[1.1.2] TAC - Life Support - Dev Thread

[Clockwork_werewolf]

7 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

Leaving aside your numbers (regular atmosphere is ~21% oxygen), respiration depletes oxygen content in the atmosphere and increases carbon dioxide, while ignoring nitrogen. It's oxygen we have to replace in a spacecraft and carbon dioxide we have to filter out in order to retain atmospheric balance. It's not about providing new atmosphere but replacing the part of atmosphere that our bodies are turning into CO2.

Ok so to be more specific when I said oxygen toxicity happens at 6% I meant about 24-27% oxygen composition OR 6% above normal.

I know how breathing works which is why I said "If the tank is oxygen and lithium hydroxide (it captures carbon dioxide so you don't need to vent air and take up nitrogen) why call it just oxygen not oxygen and atmosphere scrubber? I know they game has a CO2 converter module but without a CO2 scrubber earlier they would all die of CO2 poisoning, see above."

I KNOW the normal way is to remove CO2 and add O2. This is usually done with lithium hydroxide which binds with the CO2 to produce water and lithium carbonate. Which is useful as it make some water too.

My point to reiterate is it CAN'T just be oxygen in those tanks in any situation.
 

[Barks]

1 hour ago, Clockwork_werewolf said:

Ok so to be more specific when I said oxygen toxicity happens at 6% I meant about 24-27% oxygen composition OR 6% above normal.

I presume you mean VERY long times at +6% O2. You can go along quite happily at that level for a long time (I don't have the figures in front of me). Practically speaking, O2 toxicity doesn't occur unless you're having someone breath > ~40% O2 for 24-48 hours. I can find some source material to back it up tomorrow but for now source = MD.

[JPLRepo]

28 minutes ago, Barks said:

I presume you mean VERY long times at +6% O2. You can go along quite happily at that level for a long time (I don't have the figures in front of me). Practically speaking, O2 toxicity doesn't occur unless you're having someone breath > ~40% O2 for 24-48 hours. I can find some source material to back it up tomorrow but for now source = MD.

You forgot to mention depends on how many atmospheres of pressure you are breathing it at as well.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

25 minutes ago, JPLRepo said:

You forgot to mention depends on how many atmospheres of pressure you are breathing it at as well.

While it will go up depending on pressure, there is no reason (except perhaps on Eve, deep Jool or deep Kerbal ocean) to have anything higher than 1 Atmo although there are reasons to use lower pressures. On Nasa EVA's they do actually run with 1/3 the air pressure and can therefore use lithium hydroxide and pure oxygen but in the ISS they use earth normal pressure "Several systems are currently used on board the ISS to maintain the spacecraft's atmosphere, which is similar to the Earth's. Normal air pressure on the ISS is 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi); the same as at sea level on Earth." http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/faq/eva.html. I will go into why later.

1 hour ago, Barks said:

I presume you mean VERY long times at +6% O2. You can go along quite happily at that level for a long time (I don't have the figures in front of me). Practically speaking, O2 toxicity doesn't occur unless you're having someone breath > ~40% O2 for 24-48 hours. I can find some source material to back it up tomorrow but for now source = MD.

I'm not sure what Kerbal mission you are running but nothing but a suborbital trip is likely to take less than 24 hours risking toxicity if above 24 hours http://www.divingmedicine.info/Ch%2021%20SM10c.pdf .The point is you still only have 4 options.

1. Vent air, add O2 and N2 to replace
2. Scrub CO2, add O2
3. Add only O2 and vent air IF enough nitrogen present at start AND O2 Max doesn't go above 40% AND the mission is less than 24 hours
4. Have 1/3 Atmo, vent air and have pure oxygen.

Only options 3 and 4 let you have only oxygen in the tanks and they are both risky. 3 is only possible for a short time such as 24 hours and you risk O2 fires. 4 Is not a problem time wise but it is at risk of O2 fires despite the low pressure. For the Apollo missions they used 1/3 Atmo and pure oxygen but Apollo 1 killed the crew in an oxygen fire. Russia quickly changed to a O2 Nitrogen mix. Options 1,3 and 4 all are very wasteful of gas which has to be carried into space as well and options 1,3 and 4 will be venting good oxygen along with the CO2 they are getting rid of.

