What's your refinery style: orbital or surface?

[ShadowZone]

Since I am currently laying out my plans for a refuel station on and around Minmus, I would like to know your opinion on something:

Would you rather refine the ore on the ground and ferry fuel to space or would you just have a refinery on the surface and refine the ore in orbit as needed. I see the merits of both, but I am currently leaning towards an orbital refinery.

What's your playstyle?

[Alshain]

I do Orbital exclusively. Building surface bases is a pain, I hate trying to get docking ports to line up correctly on the ground. I haven't tried it but I heard Rover Dude ensured they would perform equally in stock by making them mass neutral (i.e. LFO Mass + Tank Mass = Ore Mass + Tank Mass where the amount of ore can be processed in to that much LFO) So regardless of whether you haul to Ore or LFO, it should theoretically be the same effect.

If so, Kudos to him for that, I know that is a departure from Karbonite.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Alshain

[ShadowZone]

Yeah that is correct, 10 tons of ore turn into 10 tons of LFO, so it's really not that much of a difference what you haul into orbit.

[Aerindel]

Do everything on the surface and have a fuel truck with a claw for transfers. I find it much easier to land a ship and drive a truck into the side of it than to go through orbital docking every single time.

[vicwarrior]

If you keep your refinery in your mining rig and probably shuttle to refuelling station it will be extra fuel to pull it up, but considering your rig literally makes fuel so it isn't really a big deal, it just means less effective fuel delivered to the station, but it has the pros that if you mess up with fuel cells and forgot to turn off the drills you and end up burning all your fuel for electric charge you will be able to make more instead of having to suffer the embarrasment of having to send another mining rig or a ship to refuel it so that you can send its ore in orbit.

otherwise keeping your refinery in orbit allows you to be more efficient as long as you manage your mining operation closely to avoid screwing yourself over and allows you to keep ore ready to be refined in orbit for when the fuel tanks are full

Another option is to do it the kerbal way and but refineries in both the orbital fuel depot and the mining rig.

[tater]

That it is even a discussion to lift dead weight to orbit is troublesome, only a percentage of "ore" should become useful depending upon what is being collected or used as fuel. As a simplification I'd say to treat maybe 50% of ore as unusable.

[Alshain]

Do everything on the surface and have a fuel truck with a claw for transfers. I find it much easier to land a ship and drive a truck into the side of it than to go through orbital docking every single time.

That would require using the Claw (a.k.a. Kracken Tentacle)

That it is even a discussion to lift dead weight to orbit is troublesome, only a percentage of "ore" should become useful depending upon what is being collected or used as fuel. As a simplification I'd say to treat maybe 50% of ore as unusable.

What dead weight? The ore? That is the cargo, not dead weight.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Alshain

[Grumman]

What dead weight? The ore? That is the cargo, not dead weight.

No the fuel's the cargo. The ore is presumably not pure rocket fuel, so ore should get lighter when it is processed, as you get rid of all of the non-rocket fuel stuff in the ore.

I agree with Tater on this - if not 50%, it should at least lose some mass, so that orbital processing is better at using solar power (since eclipses are shorter than nights), while surface processing means you don't have to transport as much mass (since you throw away the waste material before you lift it into orbit).

[merendel]

well for a minmus base it does not really mater all that much. A strong sneeze will send almost anything into orbit so its prety much personal preferance. That said I prefer refinery's on the ground with a fuel depot in orbit and a tanker shutteling between the 2. What I do is design my tanker with a reserve tank that holds just enough fuel to get down from the orbital station and land at the base (with apropreate safety margins). This way I'm carrying no more fuel than I need on the way down. I then top off at the refinery and return to the depot, repeat as needed.

Puting the refinery in orbit can be done but you loose some effiency due to needing to carry your accent fuel down to the planet as well requireing even more fuel for the landing stage. Instead of needing to burn 100 units to land compleatly empty you'll probaly be burning 150 units due to all the extra fuel weight your luging down to the planet. Agian not that much of an issue for minmus as gravity is so low but its more of a consideration if you are operating at a higher gravity location.

[Alshain]

No the fuel's the cargo. The ore is presumably not pure rocket fuel, so ore should get lighter when it is processed, as you get rid of all of the non-rocket fuel stuff in the ore.

