[1.12.x] USI Life Support

[linuxgurugamer]

The colors are confusing. Can you be a bit more specific?

I see several shades of blue, and a grey, with no idea which is which.

Thanks

LGG

It tried to find out when the Nom-O-Matic 5000 is useful for trips. This comparison is USI-LS only and does not include infos about UKS.

Here is a chart from a mass-efficiency point-of-view:

- horizontal axis: number of Kerbals

- vertical axis: number of years of the trip

Different Colors:

- Supplies only is best choice

- Supplies + Nom-O-Matic 5000 is best choice

- Supplies + Fertilizer + Nom-O-Matic 25k is best choice

http://i.imgur.com/Bsy7Gk8.png

Currently the following choices are most efficient:

- Up to 3 years: bring your supplies only

- One Kerbal between 7 and 21 years: Nom-O-Matic 5000

- at least 7 years: Nom-O-Matic 25k

- at least 10 Kerbals: Nom-O-Matic 25k

- 4-6 years and 1-9 Kerbals: Supplies or Nom-O-Matic 25k

So I would bring the Nom-O-Matic 5000 only if I have a single Kerbal on the trip for 7-21 years, which puts the part for me into the category "will probably use it never".

In this regard I want to suggest the following change to USI-LS: reduce the mass of Nom-O-Matic 5000 from 1500 kg to 600 kg. (Also tried differrent values, but this would be my favourite)

Here is how the chart looks like with these changes:

http://i.imgur.com/o5taICT.png

It looks much more interesting:

- Up to 2 years: Bring your supplies only

- 3 years: Nom-O-Matic 5000

- Single Kerbal 13-28 years: Nom-O-Matic 5000

- at least 13 years: Nom-O-Matic 25k

- rest: Mixture between Nom-O-Matic 5000 and Nom-O-Matic 25k

This change makes Life support a bit easier, because less mass is needed for some Kerbal-duration combinations.

On the other hand it makes Life support planning a bit harder, because the decision which method to use with regards to mass efficiency becomes more complex and diverse.

@RoverDude: Don't know if my suggestion fits into your plan with USI-LS but I wanted to share it anyway.

[goldenpsp]

The colors are confusing. Can you be a bit more specific?

I see several shades of blue, and a grey, with no idea which is which.

Thanks

LGG

+1 Your colors and legend make no sense.

[mhoram]

Right ... I will try to come up with a better description or graphic of what I mean.

[thegreatgonz]

Right ... I will try to come up with a better description or graphic of what I mean.

On a related note, I don't understand how you determined which was the "best choice". Lowest launch mass? Lowest cost?

[Kowgan]

On a related note, I don't understand how you determined which was the "best choice". Lowest launch mass? Lowest cost?

"mass-efficiency", as described by him.

[Felbourn]

Gray = food, Navy = nomomatic, Cornflower = fertilizer; X = Kerbals, Y = years?

Glorious chart. You have saved me from needing to making it myself! I may alter the mass of the mono locally to your suggested value for mass-efficiency game-balance reasons. Thanks.

[mhoram]

After digging into this issue a bit deeper and trying more strategies I still come to the same conclusion: The Nom-O-Matic 5k is only for a very narrow missionprofile useful.

So here is a hopefully better description of how I did my calculations.

If anything is not clear, feel free to ask.

I made the simplification that supplies and fertilizer are not bound by containersizes, but can be of any size.

General observations that are required for the calculations below:

Comparing the life support containers shows that all of them have the same total mass (including dry mass) per supplies or fertilizer of 0.0012 ton per unit.

Each Kerbal needs for survival 0,00005 supplies per seconds.

Each Kerbal year lasts 2556.50 hours or 9203400 seconds

A Nom-O-Matic 5k Greenhouse can support a single Kerbal and stretch the supplies to last twice as long

A Nom-O-Matic 25k Greenhouse can support 4 Kerbals and stretch the supplies to last twice as long

A Nom-O-Matic 25k Agroponics can support 4 Kerbals and uses up fertilizer at a rate of 0,00001 units per second and Kerbal while keeping the amount of supplies at the same level

The mass of a Nom-O-Matic 5k is 1.5 ton

The mass of a Nom-O-Matic 25k is 4.5 ton

Lets compare the following 6 strategies:

