EVA Propellent

[mic_e]

So in .23, my capsules all have monoprop (10 per Seat). However, EVAs don't seem to use any of that; I can 'get out and push' as often as I want, and still have full monoprop in the capsule/EVA prop at the beginning of each EVA.

I'm working on a fresh install and haven't installed any mods yet. Is this behaviour intentional? Then what effect does the change have at all?

[Starwaster]

So in .23, my capsules all have monoprop (10 per Seat). However, EVAs don't seem to use any of that; I can 'get out and push' as often as I want, and still have full monoprop in the capsule/EVA prop at the beginning of each EVA.

I'm working on a fresh install and haven't installed any mods yet. Is this behaviour intentional? Then what effect does the change have at all?

I haven't messed with EVA yet but I thought EVA. Used its own non-MonoPropellant fuel and a reviewer had stated it was not replenished after reboarding the ship. I find that questionable though or if true, ill advised.

[Wheffle]

I've noticed that too. Capsules have mono-propellant, but it's just normal mono-propellant. The new "EVApropellant" still seems to be infinite.

[mic_e]

I thought EVA. Used its own non-MonoPropellant fuel and a reviewer had stated it was not replenished after reboarding the ship

Yeah, I heard that at Kerbalkon, too. And in fact, the ressource is called EVA Propellant while on EVA. But I can think of no other reasons why all capsules should suddendly have gained small per-Kerbal monoprop tanks.

Also, at Kerbalkon they said that you can transfer EVA prop between Kerbals that are on the same vessel, however it does not display EVA Prop at all while in a vessel...

[purpletarget]

Yes, the EVAMono is infinite...and topped up whenever a Kerbal leaves a pod. There's nothing buggy in your install as far as that goes.

Also, at Kerbalkon they said that you can transfer EVA prop between Kerbals that are on the same vessel, however it does not display EVA Prop at all while in a vessel...

The only (stock) case where the Kerbal is part of a vessel for this kind of resource transfer, is when they're "docked" in command chairs. Then they can transfer EVAMono between each other.

[mic_e]

The only (stock) case where the Kerbal is part of a vessel for this kind of resource transfer, is when they're "docked" in command chairs. Then they can transfer EVAMono between each other.

Nice to know, thanks.

So I guess they made EVA prop an extra resource to prevent rover RCS from draining your kerbals?

Edited December 18, 2013 by mic_e

[CaptainArchmage]

I tried it once, it looks like they just switched EVA monopropellant to the resource system but otherwise made it replenish once inside the capsules. I did not notice my capsule monopropellant decreasing after the kerbals replenished their jetpacks.

Maybe, if you use a truly massive amount of EVA monopropellant you will see your capsule monopropellant draining out. I haven't tried that yet.

[Jr6150x]

On my latest mission, I had to go out and push to return to kerbin. I loved the new propellant system, but when I got back in the capsule with a nearly empty pack I noticed that the capsules monopropellant was still 10.00. I thought they changed it to were the EVA propulsion is limited to your monopropellant supply. Did I hear wrong and this is completely normal or is this a bug???

Thanks!

Jr6150x

[annallia]

I think this is just what we were expecting, instead all they really did was make the EVA propellant a real reasource which seems to magically refill itself when you hop back in.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

They haven't limited EVAprop yet, I'm sure they will in the future. I hope they do so after they allow docking ports to transfer crew, since it'd be unfair to waste a limited resource just for changing pods of connected ships.

[The Destroyer]

I guess the only reasons command pods carry it now is for a little extra RCS.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I guess the only reasons command pods carry it now is for a little extra RCS.

I'm guessing that they'll change that over to EVAprop eventually

[AmpsterMan]

As far as I know you already have EVA fuel in your pack. If you go in it just refills it.

[Jr6150x]

Ok! Thanks for answering.

I appreciate it.

[Merinsan]

As far as I can tell, the only reason for the change was because it wasn't a resource before, now it is, which means you can run the same general code as you do for all other resources. Basically, it's simplified the code so there are less areas to maintain, and easier to extend.

