different ways a career could work in ksp2

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

it has the same effects of a budget with a simpler setup.

A timer does this how? Why are the other solutions not valid?

[Pthigrivi]

7 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

A timer does this how? Why are the other solutions not valid?

The thinking would be that if you've got a built-in fuel plant at KSC (that really should produce raw materials for rocket parts too) you're essentially just converting time into resources and then into rockets, so why not just skip the extra UI and have the game calculate production time based on how big/complex the rocket is. It's just less on the screen to fuss about. To me the trade off is that production time is more of a black box, and that seeing the production rates and resources early preps you for what to think about as you start colonizing. It also levels the playing field and creates a consistent logic throughout the game, and creates some nice strategic tradeoffs. But, like I said, this is all just theoretical and subjective and I couldn't say what would really be easier in practice. 

I agree with Master on the pitfalls he listed, and there are others as well like the aforementioned failure state problem, time-warp abuse with budgets, imbalanced incentives between production on Kerbin vs offworld, etc. Some of these might be acceptable, some might not be and need solutions, and hopefully the solutions don't make things more complicated than the problems are. One of my favorite solutions to some of these problems would be to add bonuses to Boom event milestones based on fixed calendar dates. For instance if you landed a probe on Duna by day 1000 you get an extra 20% on top of the main reward. This gives a gentle incentive to use time wisely and discourages milking inefficient resource collection by time-warping. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[Guest]

On 10/7/2021 at 9:51 AM, Bej Kerman said:

A timer does this how? Why are the other solutions not valid?

Not talking about valid or not valid, just discussing the pro and cons of various alternatives.

With the exception the extragerated extremes like having the whole periodic table in game or just having a single universal "ore" I'm not really against any of the proposals of this topic.

On specifically how a timer does that @Pthigrivi explained it better than I could ever do, while also adding the pitfalls of my own idea.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Master39

[shdwlrd]

With the conversations with the specific areas of the "career" mode. (Probably won't be named that.) I'm wondering on how to guide the new players without boring the veteran players? Does the game feed you missions step by step until you establish a base on the Mun and/or Minmus; then give you broad goals for the next step? Once you unlock new tech, do they have you do a couple familiarization missions (simulated or real life)  before you can use it unlimitedly? At what point does the hand holding end and you're truly free to do what you want?

How are you going to tie the resources into missions without it feeling limited? All resource systems can be abused unless they are limited in some way. But limiting resources will lead to unnecessary complexity and frustration and possibly a failure state in the early game.

This is a tough nut to crack. There are many ways to do every part of the career system. None of them are wrong, but none seems to fit either.

Edited October 7, 2021 by shdwlrd

[SciMan]

Well to be honest, I do like the idea of a lot of different structural materials, and no I didn't list the entire periodic table, but you wouldn't have a billion parts to begin with (well maybe it would act like that in the code, but I doubt it because the people at Intercept seem to be pretty good at coding).

You'd be able to click on a part in the VAB and pick its material, so "sorta procedurally", and then the part would change its characteristics (mass, strength if simulated, heat tolerance) to reflect whatever new material it's made of. Put it this way. You'd have a given number of different types of "lego blocks" to "play" with, but you'd be able to tell the game what you want each part made out of (if you need to change it at all that is).

It's totally optional complexity too. If you ignore it and just play the game like KSP 1 (where everything's made of pig iron and lead and I really hate that which is why I'm advocating for this whole thing in the first place), that's fine. You'll be able to get things where you need them to go, and you only have to think as hard as you want to when designing the craft.
But, if you DO pay attention to it, you get rewarded with craft that have reduced dry mass and therefore measurably (and usefully) superior performance to craft that are just always made out of the same old boring generic "metal".

It doesn't even have to make the production chains more complex. It could just all be lumped in as "Aerospace Metal Alloys" for all I care. I'm most interested in what it does for me when I'm in the VAB, not so much for what it does for me when trying to set up a colony. But I do agree with @Master39 that we shouldn't have either "the whole periodic table" or "just ore".
Both ends of the spectrum have overall downsides which greatly out-weigh the benefits.

