[0.20] Ioncross Crew Support Plugin ([0.22] dev build)

[masTerTorch]

Just ran out of electrical charge on my lander can. I thought this is the end of my brave explorers, but it turns out that the lack of electrical charge won´t kill. Is this a bug or intended?

[yongedevil]

Working as intended. I thought I had updated all the descriptions to make that clear. If you could please let me know what you read that indicated lack of electric charge still caused crew death.

[masTerTorch]

Ioncross Crew Support Plugin

The Ioncross Crew Support Plugin is a simple customizable life support mod for Kerbal. It comes setup with kerbals requiring oxygen, producing carbon dioxide, and their ships require electric charge. If they run out of oxygen or their ship fills up with carbon dioxide the kerbals will be killed. If their ship runs out of electric charge the command pods will stop working.

Read first, then ask. I think I was too tired yesterday! Sorry for that stupid question!

I thought that maybe the heating system needs electrical charge. Do you thought about implementing death through lack of electrical charge?

[Ralathon]

Read first, then ask. I think I was too tired yesterday! Sorry for that stupid question!

I thought that maybe the heating system needs electrical charge. Do you thought about implementing death through lack of electrical charge?

I imagine that'd be rather difficult to model. If you run out of electricity in space the thing that'll kill you is either freezing or boiling to death. Since you're in a vacuum the rate at which this happens is based on radiation only. So it is a function of surface area. A mark 1-2 cabin is about twice as big as the mark 1 cabin, so it has 4 times the surface area but 8 times the volume and thus energy content it needs to bleed of. So a Mark 1-2 cabin should last twice as long as a mark 1 cabin. To make things worse it also depends on your distance to the sun. Something at the distance of Eello will freeze a lot faster than something near Duna.

As you can see simulating that to any degree of believability is going to be somewhat nasty. It would look something like this:

P(heating) = S*sqrt(mass)*(C*T^4 - 0.5*P(sun)/(4*pi*d^2))

Where S is the a constant depending on the density, C equals Boltzman's constant times the emissivity for spaceships (how well it approximates a perfect black body), P(sun) is the energy output of the sun per second, T is the current temperature of the spacecraft and d is the distance to the sun.

And this is with the assumptions that the shape of the spacecraft can be approximated as a sphere, the density of all spacecraft is the same, they all have the same surface (so they have the same emissivity) and heat transfer coefficients inside the ship are infinite. And that just tells you how much watts the ship would need to keep it at a constant temperature. To actually model how it would change in temperature as a function of time you need to delve into differential equations. They aren't too difficult to solve for simple problems like this. But it is a lot of programming for a simple feature.

[foamyesque]

I imagine that'd be rather difficult to model. If you run out of electricity in space the thing that'll kill you is either freezing or boiling to death. Since you're in a vacuum the rate at which this happens is based on radiation only. So it is a function of surface area. A mark 1-2 cabin is about twice as big as the mark 1 cabin, so it has 4 times the surface area but 8 times the volume and thus energy content it needs to bleed of. So a Mark 1-2 cabin should last twice as long as a mark 1 cabin. To make things worse it also depends on your distance to the sun. Something at the distance of Eello will freeze a lot faster than something near Duna.

As you can see simulating that to any degree of believability is going to be somewhat nasty. It would look something like this:

P(heating) = S*sqrt(mass)*(C*T^4 - 0.5*P(sun)/(4*pi*d^2))

Where S is the a constant depending on the density, C equals Boltzman's constant times the emissivity for spaceships (how well it approximates a perfect black body), P(sun) is the energy output of the sun per second, T is the current temperature of the spacecraft and d is the distance to the sun.

And this is with the assumptions that the shape of the spacecraft can be approximated as a sphere, the density of all spacecraft is the same, they all have the same surface (so they have the same emissivity) and heat transfer coefficients inside the ship are infinite. And that just tells you how much watts the ship would need to keep it at a constant temperature. To actually model how it would change in temperature as a function of time you need to delve into differential equations. They aren't too difficult to solve for simple problems like this. But it is a lot of programming for a simple feature.

I dunno. DRE has a temperature modelling thing that applies even in space; I'm not sure if it's accurate, but it could be a starting point.

[Ralathon]

I dunno. DRE has a temperature modelling thing that applies even in space; I'm not sure if it's accurate, but it could be a starting point.

If I'm not mistaken DRE models surface temperature, which is quite different than internal temperature. You could use that to figure out how much heat the cabin loses with some effort, but you'd end up with the same differential equations. As I said, it is certainly possible. Just a whole load of effort for something relatively minor. After all, even if you can figure out the cabin temperature, you still need to write a control unit that proceeds to cool or heat the system, taking the appropriate amount of charge from the batteries in the process.