I bet in 0.24 there will be a new part - EVA propellant tank, or something to that effect.

[Col_Jessep]

I now want an ion drive EVA suit covered in solar panels to zip around on Minmus all day. Note: make sure to plan ahead for the night...

[Kasuha]

I think the pod's monopropellant stock was intended for EVA suits but then there was design change, monopropellant in suits was exchanged for EVA propellant and they did not finish the full implementation before the release. The intent according to HervesteR was that two Kerbals on EVA can hold hands and exchange the propellant in space.

So I think in the future that pod monopropellant will likely be replaced by EVA propellant and its stock will decrease as your Kerbal goes on EVA and uses some.

[bsalis]

I thought it was a bug.

Hope they get rid of EVA Monoprop, and just use the one Monoprop resource.

[ComradeGoat]

I like the mono prop resource in capsules. For a long time, I've been wanting to build small lightweight landers where shaving grams counts, and lamented that there isn't a really small, lightweight mono prop container. The 50 is too large. The 40 is still quite large, and won't stack mount so you get weight balance issues using just one.

Now the small capsules have a tiny bit of mono prop, it's great - I can design landers and other lightweight thingies, dock them, and not need to waste precious weight and fuel dragging around far more monoprop than I need, or risk burning the station with the exhaust from my rockets trying to do a thruster-less docking.

[CalculusWarrior]

I like the mono prop resource in capsules. For a long time, I've been wanting to build small lightweight landers where shaving grams counts, and lamented that there isn't a really small, lightweight mono prop container. The 50 is too large. The 40 is still quite large, and won't stack mount so you get weight balance issues using just one.

Now the small capsules have a tiny bit of mono prop, it's great - I can design landers and other lightweight thingies, dock them, and not need to waste precious weight and fuel dragging around far more monoprop than I need, or risk burning the station with the exhaust from my rockets trying to do a thruster-less docking.

I've found that as my docking skills have increased, my need for monopropellant has decreased dramatically. Whether its me putting on less RCS ports, less maneuvering, or just more usage of the main engines on craft, but I can often dock a couple of ships together while using less than 5 units of monopropellant. As such, I agree with you; the monopropellant integrated into the command pods is a godsend!

[Tw1]

I thought it was a bug.

Hope they get rid of EVA Monoprop, and just use the one Monoprop resource.

Agreed, it seems odd that they need a separate resource. Unless EVA propellant is effectively monopropellant with different numbers. Anyone calculated how much monopropellant a kerbal suit actually would use? I imagine it would be a pretty small amount.

[KerbMav]

If Monopropellant is really a hypergolic stuff, then you wouldnt want that in a jetpack or anywhere close to your suit.

The jetpack most likely uses pressurized CO2 or N2.

I think KSP is still missing a more elaborate persistant Kerbal stats system, there most likely is no way yet to keep track of the used jetpackfuel when the Kerbal enters a pod. The RCS in the pods may then also change back to EVA-fuel.

[bsalis]

If Monopropellant is really a hypergolic stuff, then you wouldnt want that in a jetpack or anywhere close to your suit.

... they are Kerbals.

[um3k]

... they are Kerbals.

Falling from space and landing on your head is often a "flight you can walk away from" for a Kerbal.

[maccollo]

If Monopropellant is really a hypergolic stuff, then you wouldnt want that in a jetpack or anywhere close to your suit.

The jetpack most likely uses pressurized CO2 or N2.

I think KSP is still missing a more elaborate persistant Kerbal stats system, there most likely is no way yet to keep track of the used jetpackfuel when the Kerbal enters a pod. The RCS in the pods may then also change back to EVA-fuel.

Perhaps, but what the different types of fuels actually are is very vague, and from as far as the game mechanics go I simply don't understand the rationale for adding a separate resource for EVA.

It just over complicates things when the primary reason for adding this was to prevent people from pushing their capsules around for unlimited deltaV, or so I thought anyway.