Do you have any "moral' rules?

[wumpus]

3 minutes ago, Brownhair2 said:

They are mostly harmless, but if they get damaged they become a serious hazard

No, not really.  Not compared to the amount of liquid oxygen every rocket carries.  Don't ask what is in the monopropellant, that stuffs probably worse than plutonium gram for gram.  And if something is breaking an RTG in flight: Jeb, Bob, and Bill have bigger problems than a small plutonium leak (the rocket is likely coming apart as well).

The Proton is what a serious hazard looks like.

[Gaarst]

6 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Fair enough, but you're pruning a huge part of the tech tree with that logic too.

I've been doing reasonably well with sticking to chemical rockets in RSS, so I don't feel the need to use cross-feed, ion or nuclear stuff. Also, remember that criterions I or you use are subjective, I understand that banning crossfeed but keeping physically impossible reaction wheels might not be considered as sensible by some

 

2 minutes ago, wumpus said:

No, not really.  Not compared to the amount of liquid oxygen every rocket carries.  Don't ask what is in the monopropellant, that stuffs probably worse than plutonium gram for gram.  And if something is breaking an RTG in flight: Jeb, Bob, and Bill have bigger problems than a small plutonium leak (the rocket is likely coming apart as well).

The Proton is what a serious hazard looks like.

Nuclear stuff is both more and less dangerous than hypergolic and nitrogenous compounds. Crashing a Proton with close to 700t is really bad, but people freak out when a few kg of Plutonium reenter the atmosphere. Hydrazine is nasty stuff, but gram for gram, plutonium is worse. So much worse that these few kilograms of Pu are encased in a basically unbreakable case making any leak very unlikely (even when reentring from a lunar trajectory, cf Apollo 13).

Edited July 9, 2016 by Gaarst

[TotallyNotHuman]

Guys, can we please stay on topic?

To keep the ball rolling, here are my moral rules:

• I don't really care about firing Nervs in-atmo (correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Nervs actually expel radioactive material, just radioactively-heated "hydrogen" [LiquidFuel]), but I DO care about its disposal. If it's a nuke that's been fired for more than thirty minutes, then it cannot be disposed of by deorbiting into any planet.
• It's not that I don't like asparagus-staged rockets, but it's because I can't. I play 64K with RealFuels, and, as a result, the fuel lines are completely useless (they only move LFO around. Not kerolox, not hydrolox, not methalox. LFO).

[Corona688]

The Space Shuttle certainly crossfeeded, it took off with a great big fuel tank and let it go halfway up without ditching its engines.

</nitpick>  I'm done, I swear.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Corona688

[Gaarst]

1 minute ago, TotallyNotHuman_ said:

• It's not that I don't like asparagus-staged rockets, but it's because I can't. I play 64K with RealFuels, and, as a result, the fuel lines are completely useless (they only move LFO around. Not kerolox, not hydrolox, not methalox. LFO).

Wait, I'm able to flow Az50/NTO fuel with fuel lines from radially attached tanks, is it any different for cryogenic fuels ?

[TotallyNotHuman]

Wait... You CAN do that? Huh.

I'm not sure if it can move cryo or semi-cryo fuels. But if it can move Az50/NTO, then there is no reason it cannot move the other fuels.

I tried looking into the Squad\Parts\CompoundParts\fuelLine\fuelLine.cfg but it didn't reveal anything of use. And according to all other sources, it can only move LFO.

I'll have to look into CRP's resource defs, IIRC if there is something like "PUMP" in the flow mode then the fuel line can move it.

[magnemoe]

No kerbal stranded, they want decent living spaces for longer missions, hitchhiker containers or similar. 
Take all rescue contracts, this is also economical as kerbals cost 1.7 millions now they are economical to recover from the surface of Eve, 
To compare an 12 man base with greenhouse, science lab and ISRU cost 400k including launcher.
 

[SpacedCowboy]

No rules for my game because,,, it's a GAME!

[Reactordrone]

Accept all rescue contracts, try not to kill or strand anyone and give them reasonable living space on long missions.

