The Ressources-mining feature, do you miss it ?

[allmhuran]

Yep, that certainly could be true, but deciding which features should be at the front of the queue is really just a matter of opinion, not something that can be decided by logic and argument. I'm sure we all have our own preferred priority list, in Squad's opinion resources aren't currently priority number 1.

[Northstar1989]

Time spent developing the ISRU is time spent not developing something else. Such as better aerodynamics, more parts, fixing the bugs that continue to plague the game, or even getting the 1.0 release out and Squad going on to develop their next big thing.

I don't want Squad to move on to "their next big thing" anytime soon, do you?

The biggest reason I came to KSP is because I've always been a space-junkie. Simply fascinated by space. Growing up, I wanted to be an astronaut for the longest time... Later, I simply couldn't get enough of Star Wars (I love the scope of the universe). But a REALISTIC space game- that's a masterpiece that's never been done on this scale before, and maybe never will again in the future...

And while it's highly likely to be enjoyable, highly likely to enrich the game, I don't see ISRU as a core part of the game. I wouldn't say it's something KSP needs to be an accurate and fun experience, in the same sense that it needs better aerodynamics and needs bug fixes.

True, you can level these accusations at most game features (career mode, for example), but it should still be remembered that there's an opportunity cost to everything. And that, as I previously stated, if Squad put in every cool feature they'll end up with a bloated mess.

Well, true, it needs better aerodynamics- but after that, is there anything else that it needs that you can realistically think they might add? (I can virtually guarantee they're not going to add axial tilt or N-body physics, for example, unless one of those becomes an explosively popular mod first... Believe it or not, there actually is a modder working on implementing N-body physics, but he estimates it'll take at least the better part of a year before he'll be done, given how much he is having to teach himself as he goes along...)

I would argue that In-Situ Resource Utilization *IS* an absolute necessity for any realistic space program. How many manned interplanetary missions have there been in real-life? None as far as I know- and mainly because of the terrible expense of launching, from Earth (it takes an enormous amount of effort to get a kg of a\*anything* to orbit using current launch technologies), not only all the fuel you need to get to another planet, and equipment you'll need when there, but also all the fuel you'll need to get *back* from another planet.

In-Situ Resouce Utilization is the only realistic way we can ever hope to put a man on Mars in the next two decades, for instance, and NASA seems to realize this- which is why they've included some version of In-Situ Resource Utilization in every manned interplanetary "reference mission plan" since 1998 or so... (it's also part of why they recently put a Sabatier Reactor on the ISS- not only to save on life-support costs, but also to test ISRU technologies in a space-environment...) In real life, it's simply too expensive to do an interplanetary manned mission any other way.

Here's a link to the document for the Mars "5.0 Design Reference Architecture" released in 2009, if you're interested, by the way:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373665main_NASA-SP-2009-566.pdf

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. NASA also similarly recently released a document suggesting the use of ISRU as a necessary component to get to and back from Jupiter's moon Callisto, by the way: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030063128.pdf

Edited May 27, 2014 by Northstar1989

[allmhuran]

Well, true, it needs better aerodynamics- but after that, is there anything else that it needs that you can realistically think they might add?

Gosh, dozens of things (not things that I personally necessarily think they might realistically add, but speaking for the forum in general based on what I've seen...)

- Better IVA views with more info and controllable cockpits

- The ability to move around a ship in IVA

- Clouds and weather effects

- Boat parts

- Science that doesn't suck (this would be mine )

- Money (contracts?)

- Reputation (contracts?)

- Observatory exploration

- More planets (someone always wants more planets)

- More parts (someone always wants more parts)

- Life support

- Re-entry heat

- Robotics

- Fairings

- Cities and other plantary features

A lot of these are on the "what not to suggest" list because they come up so often. Some have been mentioned in passing by Squad as a future possibility, or being played with in some side branch. It's not entirely clear which (if any) have been ruled out, which might actually be in development, and which might only be a future consideration. But I can guarantee one thing: for every item on this list, there are players who think that item should be the #1 priority.

[Dodgey]

Northstar does it really matter that NASA is doing it? The question shouldn't be is this realistic, it should be is this going to achieve a good gameplay expirence. Sorry but that is really bugging me, you keep bringing up NASA, and I pat you on the back for doing your research. But it means diddly squat when compared to gameplay weather or not NASA is doing that. Explain to me why it would enrich my gaming expirence then I will agree with you.

