Making Minmus more challenging

[Bingleberry]

On 4/25/2020 at 5:16 PM, Lewie said:

If it was harder, many new players would be discouraged

I agree... when I started the game, I was able to get to mun on the worst, most inefficient craft, but was incapable of landing well... I had a perfect 4 point landing on my first try, then tipped over, and just could not get the hang of it. Once I learned minimums was out there, and I learned that the delta-v requirement to get there was similar to mun, I found it as a really good place to practice landing; and since the gravity is so much lower, it is a little more forgiving. Also, the lower gravity makes it a bit more forgiving on inefficient assents, leaving enough delta-v to get home... you always have to remember that new players are very inefficient... I feel like duna is where you force yourself to learn efficient lifters, and lighter/more effective interplanetary crafts and landers.

[KingKerb]

3 hours ago, Bingleberry said:

I feel like duna is where you force yourself to learn efficient lifters, and lighter/more effective interplanetary crafts and landers.

If I'm correct, landing on Duna actually takes less ∆V than landing on Minmus, though returning takes more fuel.

Edited April 27, 2020 by KingKerb

[Fraktal]

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Actually, there are two ways of the KSP space race: science gathering and industry development.

In sense of the science gathering the Minmus is easy and nice.
In sense of the industry development the Minmus is the pure evil which makes pointless any development on the rocky Mun.

So, I believe just one additional checkbox is required in game settings:
[x] Retrograde Minmus

Off = current state, for science.
On = the Minmus on retrograde orbit gets harder to reach.

...you know, that's not actually a bad idea. In fact, make it a difficulty option to allow each celestial body to rotate/orbit in retrograde, independently of each other.

[Bingleberry]

1 hour ago, KingKerb said:

If I'm correct, landing on Duna actually takes less ∆V than landing on Minmus, though returning takes more fuel.

Well, yeah... just pop on a bunch of parachutes and a quick blast of thrust before hitting the ground, and you’re good... but it’s a bigger ascent, through an atmosphere, which means a mun lander would require modifications to actually work.

[KerikBalm]

Switch the orbits and science multipliers of mun and minmus.

That arrangement would be better for the progression of new players.

Maybe do more than swap the science multipliers, and give mun an additional buff and minmus an additional nerf.

But in my 1.8 system with kopernicus, I put mun where minmus normally is, and put minmus out in an orbit similar to that of dres

[JcoolTheShipbuilder]

Maybe get a mod where the flats of minmus are oceans of ACID. no, like REALLY corrosive acid, bam. thats an interesting challenge i guess?

[kspnerd122]

another thing, nerfing labs and removing biomes would make getting all techs in KSPIE impossible, im already lab reliand due to the fact that later tech nodes cost 1000s of science

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, kspnerd122 said:

another thing, nerfing labs and removing biomes would make getting all techs in KSPIE impossible, im already lab reliand due to the fact that later tech nodes cost 1000s of science

Everyone plays this game differently. Me, I like role-playing. I like to build a science base on Minmus and use that lab science. I put a nuclear power plant out there (Near Future), a lab, an ISRU set-up, a tanker, connect it all with KIS/KAS, and "science the bleep out of it". Minmus is ideal because of the high science potential, the flats, and the low gravity for tanker operations. I do lose some efficiency when launching to other planets, but I don't mind. Tanking from ISRU makes up for that.

If I use a life support mod, it makes the base even more complex.

But I don't expect other people to play the game the same way.

[Muetdhiver]

I like Minmus as it is. However I think Mun science multiplier should be higher than the one of Minmus.

[Superfluous J]

18 hours ago, kspnerd122 said:

another thing, nerfing labs and removing biomes would make getting all techs in KSPIE impossible, im already lab reliand due to the fact that later tech nodes cost 1000s of science

Easy fix: KSPIE could denerf the lab and add biomes.

[LittleBitMore]

What I think should be done is, instead of changing Minmus or removing biomes, doing the same activity over a new biome of the same planet you've done before yields less science than doing a new activity over a new biome of a new planet. First experiment per situation should always yield most science, the rest should yield less. Those done in the same biome in the same situation on the same planet with the same experiment should yield next to nothing, and those done in the same situation in a DIFFERENT biome with the same planet and experiment should yield not full, but not nothing.

Example: you perform Random Experiment, which is, for the sake of this example, always biome dependant. It is done in low orbit over the Mun's Highlands. You get max science. You do it again, over the Highlands, and you get less science. So you wait until you're over the Mun's Midlands and do it again for a moderate amount of science. You land in the Mun's Highlands, and get full science for doing the experiment again.  You perform it again, and you get next to nothing. You biome hop to the next biome, and you get considerably less but a still moderate amount of science. Do it again in a third biome and you get even less.

This should solve the science farming problem in my opinion. Maybe science should be given less for doing the same experiment just in a different biome than what I've shown as an example. I'm not sure about all the details, as it's just a suggestion.

Edited May 20, 2020 by LittleBitMore
Tons of clarification

[Pds314]

On 1/23/2020 at 9:14 AM, fulgur said:

In my opinion, the point of Minmus is to give you RAPIERs and NERVAs before you go off to Duna or Jool. And the inclination is big enough that you don't always get an encounter if launching equatorial.

Do you really want to go to Duna without nuclear engines?

