Kaos

May 8, 2017

Isn't the reason for half the suggestions forum "What would you like to see added to KSP"? I mean besides development discussions.

What I would like: More flexible game modes; life support; better system for planetary bases.

May 6, 2017

A part that can firmly connect to planet and moon ground and that connects to all of these parts that are not further away than 20m. So you can build a colony without complicated interconnections that are not fun to place but only need time. And cause bugs with bigger colonies.
Life support parts

January 30, 2016

This effect is especially low, if you are fast relative to the distance.

January 30, 2016

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

Still, the main cost is spacecraft when making a planetary mission, not launcher. And NASA's Better Faster Cheaper is pretty much dead, so you would need to do that high quality control. And even if you didn't, it'd be cheaper just to build a few expensive 1billion Mars "hoppers" with Falcon Heavies, to many different locations, than a hundred rovers, to many different locations.

And why do you need those in the first place? We didn't land on the moon by first lnpanding hundreds of rovers on the moon. Orbiters are good enough, and give you a glimpse on what each Mars site is like.

Orbiters cannot drill to see what is beneath the surface. A series of few hoppers would also work, but need more time. Regardless of which, they would help to see where are better locations for resource gathering, hence where could the base reduce the necessary material input as easy as possible.

I do not see where the cheaper approach is dead, considering the growing numbers of cubesats.

And indeed: For a landing the preceding rovers are not necessary. But they would increase the chance to stay, at least if it is possible to stay, which is admittedly disputed.

January 30, 2016

29 minutes ago, Knaapie said:

Still rubbish. Even if you'd want to mine most resources on Antarctica it would still be cheaper and easier than mining on mars. There is enough oil there to simulate the cheap way of living we are used to. (just need to lift the drilling ban).

...

If you drill oil and trade it for your supplies, I would not count if self sustainable. It might be economical lucrative, yes, but it does not supply itself with the required ressources. And every equippment you bring to antarctica has to be unburried once in a while and capable to survive the long arctic nights. Unless you count the very most northern parts of antarctica, these are much simpler anyway.

The point of cheap trade is precisely why these kind of colonies do not happen on earth: Trade is cheaper. Even where selfsufficient colonies were possible, we go there for drilling or digging and bring the ressources back and supply from the home base. Trying to build a self-sustained colony on earth first would be a useful preparation step. We could reuse Biosphere 2 for example. But this time we should try to live self-sustained there and not try to cultivate 6 different biozones there with 8 people

January 30, 2016

Alone aerocapture of such a big object will take ages (mass is cubed with radius, area, hence braking is only squared with radius). Hence, you will have only very little control over where it will finally go down. Also will a 1 km chunk have apocalyptic impact even if it goes down in Antarctica.

January 30, 2016

10 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Rubbish. Heat is the least of your worries. On Mars, the air isn't breathable. The soil is toxic. There is cosmic radiation and low gravity. You rely on technology just to be able to breath and get drinking water. And you 6 months away from any supplies. It's orders of magnitude harder than surviving in Antarctica.

We don't know how difficult getting water from Mars is. Then you have to purify it to remove all the perchlorates and then you have to add the minerals that we actually rely upon to live. Those minerals have to come from somewhere, so do the consumables, chemicals, and other supplies. And if any of that water supply chain breaks down, you're dead.

You said yourself that the atmosphere is extremely thin. That actually means that sandstorms are not that huge and that you can't rely on wind for power. It's going to have to be solar or nuclear.

Indeed I was not precise: By surviving I meant surviving and producing most of your supplies at the location. Of course surviving in Antarctica is easier as long as you plan to import nearly all of your supplies.

Water can be found on Mars and the water recycling system of the ISS should be able to purify it (splits the water to hydrogen and oxygen, recombines it to pure water). The minerals can be imported in the first years from earth, later produced locally on Mars.

As the water supply chain is one of the most crucial parts, every thing of it should be there multiple times and a large storage should be in the base, too. I would consider water for 10 earth years (= 100 t per crew member, based on 27 l consumption per astronaut from a NASA measurement) a reasonable amount, which can also double as 5 m radiation shield over an area of 20 m^2 per astronaut and as algae tank for food production.