[danfarnsy]

2 hours ago, Clockwork_werewolf said:

My point to reiterate is it CAN'T just be oxygen in those tanks in any situation.

Point taken. I'll keep it in mind as a point of realism, though lithium hydroxide is now typically a backup to regenerative systems which dump the CO2 to vacuum. I think electricity consumption in TAC-LS models this sufficiently well, as do waste canisters which store it for later reprocessing/recycling. I don't think we're in a good position to look at overhauling this mechanic. I'm also not convinced that adding lithium hydroxide, amines, sorbent beds, and so on would contribute in a meaningful way to the gameplay. I'll be open to discussing this more once we've got our legs under us, but right now it's a distraction from our present purpose: getting a reliably maintained release.

I don't want to discourage your input or anybody else's. I just need to focus on the more immediate issues of taking on a project that is, frankly, a bit intimidating.

[Rob K]

Oww, its getting close....

I really hope you guys get a stable release out soon, it is good to see this mod has found some new caretakers. Will you be updating the ckan metadata as well so we can install through that again?

 

On the whole oxygen discussion, I go diving regularly with 30-36% oxygen enriched air with absolutely no ill effects. As far as my knowlege oxygen CAN become toxic above 1.8 Bars partial oxygen pressure, thats why scuba divers limit their dive depths so they do not exceed 1.6 Bars of partial oxygen pressure,  You can breathe 100% oxygen at atmosferic pressure all day long if you want to and suffer no real ill effects.Actually there are IC-units in hospitals that keep their air near 100% oxygen to help patients with breathing problems.

And I dont really think most of us need that kind of LOD in their KSP game, I think you should look at the RP0 fork if you want this kind of detail.

 

[Ser]

12 hours ago, Clockwork_werewolf said:

I realise this might not seem like the right place to put it put if you are doing an update for this I have one request. Change the resource oxygen to air or breathable air or something like that. It shouldn't be too hard a find and replace but it has always really bugged me because it is not accurate.

If you pump in pure oxygen to breath you die of oxygen toxicity at 6% oxygen.

If you pump in oxygen as fast as you vent air you lose nitrogen and end up with too much oxygen.

If you only pump in oxygen when the oxygen gets low enough, and vent air to match you end up with too much carbon dioxide at 3% and die (note this also happens first in the other two points). It's a shame that tac carbon dioxide doesn't kill but I understand that would take adding coding.

If you pump in oxygen and nitrogen why is it called oxygen? Why not air and have a second nitrogen tank? (because it's extra weight) and they don't really take up much nitrogen.

If the tank is oxygen and lithium hydroxide (it captures carbon dioxide so you don't need to vent air and take up nitrogen) why call it just oxygen not oxygen and atmosphere scrubber? I know they game has a CO2 converter module but without a CO2 scrubber earlier they would all die of CO2 poisoning, see above.

Simple fix of find and replace. Rant over sorry for the wall'o text.

Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1#Investigation

Pure oxygen was indeed used before and after Apollo 1, considering nitrogen manipulations though. So we can speak about the oxygen/nitrogen breathable mixture called "oxygen" here by the main gas used during flight and for simplicity. Calling it "air" would be too profane because it isn't air actually. Also getting so deep in terms would require to distinguish the mixture that is used in cabin form mixture used in spacesuits as different resources. Furthermore, getting in details would require to make mixture composition and cabin pressure at different stages of flight an engineering question. Where to stop? I'd suggest to just call this "oxygen" and concentrate modding efforts at getting at least the wheels work right, for example.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

25 minutes ago, danfarnsy said:

Point taken. I'll keep it in mind as a point of realism, though lithium hydroxide is now typically a backup to regenerative systems which dump the CO2 to vacuum. I think electricity consumption in TAC-LS models this sufficiently well, as do waste canisters which store it for later reprocessing/recycling. I don't think we're in a good position to look at overhauling this mechanic. I'm also not convinced that adding lithium hydroxide, amines, sorbent beds, and so on would contribute in a meaningful way to the gameplay. I'll be open to discussing this more once we've got our legs under us, but right now it's a distraction from our present purpose: getting a reliably maintained release.

I don't want to discourage your input or anybody else's. I just need to focus on the more immediate issues of taking on a project that is, frankly, a bit intimidating.

I agree about the fact that lithium is rarely used now a days and I am interested in all the upgrades but it would be used for initial craft. it's an interesting discussion but not why I'm here to begin with.

