[1.3.x] SETI, Unmanned before Manned [Patreon]

[Lord Aurelius]

Thanks for clarifying your thought process when designing the contract, based on that it also makes sense to me to require dishes for the initial comm network, it saves the frustration of having to revamp the entire network just after you got it set up. SETI might need to be tweaked a little though to balance the various dishes.

The main issue I've been having with the initial comm network contract is how hard it is to get low eccentricity orbits that early in the game without decent orbital maneuvering engines (and mechjeb, I'm a terrible pilot...) so I end up postponing the network until I've at least unlocked the LVT-909. The next SETI update should help a lot with this since we'll now have throttleable HRB's early on to use for upper stages.

Another thought, maybe have a contract with Molniya orbits? I was experimenting with those yesterday and they're much easier to set up and take less dV (just launch straight up to a high apoapsis and tweak the periapsis once you're at apoapsis a bit so you pass around just outside the atmosphere) and have the advantage of not drifting out of sync a few years down the road. There's a great threads on that here and here.

Also, part of this may be my rudimentary understanding of remotetech (I'm still learning all its intricacies), or failing to properly read the contract, but it seemed like I needed 3 dishes on my comsats for the contract, one to connect to each of the other two satellites and one to connect to the active vessel. I might have just misunderstood the contract and only one dish is needed for the active vessel.

Still, great job on setting up the contracts, it's nice to get paid to do something you have to do anyways.

Edit: @SVM420 AIES is a great recommendation, they also have some really nice probe cores.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[SwGustav]

Oops, said a wrong word there. "early networks", more like "one to three sats launched into silly orbits for basic coverage and control of early probes".

Main focus is lower energy consumption. Seriously, with part count limits, you can't put up enough OX-STATs, and even if you could they couldn't be used at the same time. AND, if they could be powered at the same time, they still wouldn't be enough for 3 DTS-M1.

I also said antenna, I meant dish specifically (although does it really matter? Anything that can point at things)

Maybe I can split out the "early comms network" and "comms network that can reach the Mun" into two contracts. That would probably be a workable solution for both stock and SETI.

YES please. Slow early game exploration and BANG - a contract for fully covering Kerbin system network. I'd love it being split up at least!

It's just with SETI (and RemoteTech) you have to poke around near LKO and KEO for quite a while unlike stock.

Another thought, maybe have a contract with Molniya orbits? I was experimenting with those yesterday and they're much easier to set up and take less dV (just launch straight up to a high apoapsis and tweak the periapsis once you're at apoapsis a bit so you pass around just outside the atmosphere) and have the advantage of not drifting out of sync a few years down the road. There's a great threads on that here and here.

Molniya (or rather Kolniya:rolleyes:) is my favourite. Especially for first sat, just burn from the start and then queue a short burn at the apoapsis. There are Molniya contracts in stock FinePrint, but they are random and rare. So a programmed contract would be great.

Edit: FuseBox - very useful mod

Edited February 25, 2015 by SwGustav

[nightingale]

Great, thanks for the feedback guys. Here's the plan for the RemoteTech contract pack:

1. Change the initial contract to either require 4 satellites (or 3 plus one optional). This better follows the RemoteTech tutorial.
   
2. Split the "reach to Mun" bit from the "cover Kerbin" contract.
   
3. Some sort of Kolniya support for the initial contract (alternate contract? optional parameters? not sure the implementation yet).
   

Note though that this will probably be after Contract Configurator 0.7.0 comes out that I look at these... so at least a couple weeks, if not more.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and by the way, that Molniya concept for RemoteTech is COOL.

[Lord Aurelius]

@nightingale

Sounds good, looking forward to trying out the new contracts when they're ready.

For the Munar portion of the contract, maybe it could be one or two Molniya orbits over the poles since Kerbin is already covered so we just need to boost the range out to the Mun.

[nightingale]

@nightingale

Sounds good, looking forward to trying out the new contracts when they're ready.

