Squad's accounced there will be Resources in Beta- how should they go about it?

[hazarada]

realistic shmishtic.. for all we know, "liquid fuleium" might grow on one of the invisible tree species on kerbin.

IMO, the biggest challenge to a good resource gathering system in KSP is giving it a point. Something impossible to do without a little space strategy or some great reward that you wouldn't be able to get otherwise. I propose the off kerbin VAB + launch pad! Setting one up would require scouting, building infrastructure and mining considerable amounts of resources. Using it would be limited to the resource infrastructure that you created (and can develop further). I think some kind of automated gathering/transport system is required as the mining action itself isn't particularly interesting after planning and setting it up.

[Red Iron Crown]

Oh... and Red Iron Crown has been pushing the idea that liquid fuel is RP-1 based upon in-game data ...and while that is TRUE (heck, the old Mk-1 liquid fuel tanks even said "kerosene" on them), I would prefer we use methane as our liquid fuel because it is more likely to be found in space than kerosene, and is possible to make on other planets (by techniques discussed in Zubrin's Mars Direct plan). It's a realistic fuel, and will make future real-world plans to exploit methane as a fuel made on Mars make more sense to the people who learn about it playing KSP.

So: GO METHANE!

I'm not even pushing the idea really, the chemistry of resources is not hugely important to me. The gameplay goals

are more important to me; if those can be achieved more realistically with LF being a methane analog then that's fine by me.

[Scoundrel]

It is kinda pointless to speculate what fuel is actually used as the Kerbalverse isn't our universe but a part of the multiverse that suffers at the whims of its creators - consider that the density of the planet Kerbin is about as dense as the densest element known to man. Likewise ISP in game doesn't work like ISP actually works because... I actually don't know why ISP doesn't work the way ISP actually works... maybe the guys at Squad ran out of bananas? Anyways, not particularly relevant.

Personally I always imagined ISRU in KSP would consist of an ISRE (in situ resource extraction) and an ISRP (in situ resource production) part and appropriate tankage, so that we can have the option of establishing bases for processing and storage, and have vehicles that go out and get us the raw materials to be processed. From a game design perspective, the only thing simpler would be a drill that drills fuel directly from planets... and methinks that while that is a possibility, our erstwhile developers will hopefully take a two stage approach of extraction and processing for gameplay reasons.

IMHO resource hunting shouldn't be done with a scanner except to reveal likelihoods of the presence of resources (which could just as likely be go/no-go result as a % of resources present) so we establish the best places to hunt for resources rather than reveal them. The actual confirmation of the presence of resources should instead be by gathering samples and either returning them to a mobile lab or sending them back to Kerbin for resource analysis in lieu of science, and would reveal an area on the map that displays where (if any) resources are. The area could be small enough that multiple samples could be gathered by rover (say each sample reveals a 2km or 5km radius circle of resources present) for hard difficulties, and could be up to 100% of the biome or the planet or whatever for easy difficulties. In any case, the result would reveal the best places to set up the ISRE or whatever it is we players decide to do with the info.

Naturally, once we have those resources, everything will of course boil down to resources + electricity = fuel/monopropellant/snacks/whateverelsetheyhaveplanned so they may likely have to rethink the electrical generating parts (can we say NTG Spam?). And hopefully they don't come up with a ton of resources. Really all I see is a base resource for making fuel, and another resource (say Kerbolium₃) for returning to kerbin to advance kerbal civilization with environmentally friendly fusion power. Anything more complicated than that and they should save it for the Kolonization DLC.

In any case, hopefully Ezequiel and Adrian give them enough bananas that whatever they come up with is inspired!

[Laie]

That's why I dislike the idea of "liquid fuel" being liquid hydrogen. Other fuels (kerosine, methane, UMDH/hydrazine) fit much better with the tanks we have been given.

Yes. But finding or manufacturing methane off-Kerbin is much more likely than finding or making kerosene,

Not slippery at all. My position is: Come up with the most "realistic" chemistry that fits what SQUAD has given to us in the game. Liquid Hydrogen as "liquid fuel" is NOT a good fit.

The beauty of hydrogen fuel is that you only need water to make both fuel and oxidizer, and in matching proportions to boot. From a gameplay simplicity point of view, there's nothing better. Boil-off? Tanks should be bulkier? I couldn't care less. However, I do care (a little) that the mass ratio of fuel and oxidizer consumed isn't anywhere near 8:1.

