variety of tools.
• Sample return (a major contribution of the Apollo missions, less exciting if you can carry equipment for in-situ study with you but still worthwhile since there'll always be more thorough equipment on Earth).
• Trying to build a long-term sustainable habitat, allowing you to keep sending more researchers and equipment without needing to reinvent the wheel every time. Possible eventual goal of making it self-sustaining enough to not need supplies from home at all anymore and have a permanent local community, but you probably wouldn't get there before the storyline ends, and you can still build a pretty impressive base without that.
• Trying to develop infrastructure for mining and processing local resources, probably for use in the aforementioned habitat and/or for manufacturing rocket fuel for the return trip.
• Trying to build some sort of economically-profitable endeavor? I dunno, I don't think there are any economically-valuable resources on Mars. In-situ resource utilization is one thing, but I don't think there's anything there other than research samples and the astronauts themselves that would be worth the cost of bringing back (even if there's something that's valuable enough that it's more profitable to bring from space than to mine on Earth, asteroids are probably more economic target for such ventures).
• Err, any military uses? I don't think there's any military advantage to setting up camp lightminutes from any of your enemies or strategic resources.
• At least one kind of evil/despotic/corrupt purpose, somehow. You know how much NationStates players love those.

[Vajorr]

Considering that it took the mods several years to put the only chain issue together, I don't think this will happen for some time. But great idea though!

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

Let's not forget several other choices that would occur in the chain, if in the first issue the leader defunds the space program.

What if a private company declares it is to send people to Mars?
Or a region-wide space agency of some kind?
Or a major rival in the region (say Bigtopia sends an astronaut onto Mars)- I like this particular one because, if we do it right, the chain could end with a skirmish between machine-gun armed astronauts on Mars.
Maybe the nation could pray that somebody else goes to Mars, or just gives support like catering or logistics.

All in all, I like this idea.

[Trotterdam]

Then you get to choose how they will get there, chemical rocket, nuclear thermal rocket, and, of course, orion.

After that things get complicated, if you choose the chemical rocket you will get the option to [...]

With the NTR you get to decide [...]

With the Orion you get to decide what you want to carry. [...]

One important thing: do you want a diverging or converging storyline?

It would be easiest if your choice of engine affects your stats and then maybe gives you another topical option or two, but then merges back into the same storyline on the basis that, no matter how you got to Mars, there you are now.

What you're describing now is giving each choice of engine its own story branch, that's tailored to that engine, and possibly never reintegrates, or only does so at the very end. This allows the length/potential of the storyline to vary based on the available resources on a spacecraft of that type, but it also means repeating yourself a lot as each path deals with approximately the same issues in its own way, which would bloat the number of issues needed.

Also, engine choices shouldn't just be "bad/good/best". Each, even chemical, should have its own advantages and disadvantages beyond just being cheap. Otherwise it's not an interesting choice.

[Pearl Land]

So, I have decided I would like to do a chain issue, why? Well because I am insane. Anyway, I was wondering, what would make a good chain issue, and then it hit me like an orion drive propelled spaceship coming straight from mars. A manned mission to mars issue. It would be valid only for nations with a "keen interest in space".


Now here is the basic, simplified idea, I would like help if that is possible:

First you get a proposal to go to mars, you either accept, dismiss, or defund all space research. Then you get to choose how they will get there, chemical rocket, nuclear thermal rocket, and, of course, orion.

After that things get complicated, if you choose the chemical rocket you will get the option to decide what food to pack, I feel that picking one of them should result in attempting to find a way to get one of them back if they get stranded. If you did not pick the special one you will then decide what things to say in a speech, and then they return.

With the NTR you get to decide what you want to carry extra besides food, this includes a research lab, some rovers, or something else. Then they have an accident with the reactor in flight or something, prompting some intense decision making, and then they land, use ISRU equipment, do some science, and return.

With the Orion you get to decide what you want to carry. This will include rovers, a research lab, and a mining equipment system, or extra fuel and a shot for saturn as a new target due to a magnetic anomaly found in your backyard. The first will result in them going there, doing some science, mining and having an accident if you choose correctly, and then returning.

These are just ideas and if you have any ideas please tell me them. If you would like to join, just post on the thread, I need as much assistance as I can get.

I didn't read yet, but based on the title, this sounds fun. I love the space.

[Rivercastle]

You mean something like that?

1. Whether to go to space or not
2. Some funding difficulties
3. Scientific/Military?

If Scientific, then:

1. Seek expertise of other countries(fear that they might steal your research)
2. Research into nuclear engines?
3. Lack of suitable launching sites in @@NAME@@
4. Test flight failed spectacularly, citizens unwilling to continue
5. Ran out of funding
6. Successful test flight, found minerals on asteroid/rocky planet or moon - Extract?
7. Ran out of fuel while transporting stuff back, astronauts stuck in space - Rescue?