For the Munar portion of the contract, maybe it could be one or two Molniya orbits over the poles since Kerbin is already covered so we just need to boost the range out to the Mun.

Nope, the Kerbin ones have specific orbits because the are a pseudo-tutorial and the Molniya stuff is just a neat way to build a network that I want to highlight since I bet most players haven't seen it used for a RemoteTech network. But otherwise my policy for those contracts has been to have the parameters very generic (ie. "get coverage of body x"), so that it's up to the player to design/build the network. Because really, that's part of the fun in RemoteTech!

So anyway, I'll try to keep the Mun part equally generic... or maybe it's as simple as making the "Mun dish" part of that contract be optional... maybe that's better.

[Lord Aurelius]

That makes sense, I only just got past the initial remotetech contract in my career and hadn't seen the next one surface yet. I like the idea that the later contracts are more generic and let us plan out how to do it ourselves.

[Yemo]

I would then like to recommend AIES. AT least for the antenna. I believe it has some smaller dishes that could be configured to suit that purpose.

Thank you, will take a look at it. However it says 80 parts, which means a lot of sorting.

[...]

Edit: FuseBox - very useful mod

Looks great (and small), will put in in the suggestions.

About the RemoteTech:

The initial 3+1 sounds good, maybe it could be splitted even furter into a 2+1 (which I use for example)?

In general, I use a 2 KSO orbits in the beginning, first one 60° ahead of KSC, second one 60° behind KSC. Each one with at least 3 DTS-M1, one for KSC, one for active vessel, one (on one sat) for the third KSO position later on and the one on the other sat in reserve.

For power supply (used, not the one for the contracts), the new Universal Storage mini Alkaline Fuel Cell is great, together with enough oxygen and hydrogen (per wedges or per procedural life support tanks for part count saving) to last a few hundred days under full load.

The great advantage since 0.8.0 is, that the mini Fuel Cell wedge contains two separate fuel cell modules, one providing 1ec/s, the other one providing 2ec/s. So I can throttle the consumption depending on the dish usage...

The 2 sats give about 70% LKO coverage, which is enough for most missions with a little timing.

In other news, I was able to deal with the compatibility issues regarding the microMod release I was talking about.

So we have a new REQUIREMENT for using FAR:

FAR/NEAR usability Package

it provides the B9 airbrakes, which will be used in the 0.8.1 FAR jets, making landing approaches and landings much easier (and more realistic).

- - - Updated - - -

edit: Thank you Lord Aurelius for the link in your new signature!

[Lord Aurelius]

Thank you Lord Aurelius for the link in your new signature!

You're welcome, I figured it was only fair given that you've done so much to help implement and promote my HRB idea. That, and this mod is fast approaching my ideal for stock that I had been planning in my head endlessly but never got around to doing.

Only change that you aren't already planning that I might make for personal taste is to eventually see if I can get it working on a larger scale solar system with additional planets, something along the lines of the 3.2 Jumbo rescale with Outer Planets. That, and full visual overhauls once I get around to setting up a proper Linux dual boot on my machine (or Unity gets their act together with 64 bit on Windows).

Edited February 25, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[Lord Aurelius]

Another interesting looking mod: Rejector [link]

It automatically rejects contracts based on customizable filters so you don't end up with a bunch of terrible contracts cluttering up your list of available contracts.

[nightingale]

Another interesting looking mod: Rejector [link]

It automatically rejects contracts based on customizable filters so you don't end up with a bunch of terrible contracts cluttering up your list of available contracts.

One thing to be careful of with Rejector is that it doesn't really support Contract Configurator. Or rather, Contract Configurator works in an "odd" way compared to other contracts in that there is only really one "type" of contract, so a user can't use rejector to filter out CC contracts other than via the funds/science/rep functions (and any future filters, such as the target body).

The other potential issue is that Rejector if rejector filters out a contract that is a major pre-requisite in your contract tree, it has effectively stopped the user from progressing down that part of the tree.

