Jump to content

Show and Tell - Colony fuel factories


Recommended Posts

Amazing!!! Lasers?? Giant fuel modules? What’s not to love??

*sighs* 2022 seems really far away....

Edited by Lewie
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

I don’t know how on-topic this is, but Monopropellant staying Monopropellant instead of Hydrazine makes me curious why LiquidFuel and Oxidiser had to be instead specified as Methalox? Why was the extra specificity required there?

Also, are the names styled as LiquidMethane and LiquidOxygen, Methane and Oxygen, or something else?

My guess is because there is only going to be one type of monopropellant so there is no need to change the name. However since I assume there will be more than one liquid fuel it is necessary to differentiate it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Seeing these giant buildings (and the orbiting stations and giant ships) makes me think that the logistics of moving large amounts of resources to build them will have a huge role in the gameplay.

Just thinking: more than a VAB worth in mass and volume of resources to bring to orbit to build the huge "Daedalus" engine we've seen in the trailer, and that's just the engine for a ship that's even bigger, all launched from a station dwarfing the ship and the engine.

That's a lot of mass to bring to orbit, plus the fuel, plus the fuel factory, plus the workers crew and their requirements. Even assuming a single universal "ore" resource we'll probably need a small fleet of  (hopefully reusable) heavy duty cargo lifters/landers.

Well they have said once you have launched a successful supply mission to build the Daedalus for example, it will automatically fly the next supply mission for you.

55 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Seeing these giant buildings (and the orbiting stations and giant ships) makes me think that the logistics of moving large amounts of resources to build them will have a huge role in the gameplay.

Just thinking: more than a VAB worth in mass and volume of resources to bring to orbit to build the huge "Daedalus" engine we've seen in the trailer, and that's just the engine for a ship that's even bigger, all launched from a station dwarfing the ship and the engine.

That's a lot of mass to bring to orbit, plus the fuel, plus the fuel factory, plus the workers crew and their requirements. Even assuming a single universal "ore" resource we'll probably need a small fleet of  (hopefully reusable) heavy duty cargo lifters/landers.

Well they have said once you have launched a successful supply mission to build the Daedalus for example, it will automatically fly the next supply mission for you.

55 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Seeing these giant buildings (and the orbiting stations and giant ships) makes me think that the logistics of moving large amounts of resources to build them will have a huge role in the gameplay.

Just thinking: more than a VAB worth in mass and volume of resources to bring to orbit to build the huge "Daedalus" engine we've seen in the trailer, and that's just the engine for a ship that's even bigger, all launched from a station dwarfing the ship and the engine.

That's a lot of mass to bring to orbit, plus the fuel, plus the fuel factory, plus the workers crew and their requirements. Even assuming a single universal "ore" resource we'll probably need a small fleet of  (hopefully reusable) heavy duty cargo lifters/landers.

Well they have said once you have launched a successful supply mission to build the Daedalus for example, it will automatically fly the next supply mission for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MRDOOGLE said:

Are there only 5 fuel types (mods can definitely change that if that is the case) but just curious, thanks!

There are more than four fuel types. There are two fuels we have not talked about yet. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Master39 said:

Just thinking: more than a VAB worth in mass and volume of resources to bring to orbit to build the huge "Daedalus" engine we've seen in the trailer, and that's just the engine for a ship that's even bigger, all launched from a station dwarfing the ship and the engine.

That's a lot of mass to bring to orbit, plus the fuel, plus the fuel factory, plus the workers crew and their requirements. Even assuming a single universal "ore" resource we'll probably need a small fleet of  (hopefully reusable) heavy duty cargo lifters/landers.

As others have said, there's an "easier" path and a "harder" path for building large colony modules. There's nothing (other than physics) stopping you from attempting to bootstrap a colony straight through Phase 1 and deep into Phase 2 by putting a ton of colonists, raw materials, and Phase 1 colony parts on an enormous lander. That's an area where I'm really looking forward to peoples' individual solutions to the interstellar colonization challenge. You'll be able to make some very ambitious colonizer ships that can essentially contain cities-in-a-box. But since you won't necessarily know what unique environmental challenges those colonists will face, you can either go full yolo and hope your design is flexible enough to work with whatever you stumble across, or you can send interstellar probes first to get a sense of what you'll be dealing with. THIS GAME IS SO RAD, GUYS! 

