Your Base and Station purpose?

[SkyRex94]

It's interesting to read all your posts.

But to all of you claiming a Fuel-Station is a good thing:

It may be fun to build one. it may be a fun way to do your missions that way. But a Fuel Station is not 'efficient' in any way! (Asssuming your playing without Kethane or Karbonite, then it would be efficient of course)

Look at it from an engineering point of view:

For Mun and Minmus the most efficient thing are suborbital hops to reach the next Biome, not achieving Orbit and break an Orbit everytime you change biome. A command module can be efficient, so it also carries the drive to get back home, and after every 5 Mun landings you refuel there and store the experiments. But the efficient way is to do the mun all at once so it stays a command module and not a station as you'd never refuel there again.

And for the Spaceplane gas station. Unless you need your wings and airbreathing engines at your destination its ineeficient, because you don't want to take your wings and Jets with you on an interplanetary tranfer, because its dead weight. Except maybe a direct flight to Laythe Surface and back, thats the only option where i think a fuel station in LKO might be more efficient than anything else. But apart from that there are always more efficient solutions, from an engineering point of view.

[Jett_Quasar]

It may be fun to build one. it may be a fun way to do your missions that way. But a Fuel Station is not 'efficient' in any way! (Asssuming your playing without Kethane or Karbonite, then it would be efficient of course)

Having fun and doing cool stuff is kinda the whole point of the game isn't it?

JR

Edited September 20, 2014 by Jolly_Roger

[SkyRex94]

Having fun and doing cool stuff is kinda the whole point of the game isn't it?

JR

Yes sure and it's a legit reason to do these things. Otherwise why play a game at all.

That was only for the people saying their building it just as a Fuel-Depot-purpose and claiming that would be an efficient way.

I also build my stations for the fun of building it. Nothing wrong with that

[Jett_Quasar]

I think another point is that we need Squad to develop a game dynamic that supports the construction of bases and stations. I think you also nailed it in your previous post - we need resources in the game. The Kethane mod showed that resource gathering not only legitimized base building but required players to build probes for mapping planetary resources as well.

JR

[Roflcopterkklol]

Mobile base, carries 7 kerbals and a science lab, purpose is to pillage all science while being durable and easy to use and easy to repair when broken.

does require a rescue vessel to get the kerbals back off where ever it is you decide to land one, still designing that.

interior view

Edited September 20, 2014 by Roflcopterkklol

[SorryDave]

But a Fuel Station is not 'efficient' in any way!

Here is an example of an efficient use of a fuel station:

I use a vertical take-off SSTO to drop a 20 ton fuel tank into orbit and then land next to the runway, usually recovering 98% of the vehicle minus the fuel and payload.

I then use this fuel to re-supply a small, maneuverable craft that is permanently kept in space (also launched by the same SSTO). The craft is capable of orbiting Duna, Eve, and back. It can land on both Minmus and Mun. I use it to explore NKOs.

This is much cheaper than launching a large amount of fuel in a big craft to do the same thing as it maximizes re-usability.

Now that cost is measured in career mode and sublimation of fuels is not an issue, fuel depots are an engineering solution to maximize efficiency.

[MisterDoubleSevens]

Roleplay purposes, mostly. Probably why I sent scienceless, ScanSAT-less probes to Duna and Eve (justified in-save as being AI cores that have a hardcoded curiosity due to their nature as probes).

Alternatively, Karbonite and Interstellar purposes, pretending I have RemoteTech (I don't) and requiring relay stations and satellites, or just goofing around with hilariously impractical ships that I call "space yachts."

[SkyRex94]

Here is an example of an efficient use of a fuel station:

I use a vertical take-off SSTO to drop a 20 ton fuel tank into orbit and then land next to the runway, usually recovering 98% of the vehicle minus the fuel and payload.

