Make RTG units have halflife

[Pds314]

Ok but then give me several of them with different halflives. I.e. one with a 100-year halflife and low power (current one but nerf the power), one with current output (30 years) and one with much higher output, higher cost, and a halflife of half a year. Also make them generate heat while running.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Pds314

[Redacted]

There is a serrious problem with adding RTG decay... Once you leave a ship to do something else, that RTG would still lose potency based on the amount of time elapsed. Now while this sounds trivial, its not. Comsider that RTG’s can not be shut down and that game time spent else where will impact ALL  units with RTG’s regardless of what they’re doing. From a developers standpoint I can see why this wasn't implemented and why this was left to modders.

[Azimech]

On 3/29/2019 at 2:32 AM, Pds314 said:

Ok but then give me several of them with different halflives. I.e. one with a 100-year halflife and low power (current one but nerf the power), one with current output (30 years) and one with much higher output, higher cost, and a halflife of half a year. Also make them generate heat while running.

I agree with this idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Criteria_for_selection_of_isotopes

[Aeroboi]

1 minute ago, Azimech said:

I agree with this idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Criteria_for_selection_of_isotopes

I would very much like this idea. Some are heavier with more output while others are lighter with less output.

Sometimes I require a mission plan whereby I only require the RTG power generation for 5 years so I could do with a 10 year halflife RTG type.
It would also involve packing extra to add surplus EC generation for expected power degredation or have extra solar panels to fill in the RTG decay over time as the mission time elapses.
 

[JadeOfMaar]

3 hours ago, Azimech said:

I agree with this idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Criteria_for_selection_of_isotopes

On 3/28/2019 at 9:32 PM, Pds314 said:

Ok but then give me several of them with different halflives. I.e. one with a 100-year halflife and low power (current one but nerf the power), one with current output (30 years) and one with much higher output, higher cost, and a halflife of half a year. Also make them generate heat while running.

I usually avoid being "that guy" but I'm gonna be that guy and link this mod for those who are on PCs and don't mind using mods:

 

[KerikBalm]

 

I consider life support and reaction wheel saturation to be much higher priorities.

Adding a half life will not practically affect the vast majority of missions. Then people can just double the number of RTGs, and then if the mission still is affected by decay, that just means every X years you need to swap them out. Also it would probably push the distance at which people use rtgs over solar (for optimim ec vs mass generation) from dres to past jool, so rtgs would then be for mod systems, and decay could be left to a mod...

That said, if it doesn't affect performance, I wouldn't be opposed.

I guess the power output could be calculated when the vessel is loaded, and 1 time when exiting time warp... So the calculations aren't done when physics calculations are being done.

[Gargamel]

4 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

So the calculations aren't done when physics calculations are being done.

Given we're talking half lives of years, that would be a complete waste of resources.   Unless you left KSP running fulltime for a decade or so, you'll never witness output reduction firsthand.   So yeah, only upon loading would be fine. 

[KerikBalm]

And exiting time warp ... For those 100,000x or whatever the mac is, out to eeloo, done poorly so that your craft hangs around near Ap waiting for eeloo to catch up, when eeloo itself is near its Ap.

Or a similar situation with Opm and plock, or a 3x rescale system, etc...

[Pthigrivi]

I'd sort of rather leave RTG's simple and add some reactors that spend uranium the way NFE and USI Core do. I tend to keep an RTG on most craft as an aux backup so even if I do something silly nothing bricks, and I rely on solar, fuel cells, or nuclear reactors to do the heavy lifting. 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Pthigrivi

[KerikBalm]

For my stock centrifuges on my stations, I have RTGs to power the rotating sections, since they are technically separate detached craft (must reattach before time warp!), and get no power from the station solar arrays when rotating

[Jimmidii]

Because RTGs last so long, in practise this the only gameplay effect this has is that a completely separate mission that needs a long time warp kills off all your other ships with RTGs.

There are plenty of other things that happen over time that could kill off all other ships over long timewarps, eg. orbital decay, material decay, motor failure, etc.

