Umlüx Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 thanks! so there is no way to create monopropellant on minmus alone.. until.. i bring some resources with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeroEngy Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 ...1. Fractal is working on a mundane resource detector for a future patch. (water is also in Mun north pole craters below 3k alt)2. I'm not 100% on all of the Ammonia sources either, but I'm pretty sure you can get some from Laythe water? Probably also Eve. Atmo or 'water'.~SteveI would love the ability to integrate Fractal's resource scanners with something like the old ISA MapSat or the newer SCANsat terrain mapping plugin. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55832-PLUGIN-PARTS-0-23-SCANsat-terrain-mappingYou could send probe(s) to a body with Fractal's scanners, let them orbit in high inclination for awhile and then create an actual full surface map of each resource. It would be much more similar to how an actual space agency would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoAcario Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) thanks! so there is no way to create monopropellant on minmus alone.. until.. i bring some resources with me.Yulp... my 7 Dusty Plasma Fission reactor base uses 18 Ammonia cans. This is enough to let them run for ~3 years between refills at idle, ~1.25 year at full power transmission (wasteful), or let them make ~75k Monoprop.This is the only thing the base will ever need delivered. It can produce ~30 GW transmitted, fuel, UF4, TF4, Tritium, HE3... basically everything else.I think it's worth it... I'll probably put a fuel depo in orbit around Minmus and of course an LKO fuel depo. Still working on the design tho. Heck, I'm just happy I finally found a good spot on the Mun and placed my second base to complete my ~60 GW power grid (once Fractal releases the next update with the fix for Direct Conversion Gens + Transmitters. AHEM.).~Steve Edited February 10, 2014 by NeoAcario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umlüx Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 nice! mine is not nearly as big. it consists of several smaller modules, connected with KAS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTom Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Does ammonia need to be directly attached? Is it feasible to build such a base using KAS to connect things and then have landed "modules" that are mostly independent (ower module, supply module, transmission module)? Requires the material to be distributable through a KAS docked attachment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightwarrior Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I am really surprised that i got maximum science from single impact, because i just landed those probes from high equatorial orbit one after another (with some small corrections of cource) and then landed manned lander with another sensor on pole. It is relatively easy, i thought i will have to do it much more precise to get maximum science.Also antimatter initiated reactor is awesome. Its something average between fusion and antimatter, relatively low resource consumtion rate and ability to throttle down to almost zero power production allow to use it for long missions without shutting it down during transfers and without any secondary power system. It can also be left running at full power for few days without exhausting all resources, unlike antimatter reactors. BTW it seems that Uranium Nitride consumption rate is wrong. Tested it in sandbox and i had to burn ~1000 DT/He-3 to use 0.01 Uranium Nitride. Either built in storage is too large or consumption rate is too low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shynung Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Quick question. Is it possible for a thermal rocket nozzle to take so much power from a reactor, the generator next to it produces absolutely no power?I once launched a rocket using 2 3.75m fission-powered NTR and a D-T Vista engine. According to the megajoule screen, they would theoretically be able to produce around 9GW, yet they cease to generate power about 3km over the pad. Is this normal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xfrankie Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Quick question. Is it possible for a thermal rocket nozzle to take so much power from a reactor, the generator next to it produces absolutely no power?I once launched a rocket using 2 3.75m fission-powered NTR and a D-T Vista engine. According to the megajoule screen, they would theoretically be able to produce around 9GW, yet they cease to generate power about 3km over the pad. Is this normal?I think it is possible. IIRC, the thermal nozzles drain both WasteHeat and ThermalPower (they used to in 0.9.2 - I haven't used them since, so not 100% sure). And if you're using Brayton/KTEC generators then you need thermal power to get energy for your Vista. Try launching it again and watch your resources bars in the top right corner, no thermal power = no megajoules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shynung Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think it is possible. IIRC, the thermal nozzles drain both WasteHeat and ThermalPower (they used to in 0.9.2 - I haven't used them since, so not 100% sure). And if you're using Brayton/KTEC generators then you need thermal power to get energy for your Vista. Try launching it again and watch your resources bars in the top right corner, no thermal power = no megajoules.Thanks. Looks like I'm stuck with more SRBs for the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoAcario Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I am really surprised that i got maximum science from single impact, because i just landed those probes from high equatorial orbit one after another (with some small corrections of cource) and then landed manned lander with another sensor on pole. It is relatively easy, i thought i will have to do it much more precise to get maximum science.I'm still not 100% on impact science. What's the best way to get results? 