• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

76 Excellent

About Domfluff

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The new stuff is on Nertea's Github, but it's not released formally yet (or supported) and is liable to break or change with no notice. I don't know if Nertea appreciates linking directly to it from here, but it's a quick Google away.
  2. This kind of decision is always an odd balancing act - perhaps it's best to have the default behaviour being whatever you think is best, but the "USI patch" brings this into line with Roverdude's mechanics? Similar to the logic that Roverdude's reactors become the more complex Near Future reactors when both are installed - Nertea's reactors are more explicitly modelled, so there's a logic in making the simple reactors more complex, rather than gutting the complex ones, or having two vastly different reactors with essentially the same output, but different mechanics.
  3. Osprey is the Space:1999 Eagle-like craft?
  4. Sorry, both base parts have a Ranger Power Pack to transmit EC (they can transmit and receive power, even with no Plutonium. Power comes from the NF reactor.). There's also a ground radiator behind the horizontal strut. The power pack, drill and geothermal radiator are all attached to the side of these - you can just see the tops of these behind the MPU.
  5. Shot from last night, just thought it looked pretty. Minmus early research base, three launches so far (base, crew, lab). Base was delivered remotely and KAS-constructed in-situ. Crew vehicle has a tiny orbiting hab module for the return trip. Lab was delivered as a DIY kit, and has a PDU and local warehousing. No actual scientists yet, that's the next trip.
  6. Yup, (assuming bringing this into line with USI is the goal) mass should be reduced whilst deflated, with the interior mass (chairs, fittings, etc.) kept outside in the form of Materialkits. In the USI parts, these resources are expended by the inflation process - so the a 1 ton deflated hab consumes 7 tons of Material kits, leaving an 8 ton inflated hab.
  7. Quick worked example of a KRV, which is more than capable of the Kerbin-Duna-Kerbin crew transfer, with supplies and hab time.
  8. With the new values, tried a fairly minimal 4 Kerbal Duna hab arranagement: Which also fits very nicely into a 3.75m expanded fairing (Fairing from SimpleAdjustableFairings - basically the KW Rocketry ones) So, yeah, happy with those values. The centrifuges are pretty heavy, so it's possible to have a less massive solution than the above, but not necessarily with the same form factor. Is the plan to have these expanded with a payment of Materialkits, as per RD's inflatables? Something like that seems sensible, since you'll need to kit out the inside with something (chairs, beds, laptops, ping pong tables, etc) - and it would be nice to use the same solution.
  9. - Rigid hab stats all look great to me. - Inflatables seem a little bit higher than they should be, but not by much. You could make the case for a fudge factor of sorts with the rounded corners (domes and round shapes enclose a lot of space, but some of that space is wasted, since you can't build all the way to the corners. I'm assuming the plan is to use the USI Animation module to inflate these? (Material kits to kit out the inside, in line with the MKS inflatables). I'm not sure what formula RD uses for this, since the values seem pretty arbitrary on the surface. - Centrifuge multipliers seem fine to me at first glance.
  10. The Storm Cellar is going to be a challenge - since Nertea's radioactivity mod is currently still WIP (I believe), then neither Nertea nor Roverdude have any radiation mechanics right now (Roverdude has talked about it in a more abstract sense - basically a lifetime limit on spaceflight). Three options spring to mind: - 0 bonus months, some amount of multiplier (it makes long duration space missions more palatable - this a "comfort" thing, insofar as "not dying of radiation sickness" is a comfort thing"). - Just making it as an overly heavy, poor hab module, keeping future functionality in mind. - Using the "Medical Bay" Colony Supplies mechanics to push back the hab/home timers for kerbals in that part. Option three does mean that you may have actual reasons to send Kerbals into the part from time to time. I do still think the centifuge parts should be heavy multipliers, since artificial gravity is so important for long duration missions, this is in spite of how Roverdude models it.
  11. I do like the volume-based assumptions in the spreadsheet. I was still a bit sceptical of the outcome - the Sunrise hab from the spreadsheet gives this 5 (bonus) + 1 (for the four seats) kmonths, or 90 days for two kerbals in a Soyuz-like arrangement. The longest duration spaceflight in a single craft (two men, Soyuz 9) is 18 days. I suppose that works with scaling though - (Scaled-Kerbin time, 72 days (18 x 4) is close enough to 90 days to work). So... yeah, that'll do fine, I think I assume the inflatable/expanded parts will use a similar Material Kits cost as Roverdude's inflatables. I wonder if this is necessary for the smallest of them? It's certainly a nice price to pay for their convenience and additional The Greenhouse figures I have weren't producing all that more than the USI one. I do think there's room for intensive, dense-farming methods (and indeed Kale ) which would give this a real place. As before, I appreciate the work. Nertea's work is beautiful, so having it also be functional is really important.
  12. A couple more thoughts: The original USI-LS docs had these as guidelines: //Suggested settings are based on part mass for consistency. // //For dedicated hab parts (no other generators, etc.):// Kerbal Months should equal mass * 5// ReplacementParts = 100 * crew capacity + 100 * Kerbal Months. ////For parts that act as hab multipliers (dedicated or bundled with other functions/converters),//a multiplier equal to the tonnage works well.////For recyclers, their percentage should be mass / crew capcity (i.e. the UKS Pioneer Module at 3.75t = 75%)//at crew capacity 5. Increasing crew cap should result in an increase in mass.//i.e. a 12-crew recycler that weighs 7.5 tons should have a recycler percentage equal to 7.5 / 12 = 62.5%//Recyclers require (per crew capacity) 0.2 EC and 0.000002 ReplacementParts with a cap of 75%.//If water is used as an input (0.0002 per crew capacity) the cap can be extended to 90% I think a lot of the formulae and balance fudging have changed since then. I believe the default BaseHabTime is currently 0.25 kmonth per seat. That means the above "Soyuz" arrangement would have 1 kmonth base hab time, so 2 Kerbals = 15 days. If this had +1 additional kmonth bonus, that would mean a 30 day hab time for 2 Kerbals. The above part mass is 1.25 tons (which seems okay to me). I could easily see this having a kmonths bonus equal to mass (+1.25 kmonths) (Hitchhiker pod is 2.5 tons and provides 21 bonus kmonths. The issue here is that the mass of the Hitchhiker pod has always been a bit weird). In general, I'm not terribly happy about the idea that kmonths scale with mass. Volume would seem an awful lot more sensible to me.