Kethane vs Karbonite

[cicatrix]

Strictly speaking, you can play with both Kethane and Karbonite and use both. I don't see any sense in it but you have the ability and nobody is asking to pick only one.

[RoverDude]

This gives me an idea; what about a Module Manager config that makes Karbonite lighter or equal to in weight to it's LFO equivalent?

Maybe I should make one and release it, as I've heard this argument for Kethane being better in that regard more than one time.

EDIT: The Karbonite engines would probably have to be rebalanced with the config as well, I imagine, though.

It's a bad idea and unbalances things - but rock on, the license is very permissive (and yes, the engines would be shockingly OP'd).

Now one thing to note, the entire use case for having those fine engines (other than some interesting characteristics) is that they are going to be pretty evenly matched for an LFO counterpart - assuming Karbonite's density. So if you REALLY want to refine in orbit, just use Karbonite engines for your transport ships. Or make a Jool cloud harvester

Oh! And my apologies - seems I was misinformed on Kethane. It is not lossless - it is just high efficiency (1 ton of Kethane makes 0.975 tons of end product).

Huh. So technically, a ground based refinery is more efficient even with Kethane Just that Karbonite is less efficient for that - unless you use the appropriate transport engines.

[Alshain]

It's a bad idea and unbalances things - but rock on, the license is very permissive (and yes, the engines would be shockingly OP'd).

Except it works with Kethane. It doesn't seem unbalanced to me.

Now one thing to note, the entire use case for having those fine engines (other than some interesting characteristics) is that they are going to be pretty evenly matched for an LFO counterpart - assuming Karbonite's density. So if you REALLY want to refine in orbit, just use Karbonite engines for your transport ships. Or make a Jool cloud harvester

But that's above and beyond a resource system and not necessary to have (more) special engines. The engines in the game are LFO and Monoprop.

Oh! And my apologies - seems I was misinformed on Kethane. It is not lossless - it is just high efficiency (1 ton of Kethane makes 0.975 tons of end product).

Huh. So technically, a ground based refinery is more efficient even with Kethane Just that Karbonite is less efficient for that - unless you use the appropriate transport engines.

I'll take your word for it on that. Admittedly I may be mistaken on the reasons, but what I do know is in practice it works with Kethane and not Karbonite because I've done it with both. If I haul Kethane to orbit, I can convert it and end up with more fuel than I spent to do so. With Karbonite, I can't.

Strictly speaking, you can play with both Kethane and Karbonite and use both. I don't see any sense in it but you have the ability and nobody is asking to pick only one.

Like you say, not much sense in that. They do the same thing, just in different ways.

This gives me an idea; what about a Module Manager config that makes Karbonite lighter or equal to in weight to it's LFO equivalent?

Maybe I should make one and release it, as I've heard this argument for Kethane being better in that regard more than one time.

EDIT: The Karbonite engines would probably have to be rebalanced with the config as well, I imagine, though.

Well if what RoverDude said is true, it may not be that simple, it's not just mass I guess.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Alshain

[Sampa]

don't use either... at mod capacity on both my RSS KSP and normal KSP variations

[Wallygator]

From a game base system I guess having tried both, I prefer the Karbonite bit if its all I'm going to get in lieu of a more multi resource proper chemical-reality based approach - The stock game probably will never get more than that. Suppose I can live with it for now.

But this...

"Your resource mod of magical fairy poop with no connection to actual chemistry is terrible" option

...literally made me spit a bit of my drink. OMG. Had to get a wipe to clean my Macbook screen. Nice one.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[RoverDude]

I heard a rumor that the stock resource system will be highly moddable - I would not be surprised if there were not a plethora of multi-resource chemical-reality based mods out there soon after launch

[Red Iron Crown]

Pfft, you can't put stock in rumors like that.

[smjjames]

Pfft, you can't put stock in rumors like that.

Isn't Roverdude working with SQUAD on the resource system? So I've heard. Or at least helping with some things.

[Red Iron Crown]

Yes, that is the joke.

[RoverDude]

Yeah, that was the joke Plus Max has already publicized that it will be crazy moddable.

[TheMoonRover]

Pfft, you can't put stock in rumors like that.

You mean, it's rumoured that you can't put stock in rumours about stock resources, as that would take up too much of your resources putting stock into unsourced rumours on stock resources giving rise to rumoured non-stock multi-resource resources such as resource mods.