I agree with Tater on this - if not 50%, it should at least lose some mass, so that orbital processing is better at using solar power (since eclipses are shorter than nights), while surface processing means you don't have to transport as much mass (since you throw away the waste material before you lift it into orbit).

Well when I play, the ore is the cargo and I like it the way it is. You don't haul the fire, you haul the coal.

Its already a little less efficient because you have to carry fuel to both land and reach orbit. That extra fuel mass means more fuel to slow down for landing.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Alshain

[Snark]

There's also the matter of lander geometry. The refinery is such a pain (for me, at least) to fit into a lander, mainly because the sides aren't surface-attachable. From the ground up, the lander ends up something like this: engine, fuel tank (with radial ore tanks as saddlebags), refinery, crew cabin. It ends up being a tall, top-heavy thing, when what I want a lander to be is squat.

Leaving the refinery in orbit makes the lander design easier, plus I'm not schlepping the refinery's 4t up and down each time.

I do kinda wish there was some mass loss when refining, just so the "surface or orbital refinery" choice would be more interesting.

[Random Tank]

I say carry Ore; the main reason is because you can make the fuel you need on demand; as you may need LF, LFO or MP you either need a ship that carries all 3 (which has tank weight waste) or 3 separate ships (which means extra parts and extra piloting) that can go into orbit if you convert on the surface. Carrying Ore to convert in orbit. means you need 1 vessel that carries just Ore (plus its fuel, but that's seperate).

Also, you could say it's easier to land a miner without a converter as it will be 4.2t lighter.

Plus heat management will be easier as you don't have the drills and converter on the same craft.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Random Tank

[Valley]

While waiting for this version I was planning on a massive mobile drill platform but after reading some of these posts and their points about heat, energy required, and weight, I think the converter will be in orbit and the landers will just do the job of mining and carrying the ore.

[tater]

Well when I play, the ore is the cargo and I like it the way it is. You don't haul the fire, you haul the coal.

Its already a little less efficient because you have to carry fuel to both land and reach orbit. That extra fuel mass means more fuel to slow down for landing.

Unless you had a cheaper way to get "ore" to orbit than burning fuel, no possible economy would have you ship rocks to space, to break said rocks into oxidizer and propellant as any real system would be lossy. Maybe with a solar-powered mass-driver it would make sense to refine in space.

Current, simple methods of extracting O2 from lunar regolith via heating get 20% of the sample as O2 (which is comprised of ~40% oxygen). The rest is waste (you could Al as fuel, I suppose). I think 50% efficiency is generous, actually.

People can do what they want, but stock is unicorn dust as it stands.

Maybe the "Output Resource" can be modded to add a new "waste" resource so that it's properly inefficient.

[Alshain]

Unless you had a cheaper way to get "ore" to orbit than burning fuel, no possible economy would have you ship rocks to space, to break said rocks into oxidizer and propellant as any real system would be lossy. Maybe with a solar-powered mass-driver it would make sense to refine in space.

Current, simple methods of extracting O2 from lunar regolith via heating get 20% of the sample as O2 (which is comprised of ~40% oxygen). The rest is waste (you could Al as fuel, I suppose). I think 50% efficiency is generous, actually.

People can do what they want, but stock is unicorn dust as it stands.

Maybe the "Output Resource" can be modded to add a new "waste" resource so that it's properly inefficient.

Well then I have good news for you. This is a game, by it's very definition it isn't real. Problem solved.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Alshain

[tater]

It's bad gameplay.

Kerbin could have 0.1 g as well, then anyone could easily launch anything into orbit? It's just a game, right?

By your definition, anything would be fine. If conversion from ore to fuel/oxidizer is fine at 100%, why not get 200% efficiency? Wouldn't that be twice as good from a gameplay perspective?

[saskwach]

I think I recall Roverdude saying something about conservation of mass and asteroid mining being the reason ore conversion is 100% efficient. If it weren't, you could reduce asteroid mass with magical mining mass destroyers.

