How to make ISRU more interesting/useful

[Wjolcz]

Here's the original post:

People don't like ISRU because it doesn't seem very useful. In my opinion the idea of ISRU is pretty damn cool, but the problem is the game doesn't force you to use it much.

Imagine if LS became a thing. Add crew rotation and KIS/KAS-like base maintance contracts and suddenly getting fuel from the surface of the planet becomes a key to keep your base alive.

Let's say you have a Duna base and you need to keep it occupied by crew for X years, because a contracts tells you to do so. There's also a contract that tells you to rotate the crew from time to time. The base has a functioning shuttle (that needs refuelling after going to orbit and back) that carries the crew to the interplanetary mothership and returns back to base with new colony/base members. You also need to get some new water/other LS resource from the ground, because otherwise your base inhabitants will starve to death. So now ISRU not only keeps your shuttle functional but also keeps your crew alive!

So, yeah. We need new stuff to make ISRU more interesting because the base game doesn't cut it.

TL;DR: We need life support, a few more contract types and at least fuel pipes from KAS.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Veeltch

[RidingTheFlow]

"ISRU is not very useful"? This makes no sense, sorry. ISRU is required part of extraplanetary mining infrastructure.

If you ever calculated a cost difference between lifting 200tons of fuel out of Kerbal gravity well and mining this fuel and lifting it up from Minmus - savings immediately will show you usefulness of ISRU. It could cut hundredth of thousands costs of heavy launches for long-range missions. What I've found when you have your infrastructure in place, you hardly need to use 3.5m launcher parts anymore, and ISRU is key part of this.

Edited October 6, 2015 by RidingTheFlow

[Capt Snuggler]

the ISRU converter and all its required parts are too big and too heavy. you may as well just bring that same mass as extra fuel.

ISRU 4.25t + drill 0.75t + storage tank 0.50t + empty fuel tank 0.50t + batteries + RTGs or solar panels or Fuel cells = forget it. just bring 6 tons of fuel, its cheaper, easier and faster.

[RidingTheFlow]

I believe I didn't say about 6 tons of fuel? What use of 6 tons of fuel anyway? I said about 200 tons at least (and this is just about minimum amount I would want to get from my mining outpost - but actual upper boundary is unlimited).

Missions to outer planets cost a lot of dV, so unless you use mods with futuristic engines you'll need a lot of fuel (esp. if you want to do stuff like establishing bases here). Also unless you satisfied with doing fuel runs every time, its much better just to mine a lot & bring it once to refuelling outpost in departure/parking orbit - then missions to different places could use this to refuel several times without need to land/orbit. Again, this saves tons of money (and you then can use strategies to redirect this elsewhere).

Probably what is needed is just a proper explanation of where ISRU is useful. Hopefully next version kerbalpedia will help with this.

Game "forces" you to use ISRU in the same way it "forces" you to build efficient/reusable rockets - you can go without it, but you will be more money tight and you will have to spend more time on boring tasks (esp. when playing on harder difficulty level which is a must IMO unless you are a beginner to KSP).

Edited October 6, 2015 by RidingTheFlow

[Wjolcz]

"ISRU is not very useful"? This makes no sense, sorry. ISRU is required part of extraplanetary mining infrastructure.

If you ever calculated a cost difference between lifting 200tons of fuel out of Kerbal gravity well and mining this fuel and lifting it up from Minmus - savings immediately will show you usefulness of ISRU. It could cut hundredth of thousands costs of heavy launches for long-range missions. What I've found when you have your infrastructure in place, you hardly need to use 3.5m launcher parts anymore, and ISRU is key part of this.

I didn't say it's not useful. I just think it could have more uses.

the ISRU converter and all its required parts are too big and too heavy. you may as well just bring that same mass as extra fuel.

ISRU 4.25t + drill 0.75t + storage tank 0.50t + empty fuel tank 0.50t + batteries + RTGs or solar panels or Fuel cells = forget it. just bring 6 tons of fuel, its cheaper, easier and faster.

