Life support and/or habitats?

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

What the title says. Some ideas, mostly questions.

"Habitats?" In the trailer, we can see several examples of parts that would be unnecessary in regular KSP- namely, the domes at the end and the centrifuges. In the case of the latter, this doesn't just appear on bases, but on ships as well. I don't think these are purely aesthetic, especially since there are a few stacked up in the back of the orbital station/drydock thing in the pre-alpha footage... wouldn't it make more sense just to use the regular modules (there are a few other ones on that particular station) if the centrifuge didn't do anything? My first thought is that maybe these were important for some Kerbal comfort level that would be important for the "unlocking" of population growth or something, but that doesn't explain the centrifuge's use on ships. Also, since technically the centrifuge isn't a new part, it would make less sense to show it off so much if it didn't do anything.

 

So... how does that work? Is it part of a larger, more comprehensive life support system?

 

Life support? We don't really have any evidence at all that life support will or will not be in the game in some form. But that doesn't mean anything- we've seen the colonies, but we don't know what each module is or what each tank holds. There could easily be life support stuff in there. It would make sense IMO with the colonization focus to add some difficulty to keeping Kerbals alive for extended periods of time since, well, that's what you'd have to do when setting up a colony. Yes, you also have to mess around with gathering resources and adding new modules, so it's still not straightforward either way, but still, this would be a nice challenge to consider when building colonies. I also think it would help interstellar travel- as the developers themselves have said, they don't want the game mechanics to be easily taken advantage of by just time warping a bunch. Wouldn't the same apply to interstellar travel and such? If there isn't some kind of pressure to shorten journey times, many of these new technologies become useless with time warp.

 

But, on the other side, life support could be seen as too much. If you forget about a colony that isn't self-sufficient and go off on a nice long mission, then it sure would suck to come back and find everyone dead. And you don't want KSP to be too difficult. I mean, the game is about failing, yes, but failing in such an anticlimactic way after a stupid amount of work wouldn't feel quite as fun. Failures are supposed to happen, but they shouldn't really be that show-stopping. They need to be easy to recover from. Rocket blew up? Launch another one! Probe doesn't have solar panels? Revert to VAB! Colony you worked endless hours on just died off because you forgot to add another life support module when the population expanded and then used timewarp? Well..  guess you have to start over. Especially since some of these will be far removed from Kerbin and are seeded from other colonies, it might not be as simple as bringing a ton of Kerbals with you to repopulate the base (along with a fix to the problem, of course).

 

On the other, other side again, maybe life support is implemented in such a way that it only becomes a problem later in the game. After all, the vessels we've seen using only KSP1 parts don't seem to have life support equipment, perhaps because the resources for a Mun trip are built into some of the capsules or simple enough to be hidden in a service bay (or perhaps because there's no life support... could work both ways). Maybe only when you start going on deep space missions and travel times get longer does life support become a bigger concern. Then the difficulty goes up when you have to make colonies since now you have to make more life support resources and not just store them, while conversely new propulsion systems shorten travel times. It would make a nice difficulty curve, a nice progression. and maybe failure isn't as punishing as it sounds. Maybe Kerbals don't die from lack of life support, just go unconscious, like in USI life support. More resources could wake them up. It kinda depends on how it would be implemented.

 

So... ???

Honesty I'd welcome any of this as neat new challenging gameplay mechanics, but I'd be perfectly fine without them too.

Anyone else have any similar ideas, or any opinions on why any of these ideas should or should not be implemented?

[pandaman]

Frankly I would be disappointed if some form of life support requirements were not included, as an option at least.  It is one of the major challenges/barriers facing space travel so it would be very out of place if it were just ignored.

It doesn't need to be ultra realistic or over complex, and I hope it isn't, but to not address the issue at all would just be wrong IMO.

So, assuming there is a life support mechanic, habitation parts would almost certainly have some related function.

[DunaManiac]

I think it added in as an option, because that would please players like me who use life support, but not frustrate people that don't use it.

[M_Rat13]

We see ships both with and without these modules. My thought is, interplanetary travel, requires no life support, like in the base game, but, with interstellar travel, certain modules are required to make such a vast trip. Also, some modules, such as tanks and containers, may be for the colony building side of the game.

[78stonewobble]

12 minutes ago, pandaman said:

Frankly I would be disappointed if some form of life support requirements were not included, as an option at least.  It is one of the major challenges/barriers facing space travel so it would be very out of place if it were just ignored.

It doesn't need to be ultra realistic or over complex, and I hope it isn't, but to not address the issue at all would just be wrong IMO.

So, assuming there is a life support mechanic, habitation parts would almost certainly have some related function.

Personally this... Optional is fine, but as said, it's a big part of the challenges of space travel. 

[Nightside]

Look for the article “where baby Kerbals come from” it outlines how colonies will work.

It sounds like a nice balance between the spirit of sandbox and also providing a place to go.

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

Just now, Nightside said:

Look for the article “where baby Kerbals come from” it outlines how colonies will work.

It sounds like a nice balance between the spirit of sandbox and also providing a place to go.

Yeah, but it doesn't mention life support anywhere. That doesn't really mean it rules out anything, though, as although it would certainly be an important part of colonies, it would really be its own mechanic, and they're still holding back a lot of details in other areas of the game, such as Multiplayer. You cold also view it as just part of the resources involved in colonies and such, and they don't get that detailed in the article.

[Loskene]

I hope there's something simple and effective like USI life support, with all its options for supply requirements and punishment scaling as difficulty settings. It wouldn't be the same without it and the sequel is the perfect time to bake it in to the resource system.

[purpleivan]

37 minutes ago, M_Rat13 said:

We see ships both with and without these modules. My thought is, interplanetary travel, requires no life support, like in the base game, but, with interstellar travel, certain modules are required to make such a vast trip. Also, some modules, such as tanks and containers, may be for the colony building side of the game.

I'm imaginig an enormous snacks trailer, hauled along by whatever beast is making the interstellar trip. "module one... cupcakes, module two chilli dogs, module three assorted nacho dips".

[sh1pman]

19 minutes ago, Loskene said:

I hope there's something simple and effective like USI life support, with all its options for supply requirements and punishment scaling as difficulty settings. It wouldn't be the same without it and the sequel is the perfect time to bake it in to the resource system.

It would add a lot of depth to the colony gameplay. Build hydroponics, ice mines, fertilizer production, etc... Roverdude did it right with MKS.

[captinjoehenry]

Honestly I would prefer it if the game came without life support built in.  Or at least there really needs to be an option to disable it.  As while it is a neat feature but part of the charm of KSP in my opinion is how simplified it is.  Which lets you get away with all sorts of fun and silly things like command chair only spacecraft.  And I feel people should be free to use that game play style if they want to instead of needing to add in living space and life support parts.

Edited August 25, 2019 by captinjoehenry

[M_Rat13]

25 minutes ago, purpleivan said:

I'm imaginig an enormous snacks trailer, hauled along by whatever beast is making the interstellar trip. "module one... cupcakes, module two chilli dogs, module three assorted nacho dips".

module four, Imperial Slaves....

Wait, wrong game.....

[Lach_01298]

So here's my strong opinion:

Life support and mining in some sense is a must for colonies but there must be difficulty settings. We have already seen this in the communication network system in KSP.  Players can turn it on/off and change some of the consequences and values around it. This way everybody is happy! (Also with increased moddabilty people can replace the stock life support system with there own if the choose)

 

Here's my thoughts and ideas on how life support could work (soft and fluffy opinion):

I would like the essentials:

1. Food
2. Water
3. Oxygen

These can have simplified or kerbaled names like snacks, juice and air.

For colonies I think there should be as little micromanaging as possible. Ways of achieving this are once a colony has sufficient production (i.e enough farms, water extractors, oxygen generators) that you should not have to worry about the colony again. The population can't exceed the colonies production. If you want the colony to expand you have to add more modules to increase production of each resource then the population will grow into what is available. But I think while setting up a colony you should have to worry about life support. So there is initial difficulty setting it up but then it sustainable so you can worry about setting up a new colony instead of worrying about the already set up one. 

 

2 hours ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

But, on the other side, life support could be seen as too much. If you forget about a colony that isn't self-sufficient and go off on a nice long mission, then it sure would suck to come back and find everyone dead. And you don't want KSP to be too difficult. I mean, the game is about failing, yes, but failing in such an anticlimactic way after a stupid amount of work wouldn't feel quite as fun. Failures are supposed to happen, but they shouldn't really be that show-stopping. They need to be easy to recover from. Rocket blew up? Launch another one! Probe doesn't have solar panels? Revert to VAB! Colony you worked endless hours on just died off because you forgot to add another life support module when the population expanded and then used timewarp? Well..  guess you have to start over. Especially since some of these will be far removed from Kerbin and are seeded from other colonies, it might not be as simple as bringing a ton of Kerbals with you to repopulate the base (along with a fix to the problem, of course).

Well all the equipment will still be there just need to clean out the dead kerbals, so no major loss.

But seriously there should be a colony planner it should tell you how many kerbals it can support with the equipment you have and should warn you when you haven't brought enough before you leave the VAB.

So Lets go through a hypothetical scenario:

I want to make a colony on the Mun so I build a craft that can set up water extraction for a colony. I send 3 kerbals a pilot, scientist and engineer. They have 100 days of food, water and air (the planner told me this). So on their way to the mun they are not sustainable so I should keep an eye on them or I set up a warning that will tell me when they have 15 days of life support left that should give me plenty of time to send a rescue mission. Once on the Mun they set up the water extractor and start splitting the water for H2 and O2 this setup can supply 10 kerbals with water and air (this was told on the modules in the VAB and it tells me that now to). So know I don't have to worry about water or air for them but i do need to worry about food so I set up a warning to tell me when the have 20 days of food left giving me plenty of time to send a food supply. Now I decide I want to stop worrying about the Mun colony so I send a mission to install farms. The planner shows me that it will produce 12 kerbals worth of  food, 1 kerbals worth of oxygen (because that photosynthesis thing) and will use 2 kerbals worth of water. once installed the colony is self sufficient it has 12 kerbals worth of food production, 11 days of oxygen production (1+ 10) and 8 Kerbals of water production (10-2). So now I can leave it and if I allow the kerbals to do there baby making, they will only make 5 babies since the colony can only support 8 because of the water. So now I have successfully set up a Mun colony that produces H2 Fuel that I can use to refuel Future missions. 

Construction is a whole other topic that i won't go into here.

 

[Loskene]

1 hour ago, captinjoehenry said:

Honestly I would prefer it if the game came without life support built in.  Or at least there really needs to be an option to disable it.  As while it is a neat feature but part of the charm of KSP in my opinion is how simplified it is.  Which lets you get away with all sorts of fun and silly things like command chair only spacecraft.  And I feel people should be free to use that game play style if they want to instead of needing to add in living space and life support parts.

Boooo naw I'm just playing I get you dude. I like to think of it as an extra challenge when there's little else to do, since it tests all aspects of your building and planning skills, but for beginners or people just looking to play sandbox there's no point to it, so it should be toggleable and probably off by default. I only ever have USI installed when I'm doing a semi-realism career game.

I like that one because it's just supplies, waste, fertiliser, and energy you have to deal with for a complete offworld kerbal ecosystem. There's no point breaking it down into food/water/ox unless you really like clicking ISRU converter menus, they always run out at the same rate because few missions are short enough to survive with a loss of any of them alone. It also has a nice 2 week grace period for short trips without any supplies or emergency rations if you have a problem. I'm well for it is what I'm saying, even as a post-launch update (do not say the d-word)

Oh but of course I forgot to mention the thing that makes it actually gamechanging: the habitation mechanic. When you actually need a liveable volume for your kerbals to survive in without going crazy on potentially indefinite voyages, you're forced to build big. It changes how you build every crewed payload and launch vehicle. Some might not like that but it makes mine look more true to life out of necessity rather than aesthetics, so I like it a lot.

Example: You know how going to Duna orbit and back can basically be done with a space chair, and a station might as well be a science lab, docking port and solar panel? Well this the bare minimum kind of vessel you need for the hundreds of days worth of supplies you have to bring for keeping kerbals alive that whole time (since I hadn't unlocked growing crops yet): https://youtu.be/no6Rq2BNKJI

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Loskene

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

Yeah, USI is absolutely the best implementation for a stock system. The simplicity and really adjustable difficulty settings are exactly what you would want in a stock life support system.

 

(Off-topic, but this may be the first time in my 4 years on the forum I have actually ran out of likes. Yeah, I don't do much here.)

[Chilkoot]

4 hours ago, Loskene said:

I hope there's something simple and effective like USI life support, with all its options for supply requirements and punishment scaling as difficulty settings. It wouldn't be the same without it and the sequel is the perfect time to bake it in to the resource system.

Based on one of the interviews, I don't think we're going to see life support like with USI.  Producer guy mentioned we'd be able to build bases, and then just leave them and not be 'punished' for just forgetting about them.  I'll try to find the clip.

 

E:  From Creative Director Nate Simpson (emphasis added): "And as that population increases, the colony's abilities increase as well. But not it's not the sort of situation where if you don't tend to the colony, it collapses or something bad happens." 

This is what leads me to believe life support will be a minimal aspect of the game as far as active management goes.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Chilkoot

[Toonu]

Mods can always fix the life support issues like our amazing 4+ LS mods do now.  

[klgraham1013]

12 hours ago, pandaman said:

Frankly I would be disappointed if some form of life support requirements were not included, as an option at least.  It is one of the major challenges/barriers facing space travel so it would be very out of place if it were just ignored.

It doesn't need to be ultra realistic or over complex, and I hope it isn't, but to not address the issue at all would just be wrong IMO.

So, assuming there is a life support mechanic, habitation parts would almost certainly have some related function.

I consider this one of the biggist missteps in KSP's original design that was never addressed.  One of the most visible challenges of manned space flight completely nonexistent in a game that purports to teach about real space flight.

[lajoswinkler]

It would be sad not to have some kind of life support going on, especially with interstellar exploration. It's something that has become a staple of KSP modding.

[Geschosskopf]

I foresee (and sincerely hope) that KSP2 handles colonies the same way it handles KSC in KSP1.  This, IMHO, is the ONLY feasible way to do multiple colonies.

In KSP1, there are 2 types of Kerbals:

1. Playable individuals you can load into rockets and send somewhere.  This is currently the only way to get Kerbals off Kerbin
2. Abstracted, non-playable "population".  The global population of Kerbin who works in the industrial base that obviously must exist to supply KSC, plus the workers at KSC itself, some which are named NPCs like Gene.  None of these can be played or put in ships.

We don't have to feed Gene, Werhner, or the rest of the KSC staff, nor the global population of Kerbin.  We don't have to run the mines and factories that make the rocket parts that we assemble at KSC.   The only "dirtside" thing we have to worry about is upgrading the KSC buildings.  All the micromanagment is abstracted.

I figure KSP2 colonies will be a lot like this, with 1 difference:  we'd have to establish the global population and industrial base before we could have a functional "KSC-type facility on another world.  But we wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to micromanage the details of running the mines and factories, trucking resources around, and worrying about life support.  All the Kerbals in the colony population are doing those jobs.

So, the ultimate goal of the colony is to become a functioning spaceport, KSC on another world.  Build and launch ships, hire playable recruits, accept contracts, track asteroids, be a DSN link, etc.  This will only happen when the colony has sufficient population and supporting industrial base.  To get to this point, first you have to plunk down some starter modules.  This is the seed population, what they need to support themselves, and some space to grow into.  Once the population increases, you add some more modules to grow their industrial base and provide room for more population growth.  Then finally, you add a VAB, launchpad, astronaut complex, etc.  The population, the life support, and resource management for all this is totally abstracted.  Player input is just bringing in the modules.  Pretty much like how you establish a colony in a 4X space empire game.

Now, "just bringing in the modules" I figure is going to be a HUGE task.  I expect they'll weigh and cost a lot, and you'll need lots of them.  I also suspect that the planet's environment will dictate how many of which types you need, and how fast the population can grow.  I also expect you'll have to put the modules on or near sufficient deposits of various resources.  Thus, a lot of planning and prospecting will have to happen first, and then the major colonial expeditions to bring in the modules.  But because all the details of  how the colonists spend their time are abstracted, you don't have to keep checking in but can go off explore and prospect for future colony sites elsewhere.

[M_Rat13]

2 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

I foresee (and sincerely hope) that KSP2 handles colonies the same way it handles KSC in KSP1.  This, IMHO, is the ONLY feasible way to do multiple colonies.

In KSP1, there are 2 types of Kerbals:

1. Playable individuals you can load into rockets and send somewhere.  This is currently the only way to get Kerbals off Kerbin
2. Abstracted, non-playable "population".  The global population of Kerbin who works in the industrial base that obviously must exist to supply KSC, plus the workers at KSC itself, some which are named NPCs like Gene.  None of these can be played or put in ships.

We don't have to feed Gene, Werhner, or the rest of the KSC staff, nor the global population of Kerbin.  We don't have to run the mines and factories that make the rocket parts that we assemble at KSC.   The only "dirtside" thing we have to worry about is upgrading the KSC buildings.  All the micromanagment is abstracted.

I figure KSP2 colonies will be a lot like this, with 1 difference:  we'd have to establish the global population and industrial base before we could have a functional "KSC-type facility on another world.  But we wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to micromanage the details of running the mines and factories, trucking resources around, and worrying about life support.  All the Kerbals in the colony population are doing those jobs.

So, the ultimate goal of the colony is to become a functioning spaceport, KSC on another world.  Build and launch ships, hire playable recruits, accept contracts, track asteroids, be a DSN link, etc.  This will only happen when the colony has sufficient population and supporting industrial base.  To get to this point, first you have to plunk down some starter modules.  This is the seed population, what they need to support themselves, and some space to grow into.  Once the population increases, you add some more modules to grow their industrial base and provide room for more population growth.  Then finally, you add a VAB, launchpad, astronaut complex, etc.  The population, the life support, and resource management for all this is totally abstracted.  Player input is just bringing in the modules.  Pretty much like how you establish a colony in a 4X space empire game.

Now, "just bringing in the modules" I figure is going to be a HUGE task.  I expect they'll weigh and cost a lot, and you'll need lots of them.  I also suspect that the planet's environment will dictate how many of which types you need, and how fast the population can grow.  I also expect you'll have to put the modules on or near sufficient deposits of various resources.  Thus, a lot of planning and prospecting will have to happen first, and then the major colonial expeditions to bring in the modules.  But because all the details of  how the colonists spend their time are abstracted, you don't have to keep checking in but can go off explore and prospect for future colony sites elsewhere.

I also suspect these colonies will just be for interplanetary ship builds. So, building them on a low gravity moon would be the best route. To build interstellar ships, it looks like, from the trailer, you'll want to build a large spacedock, that can handle these ships, that you provide resources for, from your colonies.

[Geschosskopf]

56 minutes ago, M_Rat13 said:

I also suspect these colonies will just be for interplanetary ship builds. So, building them on a low gravity moon would be the best route. To build interstellar ships, it looks like, from the trailer, you'll want to build a large spacedock, that can handle these ships, that you provide resources for, from your colonies.

It really depends on how they structure where the colony modules fall in the tech tree and how fast population grows.  It might be you can colonize LKO, Mun, or Minmus to build interplanetary ships to explore the original system before going further afield.  I also envision that the engines (at least) for interstellar ships will need exotic resources you can't get on Kerbin (helium-3, for example), so I'd not be surprised if you have to colonize other "home" planets to get the resources to go to other stars.

This brings up orbital shipyards, which I'm guessing are a thing based on the trailer.  Space stations can't be self-sufficient.  Even if the life support is a magic closed loop, they'll still need resupplies of toilet paper   But a shipyard will need tons and tons of construction materials, too.  The only way I can see this happening with an abstract, 4X-style thing avoiding player micromanagement would be if orbital "colonies" weren't stand-alone things, but part of the ground-based colony on the planet they orbit.  Then, as the player, you would make the ground colony have sufficient mining and manufacturing modules to supply the orbital shipyard, and probably also an "orbital logistics module" that trucks these materials up to the shipyard, all on autopilot without you having to mess with it.  You'd still have to buy it all up front, and get it there, and set it up, but then all the abstract NPC Kerbals living there do all the blue collar work.

So, if this is how things will work, it might be possible to build an orbital shipyard at Kerbin reasonably early (in KSP2 terms, mid-game in KSP1 terms).  The planet of Kerbin itself would be the "ground colony" supplying the orbital shipyard.  You'd pay to build the shipyard.  You might even have to add an "orbital logistic module" to KSC to handle the freight.  And then, you'd pay the normal price for any ship built at the Kerbin orbital shipyard.  It would effectively become another launch site on (only in this case above) Kerbin.

[M_Rat13]

10 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

It really depends on how they structure where the colony modules fall in the tech tree and how fast population grows.  It might be you can colonize LKO, Mun, or Minmus to build interplanetary ships to explore the original system before going further afield.  I also envision that the engines (at least) for interstellar ships will need exotic resources you can't get on Kerbin (helium-3, for example), so I'd not be surprised if you have to colonize other "home" planets to get the resources to go to other stars.

This brings up orbital shipyards, which I'm guessing are a thing based on the trailer.  Space stations can't be self-sufficient.  Even if the life support is a magic closed loop, they'll still need resupplies of toilet paper   But a shipyard will need tons and tons of construction materials, too.  The only way I can see this happening with an abstract, 4X-style thing avoiding player micromanagement would be if orbital "colonies" weren't stand-alone things, but part of the ground-based colony on the planet they orbit.  Then, as the player, you would make the ground colony have sufficient mining and manufacturing modules to supply the orbital shipyard, and probably also an "orbital logistics module" that trucks these materials up to the shipyard, all on autopilot without you having to mess with it.  You'd still have to buy it all up front, and get it there, and set it up, but then all the abstract NPC Kerbals living there do all the blue collar work.