I then use this fuel to re-supply a small, maneuverable craft that is permanently kept in space (also launched by the same SSTO). The craft is capable of orbiting Duna, Eve, and back. It can land on both Minmus and Mun. I use it to explore NKOs.

This is much cheaper than launching a large amount of fuel in a big craft to do the same thing as it maximizes re-usability.

Now that cost is measured in career mode and sublimation of fuels is not an issue, fuel depots are an engineering solution to maximize efficiency.

It is still not the most efficient way. Even if you intend to reuse your orbital craft several times with not planning all the missions ahead. Let me explain a way how you could save even more FUNDS: You launch your craft with your SSTO, fully fueled. Then go off to first mission. After that park in LKO. Build a new SSTO with a Payload of EXACTLY the amount of fuel you can put in your craft at once. (it'll probably be more efficient in terms of funds per ton, than your bigger SSTO) Launch and rendeveous directly with your craft. (You saved the amount of fuel for moving your craft to the station, since now the orbital position of your craft doesn't matter) fuel it up. Return the small SSTO. Go for 2nd Mission, head back home into any LKO. Repeat the refuelling with the optimized small SSTO.

Try it if you don't believe me. You'll see you can save even more Funds. So Fuel station is not the 'most efficient' way to do it. Even if its fun to use one , don't claim it being the most efficient way to do things.

Tell me other Scenarios (with the exception of the already explained Kerbin to Laythe Spaceplane refueling before departure, that might actually be the most efficient way) and i'll explain you a more efficient way of doing things without a fuel depot (Sometimes saving more sometimes less fuel, but always saving something)

[Rolanvorxariat]

Station science mod. Enough said.

[sdj64]

I've used bases and stations halfway between roleplay and useful, for serving as a refueling station and parking lot for testing out rovers, ion hovercraft, gliders, MMUs, and other planetary vehicles. When it gets too laggy, I'll make another one in a different orbit or somewhere else on the surface. Usually my bases are single-launch buildings rather than the complex arrangements of tubes that some people build, since I get more fun from the small craft than from building the base itself.

Mun and Minmus biomes are fun, but I generally want to go interplanetary before I get all the parts that are really useful for a reusable infrastructure. Biomes on planets would be very cool to have and would bring some career purpose to bases and stations. Until then I'll just see if a vehicle works and then let it start gathering dust.

I never use fuel stations for craft coming off of Kerbin. Fuel stations may or may not be more efficient from a cost standpoint, but certainly aren't from a time standpoint. Though I might test out a ludicrously large rocket by launching a fuel station. Unless there's some critical reason (like a forum challenge) that needs to use a fueling station, the limiting resource is time, not funds or delta-V.

[Skorpychan]

Mechanical purpose: Fuel storage/transfer/processing (kethane mod), satisfying plant flag on/get science from orbit around contracts.

Actual purpose: Bragging rights.

I am, however, setting up to build my first Munbase, once I unlock bigger launchers. Gonna be a big fuel storage and refining system, with the aim of dumping it near a source of Kethane, and mining the hell out of it with a different ship, then docking the two to transfer it over for refining.

Then there's the fuel stations, which store the refined fuel and kethane.

My aim is to have a big station in orbit around every planet, for use in refueling return missions. This means I have to launch and send less fuel OUT, and can re-use fuel tanks on-site. Granted, this means my first missions are going to be bigger than normal, but return missions will see savings. Especially for Jool.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Skorpychan

[Norcalplanner]

I built most of my stations mainly for fun, and before I got the hang of SSTOs. I'll agree that their utility greatly reduces once you have the SSTO thing settled, but for standard disposable rocket ascents (where the cost per ton into orbit is much higher) then stations make a bit more sense. I will say that one of my proudest accomplishments as a relatively new player was an 800-ton station in orbit around the Mun, with enough fuel and monoprop to support dozens of deep space exploration missions. It had multiple landers, including some which could drop off rovers, to fully explore all parts of the Mun. It included a science lab and accommodations for 19 kerbals. It was launched in four major pieces, some of which were broken apart and reconfigured into wings with small tugs once they were in place.