But if insane superlanders isn't your bag, the sane(er) way of doing this is to establish a small foothold colony and then set up one or more delivery routes - automated dropoff missions that periodically bring new materials to your colony to allow it to grow on a slower timeline. In practice, this method of growth works best at least until you get to the metallic hydrogen portion of the progression. That's when your heavy lift abilities start to get silly. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nate Simpson said:

THIS GAME IS SO RAD, GUYS! 

Nate Simpson's usual calm explanations breaks to show us how much he loves this game:grin:

Also does anyone else notice the terrain? The mountains look so beautiful:heart_eyes:! I can't wait to plant a colony right on the edge of a ridge, with a balcony overlooking the valley!

Just noticed this as well, the normal map on the ground looks a little flat, but I'm sure you will fix that before launch. I know you said in the last one that the terrain will look even nicer after you guys mess with it a bit, so I can wait! 8 months to 2022!

The fuel production plants look amazing! After seeing the reactors and this, I can really start to see how big the colonies are going to be! Even the tiny colonies are going to be huge! Can we get a completed colony size estimate? That would be awesome if we knew how big everything is going to be.

Can't like this post enough! Mods can we add a triple upvote button?

Also lets try to guess how many more of these we might get:

Spoiler

If we assume these updates will be posted weekly, and if we assume that KSP2 will be released April 2022:

Thats 58 weeks, so we could assume that we will get around 50 or so of these updates!

Lots of assumptions (making an ass of u and me) but I'm really excited for this!

Edited by Kerminator K-100
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PlutoISaPlanet said:

I just realized Squad helped you guys out, thats pretty cool and interesting...

In case you aren't aware Squad and Intercept are both owned by the same parent company (Take Two).

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

In case you aren't aware Squad and Intercept are both owned by the same parent company (Take Two).

I know I just did not realize they were working together in this capacity.

Edited by PlutoISaPlanet
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PlutoISaPlanet said:

I know I just did not realize they were working together in this capacity.

You might not be shocked to discover that they're awesome to work with, too! But don't tell RoverDude or he'll get a big head over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

Yep! Good old monoprop. Internally, we assume monoprop is hydrazine -- that's what informed the factory details, anyway. But it works the same way it does in KSP1. 

I really really hope that monoprop is gonna be more useful in KSP2. In KSP1 it was pretty much useless and that doesn't reflect real space flight at all since the reaction wheels were soooooooo overpowered and not fun at all.

You could make it so that during rotation the RCS thrusters don't accelerate constantly like they did in KSP1, instead they accelerate to a comfortable speed, then precisely slow down. This would stop the RCS from overcorrecting and wasting fuel.

All in all RCS thrusters are so cool and I think it would be a wrong choice to take ease of use over realism in this scenario since its easy to just balance the RCS to be more effective.

Nate you are a godsend and I wish you so much luck during development so we can enjoy this game once it finally comes out!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hweiii said:

I really really hope that monoprop is gonna be more useful in KSP2. In KSP1 it was pretty much useless and that doesn't reflect real space flight at all since the reaction wheels were soooooooo overpowered and not fun at all.

You could make it so that during rotation the RCS thrusters don't accelerate constantly like they did in KSP1, instead they accelerate to a comfortable speed, then precisely slow down. This would stop the RCS from overcorrecting and wasting fuel.

All in all RCS thrusters are so cool and I think it would be a wrong choice to take ease of use over realism in this scenario since its easy to just balance the RCS to be more effective.

Nate you are a godsend and I wish you so much luck during development so we can enjoy this game once it finally comes out!

 

 

The main issue I have with RCS thrusters is that since they cause thrust, and not just rotation (in practice since placing absolutely perfect RCS thrusters on a craft is not easy), they always mess up your maneuver nodes to interplanetary destinations if you use them to rotate to the maneuver marker. So then you have to plan another node closer to the target to correct for that error to get the encounter gain, and if you use RCS again, then it introduces more error that you have to correct for AGAIN even closer to the target.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there going to be different launch clamps in KSP2, the red one is getting boring being the only one anyone can use. Or any radial decoupelers that have two attachment points? At the moment you need to have another support or strut to stop it going through the rocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

There are more than four fuel types. There are two fuels we have not talked about yet. ;)

Okay, the orion drive's mini casaba howitzer nuclear bombs are obviously one of those two, that's a no-brainer. But the we've got to ask, what else? Seeing as you guys aren't trying to be hyper-simulationist with the fuel types I'm inclined to believe there's some catch-all "Blutonium" fission fuel that just works in reactors, orion drives and whatever else needs to split a bunch of atoms. Which leaves a single other fuel that hasn't been talked about.