If Military, then:

1. Research?
2. Other nations voice concern, threaten to shoot down your spacecraft if it launches
3. If continue with launch, shot down - Offer choice whether to continue with military (4)
4. If not, military pulls out funding; offer chance to switch to science
5. If the answer is yes in (3), successful launch against the odds.
6. ???

Frankly I'm not really sure how this will work out.

[Wisconsin9]

Then you get to choose how they will get there, chemical rocket, nuclear thermal rocket, and, of course, orion.

After that things get complicated, if you choose the chemical rocket you will get the option to [...]

With the NTR you get to decide [...]

With the Orion you get to decide what you want to carry. [...]

One important thing: do you want a diverging or converging storyline?

It would be easiest if your choice of engine affects your stats and then maybe gives you another topical option or two, but then merges back into the same storyline on the basis that, no matter how you got to Mars, there you are now.

What you're describing now is giving each choice of engine its own story branch, that's tailored to that engine, and possibly never reintegrates, or only does so at the very end. This allows the length/potential of the storyline to vary based on the available resources on a spacecraft of that type, but it also means repeating yourself a lot as each path deals with approximately the same issues in its own way, which would bloat the number of issues needed.

Also, engine choices shouldn't just be "bad/good/best". Each, even chemical, should have its own advantages and disadvantages beyond just being cheap. Otherwise it's not an interesting choice.

Chemical rockets aren't actually a bad idea for Mars, since you can produce fuel on-site instead of having to haul it with you from Earth. That could be worked into the chain, actually--if you go with chemical rockets, then instead of just deciding on what food to pack you get to, I dunno, send something to another planet or something.

[Trotterdam]

Chemical rockets aren't actually a bad idea for Mars, since you can produce fuel on-site instead of having to haul it with you from Earth.

That also applies to nuclear-thermal. The fissile material itself can't easily be replaced, but then you shouldn't need to (nuclear submarines can have reactors that are completely sealed because they go online already containing enough fuel for the submarine's service lifespan). The propellant - the stuff you're using your nuclear reaction to heat up and throw out the back of the rocket - is much more easily replaceable, possibly moreso than the volatile chemical reactants needed for a chemical rocket.

Propellant for an electric thruster probably needs to be a somewhat more exotic element, but might still be produceable.

Refuelling a nuclear pulse propulsion craft onsite is ludicrous, of course :)

[Wisconsin9]

Chemical rockets aren't actually a bad idea for Mars, since you can produce fuel on-site instead of having to haul it with you from Earth.

That also applies to nuclear-thermal. The fissile material itself can't easily be replaced, but then you shouldn't need to (nuclear submarines can have reactors that are completely sealed because they go online already containing enough fuel for the submarine's service lifespan). The propellant - the stuff you're using your nuclear reaction to heat up and throw out the back of the rocket - is much more easily replaceable, possibly moreso than the volatile chemical reactants needed for a chemical rocket.

Propellant for an electric thruster probably needs to be a somewhat more exotic element, but might still be produceable.

Refuelling a nuclear pulse propulsion craft onsite is ludicrous, of course

It might be best to write off electric thrust systems for this. They're fine for probes, but for a manned Mars mission they'd either need to be way more advanced than they are now, there'd need to be a lot of them, or it would be a very long trip. Nothing we can do about problem one, and the longer the trip is the more likely it is that something will go horribly wrong. For our purposes, I think we need to limit it to chemical, nuclear, or nuclear-thermal.

Either that, or have it as an option that ends the chain with the entire crew dying horribly.

[Trotterdam]

Another concern for deep space travel, if you want to be realistic about it, is radiation hazard from cosmic rays. There are two approaches: either wrap your spaceship in matter to absorb the rays (water, plastics, and other lightweight hydrogen-rich materials are ideal), or actively project and electromagnetic field to deflect particles, which weighs less (by itself) but is more technically complicated, requires a lot of electricity, and shuts down if something goes wrong. A third way sometimes mentioned in science fiction is to use some sort of medicine or genetic engineering to boost the human body's resistance to ionizing radiation. Or for a fourth choice, you could just not bother and accept a 5% chance of your astronauts dying from cancer as part of the cost of doing science. I mean, there's a 95% chance they'll be totally fine, right?

It might be best to write off electric thrust systems for this. They're fine for probes, but for a manned Mars mission they'd either need to be way more advanced than they are now, there'd need to be a lot of them, or it would be a very long trip.

