What kind of life support would you like to see in stock?

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

One day, we will have life support in stock. But what kind of life support would you like to see? I'd like you to share your thoughts.

---

The life support system I would like to see:

For me, I wouldn't like to see something like TAC LS; As you have 6 or 7 rescoures, that are drained at the same time, and wastes are produced. It just makes the rescooures tab scary, and resupplying complicated. What I would like is a life support system with unique rescoures, where not each rescoure is necessary, it is friendly for beginners (doing stuffs such as a suborbital flight or simply orbiting needs no addons), but hardcore on long-term, and certain rescoures can be regenerated after visiting certain places and doing certain things. The possible issues might be solved with improvisation* (yeah, I will mark the improvisation like this*).

Each kerbal would have stats, such as

• morale
  
• condition.
  
• temperature
  
• radiation
  

and they would consume rescoures such as

• air / oxygen
  
• water
  
• food / snacks
  

They would not produce wastes. Why? to have one more bar at the rescoures? Who said kerabls produce waste? Or that they don't dump it immediately.

Morale determines how effectively they perform their tasks as a pilot, engineer, and scientist. Of course, they don't have so much tasks currently. Kerbonauts should have vital tasks so that a low morale would pull back the mission. I have another suggestion to do that, but I will suggest that on another day. Rapidly performing tasks, not having any action for long times (long timewarps), and losing crewmembers might lower this. Having actions such as passing a celestial body, landing, going on EVA there, docking, or meeting a new crew (crew replacement) might increase this. Morale is largely drained during many-year-long interplanetary missions.

Condition determines how quickly they move, and how much they consume from the life support rescoures. Having a realy low condition might cause the kerbonaut to fail performing his tasks. Taking damage such as hitting the kerbonaut or his pod might lower this permanently, unless healed (astronaut complex?medbay?). After upgrading the astronaut complex, your applicants will not only have starting XP, but they will have a higher condition (due to the advanced training). Condition might be lowered permadently during many-year-long interplanetary missions, and increased by gee forces*.

If the Temperature of your kerbonaut is too high or low, he will have his condition lowered. If he spends too much time with a high or low temperature, he dies. So either perform short EVAs*, or use an upgraded astronaut complex to reinforce the suits of certain kerbonauts, to have better isolation-->higher max; lower min. temperature. Temperature problems may occur during EVAs, or if one of your pods is overheating/cooling down. Don't froget your radiators! Also, how about kerbals producing heat? On certain ceestials, temperature might be a big problem, but on others, wich are easier, and beginner-friendly (Mun, Minmus), you don't have to worry about temperature.

Radiation might affect the crew in certain environments. Either in EVA, or in your pod. If a kerbonaut recieves radiation that exceeds a limit, he might take permanent damage (lowered condition) until he's healed (astronaut complex?medbay?). Over a certain limit, he might die. To avoid this, either hide your lander/spacecraft* in an area where the radiation is lower (maybe in an abyss? or behind a mountain?), use radiation-protected pods, and in EVA, go for short EVAs*, or reinforce the suits of certain kerbonauts with a radiation-protection. Radiation is not a problem on the beginner-friendly moons of Kerbin, but it can be a factor to increase the difficulity of certain celestial bodies.

And now, to the rescoures.

Kerbonauts requie air. This is a rescoure that is necessary in short-term, but thus, each cockpit and pod has plenty of it, so beginners don't have to worry about it either. No additional air is needed for Mün-missions, but if you don't hurry with Minmus, you might ran out of it. I don't want to say fix values, but how about an EVA suit having enough air supply for 3 hours, and a small Mk.1 pod having enough air for 4-5days? To supply kerbals with air, your pod/cockpit/EVAsuit drains electricity (this would mean that pods&EVA suits should have more batteries). If you either run out of electricity or air supply (maybe your morale lowered? Who wouldn't start panicking? Oh, frogot about Jeb:sticktongue:.),still there would be enough air, outside your life support system, to keep you alive for maybe half a hour in EVA, and a day in the Mk.1 pod. After that, they die. To avoid cheating, the rescoures you take with yourself for an EVA (air, electricity, monopropellant) should be taken from your pod, of course. If you need even more air, for a quite long mission, you could supply it with small external/inline tanks. Rather easy to supply large ammouts of air. Huge tanks available for space stations, and many-year-long interplanetary missions.