However, I must disagree with the statement that the way USI does things is "fine". It's actually very much not fine, as you can tell by the USI thread being both hundreds of pages long, and having at least one post per page of "how the heck to I get this whole thing to work", no matter how many posts per page you may be displaying. The critical issue is that there is critically insufficient documentation of the whole resource system that USI puts in place, and additionally it takes entirely too many different parts (and kerbals) to get a colony to sustain itself. The only advantage of USI-LS is that it doesn't actually kill the kerbals when the life support resources run out, that's it that's the only good thing I have to say about it.
Basically, my issue is that if the life support only consumes one resource and produces one resource, why does it take the mining of TEN resources on locations scattered across the planet's surface to get that ONE resource to be fully recycled?
Yes, it pushes the goal of "explore and exploit every biome", but it's overcomplicated if it takes TEN resources to produce only THREE "resources I actually care about" (Snacks, RocketParts, and ExoticMetals if you're using the EL patch for USI).
Basically, even USI is too complex. I wouldn't have this objection if there were more resources that I actually care about, and intermediate products aren't something to be entirely avoided either, but the idea that you need to mine TEN different kinds of stuff to produce just THREE things you care about is too much of a disparity in types of inputs versus types of outputs.
Plus the assumption could be made that by the time Kerbals are thinking about setting up colonies on other planets, they would have figured out life support and building rockets to the point that they're able to be done by less "different" types of machines than there are fingers on one hand, which is something that holds true for those factory games I like playing. Yes there may be a bunch of different recipes, but the number of different machines is quite harshly limited (maybe some machines have improved versions that are faster and more power hungry, but they don't do anything different than the "basic" version of that machine).

I'd keep it simple, down to "Stuff used for building rockets (maybe "Iron, Aluminum, Titanium, and TraceElements (used for making alloys)", "Stuff used to generate power (aka Uranium, but generators using other resources would be fine)", and "Rocket fuels of several types" (Like I said, you should be able to run some colonies like the orbital ones specifically off of fuel cells or a nuclear fission or fusion reactor), and "Money" because well it makes the world go round.

Yes, money. Money is what you need to be able to buy what you don't have, using what you do have. That's what it always has been, ever since we moved beyond the basic Barter system.
Colonies that are sufficiently advanced (and almost certainly self-sustaining) would be able to be places where you could exchange one resource for another, sell off excess production of things you're not using for Money, or just outright buy resources for Money (assuming your pockets are deep enough).
You'd also be using Money to hire crew from Kerbin, and to buy training for that crew to turn them into a Pilot, Scientist, or Engineer (or more types if they expand on that, but if they do expand on it I'd like to see them allow multi-classing too so that by investing more effort you could get one kerbal that's good at any two of those types).
And as I keep saying (and it seems to keep getting ignored), you'd be able to use Money to buy "production rights" to craft designs on the Steam Workshop.
If you're a prolific craft designer, you might also be able to SELL those designs to either the other space agencies in the game, or to other players, again via the Steam Workshop.
This would encourage people to share their designs, because maybe someone's not great at flying rockets but is fantastic at designing them, they'd be able to make up for any failures they have at flying expensive rockets, by designing rockets that are capable in more proficient hands.

[shdwlrd]

4 hours ago, SciMan said:

where everything's made of pig iron and lead

Have you looked at the takeoff weights for RL rockets? (Delta IV max takeoff weight is 566,855-1,613,784 lb, 257,000-732,000 kg depending on configuration. The STS was 4,498,000 lb, 2,041,166kg. The Soyuz is 680,400 lb, 308,624 kg. The SaturnV was 6.2 million lb, 2.8 million kg.) Have you looked at the OEW for some of the common commercial aircraft flying in the skies today? (The B737 MAX OEW is 99,360 lb, 45,070 kg. The B747-8 OEW is 485,300 lb, 220,128 kg. The A-320 OEW is 93,900 lb, 42,592 kg. The B777-2 OEW is 353,800 lb, 160,530 kg.) In real life, the vehicles that take us around the globe and into space are really heavy machines. I think Squad did an excellent job on properly representing the masses for the constructed crafts. The individual part masses may not make sense, but the combined masses do.