I think I used it maybe a half dozen times for munar excursions, and refueled exactly one interplanetary craft. Then 0.24 came out, I started a new career save, and haven't gone back to that station in months. :-\

Edited September 21, 2014 by Norcalplanner

[munseeker]

I build stations and bases for fun.

Building a modular base on the Mun where the pressurized modules connect correctly (I use the Connected Living Space mod) makes for a pretty interesting technical challenge. Also, adding TAC Life Support means that a base or station becomes a commitment to regular flawless supply flights, which adds to the challenge level.

There is also the fuel depot aspect for orbital stations, since I often fly crew shuttles between Kerbin and Mun that need orbital resupply facilities.

[Tripzter]

And Refueling Stations are a really inefficient thing: Refueling the ship directly is ALWAYS more fuel saving than shipping it to a station and move the ship there too, no matter where the station is.

That is 100% false. First build the ship so you can use the fuel during the launch and then have it refuel. Hell for couple missions like my Jool and Eeloo missions i launched my ship with empty orange/white tanks that i refueled at my space station before launching. IMO bases are most usefull if you use mods like Kethane mod so you can have a mining rig.

The only reason why i hate the bases/space stations is lag otherwise i'd use mine even more.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Tripzter

[SkyRex94]

That is 100% false. First build the ship so you can use the fuel during the launch and then have it refuel. Hell for couple missions like my Jool and Eeloo missions i launched my ship with empty orange/white tanks that i refueled at my space station before launching. IMO bases are most usefull if you use mods like Kethane mod so you can have a mining rig.

The only reason why i hate the bases/space stations is lag otherwise i'd use mine even more.

That only makes sense if the Fuel in your station isn't brought there from Kerbin. And i already said they are efficient with Kethane/Karbonite but not without. Without ressources you also have to bring the fuel to your station in the first place and than you have to bring your ship in orbit and dock with the station. You have to bring the fuel up nevertheless, so build a bigger launcher and bring your ship up already fueled up. Saves you two dockings and rendeveous and is more time efficient two, and you need only one ship.

The pure energy to bring something into orbit is exactly the same ( assuming equal efficient launchers) no matter if its brought up in two flights or in one flight. So your Scenario would be more efficient without your station.

100% false assumption of 100% falseness of other post is 100% false.

[Carter]

All a stock refueling station does is allow a higher quantity of smaller and less complicated ships to go further by spending more time and using more maneuvers moving and getting to the fuel.

Use an 18-wheeler to haul its own diesel or use a pickup and park a bunch of other pickups with jerry-cans along your route.

I'd prefer doing the latter if I didn't have to ship all the fuel from the surface to top off stations myself. That's where mods save the day.

[SorryDave]

Tell me other Scenarios (with the exception of the already explained Kerbin to Laythe Spaceplane refueling before departure, that might actually be the most efficient way) and i'll explain you a more efficient way of doing things without a fuel depot (Sometimes saving more sometimes less fuel, but always saving something)

With all respect, I do not believe you did your example.

Your example just demonstrates that you could save a little bit more money by launching a bunch of smaller "fuel depots" at the increased difficulty of multiple SSTO landings on the runway.

[BDelacroix]

Science in orbit.

Flag planting.

Fun.

My stations have fuel depots for the smaller ships that I reuse several times. They need only enough to land once and get back. Then they refuel for the next trip.

[SkyRex94]

With all respect, I do not believe you did your example.

Your example just demonstrates that you could save a little bit more money by launching a bunch of smaller "fuel depots" at the increased difficulty of multiple SSTO landings on the runway.