On mid-term, kerbonauts requie water. If they don't get enough water for maybe more than a day, they will have a lowered condition. If they don't get water for maybe 2-3 days, they die. IVA suit would have no water, and the Mk.1 pod would have enough water for 5-6 days. This means you wouldn't need water supply for neither a moon, nor a minmus-mission. Water can be supplied with medium-sized tanks, wich are rather heavy, like rocket fuel tanks. Supplying water is the hardest of these, so there might be a need to find it yourself. It is also the most easy to find/extract. Again, large tanks available for space stations, and many-year-long interplanetary missions. But they are very heavy and big.

On long-term, kerbonauts requie snacks. If they don't eat for more than maybe 3-4 days, they will have a lowered condition. If they don't eat for more than maybe 1-2weeks, they die. Again, you don't need any snacks for a Mün/Minmus mission. Neither EVA nor the Mk.1 pod has snack supplies. Snacks are very light and small. They are very very easy to resupply anywhere, but with a reason: they are the hardest to acquire on the field. Supplying a very large ammout of snacks is easy.

Of course, if you are thinking in stations or interplanetary, the mid and long-term problems appear.

You might want to have some crew modules with beds. If your crew can sleep, they won't lose condition on mid-term. With a Minmus-mission at the border of short-term, amd mid-term. You might want to sleep, if you don't want to return from Minmus with a slightly lowered condition.

On many-year-long missions, due to weightlessness, the condition of your crew will start to drop dramatically. To avoid this, you might want to have training machines, so they can remain fit. I think artificial gravity would not be supported much, but as mentioned before, having larger gee forces for longer times could act like having training machines, so this would only be a problem on very long term. For example, I would like to have Duna-misions witouth lowered condition due to weightlessness.

Because supplying water is hard, it is even harder on long-term. That's why a water-recycler can be vital. A machine, that can recycle the water used by 1-2 or 3 kerbonauts. Maybe 50-80% of the water could be recycled. Because I wouldn't like to measure "waste water", this would rather mean that 50-80% less water will be consumed. A rather heavy device, due to the fact that it saves lots of mass. It needs a large ammout of electricity to operate.

There could also be an air-recycler machine. Because turning CO2 into O2 and C is a very complicated, costly, and nearly impossible process, this machine could be large, rather heavy, and would need tremendous ammouts of power to run. Altough it could recycle a very large percentage of the air, due to the fact that this machine is heavy, costly, and resupplying air is not, the efficiency of this machine is unsure.

And the hard-to-acquire snacks should have something that reduces their consumption. I tought about a Food Processing and Preparing Unit (kitchen) that reduces the consumption of food. Maybe with a 20-30%...

I think the other pods could be equipped with some of these. Or maybe they would only have enough space for a few of these. For example, the Mk1-2 pod could have the beds, and space for an optimal addon. The Mk3 cockpit could have the beds and 1-2 optimal addons. And so on with the crew cabins. Mk2 Crew cabins with beds, Mk3 passanger modules with beds and a larger, optimal addon, capable of supplying all passangers. The hitchhiker container could be a very-long-term option, with beds, training machines, the kitchen, and enough board games so that your kerbals will never lose morale.

I bet many of you would like to find/produce rescoures on the field.