[Seret]

My view? You can't miss something you never had.

Personally I'm happy that resource mining isn't included in the stock game. The tyranny of the rocket equation is the core challenge in the game. I'm not in any rush to change that. The kethane mod has proved that you can implement an ISRU system through mods, so for those that want to play that way they've got an option open.

[technicalfool]

Northstar does it really matter that NASA is doing it? The question shouldn't be is this realistic, it should be is this going to achieve a good gameplay expirence. Sorry but that is really bugging me, you keep bringing up NASA, and I pat you on the back for doing your research. But it means diddly squat when compared to gameplay weather or not NASA is doing that. Explain to me why it would enrich my gaming expirence then I will agree with you.

Well here we're getting into "one man's muck is another man's brass" territory. I personally know someone who utterly refuses to use NERVAs for instance. They don't add anything to his game, even though many, many other people have fun with them. So he just doesn't use them. Myself, I haven't really bothered with ions, even though people seem to have fun sending slowboats to the sun with them.

I would ask that you give KSP Interstellar a try. Create a separate installation if you like so you don't ruin your existing save file. You don't have to get into dusty-plasma reactors, creating new types of nuclear fuel to power them with nor reprocessing actinides and disposing of depleted fuels. You don't even have to bother with the beamed power side of things at all. You may have to bother with putting some small heat sinks on the craft as KSPi introduces heat management into the game, but it's really not that big a deal unless you're using the nuke reactors or huge amounts of solar panels.

Just give it a try. Make creating a Munar ISRU a mission objective, try the hybrid aluminium/O2 engines on for size. Just to see what you think. One small 62.5cm nuke reactor has enough fuel to last more than the duration of any Munar or Minmus mission, gives enough juice to power a couple of ISRUs, and you only need a couple of small radiators to stop it overheating. At the end of the day, even with KSPi installed, you don't need to use any of the extra bits (asides maybe the heat sinks) in order to carry on as usual. And, if you find you like the ISRU, well, it's an extra toy to play with.

And given that Squad's implementation of an ISRU might not even need to use the extra nuclear reactor parts of KSPi, that just makes things even more simple. Actually you can use a KSPi ISRU with just solar panels if I recall correctly, it just takes a long while to extract or refine anything due to the reduced power available.

Again, give it a try. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Just like many of the other stock parts. Like NERVAs and ions, for instance.

[technicalfool]

The tyranny of the rocket equation is the core challenge in the game.

And when you can send 300 tons into LKO with your eyes closed and without bothering with the SLS parts, then what?

[Dodgey]

I will have to give it another try at somepoint, last I played was before the solar sail came in .But that wasn't my point, my point was that just because NASA does it doesn't mean we should, it really grinds me the wrong way because it says nothing about how it will affect the game, apart from brining it more into line with reality.

I get what you are saying about KSPI and once I have a bit more time I will give it the attention it deserves.

And when you can send 300 tons into LKO with your eyes closed and without bothering with the SLS parts, then what?

Get some mods, there is only so much a game can give you. It's a hard truth, sorry.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Dodgey

[cantab]

I don't want Squad to move on to "their next big thing" anytime soon, do you?

Well, there's a fair bit still to do with KSP, but I don't want them to be developing KSP 1 forever. I'd like to see what else they can come up with, and I'd like to see what they can do with KSP 2, when they're free to make some big changes to overcome limitations in the first game (for example, they could switch to a custom physics engine that doesn't have Unity's issues).

I would argue that In-Situ Resource Utilization *IS* an absolute necessity for any realistic space program. How many manned interplanetary missions have there been in real-life? None as far as I know- and mainly because of the terrible expense of launching, from Earth (it takes an enormous amount of effort to get a kg of a\*anything* to orbit using current launch technologies), not only all the fuel you need to get to another planet, and equipment you'll need when there, but also all the fuel you'll need to get *back* from another planet.

I would counterague firstly that the Kerbol system is not the solar system. A rocket that in the real world can make LEO can make orbit around just about any celestial in KSP (ignoring details like limited engine restarts and propellant boiloff that KSP doesn't simulate). In Delta-V terms the complete Saturn V-CSM-LM stack is up there with Tylo and Eve land and return missions in KSP. True, KSP's rockets are a bit worse to partly counteract this, but still the Kerbals have it easy for space exploration.