Nuclear-electric has been proposed by NASA and other credible authorities as a means of reaching Mars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket#Mars_in_39_days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars#MARPOST_.282000.2F2005.29
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/15/nasa_nuclear_rocket_report/?page=2

Electric thrust isn't exactly "slower" than chemical or nuclear-thermal. Rather (roughly translating into familiar terms), it can reach a higher top speed, but has low acceleration, so it needs to be going for a while to reach its maximum speed. By contrast, chemical and nuclear-thermal rockets will quickly empty large chunks of their fuel tanks in short time periods (basically, one big burst of acceleration when departing Earth, coasting for a while, and another big burst of acceleration to stop at Mars). The need for an electric thruster to take time building up speed makes it poorly suited for very short missions, like to our own moon, but interplanetary travel takes long enough anyway that the higher top speed of electrical engines constitutes a significant improvement (and the farther away you want to go, the bigger the improvement).

Solar-electric (rather than nuclear-electric) is less impressive, unsurprisingly, but while I would need to crunch some numbers, I think it's probably viable for a Mars mission, though maybe not with enough benefit to be worth the effort.

I should note that electric thrusters' low acceleration mean that whatever benefit they may have for interplanetary travel, they are completely unsuitable for launch-to-orbit. Even nuclear-thermal is borderline in that regard, with many blueprints having just a little less heft than they need fight gravity. Nuclear pulse propulsion, on the other lead-gauntleted hand, is quite effective at launching into orbit, provided you don't mind your launching pad becoming a radioactive wasteland.

It is likely, therefore, that regardless of what propulsion method your interplanetary spaceship uses, getting it and the astronauts into orbit in the first place will be done using chemical rockets.

I'm quite sure solar sails are way too slow for a crewed mission.

Another possibility that may or may not be worth including: one of those scientifically-questionable crackpot propulsion devices that have only been tested under suspect conditions but various independent inventors keep insisting are totally far more effective than all those stupid mainstream scientists have managed and so please give me money. You know the type.

Aerobraking can be useful to help you brake on arrival without expending propellant (more or less cutting the cost of a return trip in half), but it carries a significant mass and complexity costs in thermal shielding to survive the maneuver, which may not be worth the savings.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

Sign me up. I would love to help co-author a chain and, ironically, I know a ton of stuff about Mars (had to write a 60 page paper on it for a class a while ago). If you would like, I would like to draft the issues dealing with what happens when the nation, or whoever, lands on Mars. If you want to know more on what I can do to help, TG me and I'll let you know.

[Trotterdam]

Sign me up. I would love to help co-author a chain and, ironically, I know a ton of stuff about Mars

There's nothing ironic about that.

If you would like, I would like to draft the issues dealing with what happens when the nation, or whoever, lands on Mars. If you want to know more on what I can do to help, TG me and I'll let you know.

Well, we're trying to sketch out possibilities and make a flowchart before working on individual issue texts.

Given the complexity of a chain issue, it's probably best to discuss it in the open. Yes, you might want to avoid giving out spoilers, but chain issues are challenging enough that it's really more valuable to give everyone a chance to help.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

who's all going to be involved with drafting the issue, or hasn't that been settled yet?

Personally, I think a 'Space Race to Mars' concept would be easier to deal with because that way there is some sort of competition and later on can lead to more evolved concepts.

[Trotterdam]

who's all going to be involved with drafting the issue, or hasn't that been settled yet?

I would assume the thread starter (Atomic Utopia) intends to take a leadership role. I'm waiting to hear from him again.

Beyond that, we're currently operating on an "anyone who has two cents on the subject can chip in", and will continue to do so until told otherwise.

Personally, I think a 'Space Race to Mars' concept would be easier to deal with because that way there is some sort of competition and later on can lead to more evolved concepts.

Whether to cooperate with other nations' space programs, or snub them and try to get to Mars first all on your own to prove your technological superiority, could be an early choice in the chain.

A race has weaknesses as a narrative because who are you racing? In the real-life space race, there were significant preexisting tensions between the USA and USSR that motivated them to want to show each other up. I don't think a random country made up specifically for this chain and that you otherwise have no meaningful rivalry with would be an interesting opponent to compete against, unless you're an evil dictator who hates the rest of the world or something.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

A race has weaknesses as a narrative because who are you racing? In the real-life space race, there were significant preexisting tensions between the USA and USSR that motivated them to want to show each other up. I don't think a random country made up specifically for this chain and that you otherwise have no meaningful rivalry with would be an interesting opponent to compete against, unless you're an evil dictator who hates the rest of the world or something.

What about Brazilistan? I mean, you do terrible stuff to the nation in the first chain. I think that that leads to rivalry.

[Wisconsin9]

A race has weaknesses as a narrative because who are you racing? In the real-life space race, there were significant preexisting tensions between the USA and USSR that motivated them to want to show each other up. I don't think a random country made up specifically for this chain and that you otherwise have no meaningful rivalry with would be an interesting opponent to compete against, unless you're an evil dictator who hates the rest of the world or something.

What about Brazilistan? I mean, you do terrible stuff to the nation in the first chain. I think that that leads to rivalry.