Well, it might be true, but consider this: You want to explore Joolian moons. You can either launch a mission every time you run out of fuel, or you can set up a fuel outpost on one of the moons and take fuel from there. ISRU gives you an option of reusability and increases the range of exploration dramatically. The problem is the game doesn't encourage you much to use it. Mainly because of it's lack of realism (life support, for example).

EDIT: Or think about Laythe exploration. You take the ISRU with you and a jet-powered drone. Instead of landing probes on every island you fly around, gather science and go back to refuel. Then you go again to explore places you haven't been to. Seems cheaper.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Veeltch

[monstah]

I totally agree. LS totally kills any arguments against time as a resource, and all kinds of time mechanics open up.

I've been playing with USI-LS and KCT, and it's a very different, very challenging, very engaging game. I just can't timewarp past everything, and I also have to plan my missions in advance; can't wait to unlock ISRU to see what it adds, but surely stock won't be enough.

[Red Iron Crown]

the ISRU converter and all its required parts are too big and too heavy. you may as well just bring that same mass as extra fuel.

ISRU 4.25t + drill 0.75t + storage tank 0.50t + empty fuel tank 0.50t + batteries + RTGs or solar panels or Fuel cells = forget it. just bring 6 tons of fuel, its cheaper, easier and faster.

That math is only valid if you intend to use the ISRU once, where I'd agree it's better to just pack more fuel. It's when setting up long term refuelling infrastructure that ISRU starts to shine. Either in a ship meant to visit many bodies (just refuel at each one) or running a real supply operation (like ferrying fuel from Minmus to LKO for multiple missions rather than buying it and lifting it up from KSC).

[magnemoe]

That math is only valid if you intend to use the ISRU once, where I'd agree it's better to just pack more fuel. It's when setting up long term refuelling infrastructure that ISRU starts to shine. Either in a ship meant to visit many bodies (just refuel at each one) or running a real supply operation (like ferrying fuel from Minmus to LKO for multiple missions rather than buying it and lifting it up from KSC).

It also depends on scale of missions.

Is it one Kerbal in a pod or a crew in a real ship.

For stuff like Eve missions or Jool-5 its aways q good idea

[Alshain]

I'm not following how Life support correlates to useful ISRU. If you have to send a new crew from Kerbin, just fuel from Kerbin too.

That aside, Life Support in stock would ruin this game. You guys are really stretching to justify it's inclusion. As long as timewarp exists in this game, life support should stay with the mods.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Alshain

[Red Iron Crown]

Why does timewarp make life support undesirable? Honest question, I've seen you mention it before but I don't get the connection.

[Alshain]

Why does timewarp make life support undesirable? Honest question, I've seen you mention it before but I don't get the connection.

Combination of time warp and persistence. I don't want Kerbals dying on Duna because I'm off working another mission to Jool. If I have to stop everything I'm doing to go refill life support storage at the 6 surface bases I have across the solar system, that is just annoying and tedious. Plus, we don't have Alarm Clock in stock so you have to constantly keep track of that yourself.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Alshain

[sal_vager]

No one said Kerbals had to die.

Idea's have been raised by many in this community from loss of reputation to Kerbals just sleeping.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't see that as much different than running multiple missions currently. "I don't want to miss my Duna capture burn because I'm off working another mission to Jool" is just as valid (and just as indicative of the usefulness of something like KAC).

Edit for sal_ninja: I don't get why we're afraid of kerbals dying from lack of life support. We blow them up all the time.

[Alshain]

No one said Kerbals had to die.

Idea's have been raised by many in this community from loss of reputation to Kerbals just sleeping.

No difference, I don't want to lose rep because I'm doing another mission. I don't want to lose control of my station because I'm doing another mission. I don't want to have to constantly run dozens of tedious resupply missions, each identical to the last. It isn't adding value, it's just adding boring tasks. I want to play a game, not do chores.

[sal_vager]

This is why life support should probably stay as an addon.