From a gameplay perspective this isn't great, because you're one player doing the job of an entire space agency and can only realistically look after one mission at a time. Forcing a mission to be completely abandoned because it uses the only part in the game that degrades and you want to do something different isn't fun.

It's a fantastic idea for realism mods, along with other mission limiting factors like life support and failures, but it doesn't fit with where stock KSP pitches itself.

[JammedDiskDrive]

Personally, I'd say that making RTGs have half-lives should really, really only be in mods such as RSS or other mods that add in new planets or add a new system. It doesn't really have a point being in stock KSP, even as a difficulty option because the system just isn't big enough to even warrant them decaying. While you could use these to power landers/stations that are in the far reaches of space, that is a solution for more panels, batteries or using fuel cells. And by the time the RTGs decay to the point of them becoming unusable, that lander/station would probably be "decommissioned" or useless, depending on the player. 

The only way I can see this being added and being made actually useful is if Squad adds stock life support or a new planetary system to the stock game. However I don't think either of those are going to happen soon or at all, because life support doesn't seem to be a priority for Squad, based on their current updates. But that's just my thoughts.

Edited April 10, 2019 by JammedDiskDrive

[Xurkitree]

RTG Halflives aren't necessary in a game like KSP.

What KSP does need is an early RTG. I cannot tell you how many time I've wanted to put an RTG on a craft just to realise I haven't unlocked it yet. 

In my modded save, I use Community Tech Tree to provide a better, extended, longer Tech Tree - but it has one problem. Nuclear Reactors, are unlocked at 300 science, way way before RTG's, which are unlocked at 1000.

[KerikBalm]

To be fair, you need a nuclear reactor to make Plutonium 238... that stuff isn't really found naturally. We had nuclear reactors before we had RTGs.

[lajoswinkler]

On 3/29/2019 at 2:32 AM, Pds314 said:

Ok but then give me several of them with different halflives. I.e. one with a 100-year halflife and low power (current one but nerf the power), one with current output (30 years) and one with much higher output, higher cost, and a halflife of half a year. Also make them generate heat while running.

I'm ok with this but excluded it out of compromise with the squealers who see every suggested realistic advancement as an opportunity to belch fire. Oh boy, was I wrong or what!

Imagine KSP if the developers had always succumbed to squealing. We'd never have maneuver nodes, electricity, science points, heat, communication signals, G-force limits, etc.

This is such a great idea that works wonderfully, as beloved JDiminishingRTG mod shows, and was the original plan of Squad. It just got forgotten. Hopefully, with all these revamping developers are doing lately, RTG will become what it was supposed to be. And I hope implementation won't be a typical halfass let's-not-offend-the-luddite-squealers attempt that will force the players to shut it down and continue using the mod.

 

On 3/30/2019 at 9:41 AM, Redacted said:

There is a serrious problem with adding RTG decay... Once you leave a ship to do something else, that RTG would still lose potency based on the amount of time elapsed. Now while this sounds trivial, its not. Comsider that RTG’s can not be shut down and that game time spent else where will impact ALL  units with RTG’s regardless of what they’re doing. From a developers standpoint I can see why this wasn't implemented and why this was left to modders.

...That's the point of the idea.... Hence "RTG decay". I'm not really sure what's bugging you here.

There is nothing that can stop a lump of Sr-90 from decaying. And no, not all units would decay the same way. When an RTG unit is placed on the vessel, it's a fresh one and when you click launch, it's the start of the mission - start of decay. It goes for everything. Time does not flow in VAB.

 

On 4/9/2019 at 7:53 PM, Pthigrivi said:

I'd sort of rather leave RTG's simple and add some reactors that spend uranium the way NFE and USI Core do. I tend to keep an RTG on most craft as an aux backup so even if I do something silly nothing bricks, and I rely on solar, fuel cells, or nuclear reactors to do the heavy lifting. 

