What's your refinery style: orbital or surface?

[Jaeleth]

The closest to reality would be to refine on surface, so that's what I do. Besides if you send ALL ore up where are you going to get fuel to send it up? refine only a bit and transfer to orbit the rest of the ore for...er... Refining again? 2 refineries? Or take a lander down with enough fuel to get UP again, thus wasting more energy on lowering the orbit and landing?

No, the most logical path is the most energy-wise one: refine on ground

[Rastaman]

You also don't need a refueling station in orbit. You can simply fly the fuel shuttle up to an orbiting "customer" and dock with it. That way you don't need to dock the customer to a service station first. This also saves fuel and/or monopropellant. Having buffer tankage in orbit has some advantages though.

Then there is the issue of the latitude of the drilling rig and refinery. On bodies with a long day, you might have to wait for a long time until you can launch the fuel shuttle without an inefficient plane change maneuver. Doing the plane change in a hight orbit is not so great either since you have to decelerate the cargo back down to the refueling orbit. Having the customer craft in a high orbit is better but it takes a long time to reach it .

It could be a good idea to haul the ore/fuel on the ground as close to the equator as possible to launch it there.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Rastaman

[Wjolcz]

Orbital refinery seems to make the most sense to me since we don't have pipes to attach vessels on the surface. It's also easier to rendezvous with. You don't have to aim for the landing spot. If that's not enough the dV needed to match orbits is probably less than landing+taking off. It's handy if you have a vessel that cannot land. The convertion rate also helps.

All you need is a cargo transporter from the planet surface and back.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Veeltch

[martinborgen]

I haven't gotten there myself yet, but for a Minmus station, isn't it easier just to land the whole station to refuel on ore? I remember in my last career before 1.0 that even really big surface stations did well with a couple of poodles.

[Temeter]

My refueling station would be a single craft, capable of landing via efficient (nuklear?) engines on low grav planets. E.g. minmus or the outer jool moon (bop?).

I would decidedly haul at least 50% ore into space. There are 2 kind of ships I will need to refuel: Conventional crafts using LFO, and nuclear-driven transports using LF. Especially the latter will take a whole lot of liquid fuel, so it's more efficient to decide on the spot what to refine.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Temeter

[Sabor]

KAS is awesome for refineries. You can build the entire thing in EVA, at that. You land your drills/tanks/refinery, then you place pylons around, connect the pylons with pipes. Create a large square as a sort of landing space, and add a port to connect landed craft with and you can refuel right there. Works best on a small body like Minmus since you can use little fuel land and lift from it. Can get by with just RCS

[pandaman]

I'm on the process of working out my mining and refining system too.

My logic here, assuming you set up a 'permanent' mining station, is if you have a converter on the ground then all options remain open to you so you can do what you want, or feels best, for any given situation.

Edited May 10, 2015 by pandaman

[Pixel of Life]

Orbital, because I don't want to waste time moving the whole base when the area runs out of resources. I can just land my miner somewhere else.

[pandaman]

Orbital, because I don't want to waste time moving the whole base when the area runs out of resources. I can just land my miner somewhere else.

That's a fair point, but if I understand it correctly, resources on planets and moons in stock don't deplete (but do on asteroids). So, if that's the case, it shouldn't be necessary to relocate a mining station . The trick is to set it up in the best place for your needs originally.

[saskwach]

That's a fair point, but if I understand it correctly, resources on planets and moons in stock don't deplete (but do on asteroids). So, if that's the case, it shouldn't be necessary to relocate a mining station . The trick is to set it up in the best place for your needs originally.

That's true. Rich spots on the surface of a planet or moon won't run out of fuel. Asteroids are a different story, but the tradeoffs are different for them anyway because you can fly them up to your orbital station if you want.

[Shadows2b]

That's true. Rich spots on the surface of a planet or moon won't run out of fuel. Asteroids are a different story, but the tradeoffs are different for them anyway because you can fly them up to your orbital station if you want.

Phew, i was scared for a moment

[windows_x_seven]

I've yet to start doing stuff, but I was planning on building a Space Station and a Surface Outpost with a mining module on the Mun, and keep launching the Ore extracted from the Mun to the Munar Space Station, where it would be refined and stored.

It would help some interplanetary missions.

