Dman979 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Couldn't you call them "Buccaneer-shinobi"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
problemecium Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I feel threatened by the scale of this ship. When it's finished, make sure to give us detailed stats in regard to its total fuel capacity, part count, full/dry mass, TWR, etc. Then if it turns out (as I fear) to be bigger than Kidonia, I shall set about one-upping you simply for the sake of prestige. ;P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 90-100 RTGs? Sounds like the perfect application for TweakScale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jim Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, Kuzzter said: Well. Am realizing that life support for 12 kerbals plus running 3 Nom-O-Matics in agroponics mode is going to draw 66 kamps (that is, 66 EC/s--20 per Nom-O-Matic, 0.50 per Kerbal). I had thought to power it all with RTGs so that I don't have to rely on solar so far from Kerbol, but that would need 90-100 RTGs. That's a lot of part count. The alternative is 20-25 Gigantors and a krapton of batteries... so I think the thing to do is carry enough RTGs to maintain 6kamps for basic life support, and hope the array of Gigantors provides enough power to keep agroponics going. Even if it doesn't, no one will starve, and I'll be sure to carry extra NOMS in case of a miscalculation. Next Bill Update will cover the life support and power calcs in more detail. Today I finished Main Engineering and made some RCS-powered landers for Bop and Pol. Meet the Gumdrop. Besides the RCS thrusters you can see there's a cluster of four place-anywheres on the bottom for a little extra oomph when landing. Under five tons, full science suite, crew of two, and nicely lands/orbits either of the small moons. I'll probably put a pair of Gumdrops in the forward ramp area of L and R pods. Oh cool, you built a Doodlebug Deluxe!!! Edited January 31, 2016 by Just Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geschosskopf Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 5 hours ago, fourfa said: 90-100 RTGs? Sounds like the perfect application for TweakScale. Or using the nuclear reactors from USI-Core.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 44 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said: Or using the nuclear reactors from USI-Core.... Ooh! Evaluating... that would look SO much cooler, and if it's USI it should work nicely with the LS stuff. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geschosskopf Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 12 minutes ago, Kuzzter said: Ooh! Evaluating... that would look SO much cooler, and if it's USI it should work nicely with the LS stuff. Thanks! No problem. Just be aware that the reactors will run out of fuel in a few years. But OTOH, you can refuel them with the appropriate collection of other USI parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said: No problem. Just be aware that the reactors will run out of fuel in a few years. But OTOH, you can refuel them with the appropriate collection of other USI parts. Yeah, that could be a problem. Or I could carry some extra reactors and not turn them on--just transfer the fuel to the running reactor, the waste to the spare, and jettison! Why no, Kerbfleet doesn't have an EPA. Why do you ask? In the meantime... Oh, this is getting to be FUN! It really feels like a ship now that I have a proper bridge. Looking further into the USI Core reactors--yeah, that makes MUCH more 'realistic' sense than 96 RTGs, and would make Main Engineering look wicked cool Will just figure the best way to solve the problem of fueling it for 10 years, which is really not that hard a problem to solve when you're already committed to such a huge ship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Wow. Space... so much space. And that's just inside the ship. I gotta see this on the launchpad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) Moar! BTW, this ship is beautiful! Edited January 31, 2016 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
problemecium Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Beware the low framerates. A cursory look through the various leaked images of the KSS Redacted by Kerbfleet Security is giving me an impression of several hundred parts just for the hull, plus several hundred more for integrated systems such as those RTGs and mining drills, plus the hundreds and hundreds comprising the various landers. I don't know what kind of CPU you have or to what degree you plan on welding parts, but you seem to be set on a course to well over 1000 parts. When I did that with Kidonia, I got this many frames per second: 2. And the Physics engine was running at 1/8th speed, so my 30-minute escape burn actually took four hours. Bewaaare~! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhawk Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 16 minutes ago, Kuzzter said: --just transfer the fuel to the running reactor, the waste to the spare, and jettison! Why no, Kerbfleet doesn't have an EPA. Why do you ask? LOL! I'm absolutely loving glimpses of the interior spaces. And Bill's Scotty accent. 20 minutes ago, Kuzzter said: Oh, this is getting to be FUN! It really feels like a ship now that I have a proper bridge. Looking further into the USI Core reactors--yeah, that makes MUCH more 'realistic' sense than 96 RTGs, and would make Main Engineering look wicked cool Will just figure the best way to solve the problem of fueling it for 10 years, which is really not that hard a problem to solve when you're already committed to such a huge ship I'm sure you and your computer will appreciate the reduction in part-count. And I'm certainly looking forward to 'wicked cool'. Very happy landings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceplaneAddict Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, Starhawk said: Very happy landings! Ahem... Kerbulans... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhawk Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, SpaceplaneAddict said: Ahem... Kerbulans... Ohhh.... right... I got carried away by my excitement over the new ship. Happy Concerned landings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 15 minutes ago, KSK said: I gotta see this on the launchpad! 14 minutes ago, CliftonM said: BTW, this ship is beautiful! Thanks! It's no accident that the shots you've seen so far are zoomed in and cropped. Believe me, I'm looking forward to the full reveal as much as you guys are 4 minutes ago, parameciumkid said: Beware the low framerates. A cursory look through the various leaked images of the KSS Redacted by Kerbfleet Security is giving me an impression of several hundred parts just for the hull, plus several hundred more for integrated systems such as those RTGs and mining drills, plus the hundreds and hundreds comprising the various landers. I think it's not going to be quite that bad, especially after I take out the RTGs. The landers are very efficient, part-wise. I think it'll definitely be under 500 all together. Still--yeah 4 minutes ago, Starhawk said: I'm sure you and your computer will appreciate the reduction in part-count. And I'm certainly looking forward to 'wicked cool'. Can you tell I learned my trade in Bahsten? So here's an idea: what if I put in an oversized reactor, and tweaked the .cfg so it outputs 1/4 the power and consumes fuel at 1/4 the rate? I don't think a 12-year fuel cycle is too OP considering US Navy carriers go for 25 and even the older subs can go for 10-20 years. Yeah, I might just do that--and also suggest to @RoverDude that the reactor output be tweakable by slider (and forgive me if they already are, I haven't taken one out of the VAB yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kookoo_gr Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Good to see that Bill scienced the mulch out of this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 15 minutes ago, Kuzzter said: Thanks! It's no accident that the shots you've seen so far are zoomed in and cropped. Believe me, I'm looking forward to the full reveal as much as you guys are I think it's not going to be quite that bad, especially after I take out the RTGs. The landers are very efficient, part-wise. I think it'll definitely be under 500 all together. Still--yeah Can you tell I learned my trade in Bahsten? So here's an idea: what if I put in an oversized reactor, and tweaked the .cfg so it outputs 1/4 the power and consumes fuel at 1/4 the rate? I don't think a 12-year fuel cycle is too OP considering US Navy carriers go for 25 and even the older subs can go for 10-20 years. Yeah, I might just do that--and also suggest to @RoverDude that the reactor output be tweakable by slider (and forgive me if they already are, I haven't taken one out of the VAB yet They already auto-scale, no need to add any configs or a slider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 7 minutes ago, RoverDude said: They already auto-scale, no need to add any configs or a slider. Oh! That makes much more sense. So if the power draw is 25% of max rate they consume fuel at 25% of max rate. Looks like I have a solution--thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geschosskopf Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kuzzter said: Yeah, that could be a problem. Or I could carry some extra reactors and not turn them on--just transfer the fuel to the running reactor, the waste to the spare, and jettison! Why no, Kerbfleet doesn't have an EPA. Why do you ask? The sun puts out so much radiation that a bit extra from a smidgen of nuclear slag ejected from a ship won't register on any detector. Quote In the meantime... I'm not sure I trust your math. Unless things have changed recently, the greenhouse things don't add in excess of their original load of mulch. But things have changed recently so maybe that's part of it. I