You won't find useful amounts of methane any more than you'll find useful amounts of kerosene; if you want hydrocarbons, you have to make them. The good news is that making kerosene isn't significantly more difficult than making methane; the process is basically the same either way, give or take some pressure and temperature. The bad news is that you need carbon monoxide; compared to how easy it is to purify water, coming by carbon monoxide will be a *lot* more involved. But then again, some handwaving goes a long way (even if in this case I'm afraid that the hand might come off).

The main difference is that carbon would be a second resource. If it was always found in matching proportions, that would be boring (why even bother with two resources in that case?), if proportions can vary, this will quickly pose the question of keeping and shipping intermediates. Will this make for a better game?

Ceterum censeo: Squad can as well decide that the chemistry of their fuel is as simple as water, yet the mass fractions are whatever they happen to be right now. Kerbin is made from degenerate matter, after all -- compared to that, inventing fuel from whole cloth will be a minor offense.

[Kegereneku]

That's the thing.

SQUAD can give their fuel any density they want to have the fuel/oxidizer ratio they want, they don't have to force themselves to follow real chemistry if it doesn't bring anything worth to the game or make balancing more complicated (or impossible).

For any aspect someone want to make more realistic, there's another aspect that will look more absurd because KSP "still isn't reality".

Since KSP's resources will only be analog to real one, any chemistry minigame made would be an abstract game-logic anyway. So I still see no point in forcing the real name and chemistry.

Even if as a science-enthusiast I dream myself of fusion-powered starship replenishing their hydrogen tank from Europa or comet, what KSP need is a gameplay-oriented logic.

That's what we should be discussing.

[CaptainKipard]

I don't mind what real resource LiquidFuel and Oxidiser are, as long as the volume ratios of their combustion are similar to what we have now, but only because it'll be easier for players to make the transition. This is what you get when you get locked into a bad design decision early.

Kegereneku your posts are still incomprehensible. It looks like you've decided to ignore everything that goes against your fancy. You keep arguing against this "minigame" strawman. Could you stop? You're not making sense.

[sal_vager]

I think just having one input resource would be a little boring, find it and you're done.

Having two different input resources enables a little bit of complexity and can get the player thinking.

More than that and maybe it starts to get overcomplex, though I'd not consider electric charge to enable any such processes to be a problem

[CaptRobau]

I've been thinking, but if we want a multitude of resources we need a better system for handling those resources. With the current system we'd need multiple fuel tanks or some weird right mouse clicking business. Luckily gaming has produced a solution to handling multiple unique resources easily: the RPG inventory. With a drag-and-drop inventory you can easily manage dozens of individual items (which resources are in a way). One could either convert all resources to the inventory system or have it limited to the resources that can't be used as fuels, but are instead for making fuels. Then you'd only need one set of 'inventory' tanks, that would take all types of mineable resources (for simplicity). This might also be a way to make chemistry 'crafting' work. With such an inventory, one could multiple resources and with multiple resources one would also be able to use the resource system to teach people of how extraplanetary chemistry works. It could help people understand what Lunar/Munar regolith is made of, or what one can expect from Martian/Dunar polar caps, etc.

[Laie]

I've been thinking, but if we want a multitude of resources we need a better system for handling those resources. With the current system we'd need multiple fuel tanks or some weird right mouse clicking business. Luckily gaming has produced a solution to handling multiple unique resources easily: the RPG inventory. With a drag-and-drop inventory you can easily manage dozens of individual items (which resources are in a way).

Hmmm. While I'm much in favor of a nice interface, I wouldn't fancy an RPG's grab bag approach, where you can put this, and that, and sundry, all into the same container. Mixing all kinds of fuel and intermediates in a single barrel just shouldn't work. On top of that, in the context of KSP, you not only have to bring enough storage capacity, but also need to look after the distribution of weight. Not sure if I'd trust an automated system with this.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Laie

[Kegereneku]

Kegereneku your posts are still incomprehensible. It looks like you've decided to ignore everything that goes against your fancy. You keep arguing against this "minigame" strawman. Could you stop? You're not making sense.

If you insist on making that personal, stop being so full of yourself first.

You act as if everything you said was justified by a "grand design" you have, plus your condescending tone for getting reputation point or having "mods".

You are the only one who didn't understood me and I can reformulate only so much, I and other understand how "specific resources parameter" is a question of game design in a universe as fictional as KSP.

I "ignore everything that goes against my fancy" you say ?

Speak for yourself ! The transition you argue for only matter for realism aficionados or "for mods", pretty self-serving argument you have here. You would have more credit arguing for the ability to mods it more easily, but we both know it's not actually a problem. Last I know the physic equations are correct simplification (unlike the Isp/thrust relation) so you can mod Liquid Fuel into Hydrogen and Oxidizer into Oxygen yourself if you need that particular rocket fuel and search a custom fuel tank plugin.