1. Bring enough supplies for the whole trip

The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is:

m = 0.0012 ton * k * x * 9203400 * 0,00005

2. Bring a Nom-O-Matic 5k for each Kerbal and enough supplies that lasts for the whole trip with the Nom-O-Matic 5k Greenhouse

The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is:

m = 0.0012 ton * k * x * 9203400 * 0,00005 / 2 + k * 1.5 ton

3. Bring a Nom-O-Matic 25k for each 4 Kerbals and enough supplies that lasts for the whole trip with the Nom-O-Matic 25k Greenhouse

The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is:

m = 0.0012 ton * k * x * 9203400 * 0,00005 / 2 + ceil(k/4) * 4.5 ton

4. Bring a Nom-O-Matic 25k for each 4 Kerbals, a little bit of supplies and enough fertilizer that lasts for the whole trip with the Nom-O-Matic 25k Agroponics

A little bit of supplies I assume to be enough to keep life support running, meaning that a small container should be enough.

Fertilizer gets used up at the rate of (Kerbals * 0,00004 / 4) units per second to keep the amount of supplies at the same level

The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is:

m = 0.12 ton + ceil(k/4) * 4.5 ton + k * x * 9203400 * 0,00004 / 4 * 0.0012 ton

5. Bring a Nom-O-Matic 25k for each full 4 Kerbals plus a Nom-O-Matic 5k for the rest of Kerbals, enough fertilizer that lasts for the whole trip with the Nom-O-Matic 25k Agroponics plus supplies for the Nom-O-Matic 5k

A little bit of supplies I assume to be enough to keep life support running, meaning that a small container should be enough.

Fertilizer gets used up at the rate of (Kerbals * 0,00004 / 4) units per second to keep the amount of supplies at the same level

The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is:

m = floor(k/4) * 4.5 ton + floor(k/4) * 4 * x * 9203400 * 0,00004 / 4 * 0.0012 ton + Modulo(k,4) * (1.5 + 0.0012 * x * 9203400 * 0,00005 / 2)

6. Bring a Nom-O-Matic 25k for each set of 4 Kerbals, enough fertilizer that lasts for the whole trip for the use with the Nom-O-Matic 25k Agroponics plus supplies for the Nom-O-Matic 25k Greenhouse for the remaining Kerbals (not handled by the Agroponics)

Fertilizer gets used up at the rate of (Kerbals * 0,00004 / 4) units per second to keep the amount of supplies at the same level

The amount of mass needed for k Kerbals and x years is:

m = floor(k/4) * 4.5 ton + floor(k/4) * 4 * x * 9203400 * 0,00004 / 4 * 0.0012 ton + Modulo(k,4) * 0.0012 * x * 9203400 * 0,00005 / 2

The Imgur-album contains a graph for the mass requirements of each strategy.

It also contains a combined plot.

Further a graph showing which strategy needs the least amount of mass for each #Kerbal - Duration combination.

The grahp showing the best strategy shows that the Nom-O-Matic 5k is only useful when a single Kerbal is on a trip for a duration of 6-18 years. I feel a bit sad that it is only of such a limited usefulness.

The last graph in the album is the same calculation with the following change:

The mass of the Nom-O-Matic 5k is reduced from 1.5 ton to 0.55 ton.

In this case the Nom-O-Matic 5k is useful in much more circumstances.

So I would like to suggest to change the mass of Nom-O-Matic 5000 from 1.5 ton to 0.55 ton. (The 0.6 value of my previous post has been superseeded, because the newly tested strategies interfere with it)

Further results:

- Mixing Nom25k and Nom5k makes never sense, because the Nom25k also has a greenhouse.

- Using the Nom25k Greenhouse alone is not useful, because it is worse than using the Agroponics

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Gnuplot-Script for the pictures

- - - Updated - - -

@Felbourn: Thanks, but please consider the previous chart as outdated.

Edited August 12, 2015 by mhoram

[Kowgan]

@Mhoram: Nice graphs and explanations, but most of my kerbals scratched their heads to it, and I rather keep my USI-LS simple.

@Roverdude: Are the "Raid the supplies and toss them overboard" chances to happen random? Would it be possible to make a setting to switch it off? I've tested timewarping through this base twice, and in both tests, after about the same time, Jeb and Bill decided to race from the Command Pod to the Supply Container and ended up tossing all supplies overboard.

This makes me worried about the plans for a future Duna mission, since my CausesDeath = true.

Thanks!