[SyzygyΣE]

Well, I'm a person who is pretty obsessed with realism. With the entire Realism Overhaul collection and mods like TestFlight, Kerbalism and TAC-LS installed, it's not a matter of whether I want to follow moral standards, it's a matter of having to. I have to constantly be mindful of crew rotations, radiation levels, supplies, enough living space, launch escape systems in case a component fails during a manned launch . . . the list goes on.

Have I made the game too hard? Perhaps, but unfortunately for me, I like it this way. 

Edited July 9, 2016 by SyzygyΣE

[purpleivan]

My moral rules.

1: Vehicles should be designed as hideously ugly as possible if it gets the job done (to ward off the kraken)

2: All kerbals are expendable (this they should know, if they read the really small print)

3: Leave as much debris littering the system as possible (how else will Kerbalkind make its mark on the universe)

4: If taking a good photo of a launch/landing/docking/... well, anything, results in the total loss of the vehicle and all crew, then so be it. You can never get enough good images for the piccy hungry press

5: Fuel efficiency is for wimps, burn as much, as inefficiently as possible at all time (how else will we drain the massive lakes of LF,LOX,Xenon and mono so that they can make way for development)

 

(Sounds of a struggle, breaking furniture... you get the picture)

"Er... sorry for that brief outburst from our soon to be EX director of marketing. The KSP would like to take this opportunity to restate its commitment to a safe, economical, environmentally sound and stylishly designed space program."

 

Edited July 10, 2016 by purpleivan

[Wolfdog]

Locking one girl in a small capsule with 3 men for a few years goes against my morals.

[N_Danger]

One never drinks cheap booze while conducting flight operations.

You drink the good stuff instead.

[lasersword]

0. If the gaining of new Knowledge needs to brake a rule, the rule shall be temporarely deactivated. 

1. Kerbals are important. Use drones for Stations or other non-lander-craft. 

2. Pilots>Engineers<Scientists.

3. Retrieve every Stranded kerbal. 

[SorryDave]

1. I do not use probe cores if at all possible. Kerbals enjoy exploring even at the risk of life.

2. Scout ships first to a planet/moon, followed by lab rats, then roughnecks (miners).

3. Chemical rockets mostly 

[septemberWaves]

My personal rules are pretty much:

1. Minimal casualties. I rarely play in saves where it matters much, but I still like to avoid losing kerbals where possible. I do revert sometimes (usually in the event of a bug), but usually if I kill kerbals and the situation was entirely under my control, they stay dead.
2. Well-tested safety systems on any crewed vessels. There's always some form of LES on my crewed spacecraft (except some spaceplanes), be it the launch escape tower, a series of sepratrons at the bottom of a capsule, or some more complex system. For situations other than the launch from Kerbin, there are redundant systems and sometimes other methods of maximising crew safety. On early interplanetary vessels I am getting into the habit of implementing escape pods (however, they become unnecessary when I put stations near to the destination, as every station I make outside of Kerbin's SOI has (usually ion-propelled) rescue vehicles). On late-game ascent vehicles from most atmospheric planets/moons, I will often implement a launch escape system which can allow the crew to safely return to the surface much like in a failed launch from Kerbin. Of course, this is only usable when I have some established colonies on that planet/moon, but it is an option in the late game.
3. Plenty of living space on long-duration missions. No one wants to be stuck in the same pressurised tube for decades without being able to move around except for on EVA. Bases and interplanetary vessels should be equipped with more than the bare minimum of habitable space for kerbals, and ideally should have cupolas or other similar viewing pods to eschew boredom.
4. Aesthetics is a priority. Nothing may leave the VAB/SPH if it looks bad. Absolutely nothing. Even if I have to spend numerous additional hours and funds on perfecting the appearance of a vessel, it is worth it. We have a reputation (supposedly) and it certainly doesn't have room for ghastly-looking agglomerations of rocket parts and struts.
5. Modularity. Not necessarily a "moral obligation" sort of rule, but even so. Everything being highly modular and saved as sub-assemblies makes it easy to put together a vessel and to plan a mission. And actually, if I'm sharing the craft (which I probably will with most vessels once they're perfected) I do feel somewhat obligated to make it relatively easy to use.