My point was never to model all of this detail. The request was never to add the complexity. The request was ONLY to change the name to something like air, breathable air, atmo tank, atmo, or something OTHER than Oxygen. If it is Air then the complexity can be added later or by other mods but if it is oxygen it makes no sense. I can explain later if you like but I wanted to make it clear it ONLY a request for the resource name change (which without being changed name in the code as well would suffocate everyone).

[danfarnsy]

9 hours ago, Zyx Abacab said:

I suppose it would be a good idea to wait until then?  TAC-LS compiles with the code from both danfarnsy and JPLRepo, but only after commenting out references to PopupDialog and EngineersReport.

Wayland's code compiled without needing to do that....

On 4/21/2016 at 7:23 PM, WaylandSmith said:

I've actually re-compiled it for KSP 1.1 and made a couple small modifications to match the new API.

Yeah, waiting and using Wayland's code makes the most sense at this point. The main reason I haven't been waiting (don't worry, master branch is untouched) is because it will pay off later, even if it's redundant now. We learn things better when we work for them, right? It will also be good to see what is different in his "small modifications" versus the direction I've been taking.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

21 minutes ago, Rob K said:

Oww, its getting close....

I really hope you guys get a stable release out soon, it is good to see this mod has found some new caretakers. Will you be updating the ckan metadata as well so we can install through that again?

 

On the whole oxygen discussion, I go diving regularly with 30-36% oxygen enriched air with absolutely no ill effects. As far as my knowlege oxygen CAN become toxic above 1.8 Bars partial oxygen pressure, thats why scuba divers limit their dive depths so they do not exceed 1.6 Bars of partial oxygen pressure,  You can breathe 100% oxygen at atmosferic pressure all day long if you want to and suffer no real ill effects.Actually there are IC-units in hospitals that keep their air near 100% oxygen to help patients with breathing problems.

And I dont really think most of us need that kind of LOD in their KSP game, I think you should look at the RP0 fork if you want this kind of detail.

 

The point is this is fine for a suit (NASA do it on EVA's) but in a craft it risks fires and other problems. Also you get to vent air into the water and you don't have to pay $100,000 per kilo you take with you.

In term of detail the request was never to add the detail just a change of the name from oxygen to to something like air, breathable air, atmo tank, atmo. With no need to change the mod mechanics at all. If it's air you can assume what you like is in the tanks and other mods can add stuff but oxygen makes no sense to mod.

[danfarnsy]

Alright. We got your request, and we'll revisit it later. While there isn't a better thread for this tangential discussion, there is a better time. Right now, I'd like to keep discussion focused on the immediate issues of a 1.1 release, which means squashing NullReferenceExceptions rather than renaming resources.

[Wardstone111]

16 hours ago, NathanKell said:

Give me your github usernames and I'll add you to the repo. I'll also be doing a merge from @WaylandSmith's update branch. With that done, and barring anything turning up, I suggest we make an official release so that people have at least something to use in 1.1 while other cool stuff gets done.

My username is Wardstone111 on GitHub.

[TMS]

10 hours ago, CoriW said:

@danfarnsy @NathanKell I'm not sure how feasible this would be.. But would it be possible for you guys to talk with @TMS and see if you could maybe get his TAC LS Retexture mod incorporated into the main download? If not that'd be fine, I've just always thought that the default textures in TAC LS have been a bit... Lackluster.

@danfarnsy

If you want them, they're yours.

But to be honest, the models in TAC always seem a bit 'off' to me.  I got the impression that the cylinders may not have had the right number of verts (thus they never quite looked cylindrical butted up to other parts).

I had intended (at some point) providing fixed models.  If you're simply talking about resurrecting TAC, then I guess you could use my textures with the existing part models.  They were a fairly quick output, never really meant for long-term use.  If you're talking about taking on ongoing development, then I'd be tempted to trash the models and do something more customised.

That said... I'd imagine there's a long road ahead of you before the artwork even comes into it!

[danfarnsy]

4 hours ago, TMS said:

If you're talking about taking on ongoing development, then I'd be tempted to trash the models and do something more customised.

We are talking about ongoing development. Your textures are good, and they'd be a good addition to the mod, particularly if we can get the editor part count down by using a mesh-switch mod dependency. If you want to make a pull request or send me things directly, I'll be happy to incorporate it.