What would be the purpose of those reactors in a stock game? Nothing uses that much electricity that a nuclear reactor is needed, not even a ton of ion engines. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a nuclear reactor in the game if more stuff was added that actually used the electricity, but since there is nothing like that in the game, there's no current need for it. It's like developing ablating shields for a game where no reentry heat occurs.

 

BTW, your "backup" would not be impacted by RTG decay. Stock KSP doesn't consume electricity when nothing is running, so even a tiny boost from a very decayed RTG unit will allow you not to lose ability to open a solar panel or anything else.

[Pthigrivi]

25 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

What would be the purpose of those reactors in a stock game? Nothing uses that much electricity that a nuclear reactor is needed, not even a ton of ion engines. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a nuclear reactor in the game if more stuff was added that actually used the electricity, but since there is nothing like that in the game, there's no current need for it. It's like developing ablating shields for a game where no reentry heat occurs.

 

BTW, your "backup" would not be impacted by RTG decay. Stock KSP doesn't consume electricity when nothing is running, so even a tiny boost from a very decayed RTG unit will allow you not to lose ability to open a solar panel or anything else.

I often use nuclear reactors to power mining ops, especially deeper into the Kerbol system where solar isn't as effective or when the design doesn't warrant a big spread of gigantors. You can also use them to power Ion drives during night-side burns. And sure, if we ever got things like habitation or near-future engines they'd be even more useful.

Its important from a gameplay standpoint to be able to predict how much ec you can put out right there in the VAB, and that would be a lot harder if we had to predict losses over time. Im not saying if we gave RTG's halflives players wouldn't learn to deal with it, Im just wondering what the compelling reason would be to overcomplicate things this way, especially given that they're already balanced by high cost and low energy density relative to solar panels. 
 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Pthigrivi

[Vanamonde]

You're all free to disagree with each other, but please do it without the insults for the other side of the discussion. 

[Redacted]

4 hours ago, lajoswinkler said:

That's the point of the idea.... Hence "RTG decay". I'm not really sure what's bugging you here.

 There is nothing that can stop a lump of Sr-90 from decaying. And no, not all units would decay the same way. When an RTG unit is placed on the vessel, it's a fresh one and when you click launch, it's the start of the mission - start of decay. It goes for everything. Time does not flow in VAB.

Like I said.... This is why, if not for anything else, it was left to modders.

RTG decay is not for everybody. Yet, to force it on the entire KSP community would likely have greater negative consequences than the small benefit derived by the minority of players demanding it. Just like with other games where the perception of balance is an issue. There are alaways those wanting to push things that are better left to mods. Otherwise, its likely that the Dev’s would of considered and added decay long before public release.

[lajoswinkler]

19 hours ago, Redacted said:

Like I said.... This is why, if not for anything else, it was left to modders.

RTG decay is not for everybody. Yet, to force it on the entire KSP community would likely have greater negative consequences than the small benefit derived by the minority of players demanding it. Just like with other games where the perception of balance is an issue. There are alaways those wanting to push things that are better left to mods. Otherwise, its likely that the Dev’s would of considered and added decay long before public release.

No, there would be zero negative consequences. [snip] Nobody but people who use it on really long missions would notice anything.

When heat was implemented (adopted from DRE), it caused huge negative consequences for people who enjoyed throwing just about anything into atmospheres without issues. Did people complain? Yes. Was complaining valid? No. Boo hoo.

Same goes for electricity. And G-force destruction (adopted from FAR), and being unable to maneuver a craft without signal/Kerbal (adopted from Remote Tech).

Lots of improvements that made grossly huge changes for lots of people. And today hardly anyone even remembers they were crying about it, because the changes were good. People endorsed the challenge even if it meant more reality.

 

RTG decay was forgotten because it's a tiny code and a tiny part nobody improved upon since it had been introduced.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Snark]

Some additional content has been removed and/or redacted.

