"Rebooted" my space program with new house rules

[rhoark]

I was working on some complicated Duna rovers that weren't working right, getting frustrated, and losing interest, so I decided to make a new install folder and play from square one with some new mods and house rules to shake things up.

A cornerstone of this new program is the B9 pack and its nice IVA interiors, because all Kerbaled flights will be done 100% IVA. (Also keeping KSPX but dropping KW and KerbX to unclutter the parts list)

I was previously doing almost exclusively probes, but starting to use RemoteTech now a lot more flights will be Kerbaled (and therefore 100% IVA).

No MechJeb, just Flight Engineer and the SmartASS-like functionality in RemoteTech (without which probes missions would be near impossible to execute with signal delay, though I'm not above using it also when not experiencing delay).

Possibly some further automation with ProgCom, a challenge in itself.

Carrying over from my previous play, Ferram - and a self-imposed rule to limit payload dimensions to some kind of fairing or cargo bay. (Might have to selectively bring back in just the fairings from KW)

Finally, a general RP directive to re-use in space or safely land as much hardware as feasible (especially LVNs)

After a couple of days familiarizing myself with the new mods and how to accomplish things effectively in IVA, I got my first comm relay satellite deployed at 200x200. Next up is a STS-style vehicle to carry two sats to synchronous orbit. Once I have full communication coverage, I can start writing for ProgCom. (Debugging that Kerbaled would be a meat grinder for sure.)

Anyone else have interesting experiences with house rules, or wiping the slate (without being forced to by a patch)?

[SkyHook]

Oh yes, I have plenty of experience with that!

House Rules:

1. No interplanetary missions without artificial gravity (for manned missions).

2. No interplanetary missions without landing a hab module beforehand.

3. Most of my missions are done unmanned until it is time to leave (meaning that all of my ships are unmanned until a ferry with kerbals is sent up as the last stage before departure).

I have started over multiple times, and have a separate save for remotetech. I am waiting for the next update to purge any and every part that I don't need, My file has gotten too big!

[AmpsterMan]

I was going to make a thread on house rules, but my list reached to the dozens .

The biggest game changer for me is not using the LV-N . Though I sometimes break that rule because it really isn't OP. It's just a fun way to force myself to think more outside the box.

[ComradeGoat]

Nothing so draconian here. I don't use quicksave, at all.

Also, just noticed a flight on its return to Laythe after landing on Bop was suddenly on a ridiculously fast escape trajectory out of Jool. Conclusion: while I hadn't been looking it had done a gravity assist from Bop, recapturing it, which would have only been capable of doing that had the ship hit the surface. Therefore he's dead, so I ended the mission.

I like to send hab modules with the ships that are going a long way, give them somewhere nice to live, but I don't always adhere to that.

[sporkafife]

The biggest game changer for me is not using the LV-N . Though I sometimes break that rule because it really isn't OP. It's just a fun way to force myself to think more outside the box.

I think not using the LV-N would be almost impossible for all of my missions, pretty much every single interplanetary craft I have sent up has used them as their main propulsion.

I do however limit their use. Presumably LV-N exhaust gases are radioactive so I do not allow them to be fired within any atmosphere (except for Jool) unless there is an extreme circumstance where using them in an atmosphere can possibly prevent loss of Kerbal life. After all, we're exploring the cosmos, not trying to destroy any life form that may be out there

[Francesco]

Presumably LV-N exhaust gases are radioactive

they aren't

but I agree with rhoark, LV-Ns can't just be thrown on Kerbin, they need to be recovered.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Francesco

[ComradeGoat]

they aren't

Indeed. AIUI, the NERVA programme, which the LV-N appears to be based on, used plain old hydrogen as a working fluid. What comes out of the tailpipe should be perfectly harmless in terms of radiation.

[architeuthis]

they aren't

It's hard to make hydrogen... I mean propellium, radioactive, but if the LV-N is anything like the good old NERVA then it is 'open cycle' and there will still be some fission products that come out in the exhaust. Those are definitely radioactive, but to loosely quote nyrath's delightful Atomic Rockets, at high altitudes the radioactive death plume is diluted to plausible deniability:)

I will say though NTRs are great stuff, just for god's sake don't EVA near them anytime within a week of your last burn, you are cooking you poor Kerbals alive! This should preclude their use in lander stages. Radiation is serious business.