For anybody who is worried about this breaking their save games, I'll keep the current parts as legacy for a while, whenever this plan rolls out. 

[nanowinner]

Mad props for taking this on and continuing what I and many others consider a key mod! Good luck with everything!

[MisterFister]

12 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

Point taken. I'll keep it in mind as a point of realism, though lithium hydroxide is now typically a backup to regenerative systems which dump the CO2 to vacuum. I think electricity consumption in TAC-LS models this sufficiently well, as do waste canisters which store it for later reprocessing/recycling. I don't think we're in a good position to look at overhauling this mechanic. I'm also not convinced that adding lithium hydroxide, amines, sorbent beds, and so on would contribute in a meaningful way to the gameplay. I'll be open to discussing this more once we've got our legs under us, but right now it's a distraction from our present purpose: getting a reliably maintained release.

I don't want to discourage your input or anybody else's. I just need to focus on the more immediate issues of taking on a project that is, frankly, a bit intimidating.

 

11 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

Alright. We got your request, and we'll revisit it later. While there isn't a better thread for this tangential discussion, there is a better time. Right now, I'd like to keep discussion focused on the immediate issues of a 1.1 release, which means squashing NullReferenceExceptions rather than renaming resources.

Just chiming in to agree with the "for future reference" mentality here.  There are some other threads discussing some hypothetical mod frameworks that could potentially benefit from a coordinated renaming of resources, or an introduction of a secondary resource such as LiOH.  One of my admittedly longer-winded contributions is here, and some lateral interest from a different mod developer is discussed here.  I'd be very excited if more secondary-life-support "in-flight quality of life" mods were specifically compatible with TACLS.

Edited May 6, 2016 by MisterFister

[jd284]

Regarding the resource rates, would it be possible to move the TAC-LS configuration to a global node that is accessible to ModuleManager, instead of a private file? That would make interop e.g. with USI or other in-situ life support or recycler-type mods a lot easier. Basically like USI-LS does it with its configuration node.

Right now the USI interop patches have to assume the default Kerbal consumption/production rates for the LS resources, because the values are not accessible to ModuleManager for doing math with to get the correct resource ratios.

So if people want to change the rates to make it harder (or easier), the converters or recyclers provided by other mods will fail to make the correct amounts or ratios of resources.

This would also make it possible to have a personal MM patch to adjust the rates without having to remember editing the default values for each update, or for people to provide patches of alternate resource rates using different assumptions.

Should I make a github issue about this (and if so, which repo exactly, the one in the first post here)?
 

[danfarnsy]

3 hours ago, MisterFister said:

There are some other threads discussing some hypothetical mod frameworks that could potentially benefit from a coordinated renaming of resources, or an introduction of a secondary resource such as LiOH.

 

2 hours ago, jd284 said:

Regarding the resource rates, would it be possible to move the TAC-LS configuration to a global node that is accessible to ModuleManager, instead of a private file? That would make interop e.g. with USI or other in-situ life support or recycler-type mods a lot easier.
 

We're definitely keeping this sort of thing in mind, though the details may turn out differently. Community driven, configurable frameworks are key for mods playing well with each other, which is something I've emphasized a few times as part of my design intent. I like the community resource pack, for instance. But this is all for future reference and is not a commitment to any specifics. I'm glad to see everybody's enthusiasm and excitement for this mod! I'm excited too! Some people are already successfully using WaylandSmith's .dll, but I know others are waiting on an "official" release.

I'm also pulling my hair out because it's not obvious how to update submodules in a git repository to point to a different location and have recursive clones successfully clone the new forked submodule rather than the old and somebody get me a paper bag because I might be hyperventilating which makes no sense because I'm typing not speaking but... Ahem.

All that is to say, the bigger chunk of my time right now is spent trying to figure out unfamiliar tools rather than trying to fix the code itself. Code changes are mostly done, so I've got my fingers crossed for Soon™.

[Wardstone111]

22 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

Point taken. I'll keep it in mind as a point of realism, though lithium hydroxide is now typically a backup to regenerative systems which dump the CO2 to vacuum. I think electricity consumption in TAC-LS models this sufficiently well, as do waste canisters which store it for later reprocessing/recycling. I don't think we're in a good position to look at overhauling this mechanic. I'm also not convinced that adding lithium hydroxide, amines, sorbent beds, and so on would contribute in a meaningful way to the gameplay. I'll be open to discussing this more once we've got our legs under us, but right now it's a distraction from our present purpose: getting a reliably maintained release.

