Jump to content

The unofficially official 0.24-Kerbapalooza Thread - Now extra #HYPETRAIN!


KvickFlygarn87

Recommended Posts

There has been lots of realworld talk over the years about refuelling stations. None of it has led anywhere because it's simply is not efficient. Every mission launches into a different plane. So if two different missions going two different places want to use a single fuel station, one of them needs to make a massive plane-change after fuelling. That is unless they are both going to the same place relatively close in time to each other (ie Mun trips a couple months apart at most). Refuel also means docking, requiring all the associated navigation, thruster and antenna parts = increased weight.

That what I actually found myself in KSP. Even without plane changes, refuelling was simply added waste of time (and bit of delta-V cost) of all these dockings, and need to put extra hardware on that ships, reducing max delta-V. And all this fuel had to be hauled up somehow - so total cost remains the same (or worse). Better just to attach useful payload to that stack and launch it in one go, straight to destination.

Without actually somehow producing fuel in space, "supply depots" don't make much sense.

I guess upcoming budget/cost system could change this somewhat, but we will see. Because, as I mentioned before, you will still have to launch fuel, and I wonder if this will be good enough to offset small cost saving on not hauling interplanetary bits (which are not quite high weight/cost fraction compared to whole groundside launcher).

Edited by RidingTheFlow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advantage is obvious: in multiple trips you can get more fuel to the space craft as rockets in real life, unlike Kerbal, got very limited cargo capacity. In real life the "more boosters" rule doesn't work. So if you want large, high DeltaV space ship you want to launch it in multiple stages. Why we haven't done it yet - there was no need. If we'll ever send man to the Mars and back - we'll have to use multiple launches.

The only other reason why it might be worth it is refueling ships that cannot land on Earth - but in real economy it's cheaper to dispose old satellite and send a new one back then sending refueling ship with fuel and performing a risky refueling manuever... Oh, and let's not forget about the key part: refueling ships for space probes don't exist. So you need to design that one too.

Producing fuel in space got nothing to deal with it.... even if it'd be feasable, and we are talking here about collecting individual atoms, so you can forget about refueling any large ships before they decay in orbit way too much...

Edited by Sky_walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This 64bit version.. Will it be stable?

Not as stable as the 32 bit version. The devs said that they had already evaluated running 0.23.5 with the 64 bit windows Unity stuff, and at that time they decided it wasn't stable enough. Then, after the thread on user-made 64 bit, they realized that there are people that want the 64 bit windows client enough to put up with some instability and issues. That is what changed their minds, they already knew how stable it was and at least some of the issues it brings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so...got a 3 day weekend and no plans...it'd be a shame if something happened to occupy all this free time ill have....

edit: oh and btw this is now the .24 waiting thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that make it a meteorite?

unless squad is on a space station then we would call it an asteroid or comet.

heck it could be space junk from my massive orbital debreas I have been creating for fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...