Edited May 10, 2013 by architeuthis

[Dictator Dan]

Before I can land on any planet or its moons, excluding Kerbin, I must land a probe safely on it. Before I can set up a base, I must land, and return Kerbals on it. For every planet further away from Kerbin, the number of times I must land and safely goes up by 1.

So Duna would take one landing and safe return, Dres would take two, the Joolian moons would take 3 each. I also dont use quick save or mods, although Im really hoping they get resources out soon, otherwise Ill probably use the Kethane mod. Lugging tankers around the solar system gets boring.

[Temstar]

It's hard to make hydrogen... I mean propellium, radioactive, but if the LV-N is anything like the good old NERVA then it is 'open cycle' and there will still be some fission products that come out in the exhaust. Those are definitely radioactive, but to loosely quote nyrath's delightful Atomic Rockets, at high altitudes the radioactive death plume is diluted to plausible deniability:)

NERVA is closed cycle solid core. They wouldn't be able to do this while the engine is running if it's open cycle:

My own rule for LV-N is simple - no destructive re-entry on Kerbin, Duna and Laythe. I tend to mostly design reusable crafts using the LV-N (Mun surface-orbit taxi, interplanetary motherships). Alternatively I would crash them into places where radiation wouldn't matter such as surface of the Mun or Eve. On rare occasions I would also design recovery rigs for LV-N tugs:

Edited May 10, 2013 by Temstar

[little square dot]

For my first few months playing KSP, I primarily built absolutely ridiculous, absurdly huge, memory-eating vehicles, but I quickly lost interest, as I can only play in a sandbox for so long.

I basically set the same rules for myself as you did rhoark, and I've found that the game is now infinitely more challenging and enjoyable. =) Have fun!

[architeuthis]

NERVA is closed cycle solid core. They wouldn't be able to do this while the engine is running if it's open cycle:

My own rule for LV-N is simple - no destructive re-entry on Kerbin, Duna and Laythe. I tend to mostly design reusable crafts using the LV-N (Mun surface-orbit taxi, interplanetary motherships). Alternatively I would crash them into places where radiation wouldn't matter such as surface of the Mun or Eve. On rare occasions I would also design recovery rigs for LV-N tugs:

First of all your design is totally awesome! I particularly like the recovery rig, but I wonder is that thing difficult to dock with all of those ports?

Second, NERVA was most certainly open cycle. In the picture you linked engineers are doing cold flow experiments. There is no radioactive material in the core at that time. Incidentally if that was a hot flow test none of those men would be alive 10 minutes after the picture was taken irregardless of the NTR being open cycle or closed cycle.

Edited May 10, 2013 by architeuthis

[Temstar]

First of all your design is totally awesome! I particularly like the recovery rig, but I wonder is that thing difficult to dock with all of those ports?

Second, NERVA was most certainly open cycle. In the picture you linked engineers are doing cold flow experiments. There is no radioactive material in the core at that time. Incidentally if that was a hot flow test none of those men would be alive 10 minutes after the picture was taken irregardless of the NTR being open cycle or closed cycle.

I find docking quad docking ports not particularly difficult. But then again I always leave ASAS on during my docking procedure so I can concentrate only on translation after lining up the docking ports. Apparently my way of docking is very unusual given the amount of complaints I see around here with docking with ASAS, docking with unbalanced RCS and docking with unbalanced RCS with ASAS.

But NERVA is solid core? I thought the whole point of a solid core is that the working fluid is not in direct contact with the fission fuel and so is clean?

[architeuthis]

I find docking quad docking ports not particularly difficult. But then again I always leave ASAS on during my docking procedure so I can concentrate only on translation after lining up the docking ports. Apparently my way of docking is very unusual given the amount of complaints I see around here with docking with ASAS, docking with unbalanced RCS and docking with unbalanced RCS with ASAS.

But NERVA is solid core? I thought the whole point of a solid core is that the working fluid is not in direct contact with the fission fuel and so is clean?

I use ASAS for docking as well. I've never tried multi-docking before but people always say that it is hard to get them all to 'stick'.

The point of solid core is that it is the only one we actually know how to build. There has been talk over the years of closed-cycle gas core lightbulbs and such but they are nowhere at all near being a mature technology.