Secondly, how many ISRU missions have there been in real life? None. How many ISRU missions are actually at the stage of building the hardware? None. With a few exceptions KSP's stock parts are based on past or present stuff, not future plans. If we allow ISRU in the game, why not allow nuclear electric engines? Why not allow Orion Drive? Why not allow space elevators? Etc.

[allmhuran]

Get some mods, there is only so much a game can give you. It's a hard truth, sorry.

That's true. But the way I interpret technicalfool's implication is this: That challenge was in the game 18 months ago, and nothing's changed since then, despite 18 months of development. Well, that would be the extreme interpretation anyway, whether or not that's quite what TF intends.

In any case, I wouldn't agree with that particular interpretation. At the very least, the challenge of working with orbital mechanics has been added, along with rovers and in-atmosphere aircraft.

But one can't deny that all of that's been around for almost as long, and I can't think of any new gameplay that's been added since. Personally I think (hope!) that's because Squad has been building the lower level foundations required for additional gameplay elements, and hence my earlier answer to the question posted by the OP.

[Red Iron Crown]

Boat parts

Off topic, but is this really something people have been clamoring for in the core game? Are people feeling limited in their ability to make space boats?

[Seret]

And when you can send 300 tons into LKO with your eyes closed and without bothering with the SLS parts, then what?

The you're probably nearing the "endgame", if a sandbox can be said to have such a thing. What's not likely to keep you any more interested when you're at the top of the learning curve is making the game easier.

[technicalfool]

Off topic, but is this really something people have been clamoring for in the core game? Are people feeling limited in their ability to make space boats?

Well, there have been a number of requests for propellor, or some kind of water propulsion parts. It does make sense, what with Eve, Laythe and Kerbin having big oceans to wander around or cross to reach other lands and islands.

[technicalfool]

The you're probably nearing the "endgame", if a sandbox can be said to have such a thing. What's not likely to keep you any more interested when you're at the top of the learning curve is making the game easier.

I dunno, I seem to be having lots of fun with beamed power and ISRU missions so far, on top of Kethane. If anything it's more of a challenge, since I'm trying things like sending craft that would normally never manage a Duna mission out to Minmus or Mun to refuel first. I'm making "Hopper" craft that bounce around multiple biomes while on Mun or Minmus, refuelling between steps before coming home. It opens up more stuff to do, which in a sandbox-like game, is basically a life-extending thing.

This is the sort of thing that could turn a contracted extraplanetary mission from "expensive but doable" into "cheap enough to have a massive profit", depending on how complicated a player wishes to make their craft, and indeed, mission. And why should a player not be rewarded for taking that option?

Edited May 27, 2014 by technicalfool

[Seret]

I dunno, I seem to be having lots of fun with beamed power and ISRU missions so far, on top of Kethane.

Indeed, adding content and changing core gameplay is what mods are for. But we're talking about what should and shouldn't be in the stock game. I think the stock game is about launching rockets. If you want to extend the game using mods, go for your life.

[DoToH]

Indeed, adding content and changing core gameplay is what mods are for.

And what new feature implementing while on alpha stage of development is for.

The "if you want it, install a mod" answer is well known and little constructive. Many of us wanting some sort of ISRU already have a mod about it installed. So did many people before with docking mods or plane mods, and those features became stock.

We are just sharing ideas about why and how this could be done (maybe devs could use some of them).

You think it shouldn't be stock... can you give a reason (other than "there is a mod that does it")? No offense, Im just asking for a more detailed explanation. Do you think it would affect gameplay? too much complexity? low priority feature but ok to have it in 1.0?....

Edited May 29, 2014 by DoToH

[Northstar1989]

How many ISRU missions are actually at the stage of building the hardware?

Didn't you see me post about the Sabatier reactor on the ISS? (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/sabatier.html)

Or have you heard about NASA's construction of prototype CO2-capture equipment for use on Mars?

(just one of the dozens of links on CO2 adsorber prototypes at NASA: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120015003.pdf)

(this is another: http://isru.nasa.gov/CarbonDioxideOxygen.html)

ISRU is becoming a thing in reality. NASA has an entire project called the MARCO POLO (Mars Atmosphere and Regolith COllector/PrOcessor for Lander Operations) project being worked on at Johnson Space Center, for instance...

Anyways, it would add to the scope and fun of the game. It would draw more players to KSP, and allow more realistic missions... IF you want to up the difficulty level, you could always play with Real Solar System mod (or bug SQUAD to implement at least a slight scale-up of the stock game- I have been pushing for them to go from 10% to 20% scale for a while now...)