So if a player chooses to use Rejector to filter out part test contracts, you're probably okay. If they use it to filter contracts that don't have enough rewards for them... it's probably going to cause havok on SETI's contracts.

[Yemo]

Hm,

I will keep an eye on Rejector, it is a great idea. However compatibility with nightingale's ContractConfigurator is key.

What are your thoughts on the capsule weights?

While I think they are balanced within SETI, I fear they might have gotten a bit heavy now for easy compatibility with non supported mods.

I m considering bringing the weight down again, for that reason.

eg like this:

Mk1 pod: 1 ton instead of 1.1 tons

Mk1-1 pod: 2.2 tons instead of 2.4 tons

Mk1-2 pod: 3.2 tons instead of 3.4 tons

Mk1 LanderCan: 1.05 tons instead of 1.1 tons

Mk2 LanderCan: 2.1 tons instead of 2.3 tons

Mk1 Cockpits: 1 ton instead of 1.1 tons

Mk2 Cockpits: 2 tons instead of 2.2 tons

3 Kerbal Cockpits: 2.8-3 tons instead of 3.2 tons

4 Kerbal Cockpits: 3.8 tons instead of 4 tons

Hitchhiker 4Kerbal: 3.0-3.2 tons instead of 2.5 tons

[Svm420]

I would like to recommend the mod saturable RWs. While it says WIP it is stable and works great. It make RWs depleteable but it a manageaable way. No more RWs to turn your rocket the whole way up if you dont want to end in a tumble in orbit. It make RWs much less OP.

[SwGustav]

A little late, but congrats on FAR package release Yemo. Can you clarify that SETI users only need airbrakes from it?

And is 0.8.1 coming this week?

What are your thoughts on the capsule weights?

The ones you proposed seem fine to me, though I don't understand the logic behind small number tweaks (like, do you calculate it somehow or..?)

[Yemo]

I would like to recommend the mod saturable RWs. While it says WIP it is stable and works great. It make RWs depleteable but it a manageaable way. No more RWs to turn your rocket the whole way up if you dont want to end in a tumble in orbit. It make RWs much less OP.

I will take a look at it for a future version, it seems to require some testing for gameplay effect (for which I have limited time atm).

A little late, but congrats on FAR package release Yemo. Can you clarify that SETI users only need airbrakes from it?

And is 0.8.1 coming this week?

The ones you proposed seem fine to me, though I don't understand the logic behind small number tweaks (like, do you calculate it somehow or..?)

You can install the whole package for simplicity, it uses the latest firespitter and the engine configs are deactivated if SETI is present.

My main goal is, to give players reasonable options, instead of the stock balance mess.

For example in stock, if you want to do an interplanetary mission, it is much more mass efficient to stack three Mk1 capsules instead of using the Mk1-2 pod.

And it is even more mass efficient to use one Mk1 pod and put two Mk1 Lander Cans on top...

With the masses of SETI at the moment and the proposed ones, this "gaming the system" is much less beneficial compared to the trade offs like stability.

The "calculation" is basically 0.8 - 1 ton per kerbal (lower end for just transportation, higher end for command function), then a little bit extra mass to compensate for monoprop storage/heat shield.

- - - Updated - - -

I m working on 0.8.1 today, so depending on that, anywhere between late today and early weekend.

[SwGustav]

Aww, I found out Hitchhiker doesn't have any KAS/TAC LS support.

Please don't be intentional, there are crates for snacks and other stuff inside + it's a cargo container after all..

Also, why part temperatures are different in cfgs and in-game?