[Fractal_UK]

The point of solid core is that it is the only one we actually know how to build. There has been talk over the years of closed-cycle gas core lightbulbs and such but they are nowhere at all near being a mature technology.

The closed-cycle gas core nuclear lightbulb design is interesting precisely because it is similar to a solid core (NERVA) in that it does not leak fission products into the exhaust but provides superior specific impulse to said solid core design. Any solid core nuclear thermal rocket is closed cycle by definition.

[Brotoro]

The terms "open cycle" and "closed cycle" with respect to nuclear rocket engines are generally applied to different kinds of gaseous or liquid core designs, and refers to the retention of the nuclear fuel. In an open-cycle gaseous core nuclear rocket engine, the fissile fuel is in gaseous form and is mixed with the reaction mass (hydrogen, for example). This intimate mix allows the reaction mass to be heated to a higher temperature and you get a higher Isp. There is an attempt to retain as much of the fissile fuel as possible (by using spinning reaction vessels, for example, which cause the heavier uranium-containing gas to move to the outer circumference of the reaction chamber), but some of the fissile fuel gets lost as it exits through the nozzle with the reaction mass. So this type of nuclear engine has very radioactive exhaust.

In a closed-cycle gaseous core nuclear rocket engine, the fissile fuel is in a gaseous state, but it is confined inside structures (such as quartz walled containers) that retain the fissile fuel and its nuclear-reaction byproducts inside the rocket engine), and the reaction mass (such as hydrogen) only comes in contact with the exterior of the quartz containers and is heated and expelled through the nozzle. So this type of closed-cycle engine does not spew out fissile fuel and fission byproducts in the exhaust. It pays for this by having only one-half the Isp possible with an open-cycle nuclear engine.

The NERVA engine uses a solid-core reactor. The nuclear fuel and fission byproducts are retained inside the reactor core in the fuel elements. The reaction fluid (again, hydrogen is most efficient) flows through the reactor core and is heated by coming in contact with the casing material that encloses the fuel elements. The heated hydrogen then expands out the nozzle. The hydrogen spends very little time in the reactor core on its way through the engine, so it is not going to become very radioactive (just as in the closed-cycle gaseous core nuclear engine). What radioactivity the NERVA engine exhaust contains would primarily come from any material that is eroded away from the fuel rod casings or moderator material (which can become neutron-activated over time). The NERVA engnes are closed-cycle in that they do NOT spew their fissile fuel or fission byproducts out of the engine nozzle with the reaction mass.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Brotoro

[White Owl]

My current series' house rules are something like:

All designs must work with both FAR and Deadly Reentry installed.

No autopilot software ever, excepting ASAS for basic attitude hold.

No conventional rockets. All launches must be some kind of spaceplane.

All payloads must fit inside spaceplane cargobays. (I'm willing to just slightly clip into walls if necessary.)

No quicksaving/quickloading.

No nuclear engines in Kerbin's atmosphere.

Liquid-fueled engines are expensive; try not to throw them away.

If something is in orbit, I'm not allowed to end flight. (Although the debridement plugin will clean up some debris.)

No wonder I advance so slowly!

[architeuthis]

Thanks for the clarification. The Project Rover NTRs had significant problems with leakage of fission projects into the exhaust stream due to the corrosion of the reactor fuel elements, in principle advanced fuel elements could be designed to reduce or eliminate this leakage, but that remain in the future. In KSP by virtue of the fact that the engine can have an effectively infinite number of restarts, we can probably assume that they are using more advanced fuel elements than the graphite ones planned for NERVA. That hadn't occurred to me:)

[LaydeeDem]

x-posting from Facepunch:

I'm really thinking about starting fresh in my save game.

Right now it consists of me strapping giant boosters to interplanetary ships because I'm too impatient to do any orbital construction.

So I've set some new rules for myself:

1. All designs must be realistic

2. Get a Kerbal to the Mun before going interplanetary.

3. If a Kerbal dies, you can't restart the flight

4. No quicksaving unless you do something really f*cking stupid.

My old save file was fun. I'll miss my comsat network, and the massive debris ring around Kerbin. But I think it's for the better. I'm tired of loading up KSP and then closing out before doing anything because I'm bored.