1 on the north pole, 4 around the equator?~Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceTheCat Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'm looking to set up my first mining base and I've seen some great examples posted here, however I'm still not clear on how everyone seems to be selecting their mining location. I am able to scan for UF4 and ThF4 from orbit to see the hotspots, but what about the other resources like Water and Alumina? Do you just land at one of the UF4 / ThF4 spots and hope for the best when it comes to the other resources? Do you land and check out a few places, with a full refinery in tow? I've read some sporadic comments about resources at certain locations, such as water available at the poles on Duna or in certain craters on the Mun; were these just discovered by trial and error, or is there a guide or map that can tell me where I can expect to find each resource. Right now, I'm not even sure what bodies have what resources, let along where they might be on the surface. I feel like I'm missing something, any help would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a__gun Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'm still not 100% on impact science. What's the best way to get results? 1 on the north pole, 4 around the equator?~SteveI thought you just needed one.... We are talking sensors not impactors right? Do you get different science based on where your impactors hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shania_L Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think you get a maximum amount of science available per body.So you can either lay out 6 sensors spread around the planet (4 around the equator and one on each pole) and get the max with one impact, or have fewer landers and make multiple impacts.This is my current understanding of it, not definite as I am only just setting up my first impact mission, which will be 4 Minmus equator landers and a single impactor to see what happens.I'd also like a little more feedback from others who have done missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fractal_UK Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think you get a maximum amount of science available per body.So you can either lay out 6 sensors spread around the planet (4 around the equator and one on each pole) and get the max with one impact, or have fewer landers and make multiple impacts.This is my current understanding of it, not definite as I am only just setting up my first impact mission, which will be 4 Minmus equator landers and a single impactor to see what happens.I'd also like a little more feedback from others who have done missions.You are correct, yes. There is a defined science cap for each body but you will receive much more science per impact, thus hitting the cap significantly faster, by having more accelerometer sensors placed on the surface of the body you are impacting into.There is a maximum bonus of 3.5x the per impact science value for having well laid out sensors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merendel Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 You are correct, yes. There is a defined science cap for each body but you will receive much more science per impact, thus hitting the cap significantly faster, by having more accelerometer sensors placed on the surface of the body you are impacting into.There is a maximum bonus of 3.5x the per impact science value for having well laid out sensors.Want to give any more hints on the requirements to be considered well laid out? I've been going with 1 on each pole and 4 around the equator roughly 90degrees apart but I'm wondering if that might be overkill. If I'd get 3 to 3.5x from just the 4 equitorial ones with possibly a 5th maned lander for transmission duty(aka has a reactor) along with ground based science it would significantly speed up deployment of the sensor net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoAcario Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well.. time redesign my impact science ship... I was going to do 6 impactors and 1 sensor.. guess I'll change it to 6 sensors and 4 impactors to be on the safe side.Such a shame... (kidding). I swear, I spend most of my KSP time in the VAB... love the design of things. Anyone want a custom ship, station, base, etc designed? Don't be afraid to ask!~Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightwarrior Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) I'm still not 100% on impact science. What's the best way to get results? 1 on the north pole, 4 around the equator?