[Lord Aurelius]

As far as reducing the pod weights, I think that's a good idea, I don't really play with other part mods not on the supported list so I can't comment on the balance, but I know that the stock pods in KSP were already quite heavy for their size so I would consider the stock weights to be the upper limit for the pods in general, especially with DRE. Your logic for choosing the masses makes sense, although I'm a bit puzzled at the masses of the lander cans compared to the pods, do the lander can weights include extra life support/monoprop that the pods don't have, and are the ablative shield weights included in the weights on this table? In my mind, the lander cans (and the hitchhiker) should all be quite a bit lighter per Kerbal than the cockpits/capsules, but with very low impact resistance and temperature tolerance so you wouldn't want them exposed to any kind of atmospheric reentry or hard landing.

Without DRE, the current balance makes more sense since you don't have the reentry mechanic to help differentiate the pods from the cans except for the impact at the final touchdown.

Glad to hear that the next update is almost ready. Keep up the good work.

[SwGustav]

In my mind, the lander cans (and the hitchhiker) should all be quite a bit lighter per Kerbal than the cockpits/capsules, but with very low impact resistance and temperature tolerance so you wouldn't want them exposed to any kind of atmospheric reentry or hard landing.

I generally like this lander deviation from command pods, however how do you land on atmospheric bodies then? (Duna, Eve, Laythe)

I think Mk2 lander can should have bigger resistance for this matter. And ALCOR capsule that I suggested a little while ago to be used like an upgraded Mk1 capsule.

[Lord Aurelius]

I would land on atmospheric bodies using a an aeroshell to protect the lander (whether it's using a command pod or lander can) on its way down through the atmosphere, although for ascent you would likely want something at least moderately aerodynamic which would favor the command pods. Spaceplanes are another option.

I just want the lander cans to be light enough relative to the pods that an Apollo style mission actually makes sense, if the lander cans are too heavy relative to the command pods, then why not just use the pod as your lander and save yourself the extra hassle?

Edited February 26, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[Yemo]

Havent noticed that the Hitchhiker does not hav life support on board, how much should it get?

The standard 3 days per Kerbal seat (plus 2 days emergency oxygen like on the command pods since version 0.8.0)?

DeadlyReentry changes the temperatures on most parts, but not all of them. And I just lack the time to go around and check. I corrected that for some parts per MM statements, but it is a bit of a mess at the moment.

All masses in the table above are dry masses. So if eg the Mk2 Lander Can has 120 monoprop storage, the dry mass of that storage ability is included, but not the actual monoprop mass, same goes for ablative shielding.

I guess I could lower the Lander Cans a little. The Mk1 Can already has the advantage of quite some KAS storage and 40 monoprop storage over the Mk1 Command pod, making it a better dedicated lander.

Though I do not want to get too low, otherwise is becomes easier to just strap a heat shield and mini legs on and disregard the Command Pods entirely.

For a more detailed rework, I ll first have to bring some order into the whole temperature dynamic...

ALCOR is still on my list, not sure if it makes 0.8.1.

[SwGustav]

Due to lack of inflatable habitat modules from Habitat Pack, maybe right now Hitchhiker could be sort of deep space travel module? (plus a major station storage module)

Like, maybe a year of supplies for 4 kerbals (maybe in food&water only). Plus ~150 KAS storage. Overpowered, but it's temporary. And bigger weight will make sense.

Edit: I've got an idea of a purely storage version of Hitchiker, with no space for kerbals but bigger life support & KAS storage, for resupplying stations (like ATV) or longer space missions where you don't need those additional kerbal seats.

Edited February 26, 2015 by SwGustav

[Lord Aurelius]

Just out of curiosity, why does a lander can need that much monoprop? I know Squad added it to all the pods initially because they intended on making the EVA jetpack use monoprop, but that was never actually implemented (unless one of the recommended mods added that back in and I just haven't been paying attention). On the low gravity bodies, reaction wheels and thrust vectoring are usually sufficient unless you have a heavy lander, and for docking I just put RCS on the other vehicle in orbit, so my small landers don't usually need monoprop at all unless they're purely monoprop powered. The large amount of KAS storage makes sense.