[maltesh]

Ever since I started using Kethane back in 0.18, and eventually, upon switching to Karbonite, I'd almost invariably refine on the surface, and shipped the finished products to orbit. There were a number of reasons for this, but the primary one was always that 99% of what I needed in orbit was liquid fuel and oxidizer. I almost never ran out of monoprop on anything I built, even if the only monoprop on board was what came free with the capsule. Ion drives and Monoprop engines were reserved for small probe craft that were going on one-way trips.

Also, when I mined on solar power, refueling was never sufficiently time-critical that I /couldn't/ wait for the next morning if need be, and surface mining/refining gave the option of running the refinery off whatever it was I was mining.

That, and all the solutions were /much/ simpler when everything ran off of liquid fuel and oxidizer. I know Kethane wasn't purchasable in the VAB when I stopped using it, no idea if it still isn't now, but that definitely added an extra level of annoyance to designing surface-to-orbit Kethane tankers. Now that the LV-Ns only use liquid fuel, it will be interesting to see exactly how my infrastructure changes; I haven't yet gotten to the point where I'm mining in my Career Save.

[RocketPilot573]

I don't see any point in having to fly ore up to a station... Having it all in one spot makes it much more automatic.

[Frozen_Heart]

I prefer refining on the ground and flying the LFO up to the station. Just seems easier that way.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I'm not a fan of surface bases - they are kinda awkward to work with so I prefer orbital refinery. Hauling the refinery back and forth just doesn't feel right. I also think orbital stations need more love. Orbiting station also sees sunlight more often, so it's easier to use solar panels.

[Tada]

I orbital refineries.

In Joolian system I have refinery above pol, 2 miners each with 6000 ore capacity. When ore is procesed fuel is drained into 2 huge fuel tanks those 3.75m with like 5880 LF which are then transported via space truck to Laythe orbit, docked to station and truck takes back the empty tanks to Pol and circle of fuel goes around It is fairly efficient and pleasant experience.

I will have small refinery and mining station on surface of Laythe to for liquid fuel for air breathing airplanes and stuff. Wouldnt need much fuel there.

But building something really huge, then landing it on some low gravity moon or planet and drain it for precious ore an then get back into orbit and use it as refieling depo could be also fun.

[RoverDude]

No the fuel's the cargo. The ore is presumably not pure rocket fuel, so ore should get lighter when it is processed, as you get rid of all of the non-rocket fuel stuff in the ore.

I agree with Tater on this - if not 50%, it should at least lose some mass, so that orbital processing is better at using solar power (since eclipses are shorter than nights), while surface processing means you don't have to transport as much mass (since you throw away the waste material before you lift it into orbit).

Unless you had a cheaper way to get "ore" to orbit than burning fuel, no possible economy would have you ship rocks to space, to break said rocks into oxidizer and propellant as any real system would be lossy. Maybe with a solar-powered mass-driver it would make sense to refine in space.

Current, simple methods of extracting O2 from lunar regolith via heating get 20% of the sample as O2 (which is comprised of ~40% oxygen). The rest is waste (you could Al as fuel, I suppose). I think 50% efficiency is generous, actually.

People can do what they want, but stock is unicorn dust as it stands.

Maybe the "Output Resource" can be modded to add a new "waste" resource so that it's properly inefficient.

Pretty specific gameplay reasons why it's mass neutral.

It's bad gameplay.

Kerbin could have 0.1 g as well, then anyone could easily launch anything into orbit? It's just a game, right?

By your definition, anything would be fine. If conversion from ore to fuel/oxidizer is fine at 100%, why not get 200% efficiency? Wouldn't that be twice as good from a gameplay perspective?

No, it's good gameplay when taken into account that the only other options either broke other subsystems, or violated conservation of mass. Totally get that it may not be your style, but there were some very specific reasons we went this way.

Gravity likely ruins it for someone. How many someones to become "the rest of us?"

If ISRU is too easy, you might as well turn on infinite fuel, and be done with it. I'd not claim to be the sole arbiter of what is, and is not fun. I tend to think that problems to solve are fun, vs everything being easy.

I agree completely regarding bases, BTW. I think at a bare minimum, KAS should be stock for numerous gameplay reasons (gives kerbals on EVA something useful to do, allows bases to be more realistic, etc).

ISRU, as it stands, is hardly easy. The lossiness factor is simply not a challenge component, it's a limitation factor that does not make the game any easier or harder whichever way you move the dial, it just encourages one choice over another.

Orbital, because I don't want to waste time moving the whole base when the area runs out of resources. I can just land my miner somewhere else.

As noted, they do not deplete.