5 hours ago, SciMan said:

However, I must disagree with the statement that the way USI does things is "fine". It's actually very much not fine, as you can tell by the USI thread being both hundreds of pages long, and having at least one post per page of "how the heck to I get this whole thing to work", no matter how many posts per page you may be displaying. The critical issue is that there is critically insufficient documentation of the whole resource system that USI puts in place, and additionally it takes entirely too many different parts (and kerbals) to get a colony to sustain itself. The only advantage of USI-LS is that it doesn't actually kill the kerbals when the life support resources run out, that's it that's the only good thing I have to say about it.
Basically, my issue is that if the life support only consumes one resource and produces one resource, why does it take the mining of TEN resources on locations scattered across the planet's surface to get that ONE resource to be fully recycled?
Yes, it pushes the goal of "explore and exploit every biome", but it's overcomplicated if it takes TEN resources to produce only THREE "resources I actually care about" (Snacks, RocketParts, and ExoticMetals if you're using the EL patch for USI).
Basically, even USI is too complex. I wouldn't have this objection if there were more resources that I actually care about, and intermediate products aren't something to be entirely avoided either, but the idea that you need to mine TEN different kinds of stuff to produce just THREE things you care about is too much of a disparity in types of inputs versus types of outputs.
Plus the assumption could be made that by the time Kerbals are thinking about setting up colonies on other planets, they would have figured out life support and building rockets to the point that they're able to be done by less "different" types of machines than there are fingers on one hand, which is something that holds true for those factory games I like playing. Yes there may be a bunch of different recipes, but the number of different machines is quite harshly limited (maybe some machines have improved versions that are faster and more power hungry, but they don't do anything different than the "basic" version of that machine).

I think you are over analyzing the USI is good statement. The implementation for USI sucks. What USI does well is there is only 2-3 steps that go from raw material to useful product with little or no intermingling of the intermediary products. (Remember that Factorio and DSP starts at 4 steps for the beginning level products and there is a ton on intermingling of the intermediary products.

5 hours ago, SciMan said:

Yes, money. Money is what you need to be able to buy what you don't have, using what you do have.

Why does Kerbal society and practices have to mimic the human society? Maybe the Kerbals have moved beyond the need for currency? Maybe the KSC is so well funded that the amount they spend isn't worth tracking? Maybe money doesn't matter for their want and need to explore space?

[Guest]

11 hours ago, SciMan said:

However, I must disagree with the statement that the way USI does things is "fine". It's actually very much not fine, as you can tell by the USI thread being both hundreds of pages long, and having at least one post per page of "how the heck to I get this whole thing to work", no matter how many posts per page you may be displaying. The critical issue is that there is critically insufficient documentation of the whole resource system that USI puts in place, and additionally it takes entirely too many different parts (and kerbals) to get a colony to sustain itself. The only advantage of USI-LS is that it doesn't actually kill the kerbals when the life support resources run out, that's it that's the only good thing I have to say about it.
Basically, my issue is that if the life support only consumes one resource and produces one resource, why does it take the mining of TEN resources on locations scattered across the planet's surface to get that ONE resource to be fully recycled?
Yes, it pushes the goal of "explore and exploit every biome", but it's overcomplicated if it takes TEN resources to produce only THREE "resources I actually care about" (Snacks, RocketParts, and ExoticMetals if you're using the EL patch for USI).
Basically, even USI is too complex. I wouldn't have this objection if there were more resources that I actually care about, and intermediate products aren't something to be entirely avoided either, but the idea that you need to mine TEN different kinds of stuff to produce just THREE things you care about is too much of a disparity in types of inputs versus types of outputs.
Plus the assumption could be made that by the time Kerbals are thinking about setting up colonies on other planets, they would have figured out life support and building rockets to the point that they're able to be done by less "different" types of machines than there are fingers on one hand, which is something that holds true for those factory games I like playing. Yes there may be a bunch of different recipes, but the number of different machines is quite harshly limited (maybe some machines have improved versions that are faster and more power hungry, but they don't do anything different than the "basic" version of that machine).

I'd keep it simple, down to "Stuff used for building rockets (maybe "Iron, Aluminum, Titanium, and TraceElements (used for making alloys)", "Stuff used to generate power (aka Uranium, but generators using other resources would be fine)", and "Rocket fuels of several types" (Like I said, you should be able to run some colonies like the orbital ones specifically off of fuel cells or a nuclear fission or fusion reactor), and "Money" because well it makes the world go round.