A few options are obvious, such as reciving air if you have intake air on Kerbin/Laythe. Altough the XM-G50 Radial Air Intake is an ugly piece of device, it could have pumps in it, generating airflow even while you're still. Good for bases. It could be used for reloading your oxygen tanks. But I would like to have much more options. What I would like is a chemical processing unit, maybe just a small, 1m device, that works similarry to the ISRU Converter, but it can proceed various materials collected on the celestial bodies, such as intake air from Jool, Duna, Eve, ect. A new tool, a "sucker" could also be introduced, to collect the fluids of planets for processing. I think the water of Kerbin and Laythe shouldn't need processing to be able to drink it. Also, a new harvester could be added. Unlike the big industrial drill, wich drills down the surface for ores, a light, cheaper, lower-tech harvester could be used to collect the soil of a planet for processing. The mentioned processer could turn the various liquids, air intakes, and soils into various chemical materials. Mostly to get water, but some chemicals could be used as ingredients for Liquid fuel, Oxidizer, Monopropellant, and sometimes to get air-supply. KSP could be made more educational, if it would teach the chemical background of making things like rocket fuel and water from different substances. And getting food? I don't really support the idea of greenhouses, that's why I would rather make snacks easily-suppliable. Or max getting it from the soil of Minmus.

The life support system I described would not only be rather simple, beginner-friedly, and hard on long term, it would also help making KSP more educational, open a wide new array of torment possibilities, and add more stuffs to space stations, bases, and inteplanetary ships, making them more homey.

---

I promised to write the suggestions of others here, but I kinda abandoed this thread, sorry.

Edited August 24, 2015 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[r4pt0r]

I think that best case, we have just "snacks". All command pods have 1 month worth of snacks. No problem for the local missions.

For long term I think containers of snacks would be good, for example A tank the size of the FL-R1 would last 1 kerbal a year.

Then add another part, the same size as the big lab called a "green house" that can generate snacks while in space, if powered.

Just as they went with the simple "Ore" instead of the very stupid convoluted mess of a tree they conceived long ago, I think simplicity would make the game-play more enjoyable. Mod it if you want it more complex.

I do agree that life support should make it into the stock game however.

EDIT: Also necessary I think, would be a background system that comes into play when you are time warping for long periods. If you have a base on the mun, and you warp for years, stop the warp and give a pop up warning when any craft in local Kerbin system is 1 month from running out of snacks. Give a notice when a craft in the Eve or Duna Systems is 8 months from starving. Give longer notices for more distant systems so you can either return them safely, or send a snack resupply mission.

Edited August 8, 2015 by r4pt0r

[klgraham1013]

I think the USI Life Support is very well suited for stock.

[Hagen von Tronje]

I'd be happy with oxygen, water, and food, drained at different rates and available by different means, as resources. Overdoing it with stock resources would make the already steep learning curve maybe a little too steep for a new player.

However, they will have to have just enough complexity to be interesting. Simply having water recyclers on board your ship adds nothing to the experience except added mass to any long term mission. Fun factor there is not especially high. On the other hand, having something inherently useful about, say, Duna's poles or Laythe's atmosphere, requires that access to large quantities of water or oxygen carry specific advantages beyond what you could obtain by merely reusing them.

Possibly this could be accomplished with the simple non-reusability of food/snacks. If it's possible to manufacture food in situ with access to power/sun, water, and oxygen, and simply have the food production facilities be inefficient enough that you'd either need extremely huge and heavy oxygen/water recyclers or access to a natural resource, this might make "colonization" efforts more fun.

But a system even that complex, just the three resources, would probably be something like 50 new parts, especially if you wanted to do fun things like use electric powered sun lamps which can be turned off if you have enough sun for your food rather than just make a nondescript production cylinder that consumes power. This also means that making a really sweet station like many enjoy doing will raise already high part counts, so let's hope the game engine gets some big improvements in the meantime.

[tater]

Waste is fine, assuming it has value as a resource later (possibly for greenhouses, etc) USILS is pretty decent, though I would prefer to see supplies added to certain parts, and I think that kerbal well-being/morale should require a dedicated "habitat" part for trips over a certain length.

There is no point at all in the multiple consumables of TAC, IMHO. No matter how many you make, you can always distill it down to X kg of consumables per Y time frame used. It is incredibly cluttered to track all the different LS consumables, and functionally pointless. In another game, where you can have failures, and perhaps if there was a mechanism to come up with novel solutions (real Apollo 13, or the book, the Martian, etc) then there is a reason to have the different components.

[Kaos]

I would like to go with different kinds of consumables, some of which more mass per time is used, but they are simpler to produce (water/oxygen/...), some with less mass per time usage, but more complicated to produce (food/snacks/...) and some which is really complicated to produce, but very low mass is required per time (spare parts for space suits/tools/...).