Regards,

Northstar

----------

Indeed, adding content and changing core gameplay is what mods are for.

Many features now part of the stock game were once part of mods. Docking, for example.

And alpha development is precisely when new features are *supposed to* be added. Please remember this isn't a "feature-complete" game yet...

But we're talking about what should and shouldn't be in the stock game.

There have been plenty of reasons why ISRU should be added brought up. Can you think of any reasons it should *not*?

I think the stock game is about launching rockets.

Kerbal Space Program is about what players and the devs want to make it about. Spaceplanes aren't rockets, and they're already in the game- and used to only be mod territory. Why should ISRU be as well?

May I also remind you of the part of the game's title "Space Program". In-Situ Resource Utilization is purely a feature of space programs. Can you think of ANY other realistic or interesting use of a Sabatier Reactor (takes CO2 and H2 and makes methane and water- one is currently deployed on the ISS) besides life-support and making fuel off-planet? A game called **** "space program" is precisely where ISRU belongs.

Regards,

Northstar

----------

I dunno, I seem to be having lots of fun with beamed power and ISRU missions so far, on top of Kethane. If anything it's more of a challenge, since I'm trying things like sending craft that would normally never manage a Duna mission out to Minmus or Mun to refuel first. I'm making "Hopper" craft that bounce around multiple biomes while on Mun or Minmus, refuelling between steps before coming home. It opens up more stuff to do, which in a sandbox-like game, is basically a life-extending thing.

This is the sort of thing that could turn a contracted extraplanetary mission from "expensive but doable" into "cheap enough to have a massive profit", depending on how complicated a player wishes to make their craft, and indeed, mission. And why should a player not be rewarded for taking that option?

I like your thinking.

More features = more play time. Enough said about that.

Rewarding players for adding complexity to their missions, and learning a new system- also a great idea...

Regards,

Northstar

----------

Oh, and for those wondering what In-Situ Resource Utilization would ADD the the game, I *highly* recommend you check out this YouTube video, in which a player re-created NASA's Constellation Mission (which relied on ISRU for its Mars component), using Kethane for his ISRU system. He seemed to have a lot of fun imitating NASA's plan...

Also, here is a book which further discusses NASA's plans for ISRU on Mars and the Moon (though the author does not seem to understand that the intended reason for melting down Moon regolith is *not* to obtain water-ice-, but to obtain Oxygen for life-support and ascent propellent by electrolyzing Aluminum Oxide regolith...)

http://books.google.com/books?id=gfYolGeTePkC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=Mars+Constellation+ISRU&source=bl&ots=asxWe33fgV&sig=wE43VQOV6o3UzbnSSOEvoTSCPh0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PtOHU5ipEdaeqAaIgYLYAw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Mars%20Constellation%20ISRU&f=false

Regards,

Northstar

Edited June 3, 2014 by KasperVld

[Northstar1989]

I like the paraphrase of George Mallory in the video (watch it already if you haven't before:

)

"Because it's there- mountains are meant to be climbed, rules are meant to be broken"

I think the same sentiment sums up the greatest reason why KSP should include a complex and realistic ISRU system- for the challenge. So it's there- another mountain to be climbed.

Why visit Eeelo, why set up a colony on Laythe in KSP? Because you can. Their very existence is a challenge to the human (or Kerbal) spirit.

The same applies to an ISRU system. Why should players do it, ultimately? Because they can. You think it's EASY landing multi-ton refineries on Vall or Tylo, and then finding the electricity to power them out by Jool where there's hardly any sunlight (especially if the devs properly implement the Inverse-Square rule soon, which they are looking into by all accounts...) Or developing 100% reusable launch systems to get that fuel to orbit? It's not. Not for most players (not eve for me). It's a challenge- a mountain to climb, a rule to be broken.

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. For the same reasons, I think KSP should switch over to a larger scale, closer to reality- to make the game more of a challenge. Yes, a scale 20% or 30% instead of 10% of reality would add to launch-times and time-to-orbit, but it would also increase the Delta-V requirements, and thus the challenge, of getting to orbit...

Edited May 30, 2014 by Northstar1989

[cantab]

I think the same sentiment sums up the greatest reason why KSP should include a complex and realistic ISRU system- for the challenge. So it's there- another mountain to be climbed.

