Buzz Aldrin's Cycler Orbits - Are they useful in KSP?

[suicidejunkie]

On 9/19/2015 at 10:09 AM, GoSlash27 said:

The original question was about cyclers in KSP, not RL. Kerbals do not need life support or comfortable habitat, so cyclers aren't useful at all *in- game*. In addition, the transfer shuttles burn more fuel to match a cycler orbit than they would need to establish a Hohmann transfer and the trip is longer.

I think the point still stands.

If you can find yourself something (anything) with sufficient mass relative to the things meeting it, and also want it to be traveling frequently between the two locations, then it is worth while.

If you can't come up with any such ideas, then it isn't worth it for your space program.

 

While a lifesupport mod would add some obvious bits (and totally be *in-game*, if not stock), people don't need mods to make giant space stations, and a giant cycling "station" would be even more awesome than one that sits in orbit.

[GoSlash27]

suicidejunkie,

 There's a difference between "awesome" and "useful". Can you think of anything that fits your criteria that would help a stock career? I can't.

Happy New Year!

-Slashy

[tater]

I'm with slashy. Add in LS, and then you're looking at a different story. Note that Roverdude's next version of USI LS will include "homesickness" for kerbals, which is solved via having appropriate habitation space that varies based upon mission length. In that case, a large station with loads of dedicated hab space might well be worthwhile to have as a cycler.

[suicidejunkie]

16 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 There's a difference between "awesome" and "useful". Can you think of anything that fits your criteria that would help a stock career? I can't.

Why are Stock and 'Useful' actually requirements?

The OP is using hexcans of lifesupport supplies in the screenshots, after all.

 

A lot of KSP things I see on the internet are done for the spectacle rather than just for serious business games.

[GoSlash27]

7 minutes ago, suicidejunkie said:

Why are Stock and 'Useful' actually requirements?

The OP is using hexcans of lifesupport supplies in the screenshots, after all.

 

A lot of KSP things I see on the internet are done for the spectacle rather than just for serious business games.

Suicidejunkie,

 I don't dispute any of this, but it's not what the OP was asking about. The OP was asking about "plausible utility". There is no plausible utility for cycler orbits in stock KSP. Not sayin' they can't be *made* useful by altering the game or that they're not cool.

 Best,

-Slashy

[suicidejunkie]

18 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

I don't dispute any of this, but it's not what the OP was asking about. The OP was asking about "plausible utility". There is no plausible utility for cycler orbits in stock KSP. Not sayin' they can't be *made* useful by altering the game or that they're not cool.

I agree with that.  I'm just wondering why are you restricting the conversation to Stock KSP?

It seems to me the goal is to find a use for them, and assuming stock KSP is not even trying.

[Wjolcz]

I want some sort of life support to actually use those cyclers. It's not worth making them if you don't play with LS. 

I don't want to derail the thread, but I think LS would actually force me (and others perhaps?) to think. "Hm. Can I make it there without overbuilding my space ship? Will it even take off with that mass? Or maybe I could use one of those cyclers to shorten the trip and spend less money everytime I want to go there?"

There are so many cool real life concepts and ideas that are simply not worth doing in KSP. And it's not because KSP is limiting, but actually because it misses so many elements that could enhance the gameplay. Solving problems is fun!

[GoSlash27]

51 minutes ago, suicidejunkie said:

I agree with that.  I'm just wondering why are you restricting the conversation to Stock KSP?

It seems to me the goal is to find a use for them, and assuming stock KSP is not even trying.

suicidejunkie,

 I'm not restricting the conversation to anything. I believe the thread has covered all sorts of options. All I'm saying is that cycler orbits have no utility in a stock game.

Best,

-Slashy

[suicidejunkie]

I wonder if it might be worthwhile in interstellar mod too;

Having a big heavy automated reactor with beamed power equipment travelling along the route to the planet. It would swing fairly close to where the ships will be burning in each direction, while still returning to kerbin SOI for a quick servicing and refuelling occasionally, which only requires a light one-kerb shuttle as far as I know.

On the downside, I'm not sure how much the location/distance matters, and the tech might obsolete itself too quickly.

[Phoenix1583]

Cycler orbits would be fine so long as you brought fuel along with your pickup missions. As it comes around, load it up with a little excess fuel for periodic correction burns. Also, yes, I've actually set up this kind of orbit that would have somewhat close passes of both the Mun and Kerbin, it does work rather easily given that physics aren't really calculated unless you're at the ship (or station, whatever you want to call it.)

[Parkaboy]

While cycler orbits may be too hard to implement on ksp to be useful, the idea made me think of something else: having a station on an eccentric orbit around Kerbin could be interesting, as it would made that station easy to reach from both Kerbin or the Mun. Might even find a sweet spot that requires the same delta-v to rendezvous from low Kerbin orbit and munar orbit. This could be useful if you want to get science from both Kerbin and the Mun into a lab, although a lab on munar orbit would give better bonus to research.

[GoSlash27]

Parkaboy,

 It's not really hard to set up a cycler orbit, it's just inefficient. It takes more DV to establish the cycler between A and B than it takes to simply go from A to B. And if you want to rendezvous with something in a cycler orbit, you have to actually match it's orbit, so you have to be in the exact same orbit.

 The end result in stock KSP is that it's more efficient to send your science directly to Kerbin than it would be to send it to a station in a cycler orbit to hitch a ride to Kerbin.

Best,

-Slashy

 

 

Edited January 4, 2016 by GoSlash27

[wumpus]

On 1/3/2016 at 9:24 PM, GoSlash27 said:

suicidejunkie,

 I'm not restricting the conversation to anything. I believe the thread has covered all sorts of options. All I'm saying is that cycler orbits have no utility in a stock game.

Best,

-Slashy

You should be more specific to a stock career mode game.  Building such a thing in sandbox would be its own reward.

Any ideas on how much *more* delta-v you have to supply to the crew and supplies (vs. a Hohmann transfer)?  Somehow I don't think that an orbit that keeps hitting Earth and Mars is all that close to the ideal transits between the planets.  That said, it has to be easier to accelerate the crew and supplies (presumably in a dragon/orion or similar) than a ship capable of housing them for months.

[GoSlash27]

Wumpus,

 I believe you should review the definition of the word "utility".

As for the rest of your argument, I believe it's been covered thoroughly upstream.

Best,

-Slashy