[Agathos]

No stranding Kerbals on alien worlds for years or decades without leaving them something fun to play with, like a science lab or a rover.

[kBob]

I just don't like leaving trash behind even virtual trash it just goes against my nature, so I bring back the science equipment, I try to let my boosters burn up rather than leave them in orbit and I eventually plan to clean up the ones I had to leave behind.  Otherwise anything goes though if a Kerbal dies I'll usually revert back to the start of the mission and then figure out how to avoid the same mistake (but that's more learning oriented than worrying about Kerbal lives).

[Norcalplanner]

Never give up, never surrender!

[Kertech]

For me kerbals are only sent into space (after first missions) once the hardware has been built, so interplanetary ships and stations are autonomously built then a crew transfer happens. 

Crew transfer vehicles are tested first before use, again autonomously. 

(I play with TAC, keep fit so there are plenty of ways for me to kill my kerbals already...)

[Fearless Son]

On 7/8/2016 at 2:47 PM, Fearless Son said:

Always have a plan to bring home any Kerbals sent into space.  We do not leave our krew behind!

Minimize costs while maximizing returns (i.e. a more expensive mission is justified if it could accomplish what would otherwise take two missions worth of funds to do.)  Space exploration represents a significant diversion of economic resources, so make it count!

Minimize debris that stick in orbit, especially in Low Kerbin Orbit.  Further out and lower density debris are a little more forgiving, as are debris that remain on planetary surfaces.  Every piece of flying space junk is one more obstruction we put on the paths of those travelers who will walk the trails we are blazing!  

Oh, a few people reminded me of another I have:

• Quality of life is essential for our krew.  Kerbalnauts going crazy from cabin fever and isolation reduces a mission's probability of success!  Never send a Kerbal out into the void alone except for very short missions (a spaceplane deploying a probe in LKO before returning or a single pilot sent out on a Kerbin-system rescue mission are a couple of acceptable examples.)  For any longer trip, go out with multiple krew so no one gets too lonely.  Further, make sure any craft that goes out on a trip that lasts more than week has a well-furnished passenger module.  Pilot seats might be comfy enough in zero-gravity, but a Kerbal needs a space to get up and stretch a little without having to go EVA.  Plus those cabins are where all the big snack lockers are!  

[Slam_Jones]

Eh my only solid one is "Never intentionally kill a Kerbal."

Stranding them somewhere doesn't count for me (I like to imagine they can photosynthesize and live indefinitely in hostile environments)

[Corona688]

On 7/8/2016 at 7:23 PM, wumpus said:

No, not really.  Not compared to the amount of liquid oxygen every rocket carries.

?  Liquid oxygen isn't directly harmful unless it sets you on fire.

Quote

Don't ask what is in the monopropellant, that stuffs probably worse than plutonium gram for gram.

Nitrogen-based rocket fuels are toxic as hell to eat but they're actually not that bad to burn.  Do it right and you get air.  Do it wrong and you get dirty air.  Flourine/Fluorocarbon ones are their own special circle of hell but nobody uses them.

Monoprop is probably hydrazine, toxic as hell in person but so reactive it doesn't stick around when spilled.  It reacts -- explosively or not -- with oxygen to produce nothing more complicated than pure nitrogen and pure water.  It's too simple to have any complicated products, so it's what they call a "non-cumulative poison".

When used without oxygen as monoprop, the worst thing you get is ammonia.  You know -- fertilizer.

Quote

The Proton is what a serious hazard looks like.

It uses UDMH, technically less toxic than hydrazine, but more insidious -- its ambient breakdown products aren't all harmless gases.  In particular, it can become NDMA, a persistent soil pollutant.  A UDMH spill would certainly be a nasty thing, and there's regulations about it.

As rocket fuel however:  Efficient combustion of UDMH produces nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water.  Messy, loose combustion -- let's face it, when a Proton goes down it goes down in flames -- produces a dirty mushroom cloud of mixed nitrogen oxides.  That's what causes the ugly brown look, lots of car smog, basically.