[regex]

...literally made me spit a bit of my drink. OMG. Had to get a wipe to clean my Macbook screen. Nice one.

The major issue I have with resource mods right now is that they're very generic. ISRU in the real world is very specific to the location; you have to know what resources are available where you're going and you also don't have access to organics (insofar as we know) which cuts out a lot of fuels (RP-1, for instance). KSP abstracts the fuel and provides no real connection to volume so we can really only make assumptions about what types of fuels the stock engines use, making it very difficult to make location-specific ISRU. Hence the "magical unicorn/fairie poop" meme (so's your fuel).

Realistically, you could probably get methane from the Dres/Ceres regolith but, for the most part, you're looking at hydrogen or oxygen from the rest of the solar system. Storing cryogenic fuels long-term is tough, so you'd probably refuel and immediately get on your way, using a tiny probe with the ~700kg of equipment (drop the dead weight before leaving) and a nuclear engine (one study quoted that, IIRC). Titan is an interesting case, we could probably make some very complex fuels out there quite easily but the trip with all that equipment would be long and arduous.

Basically any refueling will be very specific and require specialized equipment for the location. Which is why I don't bother with resource mods.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[Wahgineer]

It's a bad idea and unbalances things - but rock on, the license is very permissive (and yes, the engines would be shockingly OP'd).

Now one thing to note, the entire use case for having those fine engines (other than some interesting characteristics) is that they are going to be pretty evenly matched for an LFO counterpart - assuming Karbonite's density. So if you REALLY want to refine in orbit, just use Karbonite engines for your transport ships. Or make a Jool cloud harvester

Oh! And my apologies - seems I was misinformed on Kethane. It is not lossless - it is just high efficiency (1 ton of Kethane makes 0.975 tons of end product).

Huh. So technically, a ground based refinery is more efficient even with Kethane Just that Karbonite is less efficient for that - unless you use the appropriate transport engines.

I'm just hoping that the engines from Karbonite get into stock, seeing as the jet engines would be extremely useful for missions on any body with an atmosphere.

[RoverDude]

Switching gears over to general ISRU (And I think some good reading has been linked before), I'd agree that hydrogen/oxygen cracked from hydrates is what I hear about most (esp. in relation to carbonaceous (C-Type) asteroids). Some of the lunar experiments I've seen, like the NASA tests done in Hawaii are also pretty interesting: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/multimedia/isru-hawaii.html

[Seaview123]

Strictly speaking, you can play with both Kethane and Karbonite and use both. I don't see any sense in it but you have the ability and nobody is asking to pick only one.

I'm the senseless one using both mods in my game right now.

I was testing them side by side and found both have strengths and weaknesses, and kept them around. But while I'm a big fan of both (RoverDude's detailed animated parts are outstanding, BTW), Kethane is a little easier to use for my skill level right now. However, Kethane's pretty limited, and having to move my heavy mining operations make it tougher to set up large bases, and there's just something 'off' about the bright neon green paint scheme.

So Mr. 'Dude... how 'bout a rarer, lightweight (gaseous?) form of Karbonite that's easier to haul around? (Call it something like "Karbonelium"? "Karbonitrogen"? "Karbonitrous Oxide"? ...just a thought.)

Edited February 19, 2015 by Seaview123

[FlowerChild]

and in no universe is there any refining process that lets you extract more mass than you take in.

Wait...what now?

I have no interest in arguing one side of this debate or the other (was just browsing this thread out of curiosity), but man, hopefully you can acknowledge that making statements about how things work in all universes (universi?) in pursuit of arguing a point might be a tad excessive

Making such assumptions is actually in direct contradiction of the scientific method, while the underlying assertion of your argument is that what you're doing in your mod is based on science. I think even labeling something impossible within the confines of our own universe given our incomplete understanding of what may be the entirely arbitrary set of rules that govern it is rather excessive, especially given that the "laws" of physics are in a constant state of refinement and revision, but to then extend those assumptions to all other possible realities seems really off.

In fact, without even having ever played it, just based on what I've read here about Kethane, I would point to the universe that it creates in response to the above statement and say "well...there's one".

Edited February 19, 2015 by FlowerChild

[RoverDude]

So Mr. 'Dude... how 'bout a rarer, lightweight (gaseous?) form of Karbonite that's easier to haul around? (Call it something like "Karbonelium"? "Karbonitrogen"? "Karbonitrous Oxide"? ...just a thought.)