The morale/condition thing from the original post might be interesting, as it would give sense to large living modules. Perhaps every module has a maximal value, to which it can increase the condition. Kerbals in it go slowly to at most this value, but morale shrinks whenever their morale is higher than the module max value or when they are on EVA. Perhaps these module values also change with the total amount of kerbals on the same vessel, as even kerbals might get lonely.

Then kerbals may have a health value. They can be hurt if they fall down from big height, by radiation or if hungry for too long. Medical modules or a fourth kerbal class, medics, can improve healing times.

[tater]

Multiple mass/kerbal*time is a pointless complexity. You'd just bundle the consumables in the appropriate ratio, and you are down to a net consumable per kerbal, per unit time.

Power, consumables, and waste if it has some use. Higher quality life support systems would change the rate at which supplies are consumed (some is recovered).

[peachoftree]

Implement USI-LS with no changes, it fits the game so darn well:cool:

[Frozen_Heart]

I'd like a single life support resource, that we would assume contained food, water, and air. That way its simple enough to fit KSP while making one of the main spaceflight aspects a consideration.

I don't want it to turn into the sims ksp version, where you have to keep flicking between every kerbal to make them pee or something similar.

[Windspren]

Also, maybe if Kerbals don't have enough space (Stuck in a Mk1 pod for 5 years), they will eat 1.5x more snacks/supplies due to being bored. So for a mission to Duna, you would want 2x the amount of seats per Kerbal.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

Then kerbals may have a health value. They can be hurt if they fall down from big height, by radiation or if hungry for too long. Medical modules or a fourth kerbal class, medics, can improve healing times.

What I defined as condition is actually health, but a bit formally.

[MedwedianPresident]

If wildlife is going to be added, you can hunt to get snacks.

[Kaos]

Multiple mass/kerbal*time is a pointless complexity. You'd just bundle the consumables in the appropriate ratio, and you are down to a net consumable per kerbal, per unit time.

Power, consumables, and waste if it has some use. Higher quality life support systems would change the rate at which supplies are consumed (some is recovered).

I find that to be an important feature, when the consumables are of different complexity to produce. If there is only one ressource, then you have vessels with production of it and without production of it. No stations in between, that only need a little bit of supply. I myself find that boring.

[Kegereneku]

What kind ?

None.

It's a feature I will easy ditch to avoid needless micromanagement. Rocket-science is all interlinked, but Life-Support is only a timer or at best temperature&ISRU that are already covered in more simple (and fun) way. So I'm not yet interested.

[Joonatan1998]

I think a simple system with 1 massless resource that is consumed at a set rate.

The space that doesn't contain the resource is assumed to contain waste.

All pods have some, (enough for minmus) lander cans significantly less. (enough for landing)

Mid game you get containers for interplanetary missions.

Lategame you get an recycler that is extremely heavy (>20t) but 100% efficient, uses a lot of electricity to generate LS at speed high enough for 10 kerbals.

Difficulty option for LS off/disable kerbals without LS/Kill kerbals without ls.

Pods also should require some electricity. (less than probes?)

Kerbals on EVA take LS from the capsule, maybe the amount can be upgraded somehow.

It is very important that it is also consumed on ships that aren't focused.

I think this would be enough for stock, maybe some kind of less advanced/heavy recycler that just reduces the rate of consumption by a large amount. (90%)

Edited August 11, 2015 by Joonatan1998

[Grumman]

USI Life Support gets my vote.

It has a single resource (Supplies) that are converted into a single waste product (Mulch) which can be reprocessed by parts like greenhouses to prolong your supplies.

It lets Kerbals go a reasonable amount of time without supplies (15 days) so that newbies don't have to worry about it until they've at least learned how to put a Kerbal in orbit.

It does not kill Kerbals, only makes them go on strike, and does not affect the main four Kerbals, which means it's easier for a newbie to recover after making a mistake.

[mattinoz]

Another person agreeing with something like, if not just, USI life support.