[Mulbin]

I am just curious. Will we see Mulbins parts in the next version?

... been very busy with work (and a bit of craft building)... will probably polish off the few parts I have and send them to Yongedevil in the mean time.

[Samurai20039]

I would like to add this plugin to some part that i downloaded that didnt get the install of crew support. I tried making a simple cfg file like the others in the list but for some reason idk the game wont add life support to the part.

[willstr1]

ok just wondering what the conversion rate was for the o2 scrubbers. how many kerbals can the big one support with out surplus CO2 (at standard power, you know just turning them on not increasing flow)? what about the small ones? I was just curious and I thought that would be a good simple stat on them. I am planing on a deep space mission and I wanted to know before I launched because it would suck to run out of oxygen. (and yes I know about the less than 100% efficiency, I built a collector part that gathers CO2 from space, a bit cheaty but not too cheaty).

Thank You

[Moon Goddess]

(and yes I know about the less than 100% efficiency, I built a collector part that gathers CO2 from space, a bit cheaty but not too cheaty).

Ok please don't take this as any kind of putdown, just really confused, why even use a life support plugin if you're going collect imaginary air from space?

[willstr1]

Ok please don't take this as any kind of putdown, just really confused, why even use a life support plugin if you're going collect imaginary air from space?

it only collects a tiny amount of CO2 just to make up for the inefficiency of the filters, and it is scientifically probable (there are plenty of theories about methods of gathering fuel and resources in flight for long distance space travel).

[Sandworm]

I was just curious and I thought that would be a good simple stat on them. I am planing on a deep space mission and I wanted to know before I launched because it would suck to run out of oxygen. (and yes I know about the less than 100% efficiency, I built a collector part that gathers CO2 from space, a bit cheaty but not too cheaty).

Thank You

Not too cheaty? A part that generates CO2 out of nothingness? That is a giant cheat. By using such a part you reduce this plugin to nothing more than a weight penalty: Add the part, turn it on, and forget. Why bother going through the effort?

While there are some theories about gathering resources mid-flight, they all boarder on scifi. Even the most 'practical' are fabulously complicated, with collectors measured in miles and/or gigawatts.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Sandworm

[masTerTorch]

... been very busy with work (and a bit of craft building)... will probably polish off the few parts I have and send them to Yongedevil in the mean time.

Thank you for the info!

I imagine that'd be rather difficult to model. If you run out of electricity in space the thing that'll kill you is either freezing or boiling to death. Since you're in a vacuum the rate at which this happens is based on radiation only. So it is a function of surface area. A mark 1-2 cabin is about twice as big as the mark 1 cabin, so it has 4 times the surface area but 8 times the volume and thus energy content it needs to bleed of. So a Mark 1-2 cabin should last twice as long as a mark 1 cabin. To make things worse it also depends on your distance to the sun. Something at the distance of Eello will freeze a lot faster than something near Duna.

As you can see simulating that to any degree of believability is going to be somewhat nasty. It would look something like this:

P(heating) = S*sqrt(mass)*(C*T^4 - 0.5*P(sun)/(4*pi*d^2))

Where S is the a constant depending on the density, C equals Boltzman's constant times the emissivity for spaceships (how well it approximates a perfect black body), P(sun) is the energy output of the sun per second, T is the current temperature of the spacecraft and d is the distance to the sun.

And this is with the assumptions that the shape of the spacecraft can be approximated as a sphere, the density of all spacecraft is the same, they all have the same surface (so they have the same emissivity) and heat transfer coefficients inside the ship are infinite. And that just tells you how much watts the ship would need to keep it at a constant temperature. To actually model how it would change in temperature as a function of time you need to delve into differential equations. They aren't too difficult to solve for simple problems like this. But it is a lot of programming for a simple feature.

When you pass a planet on the dark side without energy, there would be no way to absorb power from the sun, because the solar power is blocked by the planet. Further electrical systems and Kerbals would produce heat inside the cabin. I would love to see that as a feature. But sometimes it is better to back off to a simpler model.

Before seeing this implemented i would rather love to see a calculation for resource usage while ships are inactive.

[betaking]

I like some of what I'm hearing.

Edited July 8, 2013 by betaking

[YX33A]

So, I'm working on a stupid part which I deemed useful for Space Stations. It's basically a device which takes lots of energy and makes some CO2.

I'm not totally sure how to go about making this thing, though. I have a feeling I'd need to make it a ION_SUPPORT_POD_GENERATOR type part, but I'm still very new at this game. And this mod, really, but still, I'm figuring it out as I go.