Make one

Wait...what now?

I have no interest in arguing one side of this debate or the other (was just browsing this thread out of curiosity), but man, hopefully you can acknowledge that making statements about how things work in all universes (universi?) in pursuit of arguing a point might be a tad excessive

Making such assumptions is actually in direct contradiction of the scientific method, while the underlying assertion of your argument is that what you're doing in your mod is based on science. I think even labeling something impossible within the confines of our own universe given our incomplete understanding of what may be the entirely arbitrary set of rules that govern it is rather excessive, especially given that the "laws" of physics are in a constant state of refinement and revision, but to then extend those assumptions to all other possible realities seems really off.

In fact, without even having ever played it, just based on what I've read here about Kethane, I would point to the universe that it creates in response to the above statement and say "well...there's one".

Gotta say, that did give me a chuckle.

Conservation of mass is one of those pretty basic things. You just can't make stuff from nothing. It is one spectacular stretch to consider that it's a mutable thing. Oh.. and as noted above, Kethane does in fact respect this (which is downright sensible), just that it's super efficient.

But cute troll

Edited February 19, 2015 by RoverDude

[FlowerChild]

But cute troll

It really wasn't man. I was being quite serious, and found your statement about the rules of all universes to be more akin to religion rather than science.

Now that you're further defending that position, I am even more confused about that original statement, as I had largely assumed it must have been a slip of the tongue in the heat of a debate.

I'm also not sure why you'd think I'd be trolling you. You're a fellow modder and to my knowledge I've had no interactions with you in the past, so my default position in those cases is one of respect.

Conservation of mass is one of those pretty basic things. You just can't make stuff from nothing.

Except that we already know (or strongly suspect) there's been at least one time in the history of the universe where that's exactly what happened. We've also experimentally proven that mass to energy conversion is a possibility, suggesting that the reverse may also be true.

Now, I think you can make a strong case that the degree of science fiction being practiced with something like Karbonite is closer to what we currently know about our own universe, and closer to our own level of technology, sure, but I think that's a very different thing than making statements of fact about what you consider to be impossible not only in our own universe, but in all others as well.

Edited February 19, 2015 by FlowerChild

[sal_vager]

Don't forget it's a computer game folks, even conservation of mass is a variable, and a modder can make their mod in the way they feel best, scratch their own itch so to speak

[RoverDude]

Sure, and I reserve the right to call them silly for it

Good thing neither of the mods in this thread are doing that

[Starwaster]

Except that we already know (or strongly suspect) there's been at least one time in the history of the universe where that's exactly what happened. We've also experimentally proven that mass to energy conversion is a possibility, suggesting that the reverse may also be true.

I'm confused as to when in the history of the universe you're referring to.

I know you're not talking about the Big Bang Theory because that doesn't involve mass coming from nowhere.

[DuoDex]

As sal_vager has already put quite succinctly, discussion of the origins and/or laws of the universe is neither here nor there unless it pertains directly to the mods in question. Please to keep it on topic

Edited February 19, 2015 by DuoDex
Random period.

[FlowerChild]

Just wanted to apologize if any of what I said came across as trolling or inappropriate. I seem to have somehow stepped in a pile of doodoo I wasn't aware was even there

I was just browsing the forums, came across a thread that looked interesting given I have my own resource processing system in my own mod and was thus curious about players discussing the pros and cons of the two major ones especially given one seems to be in the process of being integrated into stock.

While browsing the thread I came across a statement on a subject of personal interest to me that I didn't agree with and decided to make a counter point. No disrespect was intended with that, and I certainly didn't intend to stir up any trouble.

[Rokmonkey]

Karbonite for me.

I played with Kethane of course, when that was all there was and I really enjoyed it. I was hesitant to pick up Karbonite when it came out though. It seemed so much more involved. I was wrong of course. To me they are very similar. And the fact that Karbonite is so easily extensible makes it that much better.

To me, Karbonite improves everything I thought was missing from Kethane. Background processing, ScanSat integration, Non-depleteable resources. The latter was very important, for the size of my mining operations I didn't want to worry about running out and having to move the whole operation.

[wasmic]

I heard a rumor that the stock resource system will be highly moddable - I would not be surprised if there were not a plethora of multi-resource chemical-reality based mods out there soon after launch

Heard a rumor? You're the one who's making it, dammit!