Maybe you did understood because now AT LEAST you are making concession, asking only for volume ratio verisimilitude.

Which -I suppose you know needing it for your Skylon mod and all- would definitely require a major rebalance for spaceplane who carry unequal and non-homogeneous amount of both. From my point of view SQUAD made a damn good design decision early, this is another reason you sound full of yourself.

tips : if you have problem balancing your Skylon, try "cheating" by not respecting fuel tank separation, I assure you anybody will pardon you as long as it do the job of flying like a Skylon.

I've been thinking, but if we want a multitude of resources we need a better system for handling those resources. With the current system we'd need multiple fuel tanks or some weird right mouse clicking business. Luckily gaming has produced a solution to handling multiple unique resources easily: the RPG inventory. With a drag-and-drop inventory you can easily manage dozens of individual items (which resources are in a way). One could either convert all resources to the inventory system or have it limited to the resources that can't be used as fuels, but are instead for making fuels. Then you'd only need one set of 'inventory' tanks, that would take all types of mineable resources (for simplicity). This might also be a way to make chemistry 'crafting' work. With such an inventory, one could multiple resources and with multiple resources one would also be able to use the resource system to teach people of how extraplanetary chemistry works. It could help people understand what Lunar/Munar regolith is made of, or what one can expect from Martian/Dunar polar caps, etc.

To my opinion, going into "Inventory" is better for set of token and distinct object and sample (tools to install strut or fuel line for example), it would also allow to quantize sample (so you cannot carry 10 tons of sample in one capsule) but that's another subject.

In our case, I do not see it play well with large quantity of fluid, plus it would disregard entirely internal separation if you don't want to subdivide it into more internal tank.

Then, once again I'm still not interested myself by a "chemistry minigame", as in "manually guess the correct combination/dosage/transformation process of arbitrary sub-resources to make usable game resources" every time I want to refuel, or set up a refueling base.

Teaching chemistry is a noble goal, but it would seem (to me) superfluous in a game like KSP.

Keeping things simple would "can you make X resources here ? Yes/No" regardless of how complex the fuel is regardless how complex its molecule are (like monopropelant), and in the case of asteroid-only, indicate the quantity you can extract.

I would suggest to start by making the simplest refueling system that reach its goal.

If the code is modular enough it won't be a problem to modify later.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Kegereneku

[CaptainKipard]

I'm just curious. Is anyone convinced by Kegerenku's posts? I've tried to be clear in my responses. It takes a lot more effort to refute nonesense than to create it, but if anyone still agrees with what's he saying I'll go ahead and do it. I'll have to do dumb it down even more though, so some might complain. There's no other way though.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[sal_vager]

No one is forcing you to reply though, let the discussion move on

[r4pt0r]

What if squad just made up their own fuels, like the Sakuradite in code geass. enough of all this "real world chemistry" stuff. rockets could be powered by kerbonium or whatever, at an oxidizer ratio of anything. 2:3, 1:1, 5:7 whatever they want.

[CaptRobau]

What if squad just made up their own fuels, like the Sakuradite in code geass. enough of all this "real world chemistry" stuff. rockets could be powered by kerbonium or whatever, at an oxidizer ratio of anything. 2:3, 1:1, 5:7 whatever they want.

No thanks. One of KSP's strengths is that it offers a simplified approach to real-life spaceflight. Things can be abstracted (patch conics instead of n-body for trajectories, etc.), but making up resources is beyond abstraction and thus, in my mind, would remove one of the game's strengths. Real-life ISRU resources can be simplified enough to do almost anything a fake resource can do, while still teaching people how ISRU works in real-life.

To my opinion, going into "Inventory" is better for set of token and distinct object and sample (tools to install strut or fuel line for example), it would also allow to quantize sample (so you cannot carry 10 tons of sample in one capsule) but that's another subject.

In our case, I do not see it play well with large quantity of fluid, plus it would disregard entirely internal separation if you don't want to subdivide it into more internal tank.

Space Engineer shows that inventory works for both distinct objects and amounts of resources. You can just have an water icon in your inventory with let's say 20L in the corner. Moving 'amounts' inventory can work the same as 'objects' inventory. Let's say you want to put your water in the converter. You drag the water icon to the converter part of the menu and it asks you how much water you want to put in the converter, which you can adjust using a slider. Objects would do the same, but instead of the slider changing the liters moved, it'd change the individual objects moved. Inventories can also be easily limited by an upper limit on mass. A display in the inventory would tell you how many mass you can put into and how much is already in the inventory tank.