Seriously, guys, play nice.  Address the post, not the poster.  Personal comments about other forum users are never okay.  Keep the discussion to the question at hand rather than sniping at each other personally.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Vanamonde]

Thread sanitized for your protection. 

Now play nice, please. 

[Superfluous J]

On 4/13/2019 at 6:54 PM, lajoswinkler said:

When heat was implemented (adopted from DRE), it caused huge negative consequences for people who enjoyed throwing just about anything into atmospheres without issues. Did people complain? Yes. Was complaining valid? No. Boo hoo

Heat can be disabled. Presumably those who want it so disable it.

On 4/13/2019 at 6:54 PM, lajoswinkler said:

Same goes for electricity. And G-force destruction (adopted from FAR), and being unable to maneuver a craft without signal/Kerbal (adopted from Remote Tech).

These are all no only options, but disabled by default in normal mode.

Except electricity, which has been in the game since I started playing in 0.22 so I am not aware of the uproar it caused.

On 4/13/2019 at 6:54 PM, lajoswinkler said:

RTG decay was forgotten because it's a tiny code and a tiny part nobody improved upon since it had been introduced.

I'm on mobile so I can't delete this now that I made it.

[Laie]

On 4/6/2019 at 9:33 PM, KerikBalm said:

Then people can just double the number of RTGs, and then if the mission still is affected by decay, that just means every X years you need to swap them out.

Sorry, I cannot resist.... RTGs don't wear out with use. You put it together and then get the decay heat for as long as it lasts -- whether you have any use for the heat doesn't matter. You either use it or lose it, but there's no way to stop it or slow it down. Bringing replacements won't help you, unless you're talking about fresh replacement parts from Kerbin that being shipped to your vessel.

It says "decay" right there in the part description and can understand how it may irk some people that doesn't really happen. Still... keep in mind that RTGs are the one power source that outlasts any other, 40 years and counting, much longer than any reasonable mission you may want to undertake in the solar system.

In KSP we can arguably do missions that last much longer, but we can only do that because nothing ever suffers from wear or decay. Making RTGs the one sole exception would be wrong. Better to strike the offending word, or otherwise rephrase the part description.

[KerikBalm]

7 hours ago, Laie said:

unless you're talking about fresh replacement parts from Kerbin that being shipped to your vessel.

That was precisely what I was talking about. I had in mind little RTG clusters attached to a small docking port that can be swapped out. If we're talking like a 20 game year half life (if its 87 earth years... then I doubt you'd ever need to swap them out, since a game year is only 106 earth days), then with 2 of them, at the end of 20 game years you still have 1 RTG's worth of output, a cluster of 4 gets you 40 years worth of 1 RTG output... so detachable 4 RTG clusters (where one would previously use a single RTG) just means that you need to send a new cluster and swap out the old one with the new one, every 40 game years...

Even in OPM, that's easily doable -you may need to do some faster transfers to plock, or make them 8 RTG clusters, but it'll work.

So Neidon is roughly 40x farther from the sun, so the output should be 0.05083125 EC/s per ton. The RTG normally puts out 9.38 EC/s per ton. After 7 half lives it puts out 0.07328 EC/sec per ton... still beating the Gigantor. At 8 half lives, that is down to 0.0366 EC/ton, and the gigantor has a hefty lead over it (it surpasses the gigantor at about 7.6 half lives).

In the stock system, at Jool (not counting Eeloo or Plock because their orbits cross Jool/ Neidon), the Gigantor puts out 1/25 the power, or 0.13EC/sec per ton. After 6 half lives, the RTG would still put out 0.14656 EC/sec per ton... so it still beats solar after 6 half lives.

So... in a stock system, many half lives will pass before one considers doing anything but spamming RTGs at Jool or beyond...

So why bother? The only thing that needs much power at this point is ISRU, and it can self sustain with fuel cells... so... again... why bother?

[Xurkitree]

Honestly, no matter how much an RTG decays, you can still power stuff by timewarp. Especially ISRU stuff. It'll take longer ohoho, but KSP doesn't have a time limit, does it?