The main problem with the sand storms is the reduction of sunlight. But on the other hand the wind speed in sand storms is at least 20 m/s (otherwise the particles would fall down). Wind energy scales cubed with the speed, hence 20 m/s of the 0,4% Mars atmosphere deliver the same as 5 m/s in earth atmosphere. 5 m/s is not a great speed for wind power on earth, but still ok. So for backup power it would help. Of course a bigger variety of power sources would be better (power storage, geothermal (or how this is called on Mars), nuclear, ...) and in times with no dust storm solar is the dominant supply or at least it dwarfs wind energy then.

Allow me an additional question: Do you consider it doable (in current NASA budget or another "reasonable"* budget) to supply 3 people on Mars only with supplies from Earth? Because this plan would fail completely if that is not possible, as it is build on reducing supplies slowly instead of magically putting a self-sustaining colony on Mars.

* I have put the "reasonable" in quotes, as it is of course only reasonable if such kind of Mars base is a goal. I would for example prefer a fleet of rovers for pure scientific reasons before. And some autonomous infrastructure to test some of the resource gathering. Afterwards I think a Mars base and ultimately a Mars colony should be a goal but regardless whether it should be a goal we can discuss whether it is feasible.

January 30, 2016

23 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Do you have any idea how much 100 spirit rovers would cost? 40 Billion, each rover is 400 million. Granted, mass production reduces that, but still. Good luck with the funding.

I did not write 100 spirit rovers, I wrote Spirit sized rovers. The costs of Spirit were that high because of dense analyzing components, development and extra high quality control, because a single rover may simply not fail. I belief that with restricting to base functionality (driving and scanning for resources) the costs per rover can be lowered to 10 million per rover with 500 million development cost for the program. And 50 of the 400 million for the launch convert to 4 million per rover in the Delta IV Heavy case or to 3 million per rover in the Falcon Heavy case.

And if 10 rovers fail because of reduced quality control it will be still more rovers for less money, hence worth it.

January 30, 2016

My KSP rockets also burn often continuously until the orbit is circular. Especially when the upper stage has a low TWR for full reusable interplanetary missions.

January 30, 2016

On 16.1.2016 at 11:42 AM, Ralathon said:

...

Be careful in assuming that a Mars base will grow over time. Once the romance wears off I doubt many people want to go. Same reason that we aren't seeing mass migrations to the antarctic, even though that's doable for a much lower cost.

I think it is cheaper to go to Antarctica than to Mars, but it is easier to survive on Mars than on Antarctica. Whatever you build on Antarctica must be temperature isolated against a thick cold atmosphere, while the atmosphere on Mars is very cold but much thinner, hence you loose much less heat there. On most locations you have the problem that you have to dig yourself out once in a while, that simply does not happen on Mars. On Mars you have sunlight every day, but in the huge sandstorms. But then you have wind. So a combination of solar and wind will always give you power. Solar will go down up to 20% if you let sit the solar cells around and do not care, but at least you get the 20% year round. Then collecting resources from the ground is simpler on Mars, unless for water, but that is still not difficult on Mars.

On the other hand I agree with you that some Mars colonization plans are far too optimistic. A Mars colony has to be well prepared and there will be problems and not everyone on Earth will want to go there. Mass migration is also something I do not expect to happen soon, even if a colony on Mars would be a flawless success.

While I am unsure whether we manage to construct a Mars colony I belief it is possible: Starting with a big amount of Spirit sized rovers to search for resources on various locations on Mars (some 20 per launch of a Delta IV Heavy or 40 per Falcon Heavy) we should send about 100 of them. Then one should construct the settlement more like a base than like a colony: Fix an amount of people you can safely supply from earth and bring back in case of problems. 3 will suffice in my opinion and is doable within 20% of current NASA budget. The base will set up stuff (witch itself is at first imported from earth) to supply more colonists on Mars. If you can get all your water locally you will reduce your mass requirement per crew member by 90%. Together with food and oxygen even by 95%. So the first couple of years your growth will be mainly restricted by the constraint to have enough return capabilities there. Over some years you can build up a base of 30-60 people with that technique. From there you can start bootstrapping industry. I have also some idea about the order which might be useful, but that would be quite lengthy and contribute only very little to the topic, so I skip that for the moment.