~SteveThis seem to be already answered, but i will just add that...I do not think they really have to be around the equator, they just need too be far enough from each other, ideally evenly distributed along the surface of the planet. I placed them around the equator just because i wanted to save fuel and time, reducing amount of maneuvers required to both land and then take off/return to the mothership. I landed bigger manned lander on pole just because it has way more fuel/dV and i thought it will be as far from those probes on equator as i can get.BTW those "stayputnik+4 separatrons" impactors proved to be really good, the only problem i had is too high dV (and insane acceleration) and lack of control, so i accidentally reversed orbit instead of deorbiting first time. And smashing those stayputnik's into the surface just feels good This was the only available probe core for long time so now i really hate this thing Edited February 10, 2014 by Lightwarrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forsaken1111 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well.. time redesign my impact science ship... I was going to do 6 impactors and 1 sensor.. guess I'll change it to 6 sensors and 4 impactors to be on the safe side.Such a shame... (kidding). I swear, I spend most of my KSP time in the VAB... love the design of things. Anyone want a custom ship, station, base, etc designed? Don't be afraid to ask!~SteveI'd love a good compact ISRU lander actually... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoAcario Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) This seem to be already answered, but i will just add that...I do not think they really have to be around the equator, they just need too be far enough from each other, ideally evenly distributed along the surface of the planet. I placed them around the equator just because i wanted to save fuel and time, reducing amount of maneuvers required to both land and then take off/return to the mothership. I landed bigger manned lander on pole just because it has way more fuel/dV and i thought it will be as far from those probes on equator as i can get.BTW those "stayputnik+4 separatrons" impactors proved to be really good, the only problem i had is too high dV (and insane acceleration) and lack of control, so i accidentally reversed orbit instead of deorbiting first time. And smashing those stayputnik's into the surface just feels good This was the only available probe core for long time so now i really hate this thing Thanks for the reminder... here I was in the middle of designing a 10 probe ship.. each with 3k'ish dV. LoL! Only need 2 with enough dV to go to the poles.. I guess the other 8 only need enough dV to land/impact along the equator. 1k should be plenty. Back to the drawing board for minimal parts and weight!I'd love a good compact ISRU lander actually...That raises 1,000,001 questions. That's not nearly enough info. Doesn't tell me what you want it for, if it's going to require it's own power or use microwave, doesn't list your mods, if you want launch and transfer stages included... if you want storage... basically everything. Also, PM would probably be better. We shouldn't try and hijack Fractal's awesome mod thread.~SteveEDIT:Is there actually a request for design help thread? I love a good design challenge. Edited February 10, 2014 by NeoAcario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db48x Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Also, PM would probably be better. We shouldn't try and hijack Fractal's awesome mod thread.~SteveEDIT:Is there actually a request for design help thread? I love a good design challenge.We should make a thread just for this design. Decide on a goal, a short list of additional mods (KAS and InfernalRobotics, perhaps) and then get some iteration going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan3369 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I have a problem with placing struts on the small thermal beamed power receiver the struts go staight through I know I have seen other part with this problem im just am not sure which ones they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db48x Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I have a problem with placing struts on the small thermal beamed power receiver the struts go staight through I know I have seen other part with this problem im just am not sure which ones they are.It's animated, so the struts don't connect to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoAcario Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 It's animated, so the struts don't connect to it.What he said... just put a strut though them to a part on each side. It'll hold.~Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasmir Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Hi Fractal,i think the Cryostats needs a little redesign: I've build a craft with 2 Deuterium/Tritium Cryostats, a Probecore, a RTG, a little batterie and a MW-Receiver. The plan: use the receiver to power the craft, but has the RTG as a backup to still have a responsible craft. Needless to say i failed hard, the Cryostats are sucking up any electric charge even before the probecore has a chance to catch some.Would you like to fix this, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shania_L Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 My first attempt at an impact event on Minmus.4 landers very roughly at 90 degrees around a highly inclined orbit, and single impactor.875 Science ... thats more than most whole missions I do... and its totally overloaded the landers communicatron-16s ability to transmit it all home ... I run out of battery power at about 3% transmitted, and recharging the battery doesnt seem to continue the upload, is the science lost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts