Resource transport and stations (obviously speculation)

[mcwaffles2003]

Spoiler

How will we be making these stations? Will we be going about it the same way we currently build stations in orbit, as in launching separate pieces and assembling them in orbit, or will we be building completely from this new base editor we've heard about?

Also how will resource transport be handled? Will we have to send individual resupply ships or will a background system do this? Both answers seem a bit ridiculous to me as filling the above station seems like it would take any non-stratzenblitz players many separate trips to refuel it while, on the other hand, it being constantly full from background refills seems too easy perhaps.

 

Maybe once a single refueling is completed manually that can be redone for the same or similar cost automatically upon request. Though this clashes with interplanetary launch windows and dV needs for different profiles

Anyone else have an opinion or idea on the subject?

Edited December 20, 2019 by mcwaffles2003

[DStaal]

On making the stations: I get the impression that it will be somewhat in between, in that you'll need to get some specific core pieces in place, and then you'll be able to build out using the base editor from there.  (Probably with some resource limitations.)  Much like EL or GC allow you to at the moment.

For filling it up: I expect most resource transport to be fairly manual - but I also think that station there likely has some passive mining going on.  After all, the main reason you'd build a station like that around a gas giant is because you can mine fuel for longer trips.  It wouldn't surprise me if there's some mechanic to allow auto-transport between bases on the same planet or similar, however.

[mcwaffles2003]

24 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Much like EL or GC allow you to at the moment.

Sorry, I'm uncertain to these abbreviations 

[DStaal]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Sorry, I'm uncertain to these abbreviations 

Extraplanetary Launchpads and Global Construction:

Both are mods allowing you to build off-world.  (With slightly different mechanics.)

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

On making the stations: I get the impression that it will be somewhat in between, in that you'll need to get some specific core pieces in place, and then you'll be able to build out using the base editor from there.  (Probably with some resource limitations.)  Much like EL or GC allow you to at the moment

That seems reasonable for constructing and editing the base. (I hope you can edit them anyway.)

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

For filling it up: I expect most resource transport to be fairly manual - but I also think that station there likely has some passive mining going on.  After all, the main reason you'd build a station like that around a gas giant is because you can mine fuel for longer trips.  It wouldn't surprise me if there's some mechanic to allow auto-transport between bases on the same planet or similar, however.

I'm hoping that there is no manual transportation of resources. I can understand manually getting the initial base parts and resources in place, but beyond that, resource hauling gets boring quick.

I like the idea of networking a bunch of colonies and bases together to automatically handle the routine resource distribution between them.

[Guest]

From what I understood from the interviews it seems to be a tiered system:

• TIER I: You bring every module manually and dock them as seen in KSP1
• TIER II: You bring the BAE (Building Assembly Editor) core to the station/base and fulfill its requiremets (x engineers on board?), now you can build like in the VAB the station/base itself using stored parts brought in kits or some other form of storage/inventory (lots of containers in the trailer)
• TIER III: You can build parts in-loco using raw and refined resources
• TIER IV: You build a shipyard/VAB and start launching new crafts directly from the base/station

 

As for resources in 5 minutes i came up with a similarly tiered idea for it:

• TIER I: You do everything manually it's the cheaper but most time consuming way
• TIER II: by unlocking a "private contractors" feature you can pay to have resources transferred from a station to the other (this can have all sorts of other sub-features attached)
• TIER III: by unlocking a "system wide market" feature you can pay to have a resource even without having to set up mining operations

I made up this last example in 2 minutes while writing and I'm no game developer, they had a studio full of devs and months to think something, I don't think this is a critical point for the game, especially given that they said that they want you to be able to abandon a base/station without consequences but also that there will be some sort of life support and that resources will have a key role for colonial/shipyard gameplay. 

[mcwaffles2003]

39 minutes ago, Master39 said:

From what I understood from the interviews it seems to be a tiered system:

• TIER I: You bring every module manually and dock them as seen in KSP1
• TIER II: You bring the BAE (Building Assembly Editor) core to the station/base and fulfill its requiremets (x engineers on board?), now you can build like in the VAB the station/base itself using stored parts brought in kits or some other form of storage/inventory (lots of containers in the trailer)
• TIER III: You can build parts in-loco using raw and refined resources
• TIER IV: You build a shipyard/VAB and start launching new crafts directly from the base/station

This seems very reasonable and I can see how it ties in together with this station:

Spoiler

Transferring resources manually with:

Spoiler

Having the Orion drive here makes a lot of sense tech wise for whats going on if this ship is for transferring resources that were mined on the mun. Though it seems that the ship was headed to Kerbin in this preview and though I saw many containers for what looks like resources, I see no mining equipment at that base.

Also, If this ship was transferring resources to Kerbin could that imply that there are "rare" resources that arent available on Kerbin and need to be brought home to use them there?

 

39 minutes ago, Master39 said:

• TIER II: by unlocking a "private contractors" feature you can pay to have resources transferred from a station to the other (this can have all sorts of other sub-features attached)
• TIER III: by unlocking a "system wide market" feature you can pay to have a resource even without having to set up mining operations

If it gets to this point I wonder if fuel delivery would be instant or if we would have a timer for when it gets delivered

I like the caveat that manual transport would be cheapest but brings to mind a big question. How will most of this be financed? Are we going to be paid solely through contracts again or will there be an option of selling mined resources?

Edited December 20, 2019 by mcwaffles2003

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

How will most of this be financed? Are we going to be paid solely through contracts again or will there be an option of selling mined resources?

The funding system in KSP (as for science and the whole progression/science/career mode) is barely a placeholder, as someone who's trying different solutions for every career I start (now I'm using State Funding) I think that it doesn't matter that much any system will be better.

The only risk I see from this side is if they try to make things "just like KSP1" turning old placeholders into "the Kerbal way".

 

31 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

This seems very reasonable and I can see how it ties in together with this station:

That first part wasn't speculation, it's a puzzle of information released in 3 o 4 interviews.

 

32 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Having the Orion drive here makes a lot of sense tech wise for whats going on if this ship is for transferring resources that were mined on the mun. Though it seems that the ship was headed to Kerbin in this preview and though I saw many containers for what looks like resources, I see no mining equipment at that base.

Also, If this ship was transferring resources to Kerbin could that imply that there are "rare" resources that arent available on Kerbin and need to be brought home to use them there?

I wouldn't read to much about the context of those crafts, in another alpha screenshot you can see the whole rocket being in high Kerbin orbit, but yes, that orange ship is basically an Orion strapped to a tin can.

[magnemoe]

21 hours ago, DStaal said:

On making the stations: I get the impression that it will be somewhat in between, in that you'll need to get some specific core pieces in place, and then you'll be able to build out using the base editor from there.  (Probably with some resource limitations.)  Much like EL or GC allow you to at the moment.

For filling it up: I expect most resource transport to be fairly manual - but I also think that station there likely has some passive mining going on.  After all, the main reason you'd build a station like that around a gas giant is because you can mine fuel for longer trips.  It wouldn't surprise me if there's some mechanic to allow auto-transport between bases on the same planet or similar, however.

An ground station will be build with modules you ship to it. We has seen containers, I assume you need an central module and expand first with ISRU, then probably greenhouses and finally being able to build ships, I suspect it can build modules for itself one level before that. 

I assume an space station works the same way, you have one downside, you can not do ISRU except from asteroids perhaps, but you can move the station, if you mine from an low gravity moon like Minmus or Pol you can easy make an tanker with 4 or more of the large tanks so it will be so many fuel runs. 

[Bill Phil]

On 12/20/2019 at 1:30 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Maybe once a single refueling is completed manually that can be redone for the same or similar cost automatically upon request. Though this clashes with interplanetary launch windows and dV needs for different profiles

Orion (not the capsule, the thing that shoots nuclear bombs out the back for propulsion) is confirmed. The concept of a "launch window" doesn't apply when you have the might of the atom powering your ship. Presumably it's not as advanced as the Daedalus depicted in that screenshot.

[mcwaffles2003]

9 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Orion (not the capsule, the thing that shoots nuclear bombs out the back for propulsion) is confirmed. The concept of a "launch window" doesn't apply when you have the might of the atom powering your ship. Presumably it's not as advanced as the Daedalus depicted in that screenshot.

It kinda does though if your first launch was from a prime transfer position vs asking for a refuel mission when they are at the absolute worst position. It can be done, sure, but it will still require much more fuel to account for the increased dV needs and I'm going to assume nuclear bombs cost a little more than chemical fuel.

[Bill Phil]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

It kinda does though if your first launch was from a prime transfer position vs asking for a refuel mission when they are at the absolute worst position. It can be done, sure, but it will still require much more fuel to account for the increased dV needs and I'm going to assume nuclear bombs cost a little more than chemical fuel.

Yeah it does take more delta-v, but the KSP solar system is so small that an Orion drive makes minimum energy transfers a moot point - the absolute worst position might increase delta-v by a substantial amount - if it wasn’t Orion. The worst times will be Eve or Duna when they’re on opposite sidea of the Sun. But Orion can fly on high energy hyperbolic trajectories, it takes longer yes but it doesn’t need many more pulse units. Indeed you can probably sacrifice payload for more delta-v so the number of pulse units required could be the same. An Orion pulse unit can easily provide meganewton-seconds of impulse - and that’s a small one at that. KSP will probably scale this down but we’re still talking a system that can  probably do a grand tour of the solar system in one launch.

[mcwaffles2003]

10 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Yeah it does take more delta-v, but the KSP solar system is so small that an Orion drive makes minimum energy transfers a moot point - the absolute worst position might increase delta-v by a substantial amount - if it wasn’t Orion. The worst times will be Eve or Duna when they’re on opposite sidea of the Sun. But Orion can fly on high energy hyperbolic trajectories, it takes longer yes but it doesn’t need many more pulse units. Indeed you can probably sacrifice payload for more delta-v so the number of pulse units required could be the same. An Orion pulse unit can easily provide meganewton-seconds of impulse - and that’s a small one at that. KSP will probably scale this down but we’re still talking a system that can  probably do a grand tour of the solar system in one launch.

It takes more dV, so it takes more fuel... Fuel costs money so more fuel means more money. IDK how thats disagreeable

[Bill Phil]

37 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

It takes more dV, so it takes more fuel... Fuel costs money so more fuel means more money. IDK how thats disagreeable

I’m not disagreeing with that. It’s just not a major consequence. The cost might only increase by all of a few percent.

It depends on how much the pulse units cost in game. 

If Orion takes a hyperbolic trajectory at all times then a poor alignment will not affect the total delta-v as much you would expect.

[mcwaffles2003]

8 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

If Orion takes a hyperbolic trajectory at all times then a poor alignment will not affect the total delta-v as much you would expect.

You have left the scope of the original context and replaced it with a new one and are arguing with that instead....

11 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

if your first launch was from a prime transfer position vs asking for a refuel mission when they are at the absolute worst position. 

We are not assuming only hyperbolic orbits, the original discussion was between the most fuel efficient route (cheapest) vs much less efficient route (more expensive)

[Bill Phil]

32 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You have left the scope of the original context and replaced it with a new one and are arguing with that instead....

We are not assuming only hyperbolic orbits, the original discussion was between the most fuel efficient route (cheapest) vs much less efficient route (more expensive)

You’re missing my point. Admittedly I’m not the best at communicating my point but here’s the rundown:

Orion vehicles are so powerful that they rarely ever take the most fuel efficient route from one celestial body to another. This means that the variation in required delta-v between a “best case” mission and a “worst case” mission is well within reasonable limits - that is the Orion is already likely to fly on a very fuel inefficient trajectory to begin with, thus the Orion is relatively insensitive to the alignment of planets, compared to a chemical or nuclear thermal rocket. Orions are so powerful that you can fly on very expensive trajectories and you are likely to do so. The relative cost of nuclear pulse units for different missions are thus not likely to be a major factor, as an Orion isn’t intended to take the most efficient route nor does it have to like chemical rockets. This is even more pronounced in the KSP solar system due to the scaled down nature of everything and the slower velocities. 

Now this all is fairly sensitive to the performance and cost values they give to the Orion drive (or drives). I’ve used some Orion drive mods for KSP, and they’re so powerful that you can leave Kerbin whenever you want and go to just about any planet you want. But the devs of KSP2 may decide to give it some balancing properties though I suspect they won’t nerf it too much since there will be some very powerful rockets in game with much more ridiculous performance.

[DStaal]

Worth noting in the Orion/transfer/dV debate:

When they were actually discussing the Orion, and ways to make it safe to launch, one realistic suggestion was to launch into a polar orbit (allowing the Earth's magnetic field to help deal with the fallout) and just transfer into the correct orbit once in space.

So the Orion has enough spare dV that a 90 degree plane change was fine as part of a normal launch.

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

On 12/21/2019 at 7:13 AM, Master39 said:

From what I understood from the interviews it seems to be a tiered system:

• TIER I: You bring every module manually and dock them as seen in KSP1
• TIER II: You bring the BAE (Building Assembly Editor) core to the station/base and fulfill its requiremets (x engineers on board?), now you can build like in the VAB the station/base itself using stored parts brought in kits or some other form of storage/inventory (lots of containers in the trailer)
• TIER III: You can build parts in-loco using raw and refined resources
• TIER IV: You build a shipyard/VAB and start launching new crafts directly from the base/station

 

As for resources in 5 minutes i came up with a similarly tiered idea for it:

• TIER I: You do everything manually it's the cheaper but most time consuming way
• TIER II: by unlocking a "private contractors" feature you can pay to have resources transferred from a station to the other (this can have all sorts of other sub-features attached)
• TIER III: by unlocking a "system wide market" feature you can pay to have a resource even without having to set up mining operations

I made up this last example in 2 minutes while writing and I'm no game developer, they had a studio full of devs and months to think something, I don't think this is a critical point for the game, especially given that they said that they want you to be able to abandon a base/station without consequences but also that there will be some sort of life support and that resources will have a key role for colonial/shipyard gameplay. 

R U STAR THEORY???!!?!!??

[Guest]

5 hours ago, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

R U STAR THEORY???!!?!!??

Nope, the first part is what I understood from interviews and info drops, the second is pure speculation.

Why you're asking? I missed some new info drop?