Aren't there a few endings where you've basically annihilated, decimated, and/or annexed them? Doesn't really leave much room for competition. I'd just go with Bigtopia.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

What about Brazilistan? I mean, you do terrible stuff to the nation in the first chain. I think that that leads to rivalry.

Aren't there a few endings where you've basically annihilated, decimated, and/or annexed them? Doesn't really leave much room for competition. I'd just go with Bigtopia.

True, but Bigtopia hasn't really been hostile to your nation. Wezeltonia (probably spelled wrong) actually invaded your nation and you had to deal with them. They would make a good opponent because the angle that they will re-invade from space could be put into place.

[Wisconsin9]

Aren't there a few endings where you've basically annihilated, decimated, and/or annexed them? Doesn't really leave much room for competition. I'd just go with Bigtopia.

True, but Bigtopia hasn't really been hostile to your nation. Wezeltonia (probably spelled wrong) actually invaded your nation and you had to deal with them. They would make a good opponent because the angle that they will re-invade from space could be put into place.

Bigtopia seems more like a Cold War sort of enemy, though, since IIRC they've pulled shit like spying and attempting assassinations instead of all-out war.

Hmm... you know, either way, we could throw in a militarization option. The nuclear pulse propulsion, maybe. "After recent legislation, foreign governments are denouncing @@NATION@@'s use of nuclear weapons in their Mars program."

[Luna Amore]

Aren't there a few endings where you've basically annihilated, decimated, and/or annexed them? Doesn't really leave much room for competition. I'd just go with Bigtopia.

True, but Bigtopia hasn't really been hostile to your nation. Wezeltonia (probably spelled wrong) actually invaded your nation and you had to deal with them. They would make a good opponent because the angle that they will re-invade from space could be put into place.

You could also completely invent a nation. I wouldn't worry about the specific name.

[Atomic Utopia]

who's all going to be involved with drafting the issue, or hasn't that been settled yet?

I would assume the thread starter (Atomic Utopia) intends to take a leadership role. I'm waiting to hear from him again.

I do not think who is going to be doing this issue is not decided yet, heck, we still do not have a proper flowchart down, less a proper team. Sorry for not posting anything in response, I had school, and using a phone to write up a post is really hard, especially anything in depth.

Beyond that, we're currently operating on an "anyone who has two cents on the subject can chip in", and will continue to do so until told otherwise.

And it seems to have worked quite well so far, thanks for all the advice from everyone, I have so many ideas of my own that I would like you to critique, come to think of this this post will be a tad long.

---

My thoughts on various things that have been said, please comment on them.

Nuclear electric definitely needs to be added, obviously a chemical booster would be used, however having the reactor have problems and what not midway would make for some fun mcgivering to command.

Orion, I feel, would need to be ground launched to take full effect of it's advantages, you might have a chemical booster stage to get it off of the pad, but it should start in atmosphere due to the fact that it has a higher efficiency in atmosphere than in space, now obviously the orion would be powered by a nuclear reactor, thus I wonder if we could re-use the reactor malfunction from the Nuclear Electric option as an issue for that.

Nuclear thermal I think should be added, with a bimodal NTR. However, due to differences in design, the NTR would not be compatible with a one issue reactor issue I feel, and thus would either need it's own reactor issue or have no reactor problems at all.

The advantages to a chemical rocket would be a lack of research needed, plain and simple. Chemical rockets are good off the shelf, but otherwise they are pretty lame.

The reason I mentioned food is because if you did not include some un-irradiated food your stranded guy would not be able to make it back, but having thought more about that, I think your idea of hab design would be better, how do you think the issue for that could be laid out?

I was thinking what would happen first would be a series of decisions on what probes to send there and what to look for, thus affecting future issues (if you did not search for water ISRU would be impossible, no search for life cuts out the life finding issue, etc.). This would create a more realistic feel than just a land and plant with no foreknowledge of what you are dealing with. It also allows for story development.

Now, about the branching vs converging issues. I think that we could do both. From what I understand, options can have validities, and thus the options in our issues could have validities to themselves, for example, choosing the orion allows you some extra speed and mass when dealing with cosmic radiation, thus allowing you to take the "armour the heck out of it" option. This would also mean that all kinds of fun things could be done, not choosing a lander with an RTG could remove the RTG heating option for the stranded guy, adding a reactor could add other options for ISRU and so on. Thus I believe we could do both at the same time. So basically it reintegrates and does not dependant upon what you choose, though this idea would require quite a bit of flowchart work.

Now, for that idea about a space race? Why not have an insane general say that they need to either endure the red planet is an ally against the "capitalist pig dogs", or to fight the "commie menace" and thereby prevent more planets from "going red" dependant upon if you are a capitalist or socialist nation. It would be funny and allow for a few battles or tense standoffs dependant upon the options taken. I could be otherthinking this though.