[ComradeGoat]

I don't think I'll be bored until I have a kerballed space station orbiting every planet, and every moon :-)

[Ogre]

I use ASAS for docking as well. I've never tried multi-docking before but people always say that it is hard to get them all to 'stick'.

I always use ASAS when docking, I don't know why you wouldn't!

I've been building 3-port docking rigs and though it's more work than single port docking, it's not that hard with well balanced ships. Sometimes it takes two or three tries, but the second and third tries are usually just undock whichever ones stuck (maybe undock the ones that stick immediately afterwards, sometimes the ones that didn't work dock as soon as you undock the others, there's some kind of time or distance check that prevents recently undocked ports from redocking) press n for a second to back away, press h to go forward again, and see if they stick.

I've just started some 4-port rigs, but I haven't actually docked one yet. I've learned 4 (or more) -way designs are better than 3-way because if an engine fails for some reason, you can disable the opposite member and limp around on two engines. I could build a 4-engine ship with a 3-port docking rig, and keep it compatible with all my old stuff, but it simplifies things (and makes for prettier ships) if the docking matches the rest of the ship. At least that's the theory since I haven't tried to dock any yet The other theory is that if 3 out of 4 ports dock, that's good enough, and it might take less tries to get 3 of 4 than it is to get 3 of 3.

[Kromey]

My own house rules are simple:

No quicksaving/quickloading. If I screw up the mission, I say "oops" and move on to the next.

No autopilot. Informational mods (i.e. "instruments") are acceptable, but I will not use MechJeb or its ilk.

Avoid Kerbal death as much as possible. So far my deaths are akin to NASA's own Apollo 1 fire, and a runway collision on an experimental aircraft landing, so I'm in good company.

Never go anywhere without first sending a probe, or at least getting lots of practice with probes first (e.g. successful probe landings on Mun and/or Minmus would be adequate before attempting a manned landing on Ike, provided I've practiced interplanetary transfers already as well).

Never send or leave Kerbals anywhere without a means to return! This means all off-world bases will at all times have escape vehicles capable of returning to Kerbin, and all interplanetary missions will either be fully capable of self-return, or will meet up with a return vehicle sent ahead. (This rule may be lifted with sufficiently self-sufficient colonies, whatever I deem that to be.)

Full Clean Space Act compliance. Started this rule when I noticed the map view getting cluttered with orbital debris, haven't yet gotten anything up there to clean up LKO. Landed debris I'm not sure I can do much about, though, but I'm not too concerned with it provided I maintain an effort to not leave more behind.

I like your guys' rules re: atomic engines, though. Even if the exhaust isn't radioactive, your average Kerbal citizen isn't going to know that -- they'll just see "atomic engine" and demand their politicians do something about it! I think I will adopt the rule of no atomic engines allowed within Kerbin atmosphere, and no crashing them down upon Kerbin's surface. Will require me to adjust V'ger's current sub-ortbital return from Minmus, but it's got more than enough fuel to do that.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Kromey
Forgot a big one for me -- no autopilot!

[Holo]

I design my spacecraft to be "realistic" - a liquid fuel stack core with two SRBs. No radial liquid boosters, and no surrounding with SRBs.

[Flixxbeatz]

1. All designs must be realistic

This. No ridiculous stack of boosters and/or outworldly lifting stages.

[AmpsterMan]

Lol didn't think My LV-N Comment would derail the thread a bit.

Here is my full list of rules:

1. No Airhogging on Spaceplanes

2. No Airbreathing engines on rockets

3. No Asparagus staging (radial staging kind of like the Falcon Heavy is perfectly okay though.)

4. No LV-N crashing in bodies with atmospheres

5. No Kerbals can die on purpose (Ie. Missions in which it is impossible to return from)

6. Every Kerbaled Ship must have a Launch Escape System

7. No part clipping

8. Somewhat rudimentary resources (Ie. The 1 kerbal pod has enough supplies for 4 kerbal days, the T-Can has enough for two kerbals for 8 days, and the three pod for three kerbals for 12 days. The Hitchhiker has enough for 4 kerbals for 90 days, or 3 kerbals for 120 days)

9. No RTG on Kerbaled ships

10. Each ship needs some source of energy producer. (panels, rtgs, etc)

11. Rockets need to look at least somewhat aerodynamic.

Those are the only ones I can think of right now. I didn't have as many as I thought I did.