Of course this plan is vulnerable to vanishing funding in the meantime, hence I am unsure whether we manage while I am sure it is possible. And of course not everybody will like to live in that kind of base/colony. But I am sure we will at least find some 1000 who do. Compared to worlds population that is by far not many, but still enough.

This plan has a sure supply at every time and a return plan in case of emergencies. In case of some fancy cheaper transport possibilities for Mars to appear (rockets just tanked and reflown, high thrust high Isp propulsion systems, teleportation, ...) I would stick to essentially the same plan, just a little bit upscaled.

For the discussion itself: I prefer not thinking of you being pessimistic but to point out possible problems and warn in case of too optimistic plans. A role I consider to be very important in every discussion and which is in my opinion often not honored enough. So if you or someone else see any shortcomings in my plan I would really like you to point them out, so I can go into more detail, fix it or realize that the plan is flawed. As we all do not know "the truth" I try to be open to all that possibilities.

January 29, 2016

25 minutes ago, shynung said:

I fail to see how the former and the latter can coexist. Care to enlighten me?

The highlighted things do not coexist, which is my point. There were two possibilities under discussion:

Low energy transfers -- utilizing gravity assistance on complicated flight path

Low thrust propulsion with a vast amount of orbits only using short burns in each orbit for not having to pay the factor of 1.5 for the Delta-v requirements

Low energy transfers are faster and more efficient than the vast amount of orbits to compensate low thrust. Hence, I would prefer the low energy transfers.

January 29, 2016

5 hours ago, fredinno said:

Time to transfer barely matters for supply/unmanned craft, as they aren't carrying the crew, which is much more vulnerable to radiation. Seriously, the only reason you'd want to choose high thrust over high efficiency is when you carry crew (which is why should always make the crewed ship as small as possible) or during the Martian style emergencies.

I would prefer the faster and more efficient low energy transfers over a vast amount of orbits. Trajectories which are faster and more efficient should always be preferred. Even if time would not matter at all, the better efficiency makes it worth.

January 28, 2016

I like to see the Feynman-Stueckelberg-interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle#Feynman.E2.80.93Stueckelberg_interpretation as reason: Positrons are electrons moving backwards in time. Hence their interaction is time-reversed, but otherwise the same. It is disputed in how far this relates to reality and in how far it is just a mathematical feasable description, but if it is so, it is a quite good reason.

January 28, 2016

20 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

If your fuel leaks into the cabin you're dead no matter what type it is, seeing as it might be a bit more difficult to get back to earth without fuel.

Also the ASTP incident was caused by RCS fuel used for re-entry. Are you suggesting we use NERVA's for attitude control?

[/sarcasm]

On a free return trajectory you can get back to earth without fuel. That is why I would prefer this kind of trajectory.

January 28, 2016

2 hours ago, Albert VDS said:

It all depends on the TWR the more efficient propulsion has. Sure ion has a too low TWR and would take ages, but something like NERVA could do the transger with 2 or 3 burns, which might end up just adding a few days. Which is not a lot over a 6-9 month trip.

I was speaking about low thrust systems, not about high Isp systems. I would not consider NERVA a typical low thrust system.

Indeed can the technique of multiple orbits compensate a little too small TWR. But it has its limits.

January 28, 2016

3 hours ago, Albert VDS said:

But that means you can negate the loses if you do shorter burns and multiple orbits.

Yes, but then you need incredible many orbits and a vast amount of time. For that I would suggest low-energy transfer, it needs also a lot time, but much less than the necessary amount of orbits and can be combined with any propulsion system. Of course they are not well-suited for manned transfers, because they still need too much time, but for supplies they might help.