So, if this is how things will work, it might be possible to build an orbital shipyard at Kerbin reasonably early (in KSP2 terms, mid-game in KSP1 terms).  The planet of Kerbin itself would be the "ground colony" supplying the orbital shipyard.  You'd pay to build the shipyard.  You might even have to add an "orbital logistic module" to KSC to handle the freight.  And then, you'd pay the normal price for any ship built at the Kerbin orbital shipyard.  It would effectively become another launch site on (only in this case above) Kerbin.

The problem I have with that idea, is that it is completely different from KSP 1. In the original, zero infrastructure is required to reach the entirety of the solar system. All you need is science and/or funds if you aren't in sandbox.

If, as a company, you wanted to have your old player base come over to the new game, you'd want at least the basic experience to feel the same. Of course, with colonies and interstellar travel, those are new features, and you can add whatever you want. But, for the base exploration experience, the core of KSP 1, it has to stay the same, or you'll hemorrhage loyal fans.

[Geschosskopf]

15 minutes ago, M_Rat13 said:

The problem I have with that idea, is that it is completely different from KSP 1. In the original, zero infrastructure is required to reach the entirety of the solar system. All you need is science and/or funds if you aren't in sandbox.

If, as a company, you wanted to have your old player base come over to the new game, you'd want at least the basic experience to feel the same. Of course, with colonies and interstellar travel, those are new features, and you can add whatever you want. But, for the base exploration experience, the core of KSP 1, it has to stay the same, or you'll hemorrhage loyal fans.

Well, from what I understand, the original solar system will be "pretty much" the same.  Sure, it'll have spiffed-up graphics.  Some orbital tilt here and there.  Maybe something actually going on with the Monoliths (or an absence thereof--who knows?).  Maybe some OPM-esque planets tacked onto the back end which, if they exist, you can ignore if you want, along with the other stars.  But the old system will be the same scale as before, with what appear to be most of the same old rocket parts, no doubt arranged on a very familiar tech tree.  With probably very similar contract and Science! processes underlying things.  Thus, I see no immediately apparent reason why you shouldn't be able to play a KSP1-type game in KSP2 and ignore colonies and interplanetary stuff completely.

[nikokespprfan]

I personally think Life support is a necessary part of setting up colonies. I'm not for LS for all missions, just for colonies and motherships and bases. So here is my outline for my favorite form of lifesuopport:

Hibernating Stable-State (HSS) Life support

• Life support is not needed or implied in small missions. It only becomes inportant for bases, colonizing vessels and ships that otherwise have lots of kerbals.
• A base can be brought in a stable state so the player can divert attention. (This seems to be what the devs want too)
• One stable state is hibernation. It happens when kerbals are denied Life support. Kerbals don't consume during hibernation, but the base loses it's lab/factory/luanch site abilities due to lack of wake personell.
• Kerbals only die in hibernation when electricity is then additionally cut short. Since every base of LS-mattering size should have power gen on board for other things, and because a shut down base doesn't spend it on anything else, this does not happen very often.
• The other stable state is self-sufficiency. The goal for a player is to get a base self suffient, then once reached he can divert attention.
• A player can play resource gathering/restocking mission to achieve said goal. The player can then request those missions to be launched regularly without his supervision, to avoid micromanaging. The game will simply be replaying your actions.
• The above fact is fun because it means that kerbals continue to make the same stupid mistakes you did every time, and yet always they succeed in their goal because you did. It's derpyness too successfull to find annoying.
• Then there are the resources to keep them alive
  • Snacks, noms or food: kerbals hibernate when denied
  • Juice, soda or drinks: kerbals hibernate when denied
  • Air: kerbals hibernate when denied
  • Poopsies: A harmless mountain of them builds up outside the base when not dealt with properly.
• There are resources to keep the base operational
  • building materials: cannot build crafts without this
  • all necessary fuels: cannot build crafts without this
  • electricity: cannot build crafts, cannot operate laboratories, cannot process raw materials and cannot sustain hibernation without this.
• The game monitors self-suffiency because it is needed for that milestone system the devs have been talking about, so you, dear player, will be in the know of all of this.

 

TL:DR there is a game loop where you try to make a base self-sufficient, including missions in order to get that to work, once succeded, you can divert attention. Additionally there are safeguards against neglect causing death in the form of hibernation. Bring the base food and it will wake from its slumber. In conclusion: you have to really mess up to kill the kerbals by Life Support. You'd almost need to try.

Edited August 25, 2019 by nikokespprfan