...

The same applies to an ISRU system. Why should players do it, ultimately? Because they can. You think it's EASY landing multi-ton refineries on Vall or Tylo, and then finding the electricity to power them out by Jool where there's hardly any sunlight (especially if the devs properly implement the Inverse-Square rule soon, which they are looking into by all accounts...) Or developing 100% reusable launch systems to get that fuel to orbit? It's not. Not for most players (not eve for me). It's a challenge- a mountain to climb, a rule to be broken.

While these are challenges that an ISRU system creates, I would say they are not challenges a complicated ISRU system creates that a simple one does not. When a system starts having more than a few different raw materials, when it starts having long multi-step conversion processes that require a whole bunch of different parts, I feel it's going to be easy to just end up with a bunch of tickboxes to check at build time and an interplanetary fetch quest to make your stuff.

P.S. For the same reasons, I think KSP should switch over to a larger scale, closer to reality- to make the game more of a challenge. Yes, a scale 20% or 30% instead of 10% of reality would add to launch-times and time-to-orbit, but it would also increase the Delta-V requirements, and thus the challenge, of getting to orbit...

Squad should be a bit careful here though. A scale-up may be good for the experienced players, but IIRC when I first played it took me a few hours play just to make orbit, which I did with a really inefficient rocket flown really poorly. It's not good to make things too hard for newcomers.

[Seret]

And what new feature implementing while on alpha stage of development is for.

Not really. The game may be alpha, but it's not a case of "throw everything to the wall and see what sticks". Features should only be implemented if they're intended to be in the final game.

The "if you want it, install a mod" answer is well known and little constructive.

It's also a fact. KSP has a huge mod scene. Mods exist to extend the stock game and change it. Just because you like a mod doesn't mean it should be stock.

Many of us wanting some sort of ISRU already have a mod about it installed. So did many people before with docking mods or plane mods, and those features became stock.

Sure, but that doesn't in itself mean that every popular mod should be made stock. The most popular mod out there is probably Mechjeb, but you won't ever see that in stock either.

You think it shouldn't be stock... can you give a reason (other than "there is a mod that does it")? No offense, Im just asking for a more detailed explanation. Do you think it would affect gameplay? too much complexity? low priority feature but ok to have it in 1.0?....

I've already given a reason in my original reply, but I'll repeat it if you like. I think the rocket equation and the need to get everything you want in space up from the surface of Kerbin is the main source of difficulty in the game. I know there are mods that allow you to mine resources and build and launch ships from other planets, but the core game is about launching rockets from Kerbin. Anything that moves the game away from that paradigm rightly belongs in modland IMO. The core game should have some focus and not try to implement everything. They've deliberately built the game to be moddable so that if you want to change that focus you can.

Note that I'm not arguing against ISRU being in KSP. Just that I don't think there's any need for it to be in stock KSP.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Seret

[BudgetHedgehog]

Off topic, but is this really something people have been clamoring for in the core game? Are people feeling limited in their ability to make space boats?

They gave us seas and water, but nothing to use on them.

[allmhuran]

the core game is about launching rockets from Kerbin. Anything that moves the game away from that paradigm rightly belongs in modland IMO.

Not sure if that's really a tenable position... if it were true the game could have been called "finished" 18 months ago.

[Seret]

Not sure if that's really a tenable position... if it were true the game could have been called "finished" 18 months ago.

Well, yes. The core of the game has been finished for quite a while. KSP is a game about building, launching and crashing rockets. Maybe a bit of flying them too. We've been doing that for ages. We're now at the point where they're adding all the extra stuff (such as career mode) on top of that core.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be anything in the game that builds on that core, I'm saying there shouldn't be anything which detracts from it. ISRU potentially means you could reach a point in the game where you never had to launch anything from KSP. I don't think that really matches the devs' vision for the game, from what they've said in the past.

[Red Iron Crown]

Not so sure, Seret, they were implementing ISRU but didn't like how it turned out.

[Seret]

Not so sure, Seret, they were implementing ISRU but didn't like how it turned out.

They found it "made the game less fun". Without playing what they tested who can say why. Either way, I wouldn't expect to see it return. They're not exactly falling over themselves to implement it.

Still, the question was "do you miss resource mining?" and I've explained why I really don't think its absence takes anything away from the game. I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything, although I would suggest that you're setting yourself up for disappointment if you sit around pining for it.