January 27, 2016

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

No, it's more like 1.5x. http://i.imgur.com/SqdzxzF.png

Ion is still better in ISP, and the tech is better understood.

Thank you for the link; I knew the graphics but I did not realize the number. But I find that statement rarely believable that it is a constant factor of 1.5, as it depends on the masses of the planets. Guess I should try to compute the numbers some day

January 27, 2016

11 minutes ago, Blaarkies said:

Do you mean uneven ratio between LF en OX in a tank?(after full burn, theres always some LF left...or OX left)
Or do you mean like filling spaceplane fueltanks, resulting in you left wing having slightly more fuel?

I hate both, but they can be avoided with a small "measurement cup" fuel tank.

I meant the spaceplane like case, but for rockets. Center of mass not equal center of force is in both cases annoying. But the other is problematic as well, yes.

I know the measurement cup trick, but that is ugly, time consuming and easily forgotten. Just recently I decided to simply burn quarter of my fuel until everything fits in one tank, because it was a fully equipped ISRU lander with then still enough fuel for landing and this was the most simple solution. Further I had forgotten to include a measurement tank. And if burning through fuel just to get rid of it is the most simple and time efficient solution and has no drawbacks, some changes of the program might be useful

January 27, 2016

Setting these values for every rocket or stage would help, yes. I would prefer if one could set this not only on construction, but also in flight, also for redistributing fuel in the tanks. Right now unless one completely fills or empties the tanks, uneven filling is unavoidable when refueling in flight. Hence, in refueled rockets one easily gets imbalanced propulsion.

January 27, 2016

13 hours ago, Albert VDS said:

How would it waste fuel if the propulsion is more efficient but takes longer to do a burn than chemical rockets?
Also, the optimal time to get a escape trajectory would be taken in to account with any burn time, specially with a long burn.

Because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect adding to the Delta-v of a high thrust system but not for a low thrust system. I did not do the calculations myself, but I have read that a transfer from Earth to Mars needs about double the Delta-v with a low thrust than with a high thrust propulsion. Hence, a low thrust system would need more than two times the Isp to give any advantage.

January 27, 2016

11 hours ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

I mentioned this a while back, and I think it would add a lot more fun to science mode. The answer I got was to do career mode with all the money cranked up, which seems like a decent option, though one I have yet to try. Just recently I was digging around in the cfg files looking for a way to do this but I'm not too familiar with the code, and it is probably hard coded anyway. I wonder if ModuleManager could do it...

Just to pile more on, I'd like World Firsts in sci-mode as well, just to feel like I'm progressing and unlocking a bit more science Again though, career mode with money set to upper limits would do this well. Hmmm I may just try it today...

I tried that. It works ok, but I wished there was a mode to bind your building upgrade to your science progress. The next time I will try to determine building costs in terms of science points and reserve an amount of science points not to spend for upgraded buildings to simulate this behavior.

January 27, 2016

When strategies were included, I used them sometimes. But they turned out to be either overpowered or useless for my games, so I decided not to use them until the system is more balanced or reworked. I did not try them since then. Your suggestion would make them worth trying again and likely more balanced.

January 26, 2016

I cannot remember damaging something of KSC unless doing it on purpose.

Leveled damage on parts would be a nice thing, though. More jobs for engineers, if they can repair some of the damage

January 26, 2016

I think an abandoned astronaut would be even worse.

For the idea: I wish there was more reason to use kerbals and less to use probes. Your idea would make it even more extreme. Making time expensive would be a nice thing on the other hand. Why not combine: Probes need money (for the controller personal at KSC) and kerbals do not bill for the time (the simply love to go to space).

On the other hand this is still unbalanced, as there is no income over time and it is to consider what happens when you are bankrupt; starting with contracts again might be complicated if your probes cost time.

January 26, 2016

I also really want to see that, which is why I have a more general suggestion in my signature.

Profiles

Forums

Developer Articles

KSP2 Release Notes

Bug Reports

Posts posted by Kaos