[Boiler1]

I recently started using this mod and I really like the simple concept. I did notice that the 2.5m and 3.75m supply containers have the same connection strength as the 1.5m part. Is this by design?

[Tarheel1999]

I recently started using this mod and I really like the simple concept. I did notice that the 2.5m and 3.75m supply containers have the same connection strength as the 1.5m part. Is this by design?

I don't know for sure but I think it's unlikely. I went ahead and modified the configs in my install because it bothered me.

[RoverDude]

After digging into this issue a bit deeper and trying more strategies I still come to the same conclusion: The Nom-O-Matic 5k is only for a very narrow missionprofile useful.

<Snip full o'math>

So I would like to suggest to change the mass of Nom-O-Matic 5000 from 1.5 ton to 0.55 ton. (The 0.6 value of my previous post has been superseeded, because the newly tested strategies interfere with it)

Pull request please

@Mhoram: Nice graphs and explanations, but most of my kerbals scratched their heads to it, and I rather keep my USI-LS simple.

@Roverdude: Are the "Raid the supplies and toss them overboard" chances to happen random? Would it be possible to make a setting to switch it off? I've tested timewarping through this base twice, and in both tests, after about the same time, Jeb and Bill decided to race from the Command Pod to the Supply Container and ended up tossing all supplies overboard.

This makes me worried about the plans for a future Duna mission, since my CausesDeath = true.

Thanks!

Not random at all - odds are you're running out of power and freaking the Kerbals out. They normally go for supplies as a last ditch if they can't meet their life support needs

I recently started using this mod and I really like the simple concept. I did notice that the 2.5m and 3.75m supply containers have the same connection strength as the 1.5m part. Is this by design?

Nope..

I don't know for sure but I think it's unlikely. I went ahead and modified the configs in my install because it bothered me.

Pull request or Github issue please

[Kowgan]

Not random at all - odds are you're running out of power and freaking the Kerbals out. They normally go for supplies as a last ditch if they can't meet their life support needs

Weird, that doesn't seem to be what's happening. They've got plenty of electricity, as well as supplies and even a Nom-O-Matic going on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[RoverDude]

Weird, that doesn't seem to be what's happening. They've got plenty of electricity, as well as supplies and even a Nom-O-Matic going on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Could not help you without specific tbh

[Bloody_looser]

Hello, are there any KIS kerbal-portable supply packs for this mod?

[RoverDude]

Yep, there's a small supply pack that comes with this

[Bloody_looser]

Yep, there's a small supply pack that comes with this

And it's really convenient. Though I meant something more like this - small, backpackish, not requiring any tools or engineers to attach, suitable as emergency drop.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Bloody_looser

[goldenpsp]

Just mm config that backpack to be a supplies container

[RoverDude]

What that guy said

[Bloody_looser]

Just mm config that backpack to be a supplies container

What that guy said

That's the plan

[tal2410]

Could the two Nom-o-matics be used as efficency parts for the OKS Greenhouse for small stations?

[RoverDude]

Could the two Nom-o-matics be used as efficency parts for the OKS Greenhouse for small stations?

The large one can

[RoverDude]

(Reposting, feedback type stuff)

So I've been doing more life support stuff lately, and wanted to run some changes by you folks, and get feedback.

If you look at any LS mod, they are mostly about resources... whether it's one or two or six. Food, oxygen, supplies, snacks, mulch, waste, whatever.

So I am looking at extending USI-LS in a few different ways (each of which is also about adding a new mechanic).

1. One would be the idea of a time-based mechanic - basically, the inherent recyclers (the things that provide heat, cooling, scrub CO2, etc.) would have a service life. So the built in ones might last 30 days, but for long journeys you will need more robust equipment (in the form of separate parts). Their efficiency would decay over time, so that giant recycling module you dropped on Duna ten years ago may still work, but not at full capacity).

2. In addition to resources and the mechanic above, where failure is life or death, add a 'happiness' factor, where the Kerbals need more space and more advanced facilities to keep them healthy and happy based on ship duration. The 'fail' penalty for this would be separately configurable - so a Kerbal squished into a lander can for ten years may not die, but they'd be really grouchy. This would be a case where the lander can is good for, say, 30 days. But then you need simple habs to extend into the several months, and for super long term stuff, you will need centrifuges (for orbital stations) as well as medical bays, etc. to keep the Kerbals kicking.