Keep it simple keep it friendly, keep it kerbal.

Only thing I would add to the above is API hook for more complex modes to build on top of stock life support instead of starting again from scratch.

[RoverDude]

I actually have a new wrinkle I'm working on for USI-LS you folks may like

[tater]

I find that to be an important feature, when the consumables are of different complexity to produce. If there is only one ressource, then you have vessels with production of it and without production of it. No stations in between, that only need a little bit of supply. I myself find that boring.

Either a base will close the loop, or it won't. Complexity doesn't matter in the end, it all comes down to what % of needed consumable mass must be added, what the mass IS doesn't matter. Have different hardware parts in the tree with different recovery rates that function. In game terms by reducing consumption rates. A magical LS module with 100% recovery drops consumption to zero per kerbal.

roverdude, the thing I'd really like to see is taking into account parts like hitchhiker in usils. Both from the standpoint of some supplies included (or low efficiency recovery), and from the standpoint of well-being at a simple level. Right now, no food for 15 days and they are tourists. How about regardless of food supply levels, after ~30 days they become tourists if there is not a hitchhiker (or other hab part) as part of the craft for every hab_crew_capacity number of crew aboard.

That last could be adjustable, because I think it's too generous, I send a HH for every 2 crew.

[14thTry]

I know I am not going to be well liked here, but I think that life support seems like a headache. If you are someone that uses excessive mods to play Kerbal think of how many of the ones you use every mission, would needed to be in the stock game to make having to calculate the amount of food you bring to Duna as fun, There are cool life support mods already. and adding it to the core experience to me seems a bit unnecessary. A kerbal being able to stand outside on EVA on Moho for 400 years and not die is funny, not stupid. And while it adds to the narrative experience, I personally don't want to have to stat worrying about it one day while try to have fun in stock. If added it would be nice if they made it a hardmode only feature. toggleable or a choice at the start.

[RoverDude]

Either a base will close the loop, or it won't. Complexity doesn't matter in the end, it all comes down to what % of needed consumable mass must be added, what the mass IS doesn't matter. Have different hardware parts in the tree with different recovery rates that function. In game terms by reducing consumption rates. A magical LS module with 100% recovery drops consumption to zero per kerbal.

roverdude, the thing I'd really like to see is taking into account parts like hitchhiker in usils. Both from the standpoint of some supplies included (or low efficiency recovery), and from the standpoint of well-being at a simple level. Right now, no food for 15 days and they are tourists. How about regardless of food supply levels, after ~30 days they become tourists if there is not a hitchhiker (or other hab part) as part of the craft for every hab_crew_capacity number of crew aboard.

That last could be adjustable, because I think it's too generous, I send a HH for every 2 crew.

You're pretty close to the mark for one of the two things I am adding.

[Windspren]

I actually have a new wrinkle I'm working on for USI-LS you folks may like

Radiation? Health? Productivity? Sleeping needs?

[Wjolcz]

I agree with people who say it should be simpler than TAC LS. I'm not really a fan of hardcore micro management of all the systems of the ship. And the resource tab would get cluttered and scary.

I'd say one resource should be added and be simply called "Food" or "Snacks", or whatever. Then if any Kerbal was on board of the vessel it would consume X amount of electricity (just like probes do) to simulate the need of heat to stay alive and isolate CO2 from the atmosphere. A greenhouse part could be added and when a part of the ship it would produce infinite amount of food for, let's say, 4 crew members, but would need crazy amounts of electricity non-stop.

To sum this up:

-Kerbals need food+electricity to stay alive

-A green house can produce infinite amounft of food for X kerbals, but also needs a lot of electricity.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Veeltch

[r4pt0r]

To sum this up:

-Kerbals need food+electricity to stay alive

-A green house can produce infinite amounft of food for X kerbals, but also needs a lot of electricity.

Thats perfect, but I would still advise some way to warn players so they don't timewarp and accidentally kill LKO stations, or munar bases, ect, that might not have the greenhouse bit.

[Feradose]

I'd like to have to regulate internal heat of cockpits/pods because 1600K sounds a bit toasty even for a kerbal.