Factory games are based on production lines and conversion rates, that makes for a terrible gameplay for KSP, I don't want to pass my time building a factory in the BAE at a colony, that's why there should be more raw resources, every one of them with a "refinement" stage and an optional "manufacturing" stage, maybe 2 for the most complex final products, and those raw resources should be scattered.

That way you set up the production lines easily and then focus on the logistics and actual rocket flying, mining equipment landing portion of the game, which is closer to the "build and fly cool rockets" core experience.

On the crew side I think that the logistics of shuttling around crews, crew rotations for bases and stations that aren't colonies and habitation requirements and environmental hazards for working and efficiency bonuses are a more interesting gameplay element than wathever type of Kerbal-fuel bases life support they can come up with.

11 hours ago, SciMan said:

Yes, money. Money is what you need to be able to buy what you don't have, using what you do have. That's what it always has been, ever since we moved beyond the basic Barter system.
Colonies that are sufficiently advanced (and almost certainly self-sustaining) would be able to be places where you could exchange one resource for another, sell off excess production of things you're not using for Money, or just outright buy resources for Money (assuming your pockets are deep enough).
You'd also be using Money to hire crew from Kerbin, and to buy training for that crew to turn them into a Pilot, Scientist, or Engineer (or more types if they expand on that, but if they do expand on it I'd like to see them allow multi-classing too so that by investing more effort you could get one kerbal that's good at any two of those types)

Money as a cheating tool to acquire resources you don't mine anywhere it's a big no-no for me, ok on Kerbin, since you'd have to build supply lines from and to the KSC to access that conversion mekanism, but not on colonies. 

The whole system of colonies, mines, stations, offplanet launch centers and orbital shipyards is the mean to give you something to do, new and different ships to build all the time to solve logistical problems and slowly build the huge amount of infrastrutuce you need to support your multiplanetary civilization.

Free conversion of resources everywhere would break that, suddenly you don't need to track down and scan for all resources, you just need to build your colony on an expensive resource hotspot and convert it int everything else you need with the magic of money.

It's like when in stronghold crusader instead of collecting all the resources in a balanced way you just build a crazy amount of candle makers and buy everything else by selling candles.

 

11 hours ago, SciMan said:

And as I keep saying (and it seems to keep getting ignored), you'd be able to use Money to buy "production rights" to craft designs on the Steam Workshop.

I think that would require Valve to change the way the workshop works, but I'm far from being an expert of what tools for developers there are in SteamWorks.

Surely the Devs are not going to develop their in house version of a workshop from scratch just to add this small feature.

 

11 hours ago, SciMan said:

This would encourage people to share their designs, because maybe someone's not great at flying rockets but is fantastic at designing them, they'd be able to make up for any failures they have at flying expensive rockets, by designing rockets that are capable in more proficient hands

A craft design is only as good as the person designing it is at flying. If you don't know how to fly, you don't know how to design something that flies well.

 

[t_v]

12 hours ago, Master39 said:

Money as a cheating tool to acquire resources you don't mine anywhere it's a big no-no for me, ok on Kerbin, since you'd have to build supply lines from and to the KSC to access that conversion mekanism, but not on colonies. 

I’m of the same opinion. Essentially, you get access to any resource but you have to deliver it from kerbin which is less efficient than getting it from a moon somewhere. To me, this solves a lot of problems better than other solutions. I would still advocate for a different income system than colonies, where you start out with a base income and each contract increases that, allowing you to build better rockets (this is through the income system planned out in resources sketch) and then once you establish a colony the KSC just receives shipments from those colonies to convert into money and therefore other resources. 

[SciMan]

Note, I never said "free conversion of resources at any colony".

I specifically said something like "Only at the largest colonies".

In other words, to unlock the ability to convert resources using money, you need to have a colony big enough that it would be able to justify having an economy of its own in the first place. With my vision, that's not going to be a small colony by any means.

The intent of this is to ensure that BEFORE you can trade with a colony, it must be of a certain population and technology threshold. Let's say "500 population" and "has a colony VAB built" plus "local production of at least some basic fuels and one non-fuel resource" as goals you would need to meet to enable this whole trade mechanic.

In other words, it works sort of like Elite: Dangerous. No matter how advanced a colony might be, if there is no local production of a resource, you can't buy it. Likewise, if there is no local use case for a resource, the selling price is going to be terrible.

