Liquid fuel and oxidizer as a finite resource at the KSC

[TeeGee]

Hey everyone.

I have a recommendation that may be interesting.

Why not make liquid fuel and oxidizer a finite resource at the KSC? For example to launch a rocket would take 10% of total fuel reserves per launch. This would force us to allocate and create more efficient rockets along with prioritizing what we launch and for what reason.

To replenish this resource we simply use the already established mining feature to turn Kerbin ore into more fuel. No we don't need to physically take the fuel back to the KSC but it could be implied that with the establishment of a planetside mining operation that the game automatically transports said fuel at regular intervals depending on distance from the KSC.

Thoughts?

[Guest]

Why not make liquid fuel and oxidizer a finite resource at the KSC? For example to launch a rocket would take 10% of total fuel reserves per launch. This would force us to allocate and create more efficient rockets along with prioritizing what we launch and for what reason.

Why would this require making more efficient rockets? Either you're talking 10% as in 10% of the starting state, in which case you get ten launches before needing more fuel, or ten percent of the remaining fuel, in which case this suggestion means nothing because you effectively have infinite launches.

To replenish this resource we simply use the already established mining feature to turn Kerbin ore into more fuel.

So we need to ensure that our first ten launches get us the money needed to upgrade the R&D facility so we can research the ISRU tech needed, which is fairly late-game tech. This basically turns KSP into a race for ISRU tech which then gets spammed on Kerbin so that the player can then do the things they want to do.

No thanks.

[nothingSpecial]

I'm not entirely sure that human space agencies usually mine for their fuel on the planet goddamn Earth.

[technicalfool]

I'm not entirely sure that human space agencies usually mine for their fuel on the planet goddamn Earth.

I'm not entirely sure that human space agencies usually mine for their fuel. Maybe they quality-check the final product before feeding it into their tanks.

That said, there's the seed of an okay idea in the OP. Maybe not as a default stock option, but fuel logistics might be a nice thing to add to the collection of mods made and used by the hyper-realism fans. Have a default amount of fuel per hour delivered to the KSC's fuel depot, have upgradable depot sizes (and fuel types for the RF-mod lovers), and some mechanic for automatically transporting any landed-on-Kerbin resources to the KSC at some rate per hour multiplied by a distance penalty. That way, some exotic not-available-on-kerbin fuel can be brought in from orbit, and if you land it successfully it starts being transferred to KSC for use (assuming KSC has spare tanks in its depot).

And yes, I think some slower, less efficient or less capable ISRU stages need to be available along the the early through to mid tech tree. It's already a little annoying having to grind all the way to the end of one branch of the tree just to get at any mining capability.

edit: Aaaand maybe make the feed-to-KSC mechanic a right click option on all landed-on-body-with-a-depot fuel tanks. "Transfer to depot" or "Transfer to depot->list of depots". Automagically removing fuel from landers might not always be a good idea. Ahem.

Edited September 1, 2015 by technicalfool

[Grumman]

This sounds like an idea that could be handled quite easily by a mod. Start the game with 2-4 global variables for LiquidFuel, Oxidiser and possibly SolidFuel and Monoprop stores. Subtract from these whenever you spawn a new ship, and add to them whenever you recover a ship (minus a certain percentage for distance).

[Coyote27]

I think it would be far more sensible and still accomplish the same basic objective to merely increase the cost of fuel (or have a slider for it, from 0.5x to 5x normal cost let's say). This would encourage efficient rockets, but not make anything overly complicated, and not break with realism either. No real-life space program has a limited finite fuel supply, they can just order as much as they need and it'll be produced and delivered.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Coyote27

[Kaos]

The more I think about this idea, the more I like it. But only as optional mode, not as default mode.

[pandaman]

Oops... Tried to edit my post and it got deleted... let's try again from the beginning...

One option, that would not change the current 'pay as you launch' system would be to have an option to buy fuel storage tanks at KSC.

The tanks would start empty and only get filled by mined or recovered fuel using the 'transfer to KSC option suggested above. A little of the transferred quantity would be 'lost' in proportion to distance from KSC in the same way as vessel recovery rewards reduce with distance, but with less loss ratio to make it a viable economic option.

This would then make it a possibility to mine and transfer directly on Kerbin or land fuel that was mined elsewhere and 'recover' the fuel into the tanks.

Any launched ships would automatically draw fuel from the storage tanks if available (at no cost) and any extra fuel needed would be paid for in the normal way.

No change to the current system, just an extra 'layer' for those who choose to use it.

[Wjolcz]

I think I remember someone suggesting a similar idea to this one. It would be a new game mode. You would have to build rockets to hunt for more fuel instead of caring about budget and reputation.

Wouldn't be a bad thing to have.

[sumghai]

I'm not entirely sure that human space agencies usually mine for their fuel. Maybe they quality-check the final product before feeding it into their tanks.

That said, there's the seed of an okay idea in the OP. Maybe not as a default stock option, but fuel logistics might be a nice thing to add to the collection of mods made and used by the hyper-realism fans. Have a default amount of fuel per hour delivered to the KSC's fuel depot, have upgradable depot sizes (and fuel types for the RF-mod lovers), and some mechanic for automatically transporting any landed-on-Kerbin resources to the KSC at some rate per hour multiplied by a distance penalty. That way, some exotic not-available-on-kerbin fuel can be brought in from orbit, and if you land it successfully it starts being transferred to KSC for use (assuming KSC has spare tanks in its depot).