[CptRichardson]

That's why you mine on low-weight asteroids or bodies, like Pol, or Gilly, or... stuff.

[saskwach]

That's why you mine on low-weight asteroids or bodies, like Pol, or Gilly, or... stuff.

Or Dres's asteroids, the gas station of the Kerbol system!

[impyre]

I always refine on the ground. As others have stated, it's a bit closer to what would happen if this were irl ISRU situations... mostly because it's extremely convenient to be able to collect and refine at the same site. Then the final product is the only thing that is "shipped". Also, transportation becomes much simpler when you're transporting fuel. You don't have to worry as much about dV (since if you need to ship it further you just use up some of the "cargo").

I used to find docking to be a pain while on the ground, but I now use a rover-based system. Basically I have a sub-assembly that is a rover with docking ports on the front and rear. Since the docking ports and wheels are part of the same assembly, all modules will connect easily since all docking ports are at the same height. Just build whatever you need and slap a wheeled base under it... once on site just roll up and dock.

[magnemoe]

I'm not a fan of surface bases - they are kinda awkward to work with so I prefer orbital refinery. Hauling the refinery back and forth just doesn't feel right. I also think orbital stations need more love. Orbiting station also sees sunlight more often, so it's easier to use solar panels.

Yes, with KAS + mechjeb landing autopilot they are nice. as you can easy expand capacity and merge with an science station. Mechjeb autopilot as it do so accurate landings you can land inside the range of an kas wire or pipe.

Without you are stuck with an rover with claw to transfer.

[Gravaar]

Asteroid surface

Currently have one c class asteroid and one e class orbiting Kerbin and supplying fuel to craft before they leave Kerbins SOI

I just send one of my Parasite class refineries to capture an asteroid then use its own resources to re-position it

But for moon base refine on the surface

Edited May 11, 2015 by Gravaar

[KerbMav]

-- Pro Surface

1. lander can refuel at the refinery and does not have to carry down fuel to launch into orbit again

2. rig can use fuel-cells during long nights and supply itself with the needed fuel

3. No dedicated cargo (ore) tanks necessary.

-- Pro Orbit

1. flexible resource at hand to produce fuel as needed: LF/O, LF only, monoprop

2. station can be ore storage only or even convert from lander directly into customer

3. if even the drills are carried up and down

a. no repeated pinpoint landings necessary (potentially fuel intensive)

b. no awkward docking/clawing on surface (in stock)

--Pro ... Tip!

Use Module Manager to assign a loss value if you like.

I think it was said, that the drills already filter out the usable stuff and the refinery only cracks it up to be burned (oxidized once more). Since like ever it felt more fitting to assume that the rockets use liquid H2 and O2 as fuel and with the mechanics of the new stock resource system it becomes even more pressing, was even since Kethane.

For my game I will most likely change LF to hydrogen; the stock liquid fuel (kerosene) and the complicated monopropellant will only be available on Kerbin (in the VAB); densities will be kept the same to not interfere with dV, engine performance etc. pp.

This is the beauty of KSP and its modability, you get a working system and can tweak it to your liking shoule you miss realism in details.

[Rune]

I do Orbital exclusively. Building surface bases is a pain, I hate trying to get docking ports to line up correctly on the ground. I haven't tried it but I heard Rover Dude ensured they would perform equally in stock by making them mass neutral (i.e. LFO Mass + Tank Mass = Ore Mass + Tank Mass where the amount of ore can be processed in to that much LFO) So regardless of whether you haul to Ore or LFO, it should theoretically be the same effect.

If so, Kudos to him for that, I know that is a departure from Karbonite.

Only the tankers need two kinds of tanks if you use orbital refineries. Probably somebody has said this already (TL;DR and all that), but unless you do some really precise math and flying, and sweat a lot in the VAB to get the right proportions between the two sets of tanks, tailored to each planet and moon, then a big LFO tanker will always put fuel in orbit with a higher efficiency, on account of carrying its payload as part of the propulsion system. The payload itself being whatever fuel you have left after your trip to the orbital fuel depot, which means you don't have to figure out what the payload of your tanker is on a particular moon, you just see what you have left when you make it to the depot.

Not to mention you only need to get to the mining site one of the smallest ore tanks, plus the drill and converter. The resource modules for my bases are a ~6mT cylinder that will stick to one of my fuel dumps and happily refill it. Then again, I have land docking down to an art don't even need to use Klaws or KAS pipes generally.

Rune. Ore doesn't stay ore for long in my save.