[Ralathon]

Am I just derping here, or is the CO2 recycler not working at high time acceleration? I was working on a Moho return mission. I calculated that the mission would take me about 70 days. I send out 3 kerbals. I came to the conclusion I'd need:

70*24*3= 5040 units of O2. The large recycler is 66% efficient, so I'd only need 1/3th of that amount. So I need to lift off with 1680 units of O2 on board. So I just used the innate recycling tank (filled it to the brim with a detachable air intake before launch). However, when I actually flew the mission I was out of O2 before I even reached Moho. Am I just messing up something stupid here or is it some inaccuracy in O2 consumption? I didn't have any scrubbers running and the recycler was activated.

Other mods I'm running are:

Kethane

FAR

RemoteTech

DeadlyReentry

Kerbal Engineer.

[Schmonzo]

Am I just messing up something stupid here or is it some inaccuracy in O2 consumption? I didn't have any scrubbers running and the recycler was activated.

I'd say your math is of. If you take 1680 units of O2 and get a return of 2/3 of that, the return is 1120 units of O2. If you add the two together you get 2800 units of O2 instead of the 5040 you want.

[Schmonzo]

does the inclusion of mod manager mean I only have to install ioncross and b9 parts have automaticly oxygen in them? Sorry if this has been asked before I searched the thread but my brain seems too small to get how this works...

edit:

the module manager dll has to be in the plugins folder then everything works...

Edited July 13, 2013 by Schmonzo

[Ralathon]

I'd say your math is of. If you take 1680 units of O2 and get a return of 2/3 of that, the return is 1120 units of O2. If you add the two together you get 2800 units of O2 instead of the 5040 you want.

Yea but of those 1120 units of o2 you also get a 2/3 return. So thats another 747 units of O2. And those also give back a 66% efficiency etc.

Total O2 needed = O2(initial) * Summation (n->inf) [(2/3)^n] = O2(initial) / (1-(2/3)) = 3*O2(initial) (common solution to the infinite progression of a geometric series)

Think about it in terms of resources. Each hour you lose 3 O2, gain 3 CO2. Your converter then changes the 3 CO2 to 2 O2. Net loss per hour: 1 O2. So the converter effectively gives you 3 times the O2 supply.

[Schmonzo]

Think about it in terms of resources. Each hour you lose 3 O2, gain 3 CO2. Your converter then changes the 3 CO2 to 2 O2. Net loss per hour: 1 O2. So the converter effectively gives you 3 times the O2 supply.

well, guess I m just stupid then, hope somene else can help

[Link]

Figured I would bring my recent problem with the mod over here, Just so the developer has a heads up.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/40028-Unexpected-Lag-During-Launch

Honestly, don't even know why the launch clamps are even having resources assigned to it. Could someone(with the latest release) test and see if they are getting the same error? Just want to confirm the fix I came up with, and make sure I don't have a seperate problem that's causing it.

[Sandworm]

70*24*3= 5040 units of O2. The large recycler is 66% efficient, so I'd only need 1/3th of that amount. So I need to lift off with 1680 units of O2 on board. So I just used the innate recycling tank (filled it to the brim with a detachable air intake before launch). However, when I actually flew the mission I was out of O2 before I even reached Moho. Am I just messing up something stupid here or is it some inaccuracy in O2 consumption? I didn't have any scrubbers running and the recycler was activated.

Did you accidentally turn on the pods Co2 scrubber? That would eliminate much/all of your CO2 before it ever got to the recycler.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Sandworm

[The Lone Wolfling]

Figured I would bring my recent problem with the mod over here, Just so the developer has a heads up.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/40028-Unexpected-Lag-During-Launch

Honestly, don't even know why the launch clamps are even having resources assigned to it. Could someone(with the latest release) test and see if they are getting the same error? Just want to confirm the fix I came up with, and make sure I don't have a seperate problem that's causing it.

AHA!

Found the error. In ModuleManager_Squad.cfg, in the launchClamp1 section, it should be "CarbonDioxide, not "CarbinDioxide".

Also, it doesn't add O2 and CO2 to the launch clamp, it makes the generator in the launch clamp also produce O2 and scrub CO2.

[Link]

AHA!

Found the error. In ModuleManager_Squad.cfg, in the launchClamp1 section, it should be "CarbonDioxide, not "CarbinDioxide".

Also, it doesn't add O2 and CO2 to the launch clamp, it makes the generator in the launch clamp also produce O2 and scrub CO2.

Didn't even notice the typo when I was in the file. Good looking! Since you said the o2 and co2 are being produced by the clamps, it makes sense to me now why the resources are assigned to them. Thanks a lot!

[Ralathon]

Did you accidentally turn on the pods Co2 scrubber? That would eliminate much/all of your CO2 before it ever got to the recycler.

Read my last sentence in the bit you quoted.