[Alshain]

I don't see that as much different than running multiple missions currently. "I don't want to miss my Duna capture burn because I'm off working another mission to Jool" is just as valid (and just as indicative of the usefulness of something like KAC).

The difference there is you have a choice not to do that. You don't have to launch craft to Jool and Duna at the same time. But if life support kills Kerbals (or otherwise causes some detrimental effect) you are being forced to.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why life support should probably stay as an addon.

Agreed

[adsii1970]

[edited] I don't want Kerbals dying on Duna because I'm off working another mission to Jool. If I have to stop everything I'm doing to go refill life support storage at the 6 surface bases I have across the solar system, that is just annoying and tedious.

No one said Kerbals had to die.

Idea's have been raised by many in this community from loss of reputation to Kerbals just sleeping.

I don't see that as much different than running multiple missions currently. "I don't want to miss my Duna capture burn because I'm off working another mission to Jool" is just as valid (and just as indicative of the usefulness of something like KAC).

Edit for sal_ninja: I don't get why we're afraid of kerbals dying from lack of life support. We blow them up all the time.

For my two cents - if anyone cares... On one hand, I agree with Alshain; I love the idea of life support being stock, but then at the same time, I want it to be adjustable, similar to the current way that reentry heat is adjustable. I still want to keep the "game" feel and not have to worry about having a space program version of the old digi-pets craze. While I do enjoy the challenge of running three missions at once, I would hate to know that I would have to also have another mission running in the background to resupply bases and stations on a continual basis. So - no Kerbal deaths for me...

Nope, if I see a mission is going to end in disaster, I activate either the "abort" mechanism OR in the rare case, the "F9" emergency protocol... Besides, it is one thing to say that you killed a Kerbal during testing of a spacecraft or burned up during reentry. It is quite another to say they starved to death...

[Gilph]

I have found it very useful. I only started recently and 1.0.4 is the only version I ever played, so I have no experience when there was no ISRU.

I am not sure it was done on purpose, but the game does make ISRU hard to use. There is always a penalty involved. Good mining places are usually in far away, inclined orbits that cost some deltav to get to and from. I have ISRU in Gilly, Ike, Bop, Minmus, and sometimes Pol. I also have large and small fuel tankers to transport locally. It's just hard enough to be challenging. It makes rocket designs much easier.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Gilph

[Red Iron Crown]

The difference there is you have a choice not to do that. You don't have to launch craft to Jool and Duna at the same time. But if life support kills Kerbals (or otherwise causes some detrimental effect) you are being forced to.

Forced to what? I can plan my missions well enough so that they have sufficient life support for the intended duration. If it goes sideways and I need to send a resupply mission, that is interesting gameplay, like rescuing stranded kerbals is now. Surface bases should be using ISRU and recycling to keep the need for resupply to a minimum or eliminated entirely; if that is not available then I know what I'm getting into by setting up a base anyway.

[Lord Aurelius]

I think stock needs life support (in the same way that reentry heat and antennas are being integrated) not only to make ISRU more useful, but to balance the game as a whole. Right now probes are at a pretty big disadvantage to manned missions, and this will only get worse with the antenna logic.

For a weight penalty of only 0.5 tons (less if you use the external command seat) you can slap a lander can on anything and gain access to a lot more science experiments (crew reports, eva reports, surface samples), and can reset experiments (or at least pick them up and put them in the pod so you don't have to return everything) and don't have to worry about antennas, not to mention infinite EVA fuel in a pinch. Even one way missions are feasible since there's no penalty for stranding a Kerbal (another thing that should probably be looked at) and fresh Kerbals are readily available via the rescue contracts.

I agree that life support shouldn't be mandatory for all difficulty levels, but it's still such a fundamental part of space travel that it needs to be integrated into stock. ISRU would be a great tie-in mechanic for long duration missions.

[Alshain]

Forced to what? I can plan my missions well enough so that they have sufficient life support for the intended duration. If it goes sideways and I need to send a resupply mission, that is interesting gameplay, like rescuing stranded kerbals is now. Surface bases should be using ISRU and recycling to keep the need for resupply to a minimum or eliminated entirely; if that is not available then I know what I'm getting into by setting up a base anyway.