And yes, I think some slower, less efficient or less capable ISRU stages need to be available along the the early through to mid tech tree. It's already a little annoying having to grind all the way to the end of one branch of the tree just to get at any mining capability.

edit: Aaaand maybe make the feed-to-KSC mechanic a right click option on all landed-on-body-with-a-depot fuel tanks. "Transfer to depot" or "Transfer to depot->list of depots". Automagically removing fuel from landers might not always be a good idea. Ahem.

I prefer this approach over the OP's.

[Alshain]

Not everyone chooses to use the travesty that is stock ISRU.

[TeeGee]

Well I think it silly to be able to churn out a plethora of rockets in a relatively unlimited fashion in KSP without so much as build time, research time, etc. and thought that maybe adding a limiter like fuel reserve could help prevent the launch of 30 + rockets in quick succession to get to your destination.

Rockets parts don't fail in KSP. Rocket parts dont have construction flaws in KSP. I know some mods try to add in these features but in vanilla ksp as is.. is pretty feature barren.

Example of what else I would like to add:

1) Navy and airforce SAR maintenance and cost. Pods don't recover themselves magically and funding the KSC navy to find and retrieve the splashed/touched down on Kerbin. This is a huge component of real space rocketry. Getting a rocket into orbit is only 1 component of a mission.

2) Contruction time, part research delay, and testing before flight. Parts that have been "unlocked" by our science, should take time to research. When the part is ready, it should be tested X # of times without failure before use on rockets. The more tests a rocket part undergoes, the more safe and reliable it is in flight and less likely to fail.

I'd also really like to see a rollout animation with our rockets as it approaches the launch pad. The tracks are there but for some reason there is a gap in how the rocket got onto the pad and was attached to those infinite launch clamps that change between every rocket. It would be a nice touch to see Von kerman look at our craft and nod his head in approvment as it passes by him on the Caterpillar crawler.

3) Parts need to be able to fail. Machines break. As of right now the ABORT button is absolutely USELESS. All you need to do is shut off your engines and decouple your pod. I want to see autoaborts when rocket stages EXPLODE after launch, saving kerbals automatically.

4) Crew towers. Jeez is this a no brainer. How do kerbals get into their craft?? It doesn't make sense! And when it doesn't make sense it is immersion breaking.

5) Craft welding. In the VAB I'd like to see part welding become stock. Show an animation of the parts you've chosen to weld together with better sounds. Maybe a clunk when you attach 2 tanks on each other and a zzzt sound when they are welded. This should take be used to save computing power for our CPU since this is a physics heavy game.

6) Atmospheric and space wear and tear. Burn marks. Visible damage. See through windows!!! (my biggest pet peeve)

7) Fuel line caliber. How does a narrow fuel line like the one in vanilla KSP hope to pump adequate fuel to keep core tanks full on the big engines like the 2.5+ meter ones? It's ludicrous. Id also like to see fuel ports. Attaching fuel to any part on a tank without a port is silly.

8) RCS/Rocket sounds, plumes and animations. Also RCS shouldn't be using only monopropellant. I'd like to be able to use bipropellant rcs using stock LF and oxid. Here is what I want to see:

9) Footprints.

I could go on forever but its details like this that make a game more immersive.

Don't get me wrong this game is amazing but it needs to start adding details like these to keep it engaging. There is just so much they are missing to accurately educate children/public on the complexity and inginuity that go with every rocket launch.

[Grumman]

1) Navy and airforce SAR maintenance and cost. Pods don't recover themselves magically and funding the KSC navy to find and retrieve the splashed/touched down on Kerbin. This is a huge component of real space rocketry. Getting a rocket into orbit is only 1 component of a mission.

This is already done better by stock: the further away your craft is from the KSC runway or launch pad, the more money you lose to recovery costs. If you don't like this implementation, there's nothing stopping you from installing KAS and building your own cargo plane to go retrieve landed pods yourself.

2) Contruction time, part research delay, and testing before flight. Parts that have been "unlocked" by our science, should take time to research. When the part is ready, it should be tested X # of times without failure before use on rockets. The more tests a rocket part undergoes, the more safe and reliable it is in flight and less likely to fail.

There is already a mod that adds construction time, though I do not use it. Your other idea is just tedious busywork.

I'd also really like to see a rollout animation with our rockets as it approaches the launch pad. The tracks are there but for some reason there is a gap in how the rocket got onto the pad and was attached to those infinite launch clamps that change between every rocket. It would be a nice touch to see Von kerman look at our craft and nod his head in approvment as it passes by him on the Caterpillar crawler.

As long as you can skip it, this could be a cool little addition to the game.

3) Parts need to be able to fail. Machines break. As of right now the ABORT button is absolutely USELESS. All you need to do is shut off your engines and decouple your pod. I want to see autoaborts when rocket stages EXPLODE after launch, saving kerbals automatically.

The only way I would want to see random failure implemented is by giving each individual part a random, hidden amount of extra durability. Random failure should not be a matter of "the RNG rolled a 1, stranding your crew on the Mun", it should be "you pushed your nuclear engines to 120% of the safe temperature, and this particular nuke was only 115% reliable." Experimental parts unlocked by contracts are the only time I would support failure before you reached the recommended thresholds, and would be accomplished with a negative modifier of up to 20%.

8) RCS/Rocket sounds, plumes and animations. Also RCS shouldn't be using only monopropellant. I'd like to be able to use bipropellant rcs using stock LF and oxid. Here is what I want to see:

The Vernor engine is already part of stock.