So, in other words, being able to trade resources is a reward you get when you grow a colony to the point that it would be able to survive indefinitely without support from Kerbin, making it (in colony terms) indistinguishable from Kerbin's launch sites (other than by specifying a location). It would be extremely difficult to do this for any colony, and I'm not even sure if it should be possible for an orbital colony since those have to have everything imported to them.

No kind of logistics that is this large in scope exists without an absolutely massive economic system behind it.

 

And I keep saying "we need to have a money mechanic" not because we need the mechanic per se, but moreso because it's literally the only way us Humans know how to make an economy work, and I'm trying to reduce the amount of "original thought" that has to go into this system to minimize the chances of a single "grossly overpowered" strategy emerging, or similarly horrible for the play experience, a repeat of the KSP 1 economic situation where there's no "fun" way to earn the money you need to do BIG things (which is the part of the game where I have the most fun).

 

Also I don't think the KSP 2 launchpads should be limited by mass or part count or dimensions or anything. If you can make something that will hold itself together long enough to get to orbit, you should be able to launch it no questions asked.

I also am of the STRONG opinion that mechanics which are entirely able to be bypassed by time warping (such as construction times) have no place in KSP.
My argument boils down to this: Players aren't playing the game to be forced to wait. They need some reward for waiting, and if the reward is merely "you can play the game now" you've just basically turned KSP into one of those "free" mobile games that is so locked down that you have to pay to get to do anything meaningful, but you've also neglected to include the part where you can actually pay to speed up the process, therefore dooming the player to a period of mandatory "you can't play the game", which is BAD GAME DESIGN plain and simple, no matter how it is phrased.

[SciMan]

On 10/9/2021 at 5:38 AM, Master39 said:

A craft design is only as good as the person designing it is at flying. If you don't know how to fly, you don't know how to design something that flies well.

That works for aircraft, but not for cars, and not for rockets.
The people that designed practically all of the famous IRL rockets aren't the people who flew on them, not as pilot and not as passenger. Their knowledge of how to design a rocket is too valuable for them to be allowed to take the risk of flying to space.
Maybe Elon Musk will change that if he eventually chooses to "retire to Mars", but as it stands in the present, the statement I just made is at least true for the majority of cases. Additionally, somehow I think it might take longer than "the time before Elon retires" for a viable Mars colony to be set up. The big unknown in my brain is "funding", which is closely correlated to political will, if Elon can't build the rockets that get to Mars (and right now he's the only one aiming at Mars), then there's no Mars Colony.

I'm not saying it has to work like that in KSP, but for a player that's totally new to KSP there's a doubling-up of failure modes here when you're required to both design AND fly a craft.
In other words, there's the "How can you tell if you're flying the craft right when you don't even know if you designed it right" problem,
and there's also the "How can you tell if you designed the craft right when you don't even know if you're piloting it the right way" problem.
You must choose which one of those problems to solve first in order to get both of them solved.
Being able to download a craft off of the workshop that is "tested to be able to perform 'this' mission" reduces it down to "how do I fly this thing", which really does a lot to flatten out the learning curve for new players.
We all want more people playing KSP right? Right?

[Guest]

@SciMan

I was replying point by point but then I realized that there's a huge difference in how I see the whole career working:

KSP1 career is based on limiting your ability to do any mission you want with the need of money and then give you the money by doing made up missions that usually are only marginally relevant with your overall program (and you have to do all the work to make them somewhat relevant, like using satellites contracts to launch science probes) and are almost completely abstract (launch a space stations that doesn't actually do anything, bring ore from A to B but you don't have a mine in A nor a use for the ore in B).

I see the colony system in KSP2 as a solution and replacement for that, colonies are going to do some useful work, the easiest examples we already know of are the extraplanetary launch centers and the ability to manufacture advanced fuel and build in orbit giant spaceships, but with the confirmation of the need to discover the planets around new stars it's easy to think about observatories or science laboratories or outposts and after that it's even easier to think a ton of sub-categories or specific things they may make a colony useful for.

Building colonies won't be like building stations out of plane fuselages in KSP1, you'll build them because you'll need them to advance your space program and, instead of multiple made-up grind missions needed to pay that one single missions you want to make, you'll have multiple setup missions every single one of them building toward a larger goal.