I don't want to discourage your input or anybody else's. I just need to focus on the more immediate issues of taking on a project that is, frankly, a bit intimidating.

I think that lithium hydroxide is added by Realism Overhaul anyway (when it updates.)

[M3tal_Warrior]

Diving in at the oxygen vs. 'breathable air' debate I'm absolutely against adding or changing the mod in any way. Although oxygen is a bit nasty to handle in pure form (being a chemist I know how dangerous that can be), we're entirely capable to oxygenate an atmosphere within a plane or spacecraft without having to drag around massive amounts of nitrogen. Even small and cheap sensors are able to measure the level down to single Promille. So technology is not a problem at all. Even the injection system can be made out of aluminium, which is inert towards oxygen (through an impenetrable Al₂O₃ surface layer) or PTFE and diminishes the danger level to zero. 

As for the filtering of CO₂ we're not running around with tied hands either. There's a quite effective circle process with CaO which could be practiced in space crafts too, but it requires quite a bit of electricity (or at least temperature):

CaO + CO₂ --[H₂O]--> CaCO₃

CaCO₃ --[900 °C]--> CaO + CO₂

This should work with smaller efficiency and way lower temperatures (0-60°C) with NaCO₃ (via NaHCO₃) too, but I didn't find absorbance efficiencies for concentrated NaCO₃ solutions right now. So, yes, reducing CO₂ concentrations in breathable air is also possible, which adds up to danfarnsy being correct - we only have to feed the spacecraft atmosphere oxygen and filter out CO₂. The reason why this isn't really done at the moment in mankinds space programs is a weight issue: It's less weight and thus cheaper to carry canned atmosphere up for the little time we're up there than to carry up a heavy and complicated reactor which needs to be operated and looked at, although this is done on long term missions (like the ISS) where the ratio reverses. 

Ah, and by the way: Breathing 100% oxygen doesn't kill you with atmospheric pressure levels, although it isn't exactly healthy over time (free radicals). It's even part of the emergency services' standard equipment and is used almost every time while dealing with respiratory problems.

Edited May 7, 2016 by M3tal_Warrior

[NathanKell]

Official KSP 1.1.2 release is here:

https://github.com/KSP-RO/TacLifeSupport/releases/tag/v0.11.3

Using the code updates from @WaylandSmith until @danfarnsy gets everything up and running.

[Bit Fiddler]

As long as this is going to be reworked I have a request:

 

Is it possible to rework the math on Mass, Consumption rates, etc. to get it so 1 kerbal will consume 1 unit of food, water, and oxygen per 1 kerbin day(6 hours)?

 

the mass of the units would need to be tweaked so 1 unit now has the correct mass to keep the mass to days of food ratio correct etc.  

 

This is not really a big deal but in designing a craft I plan for a mission that is X number of days. so I want my life support needs to be X days plus some leeway depending on the mission.  however with the current math this is a real pain to tweak the units of each resource on board to get me to that magic number.  If instead the numbers were based on 1 kerbal  & 1 6hour day & 1 unit of resource this would be far easier.  Just do all the complex math calculations in the background so the craft design window stays simple.

 

 

[Jovzin]

Awesome guts. GL with mod. Tac-ls is my must have mod and I am happy to see it continue...

 

[Bit Fiddler]

oh and on the topic of the models and textures. 

 

I would be happy to make some new models in blender for the mod.  I would just need the specifics on what KSP expects of the model files.  and any design criteria the mod wanted to impose.   I am not a texture artist by any stretch of the imagination however, so the texturing would need to be done by someone else.

 

I would suggest to make it a single part and use tweak scale/modular fuel tanks or what ever other method you can think of to switch the tanks to match the users needs.  this will cut the part count down to a minimum. 

Edited May 8, 2016 by Bit Fiddler

[NathanKell]

@Bit Fiddler TACLS used to be like that, but a long time ago resources were rationalized to comport with all other mods' resources (see the Community Resource Pack). It's a really, really bad idea for TACLS to have a different "Water" resource than all the other mods that use water, etc.