haven't looked recently. However, even if you can get a net increase of supplies from fertilizer + mulch, you have to allow for LOTS of excess consumption. The nominal rate of consumption is actually about 1.25 NOMS per Kerbal per 6 hours because there's about a 25% chance per day that a Kerbal will feel the need for an extra meal. On top of that, there's a small but still quite significant chance that on any given day, a Kerbal will toss 1 "month's" worth of supplies out the airlock in a fit of Space Madness. I don't know how @RoverDude defined "month" in this case, but it's certainly more than 30 units---I've seen several hundred units go by the boards this way. And while the daily chance per Kerbal of this happening is so small that you'll only rarely see it on a trip to Minmus, it's pretty much guaranteed to happen at least once per Kerbal on a round trip to Duna that only takes a couple years. So on a Jool expedition lasting probably about 6 years (2.5 each way and 1 on site), I'd expect this to happen maybe twice per Kerbal. So with 12 Kerbals aboard, that's 24 psychotic episodes and thousands of supplies lost. This is the main reason I go with Deepfreeze Extended. Keep the actual mission duration (that is, the time needed to accomplish all assigned tasks) to a year or less. Give the Kerbals access to about 2 years of supplies during this interval to account for wastage. And otherwise keep the little pilfering stand-up guys (EDIT: not the phrase I'd have chosen to auto-censor the correct spelling of "bastids") on ice. 1 hour ago, KSK said: Wow. Space... so much space. And that's just inside the ship.! It's like the TARDIS. It's way bigger on the inside Edited January 31, 2016 by Geschosskopf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said: I'm not sure I trust your math. Unless things have changed recently, the greenhouse things don't add in excess of their original load of mulch. But things have changed recently so maybe that's part of it. I haven't looked recently. However, even if you can get a net increase of supplies from fertilizer + mulch, you have to allow for LOTS of excess consumption. The nominal rate of consumption is actually about 1.25 NOMS per Kerbal per 6 hours because there's about a 25% chance per day that a Kerbal will feel the need for an extra meal.otherwise keep the little pilfering stand-up guys on ice. Oh my. Well, if I understand correctly they don't carry mulch to start, the kerbals supply that--they have a load of supplies and fertilizer to start, and space to store mulch that hasn't been processed. In any case, Bill will sim the whole thing to make sure. As to the snacking--and the space madness--oh no I don't think I can deal with that! If all this is true, I'll just config the effects to a manageable level. It makes perfect sense for your crew of drunken pressgang victims to binge one day and chuck rations out the airlock the next, but such things simply do not happen in Kerbfleet--especially with First Officer Dilsby minding the locker, and Sarge ready to duct tape any offenders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geschosskopf Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Kuzzter said: Oh my. Well, if I understand correctly they don't carry mulch to start, the kerbals supply that--they have a load of supplies and fertilizer to start, and space to store mulch that hasn't been processed. In any case, Bill will sim the whole thing to make sure. I would definitely do a full-duration life support sim. You just need a fixed structure on Kerbin, several Hitchhikers and however many greenhouses, plus the required electricity. Test out the fuel endurance of the fission reactors while you're at it. This isn't the sort of thing you can fix once you're on the way. 1 minute ago, Kuzzter said: As to the snacking--and the space madness--oh no I don't think I can deal with that! If all this is true, I'll just config the effects to a manageable level. It makes perfect sense for your crew of drunken pressgang victims to binge one day and chuck rations out the airlock the next, but such things simply do not happen in Kerbfleet--especially with First Officer Dilsby minding the locker, and Sarge ready to duct tape any offenders Sir, my astronauts object to being stereotyped at "drunken pressgang victims". First, thanks to barcoded canteens and barcode-reading beer and grog dispensers, normally they just get a slight buzz to help them face the travails of their grueling, danger-filled days. One astronaut getting drunk thus requires a pooling of assets and several others going stone sober that day. Because they value their mild buzzes as one of the few pleasures of their lives, this is unlikely to happen. Mostly, it only happens as a voluntary team-building exercise after one astronaut has a particularly hard day. Occasionally, it happens as a result of theft, in which case there's a team-building exercise of another sort usually referred to as a beat-down. Secondly,my astronauts object