'difficult' to land on the runway is relative and highly dependend on the design of the ship. And you just said yourself that my example does exactly the thing i was claiming it to do: Saving a little more fuel and thus beeing more efficient. I never claimed anything more than the pure fuel-efficency aspect, and that is fully fullfilled with my example. And i never said Fuel stations are BAD and shouldn't be used, it is infact sometimes not the WORST decision to do it with a station, i just wanted to point out that the assumption of it being the most fuel efficient way is wrong.

And I don't mean to say anybody how to play or what is the most FUN and PRACTICAL or RELIABLE way of doing things. Sometimes i build stations myself. It is just meant as a clarification that fuel stations are NOT the most EFFICIENT way, which was claimed by some people.

[magnemoe]

'difficult' to land on the runway is relative and highly dependend on the design of the ship. And you just said yourself that my example does exactly the thing i was claiming it to do: Saving a little more fuel and thus beeing more efficient. I never claimed anything more than the pure fuel-efficency aspect, and that is fully fullfilled with my example. And i never said Fuel stations are BAD and shouldn't be used, it is infact sometimes not the WORST decision to do it with a station, i just wanted to point out that the assumption of it being the most fuel efficient way is wrong.

And I don't mean to say anybody how to play or what is the most FUN and PRACTICAL or RELIABLE way of doing things. Sometimes i build stations myself. It is just meant as a clarification that fuel stations are NOT the most EFFICIENT way, which was claimed by some people.

They require some other infrastructure, together with reusable LV-N tugs they works well.

However my primary fuel depots tend to be used stages, put probe, reaction wheels, power and docking ports on it and you are in business.

Rcs is also nice for docking with ships without rcs, it and the docking ports is the only thing not needed anyway to return the stage to KSC.

[1greywind]

I'm building bases for construction challenge and from aesthetic reasons:

Stock KSP universe is very static and silent. Bases and Stations are one of few things that can move and create illusion of life on screen.

[Carter]

I'm building bases for construction challenge and from aesthetic reasons:

Stock KSP universe is very static and silent. Bases and Stations are one of few things that can move and create illusion of life on screen.

If I tried to build something like that I'd might as well have my frames mailed to me by Squad. Every day I'd get a new one and say, "Ooh, that still looks pretty. I wonder what it would look like if I made it spin faster?" And I'd send a letter to Squad informing them that I'd like to press and hold the E key for 1.36 seconds.

[1greywind]

@Carter: I've cheated My fps with this station and FRAPS recording is ~6-7. So I've record 30 minutes of video and then speeded it up 10 times in After Effect.

[Voculus]

I'm building bases for construction challenge and from aesthetic reasons:

Stock KSP universe is very static and silent. Bases and Stations are one of few things that can move and create illusion of life on screen.

Now that's a work of art! Also, very clever trick using After Effects to turn it into a great video.

[yaur]

For Mun and Minmus the most efficient thing are suborbital hops to reach the next Biome, not achieving Orbit and break an Orbit everytime you change biome. A command module can be efficient, so it also carries the drive to get back home, and after every 5 Mun landings you refuel there and store the experiments. But the efficient way is to do the mun all at once so it stays a command module and not a station as you'd never refuel there again.

For the science lab the key number is the ratio between the dV required to reach LXO from the surface of Kerbin and the dV required to reach LXO from the surface of the body. If this ratio is 16 (8 landing) or higher it is possible to at least break even using the lab. At 22.9 Minmus qualifies and has enough biomes to get a little bit ahead on mass. If you are going to be doing multiple landings you are obviously better off leaving your extra fuel in orbit. This assumes constant ISP (fine for minmus, not fine if you are using an LV-N on your transfer stage) and that the cost of the rendezvous is reasonably close to the cost of a suborbital hop (player dependent). I haven't really looked at how Minums paying for lifting the CM/lander effects efficiency for other bodies, but leaving your old Minmus CM in LKO as a station would allow you to at least avoid the cost of sending your lander back into orbit.

All that said funds in the current version flow freely enough that we don't really need to worry about the savings and missions that require docking take substantially more RL time that simpler mission plans.