Then what is the point? To add more mass and parts to your craft? Your stations and bases generate it automatically, your craft have enough for the whole duration, so there is no gameplay advantage to having life support. Sounds exactly like what we have now, except for extra mass and parts that Squad would have to re-balance all of the the game to support.

[StarStreak2109]

I think stock needs life support (in the same way that reentry heat and antennas are being integrated) not only to make ISRU more useful, but to balance the game as a whole. Right now probes are at a pretty big disadvantage to manned missions, and this will only get worse with the antenna logic.

For a weight penalty of only 0.5 tons (less if you use the external command seat) you can slap a lander can on anything and gain access to a lot more science experiments (crew reports, eva reports, surface samples), and can reset experiments (or at least pick them up and put them in the pod so you don't have to return everything) and don't have to worry about antennas, not to mention infinite EVA fuel in a pinch. Even one way missions are feasible since there's no penalty for stranding a Kerbal (another thing that should probably be looked at) and fresh Kerbals are readily available via the rescue contracts.

I agree that life support shouldn't be mandatory for all difficulty levels, but it's still such a fundamental part of space travel that it needs to be integrated into stock. ISRU would be a great tie-in mechanic for long duration missions.

That actually is a pretty valid point, IMHO! Although it may seem the Kerbal way to try manned flight before turning to probes, but if we follow that path further, why are there probes in the game in the first place? There really should be a bigger incentive for using probes. As to the life support, I would consider it just another fuel you have to bring along or generate at your destination or en route. Should it be in stock? Again, as with the mining bit, I think it should rather be a "lite" version of for instance USI life support, which can, if the player so wishes, be extended by mods for additional realism.

[Lord Aurelius]

Then what is the point? To add more mass and parts to your craft? Your stations and bases generate it automatically, your craft have enough for the whole duration, so there is no gameplay advantage to having life support. Sounds exactly like what we have now, except for extra mass and parts that Squad would have to re-balance all of the the game to support.

Following that line of logic, why do we even bother with EC, or even fuel for that matter? It's just extra parts and weight and they can be generated easily enough with the right equipment (especially EC).

From a realism standpoint, the case for life support is obvious. From a gameplay standpoint, it balances manned missions against probes.

[Red Iron Crown]

Then what is the point? To add more mass and parts to your craft? Your stations and bases generate it automatically, your craft have enough for the whole duration, so there is no gameplay advantage to having life support. Sounds exactly like what we have now, except for extra mass and parts that Squad would have to re-balance all of the the game to support.

Because it is still possible to mess it up. I may miscalculate and need to send that emergency resupply run. There would be real consequences for messing up some maneuvers, because I can't just timewarp through another orbit or six around the sun and wait for an encounter. I need to make sure that station designs have sufficient capacity to operate continuously, and possibly the right kind of crew to operate the systems. It's another dimension of spacecraft design and mission planning, one that is very much a big concern for real life spaceflight and deserves representation in the game, IMO.

The "extra parts and mass" arguments apply equally well to the electrical system. Isn't it just a matter of adding enough electrical storage and generation, which is just additional parts and mass? Should Squad not have implemented electricity?

Edit: Ninja'd somewhat.

[Lord Aurelius]

That actually is a pretty valid point, IMHO! Although it may seem the Kerbal way to try manned flight before turning to probes, but if we follow that path further, why are there probes in the game in the first place? There really should be a bigger incentive for using probes. As to the life support, I would consider it just another fuel you have to bring along or generate at your destination or en route. Should it be in stock? Again, as with the mining bit, I think it should rather be a "lite" version of for instance USI life support, which can, if the player so wishes, be extended by mods for additional realism.

That's what I would advocate for. I'm not saying we need full TAC life support in stock, but something is needed. USI life support is a great candidate, especially given RoverDude's position with Squad. I wouldn't be surprised if it's already being planned for 1.2.