You REALLY shouldn't need nukes to get to Duna. Frankly it shouldn't be especially hard as long as you've got like what? The third rocketry node and some basic survivability stuff like radial chutes?

So 1.5 km/s for first stage.

1.5 km/s for upper stage.

1 km/s to go to Duna.

100 m/s to fix aerobraking mistakes.

Apollo style the lander down and back up and Rendezvous. This takes like 1500 m/s total.

Go back to Kerbin on what? 600 m/s?

That mission profile is not really bad. I don't see why you need a NERVA. In fact, I'm not entirely sure there's any advantage to a NERVA unless you're also using it as an upper stage for the launch vehicle, or have a particularly heavy payload to send to Duna.

 

If you do use it as an upper stage, you'll want a pretty solid TWR of like 0.8 fully loaded, which means 1 NERV for every 7.5 tonnes of vehicle after the lower stage separates. All in all, that means you're gonna need 3 NERVs and 7.5 tonnes of tankage and fuel to get 3 tonnes of lander to Duna and 3 tonnes of return module back to Kerbin. And even that's cutting it pretty close.

It's also worth mentioning that 3 NERVs is 30000 funds! If you recover them, you add additional mass and complexity to this mess of a mission plan.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Pds314

[Lewie]

25 minutes ago, Pds314 said:

You REALLY shouldn't need nukes to get to Duna. Frankly it shouldn't be especially hard as long as you've got like what? The third rocketry node and some basic survivability stuff like radial chutes?

So 1.5 km/s for first stage.

1.5 km/s for upper stage.

1 km/s to go to Duna.

100 m/s to fix aerobraking mistakes.

Apollo style the lander down and back up and Rendezvous. This takes like 1500 m/s total.

Go back to Kerbin on what? 600 m/s?

That mission profile is not really bad. I don't see why you need a NERVA. In fact, I'm not entirely sure there's any advantage to a NERVA unless you're also using it as an upper stage for the launch vehicle, and even then, it'll be an advantage in weight, not cost.

I agree with you. I usually use a wolfhound for my Duna missions. The wolfhound is incredible, it has a much higher twr the the nukes, it provides more delta v in comparison to the same amount of liquid fuel. Only problem is all of that oxidizer really weighs a lot, making it a bit of a struggle to get off of kerbin.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Lewie

[Pds314]

3 hours ago, Lewie said:

I agree with you. I usually use a wolfhound for my Duna missions. The wolfhound is incredible, it has a much higher twr the the nukes, it provides more delta v in comparison to the same amount of liquid fuel. Only problem is all of that oxidizer really weighs a lot, making it a bit of a struggle to get off of kerbin.

Yeah Wolfhound is nice if it's available. Even if it's not though, here's how you could do it with low tech.

Reentry vehicle: 3 tonnes. Unknown composition.

Return vehicle: transfer stage with 603 m/s consisting of a Terrier, FLT-100 and Oscar-B.

Stage mass: 1282.5 kg. Total mass: 4282.5 kg Stage cost excluding unknown decoupler: $610. TWR: ~1.4

Duna lander assembly: 3 tonnes. Unknown composition.

Total payload needed to Low Duna Orbit: 7282.5 kg.

 

Duna transfer stage: drop tank consisting of an FLT-200 and FLT-400, and a Mk1 decoupler with 1113 m/s Delta-V.

Stage mass: 3415 kg. Total mass: 10697.5 kg. Stage cost: $975. TWR: ~0.55.

Payload requirement to orbit: 10697.5 kg.

Total transfer stage costs: $1585.

 

Launcher Upper stage: Reliant engine + 2*FLT800+FLT100 + Fairing with 35 m^2 of paneling + Mk1 decoupler. 1584 m/s of Delta-V.

Stage mass: 11462.5 kg. Total mass: 22160 kg. Stage cost: $3560. TWR: ~1.05.

 

Launcher lower stage: 2x kickback SRB + 2x aero nosecone radially attached  below a Mk1 decoupler. 1549 m/s ASL / 1747 m/s Vac Delta-V. 

Stage mass: 48100 kg. Total mass: 70260 kg. Stage cost: $6080. TWR: 1.72 ASL.

 

Total launcher cost: $9640.

Total launcher + transfer vehicle cost: $11225.

Launcher payload fraction to LKO: 15.2% (meh)

Launcher cost/kg to LKO: $0.90.

And this rocket is overpowered for the mission too. But the point still stands that even 1 NERV is nearly the price of my entire mission plan excluding landers and reentry vehicles that are the same for both. And doing the equivalent mission would need 3 atop my lower stage and wouldn't even save any mass.

And if we're rescueing the nukes, I don't see why we can't also rescue my upper stage and return stage. So the nukes are quite a large investment that only pays back if you can land them right at the KSC.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Pds314

[DunaManiac]

I think you only NEED nukes for a manned mission to Jool.

[Pds314]

28 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

I think you only NEED nukes for a manned mission to Jool.

Lol.. no. At least they make some sort of sense there, but you don't strictly need them. Unless you mean a "landing" on Jool, but that's rather different. And you can still use conventional rockets to get out once you ascend on props.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Pds314

[Bej Kerman]

On 4/3/2020 at 2:27 PM, kspnerd122 said:

so inclanation actually matters when visiting guardian and nemesis

Guardian? Nemesis?

[kspnerd122]

After Kerbin