[SkyRender]

From a purely time-centric perspective, it's better to have the ore converted in orbit, especially for bodies that have long day/night cycles on the surface. Otherwise you're getting decidedly less than peak performance for your converters since they'll be without solar power for half the time (Well, except for if you mine at the poles, I guess). I suppose you could use RTGs exclusively, but that would be an awful lot of extra mass... Though if the refinery's never leaving the surface, who cares, right?

[Alshain]

It's bad gameplay.

Kerbin could have 0.1 g as well, then anyone could easily launch anything into orbit? It's just a game, right?

By your definition, anything would be fine. If conversion from ore to fuel/oxidizer is fine at 100%, why not get 200% efficiency? Wouldn't that be twice as good from a gameplay perspective?

It isn't bad gameplay if it is fun, and it is. If you don't like it, don't do it. You can refine it on the ground if you want, your choice. Stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

I mean really, if you want bad gameplay how about the asinine ways to connect modules into a base while landed on terrain full of hills? That is what I call bad gameplay. Base building is pointless in stock unless Squad adds someway to connect modules that are not level. Until they fix that, orbital fuel refinery, all the way.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Alshain

[tater]

It isn't bad gameplay if it is fun, and it is. If you don't like it, don't do it. You can refine it on the ground if you want, your choice. Stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

I mean really, if you want bad gameplay how about the asinine ways to connect modules into a base while landed on terrain full of hills? That is what I call bad gameplay. Base building is pointless in stock unless Squad adds someway to connect modules that are not level. Until they fix that, orbital fuel refinery, all the way.

Gravity likely ruins it for someone. How many someones to become "the rest of us?"

If ISRU is too easy, you might as well turn on infinite fuel, and be done with it. I'd not claim to be the sole arbiter of what is, and is not fun. I tend to think that problems to solve are fun, vs everything being easy.

I agree completely regarding bases, BTW. I think at a bare minimum, KAS should be stock for numerous gameplay reasons (gives kerbals on EVA something useful to do, allows bases to be more realistic, etc).

[RainDreamer]

Always as close as possible to the ore source.

[Alshain]

If ISRU is too easy, you might as well turn on infinite fuel, and be done with it. I'd not claim to be the sole arbiter of what is, and is not fun. I tend to think that problems to solve are fun, vs everything being easy.

I agree, but landing on a planet successfully in an ore rich zone, drilling ore, returning it to the station, docking, and transferring it over for refining is hardly what I call easy, and just so happens is exactly the same as what you do if you are refining on the ground minus attempts at docking that are infuriating. So, ISRU is not too easy as it is now. Glad we agree.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Alshain

[tater]

It is too easy, so I'll wait for a mod, or use stock ISRU with KAS and build a reasonable base to supply meager amounts of fuel. A simple way to dock on the ground within the stock system is to use a claw. Silly, but it stands in for running a hose.

For the real Moon, estimates show that ISRU would mostly offset landing costs (fuel costs) (you can bring more payload, as you need not bring the fuel with you for attaining orbit again). Note that I think in terms of career play, even if the entire "management" aspect of the game is… less than ideal. If the Moon were as tiny as the Mun, you'd gain more, clearly. In the real solar system Phobos or Deimos are actually reasonable fuel depots even for earth SoI crafts (they are about the same dv away as the lunar surface, but escape from either is trivial).

What is interesting about the RL comparisons, is that it shows a problem with multiple, interesting solutions. Who'd think off hand that it might be preferable to get ISRU from Mars orbit to earth than from the moon?

[Aerindel]

Real life ISRU from mars atmospheric gas is pretty practical as well and a lot easier than mining ice from a moon.

[magnemoe]

From a purely time-centric perspective, it's better to have the ore converted in orbit, especially for bodies that have long day/night cycles on the surface. Otherwise you're getting decidedly less than peak performance for your converters since they'll be without solar power for half the time (Well, except for if you mine at the poles, I guess). I suppose you could use RTGs exclusively, but that would be an awful lot of extra mass... Though if the refinery's never leaving the surface, who cares, right?

If you leave the base alone during night it will work well. It will also fill up connected/ docked ships.

I use KAS to refuel, with an rover with an winch as an extender I can reach ships 100 meter away from base making ground bases most practical, especially as you can easy expend them.