That's why I don't see money covering the same central role it had on KSP1, at some point you'll be managing different resources mined all over the place and moved around to make them available to your space centers to build new ships and you can basically add money to this system in 2 ways:

1. Just another resource like the others, automatically "mined" over time by setting up the right kind of infrastructure, the infrastructure itself expanded as the needs of your space program grow.
2. A grinded currency that has power over everything, like science, you have to do single missions you can't automate to acquire the amount you need to go on in your space program.

With both the main problem resides in the early game that should focus on pretty much free experimentation and early exploration while the player begins climbing the learning curve, and of the two I prefer 1 with the caveat that I think the funds should never give the player the ability of just spawning resources outside Kerbin and/or allow to teleport them around (I sell my iron on Duna and I buy it on Laythe, avoiding the need of setting up that specific supply line) since we already have science working that way.

IMOH the economic side it's not a core element of KSP, it's just a tool to make you build and launch more rockets, if it makes you do less of that it's not a good tool.

[shdwlrd]

9 hours ago, SciMan said:

Also I don't think the KSP 2 launchpads should be limited by mass or part count or dimensions or anything.

I do understand that this is your opinion, but Nate has already said that there will be limits on dimensions and weights for the land based VAB and launchpads. The only VAB without limits is the orbital VAB found on orbital colonies. Which makes sense. You can only build so large in a building, whereas in space, there is no limits to size and mass.

[SciMan]

@shdwlrd

Well if Nate said it then I'll believe it, but I don't particularly like it. I sincerely hope that there is merely a "size" limit of the VAB itself, and not an overly-strict mass limit, and no such thing as a part limit at all because boy oh boy you can't do anything with a lot of cubic octagonal struts (or struts in general for that matter) if you have a low part count limit.

My reasoning is "Who's to say they for sure built the whole contraption in a building?"
They could be doing it like SpaceX was building their Starship rockets for a while, and building rockets out in the open (aka on the launchpad, with large subassemblies being built in the VAB before being installed where they're supposed to go on the actual spacecraft, similarly to how many large (boat building) shipyards work).
Of course that was before SpaceX built their VAB down in Boca Chica, but the point is that it's possible, not that it's being done IRL right now.
Those rockets that were built out in the open flew just fine, the fact that most of them crashed is not able to be attributed to where (or how) they were constructed, rather that the design is entirely a new "clean-sheet" design and therefore has relatively unproven flight characteristics and edge/corner cases in its flight envelope that had yet to be discovered at the time of their flights.

@Master39

The only difference between your two approaches to money is the degree of automation you are allowed to use on missions that "make money" as their primary purpose.

Additionally, I did mention in my last post that the player should only be able to "buy" resources that the colony has production of, and "sell" resources that the colony has a use for. You can't just "eliminate the supply chain by converting everything to money" with those limitations. And like I said, it would only be possible at LARGE, WELL ESTABLISHED colonies, but you seem to have missed that detail in my previous post.

I have thought of something new however, and that is that there should be a strong disincentive to launch a mission to an extremely distant celestial body with the purpose of setting up a colony, without first having a few colonies established in Kerbin's SOI (Surface and orbital for Mun and Minmus, and perhaps an orbital VAB around Kerbin). Money would provide that limitation handily without it becoming overly burdensome later on in the game.

So what if it is only relevant in the early-mid game? That's not a bad thing. Neither is having parts that are replaced entirely in functionality by other, better parts later on, as the whole point is that you don't HAVE those better parts early on, so you must do what you can with what you have. This can be a good thing so long as it doesn't result in parts like the LV-N Nerv, which is in a sad state with it's pathetic performance (the only thing right about it is the specific impulse, the thrust is wrong (too low) and the mass is wrong (too high) so you can't make massive motherships with the LV-N as the core propulsion method as the high mass and low thrust both combine to mean you need maybe 100 of them to get anything meaningful moving in space (and by meaningful, I mean "masses about 1000 tons fully fueled in LKO"))
Oh and the LV-N Nerv shouldn't EVER overheat either, and you shouldn't ever need to even consider adding radiators to your craft to handle the heat "generated" by the engine, because ALL of that heat should be going out the exhaust nozzle due to every solid core nuclear thermal rocket EVER conceived using regenerative open-cycle cooling (that's the whole entire method by which it heats propellant, the propellant gets hot to cool the reactor, there should be no "extra" heat).

Edited October 11, 2021 by SciMan