Another random idea: are there any mods that add a KAS compatible packable mini-rover to complement the EVA pack? Scott Manley tried to build a rover using cubic octagonal struts, the small wheels, a command seat and an RTG and it was a pain to assemble and summoned the kraken shortly after completion. I always liked the idea of a packable rover (that's what they did on the Apollo missions) and it would save me having to figure out where to strap one on the side of my lander without sticking way out and throwing off the center of mass.

Edit: For the hitchhiker, I consider it to be a long term habitation module for space stations, interplanetary craft and surface bases. Like SwGustav was saying, it should have substantial storage and life support, although I think a year is a bit excessive since we already have the life support tanks and by the time the module is unlocked we'll probably have already upgraded the launch facility so we won't be on such a tight part budget. I think a month of life support for 4 Kerbals would be more reasonable, that would make more sense for a space station and it could be supplemented by additional life support modules for longer stays. I wouldn't increase the weight too much, this doesn't have reaction wheels or the ability to control a vessel so another pod is still needed.

Yet another random idea: a mod that lets Kerbals hibernate (medically induced coma? cryosleep?) so you don't need to have all the Kerbals wide awake using all the life support for the whole trip.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[Yemo]

With the release of Multipurpose Colony Modules 0.4.4 earlier today and Interstellar still only focused on 6.4/realism, the MCM/MKS/OKS/Karbonite/EPL integration is becoming more likely.

There was no movement on the Procedural Parts front, but I m tired of waiting for that and with HRBs and the addition of Hydrogen in 0.8.0, SETI already deviates from the original Procedural Parts on a functional basis.

So I ll have to take a look again.

[SwGustav]

Just out of curiosity, why does a lander can need that much monoprop?

It depends on your playstyle, you may use CSM to rendezvous while others (like me) use the lander. Reaction wheels are overpowered, often making RCS on small landers completely redundant. You can just tweak monoprop if you don't need it.

There is a KAS-assemblable rover from USI Exploration Pack, which I'm sure Yemo plans to implement (like other USI packs)

Edited February 26, 2015 by SwGustav

[Yemo]

Just out of curiosity, why does a lander can need that much monoprop? I know Squad added it to all the pods initially because they intended on making the EVA jetpack use monoprop, but that was never actually implemented (unless one of the recommended mods added that back in and I just haven't been paying attention). On the low gravity bodies, reaction wheels and thrust vectoring are usually sufficient unless you have a heavy lander, and for docking I just put RCS on the other vehicle in orbit, so my small landers don't usually need monoprop at all unless they're purely monoprop powered. The large amount of KAS storage makes sense.

Another random idea: are there any mods that add a KAS compatible packable mini-rover to complement the EVA pack? Scott Manley tried to build a rover using cubic octagonal struts, the small wheels, a command seat and an RTG and it was a pain to assemble and summoned the kraken shortly after completion. I always liked the idea of a packable rover (that's what they did on the Apollo missions) and it would save me having to figure out where to strap one on the side of my lander without sticking way out and throwing off the center of mass.

In stock, the monoprop is relatively useless for landers.

I guess for SETI it is a preparation towards weaker/less usefull reaction wheels sometime in the future.

The semi saturation goes in that direction and with RLA Stockalike, there will be more options for RCS.

It depends on your playstyle, you may use CSM to rendezvous while others (like me) use the lander. Reaction wheels are overpowered, often making RCS on small landers completely redundant. You can just tweak monoprop if you don't need it.

There is a KAS-assemblable rover from USI Exploration Pack, which I'm sure Yemo plants to implement (like other USI packs)

Yep, USI Exploration is great for that (and part of my backlog).

Edited February 26, 2015 by Yemo

[Lord Aurelius]

Ok, that makes sense, I'll just take the monoprop out of my landers for the time being.

That rover (and other small parts) looks neat, although I was thinking of something even smaller (the size of a go-kart) that's just one piece that a Kerbal could carry around on their back and place down and get on when they want to drive, kind of like how they can quickly grab the EVA pack and go.