So, producing and moving all that UDMH is bound to be an ugly business, but the main toxicity hazard of a Proton launch is accidentally eating one.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Corona688

[problemecium]

Sure I do!

- For any journey longer than a few hours, send more than one Kerbal. My Mun and Minmus missions usually have three or four, and while the lander only seats one, I make sure to keep at least two in the mothership at all times and not leave the lander on the surface or orbiting alone for longer than necessary.
- For long trips, even to the Mun or Minmus, never confine the poor crew to a single pod or lander can. I make liberal use of the Hitchhiker module and leave more than the minimum seating space; for interplanetary voyages I tend to have at least three seats per Kerbal.
- When launching a crewed vessel, don't let the G-force get above 3. I used to confine it to 2, but that cut into my fuel efficiency too much. 3.1 is acceptable for a second or two, but I imagine even if they survive, Kerbals can't be enjoying being squished into green pancakes against the backs of their seats. Maybe Jeb...
- The obvious rules: Kerbals are not expendable and neither are the buildings. Building and hiring costs aside, death is bad, m'kay?
- I used to accept all rescue contracts under the assumption that if I didn't do something, the poor victims would starve in space, but... with the change since 1.1 such that accepting them makes the game flood your Mission Control with more, and my suspicions regarding how Rockomax manages to strand a Kerbal in retrograde Munar orbit within minutes of my first uncrewed fly-by, I've decided to just make it my headcanon that someone else will go get them.

[wumpus]

12 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

?  Liquid oxygen isn't directly harmful unless it sets you on fire.

Nitrogen-based rocket fuels are toxic as hell to eat but they're actually not that bad to burn.  Do it right and you get air.  Do it wrong and you get dirty air.

Monoprop is probably hydrazine, toxic as hell in person but so reactive it doesn't stick around when spilled.  It reacts -- explosively or not -- with oxygen to produce nothing more complicated than pure nitrogen and pure water.  It's what they call a "non-cumulative poison".

When used without oxygen as monoprop, the worst thing you get is ammonia.  You know -- fertilizer.

It uses UDMH, technically less toxic than hydrazine, but more insidious -- its ambient breakdown products aren't all harmless gases.  In particular, it can become NDMA, a persistent soil pollutant.  A UDMH spill would certainly be a nasty thing, and there's regulations about it.

As rocket fuel however:  Efficient combustion of UDMH produces nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water.  Messy, loose combustion -- let's face it, when a Proton goes down it goes down in flames -- produces a dirty mushroom cloud of mixed nitrogen oxides.  That's what causes the ugly brown look, lots of car smog, basically.

So, producing and moving all that UDMH is bound to be an ugly business, but the main toxicity hazard of a Proton launch is accidentally eating one.

Liquid oxygen is harmless, unless it sets you on fire.  Or sets something else on fire.  Or seeps into something and then explodes (LOX and charcoal is a favorite industrial explosive.  Explosive as dynomite, but if your detonator fails all you have to do is wait for the LOX to evaporate and your [dud] detonator is sitting on a pile of charcoal (dealing with dud detonators can't be safe, but it has to be better than dealing with then directly connected to explosives)).  It isn't so much how unsafe it is, it is how unsafe it makes just about everything that can burn.

   I'm having issues linking images,  try

Guys working with UDMH.  Do you think all that is so they don't eat it?

My main moral qualm with UDMH is the huge quantities involved  in the Proton.  I'd be happier using hybrid-style rockets, but understand that for many things you need that "instant on/instant off" bit to happen more often that any igniter (even semiconductor lasers?) can reasonably deal with.  The main point was that all of this is likely worse than whatever happens to a NTR.

Also I think the context was the astronauts at ground zero and not the total environmental effects.  LOX would only be dangerous if it somehow *all* leaked into the ground and exploded (with the carbon in the soil) on a city wide effect.  But there are plenty of ways for it to kill you on the same spaceship.

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by wumpus