3. Automatic supply scavenging. If a Kerbal runs out of supplies, they can look not only in their current ship (and it's locked containers) but also other ships within a certain radius. This way, just by air dropping a bunch of supplies, Kerbals will happily EVA to pick them up. UKS already does this, but I'd like it as something built into the core life support mod.

I have a few other ideas, like enforcing temperature tolerances, etc. (so radiators are also need to keep crew alive), etc. but figured these were a good start

[Mister Dilsby]

What I like best about your mod is that it adds the life support dimension but is simple and fun. Therefore my vote is to:

1) Not allow parts to age please. Nothing else in the game wears out--engines don't need to get overhauled, you can recycle Mystery Goo indefinitely, etc. If you had filters etc that needed to be cleaned out by an engineer, OK--but I really don't want to have to decommission ships because their stuff wore out.

2) This I like, having a 'happiness' factor for each Kerbal. Their "Dumb" stat and BadS flag should factor into it. Unhappy Kerbals should be less efficient--maybe degrading their rank-based abilities, slowing movement, etc.

3) Yes, you should be able to pull off a resupply by taking the effort to get the new stuff in the general area of the crew. Not being able to do so would be reminiscent of back when a Kerbal could get stuck on the ground because there was a 10cm step to get to the hatch and no ladder

In general, I say keep it simple! I think a good design rule to keep in mind is that it should be possible for the user to build an indefinitely self-sustaining long haul spacecraft if desired.

[Grumman]

1. One would be the idea of a time-based mechanic - basically, the inherent recyclers (the things that provide heat, cooling, scrub CO2, etc.) would have a service life. So the built in ones might last 30 days, but for long journeys you will need more robust equipment (in the form of separate parts). Their efficiency would decay over time, so that giant recycling module you dropped on Duna ten years ago may still work, but not at full capacity).

I don't want anything like this in the game.

2. In addition to resources and the mechanic above, where failure is life or death, add a 'happiness' factor, where the Kerbals need more space and more advanced facilities to keep them healthy and happy based on ship duration. The 'fail' penalty for this would be separately configurable - so a Kerbal squished into a lander can for ten years may not die, but they'd be really grouchy. This would be a case where the lander can is good for, say, 30 days. But then you need simple habs to extend into the several months, and for super long term stuff, you will need centrifuges (for orbital stations) as well as medical bays, etc. to keep the Kerbals kicking.

I suggested something like this in the Life Support thread in the suggestions sub-forum. My suggestion was simply that unhappy Kerbals eat more up to a certain limit (50% more? 100% more?), with stupid Kerbals getting more unhappy when they are alone (because they get bored) and not-brave Kerbals getting more unhappy when they don't have much in the way of living space (because they get claustrophobic).

3. Automatic supply scavenging. If a Kerbal runs out of supplies, they can look not only in their current ship (and it's locked containers) but also other ships within a certain radius. This way, just by air dropping a bunch of supplies, Kerbals will happily EVA to pick them up. UKS already does this, but I'd like it as something built into the core life support mod.

How much of a calculation footprint do these systems have? I do not want it and would much prefer to send a rover out to retrieve it, but I'm fine with ignoring it as long as it isn't causing bloat.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Grumman

[goldenpsp]

What I like best about your mod is that it adds the life support dimension but is simple and fun. Therefore my vote is to:

1) Not allow parts to age please. Nothing else in the game wears out--engines don't need to get overhauled, you can recycle Mystery Goo indefinitely, etc. If you had filters etc that needed to be cleaned out by an engineer, OK--but I really don't want to have to decommission ships because their stuff wore out.

2) This I like, having a 'happiness' factor for each Kerbal. Their "Dumb" stat and BadS flag should factor into it. Unhappy Kerbals should be less efficient--maybe degrading their rank-based abilities, slowing movement, etc.

3) Yes, you should be able to pull off a resupply by taking the effort to get the new stuff in the general area of the crew. Not being able to do so would be reminiscent of back when a Kerbal could get stuck on the ground because there was a 10cm step to get to the hatch and no ladder

In general, I say keep it simple! I think a good design rule to keep in mind is that it should be possible for the user to build an indefinitely self-sustaining long haul spacecraft if desired.

I would reiterate these points. I think the beauty of USI-LS is the simplicity. As a standalone I would leave that. Both parts wearing out and happiness are things that kind of already have components of support with UKS (spare parts and workspaces). So I think that additional functionality of USI-LS would be cool if both this and UKS were installed.