So, how do we guess that last fuel type? The existence of NERVA engines and their likely inclusion in the game makes me immediately think of Hydrogen, but that would be too complicated when there's already methane around to use by itself like the LiquidFuel of KSP 1 (Specific impulse and exhaust velocity be damned.) The same goes for fusion fuel. Helium-3 can be made to fuse with itself, but the addition of Deuterium makes it easier. No no, too complicated. All the fusion engines like the Daedalus have got to just use He3 by itself. Why would you guys hold back simple hydrogen as a mystery fuel? No no, there's got to be something else. BUT WHAT???

Also unrelated note, I think I just figured out what that one mystery drive is that you guys kept showing in your material. The thing that looks suspiciously like a shower head. Lots and lots of little holes. No clear central throat that a traditional rocket engine would have. Fuel delivery pipes stanced as far away from each other as possible... it's almost like the thing's designed to avoid concentrating the fuel in one place until it's ready to be used. I wonder why that could be? :wink:

WTypMJ9.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wubslin said:

Okay, the orion drive's mini casaba howitzer nuclear bombs are obviously one of those two, that's a no-brainer. But the we've got to ask, what else? Seeing as you guys aren't trying to be hyper-simulationist with the fuel types I'm inclined to believe there's some catch-all "Blutonium" fission fuel that just works in reactors, orion drives and whatever else needs to split a bunch of atoms. Which leaves a single other fuel that hasn't been talked about.

So, how do we guess that last fuel type? The existence of NERVA engines and their likely inclusion in the game makes me immediately think of Hydrogen, but that would be too complicated when there's already methane around to use by itself like the LiquidFuel of KSP 1 (Specific impulse and exhaust velocity be damned.) The same goes for fusion fuel. Helium-3 can be made to fuse with itself, but the addition of Deuterium makes it easier. No no, too complicated. All the fusion engines like the Daedalus have got to just use He3 by itself. Why would you guys hold back simple hydrogen as a mystery fuel? No no, there's got to be something else. BUT WHAT???

Also unrelated note, I think I just figured out what that one mystery drive is that you guys kept showing in your material. The thing that looks suspiciously like a shower head. Lots and lots of little holes. No clear central throat that a traditional rocket engine would have. Fuel delivery pipes stanced as far away from each other as possible... it's almost like the thing's designed to avoid concentrating the fuel in one place until it's ready to be used. I wonder why that could be? :wink:

WTypMJ9.png

 

Oh, we've been above-board about nuclear pulse for a while now. That wasn't one of the two mystery fuels. 

For that image at the bottom... hm. No comment. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nate Simpson said:

Oh, we've been above-board about nuclear pulse for a while now. That wasn't one of the two mystery fuels. 

For that image at the bottom... hm. No comment. :)

I KNEW IT

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

I assume there will be mods aplenty to diversify the fuel and resource types. Never fear!

Personally, this reply is the most encouraging tidbit yet about KSP2. I cringe reading all the posts asking for a(n admittedly cool) feature that will only be noticed (let alone used) by a tiny fraction of the player base. I've been rooting for a sort of parallel to MSFS with regards to a solid base provided by you for us players to build upon, and this is very promising.


[Quote: @MechBFP]
The main issue I have with RCS thrusters is that since they cause thrust, and not just rotation (in practice since placing absolutely perfect RCS thrusters on a craft is not easy), they always mess up your maneuver nodes to interplanetary destinations if you use them to rotate to the maneuver marker. So then you have to plan another node closer to the target to correct for that error to get the encounter gain, and if you use RCS again, then it introduces more error that you have to correct for AGAIN even closer to the target. [/Quote]

(I know the tags don't work, shut up)


Wait, but isn't that how it works in real life? Ask anyone who plays a string instrument and this exact phenomenon is daily life of tuning the instrument. You know your second move will throw your first one out of whack, so you overcompensate on the first one so the second one brings it back to what you desire.

Edited by Meecrob
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Wubslin said:

Also unrelated note, I think I just figured out what that one mystery drive is that you guys kept showing in your material. The thing that looks suspiciously like a shower head. Lots and lots of little holes. No clear central throat that a traditional rocket engine would have. Fuel delivery pipes stanced as far away from each other as possible... it's almost like the thing's designed to avoid concentrating the fuel in one place until it's ready to be used. I wonder why that could be? :wink:

 

How could they NOT put it in? It's the most insane, baddest, most frickin' awesome engine ever conceived. Riding a controlled explosion of flaming cancer to the stars is the pinnacle of Kerbal-ness. ;p

Sweet new KSP2 emoji s, btw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...