to being called "victims". Before joining the Travelling Circus, they were either parasites of or active threats to society, mostly due to ignorance, lack of self-discipline, and/or lack of self-respect. They'd have ended dead in the gutter, in prison, or on the gallows. But after their service, they are highly disciplined, highly motivated, have learned an honest trade, and can take a productive role in society. Further, they have been allowed to play active, even vital, parts in their civilization's greatest endeavors, bringing many undreamed-of improvements to the lots of their fellow Kerbals. They look back on their service with pride and consider that the Travelling Circus was the best thing that ever happened to them. Now, as to more serious matters, there's no escaping the Space Madness thing AFAIK. Even if you have spare supply tanks shut off on the right-click menu, the Kerbals will break the locks. Just as a Kerbal can lift any weight when standing up, so can they break into any food storage when hungry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Geschosskopf said: Sir, my astronauts object to being stereotyped at "drunken pressgang victims". Sir, I appreciate the kind correction. I had not adequately considered the ways in which your Traveling Circus would, indeed, be an improvement in lot for the "dregs" (as you have described them) of the society under your most enlightened leadership. In addition, I read the description of Circus "team-building" exercises with great interest, and wonder whether a future mod will be available to animate this effect As to the madness and pillaging, I'm pretty sure I can get what I want with a bit of configure file editing. If not, I guess I'll just carry more supplies, it's less than a ton per year. Edited January 31, 2016 by Kuzzter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Geschosskopf said: The sun puts out so much radiation that a bit extra from a smidgen of nuclear slag ejected from a ship won't register on any detector. I'm not sure I trust your math. Unless things have changed recently, the greenhouse things don't add in excess of their original load of mulch. But things have changed recently so maybe that's part of it. I haven't looked recently. However, even if you can get a net increase of supplies from fertilizer + mulch, you have to allow for LOTS of excess consumption. The nominal rate of consumption is actually about 1.25 NOMS per Kerbal per 6 hours because there's about a 25% chance per day that a Kerbal will feel the need for an extra meal. On top of that, there's a small but still quite significant chance that on any given day, a Kerbal will toss 1 "month's" worth of supplies out the airlock in a fit of Space Madness. I don't know how @RoverDude defined "month" in this case, but it's certainly more than 30 units---I've seen several hundred units go by the boards this way. And while the daily chance per Kerbal of this happening is so small that you'll only rarely see it on a trip to Minmus, it's pretty much guaranteed to happen at least once per Kerbal on a round trip to Duna that only takes a couple years. So on a Jool expedition lasting probably about 6 years (2.5 each way and 1 on site), I'd expect this to happen maybe twice per Kerbal. So with 12 Kerbals aboard, that's 24 psychotic episodes and thousands of supplies lost. This is the main reason I go with Deepfreeze Extended. Keep the actual mission duration (that is, the time needed to accomplish all assigned tasks) to a year or less. Give the Kerbals access to about 2 years of supplies during this interval to account for wastage. And otherwise keep the little pilfering stand-up guys (EDIT: not the phrase I'd have chosen to auto-censor the correct spelling of "bastids") on ice. It's like the TARDIS. It's way bigger on the inside The tossing out the bin mechanic is gone in favor of just unlocking everything. And yes, you can get a net increase due to conservation of mass (1l of mulch and 0.25l of fertilizer = 1.25l of supplies). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Dilsby Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, RoverDude said: The tossing out the bin mechanic is gone in favor of just unlocking everything. And yes, you can get a net increase due to conservation of mass (1l of mulch and 0.25l of fertilizer = 1.25l of supplies). Ah, so they break open locked containers when the unlocked ones run out--makes sense, and is only humane kerbane. Shouldn't matter for me, I don't see a need to lock anything and thanks to the reactor I'll have enough power for everything over the duration of the voyage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smjjames Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 96 O.o geeze, and yeah, using the USI reactors or Nerteas reactors will save massively on part count. Also, Near Future Solar has some big solar panels that could work way out at Jool, also has some larger batteries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.