Internal subdivision will have to be abstracted for this to work, but I'd rather have an abstracted, slightly unrealistic, single set of inventory tanks than dozens of nearly identical inventory tanks for each type of resource. Sometimes gameplay needs to trump realism.

Then, once again I'm still not interested myself by a "chemistry minigame", as in "manually guess the correct combination/dosage/transformation process of arbitrary sub-resources to make usable game resources" every time I want to refuel, or set up a refueling base.

Teaching chemistry is a noble goal, but it would seem (to me) superfluous in a game like KSP.

Keeping things simple would "can you make X resources here ? Yes/No" regardless of how complex the fuel is regardless how complex its molecule are (like monopropelant), and in the case of asteroid-only, indicate the quantity you can extract.

I would suggest to start by making the simplest refueling system that reach its goal.

If the code is modular enough it won't be a problem to modify later.

The complexity of a 'chemistry minigame' is all up to the interface design. A good inventory/crafting interface can make 50 interacting resources instantly comprehendable. A bad inventory interface can make 3 interacting resources completely ungraspable. Recipes are probably the easiest way to do it. Let's say you want to build a solar panel. Right-click a 3D printer part and select solar panel you want to build from the crafting interface. It will show you what you need (1 kg of aluminium and 1 kg of silicon or something). Click on build and it will draw the two resources (if you have them) from your connected inventory tanks. Then it starts building it. Very simple. To be clear, I'm not arguing for super-realistic recipes. Monopropellant you could get from a generic ammonia resource, instead of combining 3 specific ammonia based compounds or something.

[KSK]

In the spirit of moving this discussion on, I was thinking about how to describe any given resources implementation, and whether that could be reduced down to a single set of questions. Once we've answered those questions (or gotten some sort of consensus about those answers at any rate), we could maybe return to the fine details, such as names, densities, real or fake chemistry etc.

Here's my attempt at that set of questions - comments welcome.

1. Number and types of output Resource?

2. Number of input materials?

3. Celestial bodies where materials can be found?

3. Are the input materials depletable?

4. Are the input materials prospectable?

5. Processing step required?*

6. Storage step required?

7. Ship based Resource production or Base based Resource production?**

* We can take it as read that a harvesting step is required.

** Somewhat arbitrary in stock KSP, since 'Bases' are generally ships anyway. This is more a rough idea of the weight of infrastructure required and whether it should be feasible to pack it onto any ship at all.

So by way of example, referring back to my previous post, the answers for my scheme could be:

1. Three - Liquid Fuel, Oxidiser, Monopropellant.

2. Any, including asteroids.

3. No.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

6. Yes.

7. Base based.

[CaptainKipard]

And Xenon.

Also doesn't the answer to question 2 rely on the system already being decided?

[KSK]

And Xenon.

Also doesn't the answer to question 2 rely on the system already being decided?

Yeah, possibly Xenon as well, but my example system at the start of this thread didn't include that.

The answer to question 2 defines rather than depends on the system being decided. As I said, the idea is these questions provide a framework to define the resource system. Once we figure that out, we can get back to wrangling over the fine details.

Just an idea anyhow.

[Pthigrivi]

1. Number and types of output Resource?

2. Number of input materials?

3. Celestial bodies where materials can be found?

3. Are the input materials depletable?

4. Are the input materials prospectable?

5. Processing step required?*

6. Storage step required?

7. Ship based Resource production or Base based Resource production?**

I'll play. I'll assume you meant not to have 2 question 3's

1: We should collect H20 in the form of liquid water or ice from geysers and ice deposits respectively. I think one drill part will suffice. H20 can be refined into Liquid fuel (H), Oxygen (O), and Monopropellant (H202).

2: There should be deposits of ice on most bodies including asteroids, and geysers on Eve, Duna, Laythe, Tylo and Val.

3: I think some ice deposits should be richer or poorer, depleting as such. Geysers are unlimited.

4: If you mean surveyable, yes. There should be sensors which can be used when within 200km, and will map the richness of the deposits. The deposits and geysers should also be visible on the surface, but not from orbit.

5: Certainly. The refinery should be heavy, bulky, and draw at least 2 gigantors of power.

6: Not sure what you mean by this... I do think one should be able to fill a tank with H20 only and transport it to an orbital refinery, so I think possible but not required is the answer.

7: Either or! I think it would depend on how you wanted to play it and what you thought you could efficiently employ given the situation. There might only be small deposits on the Mun, making it more efficient to leave your refinery in orbit and jaunt down for small H20 fill-ups, or if you found a convenient geyser on Duna you could land a permanent refinery base there.

I just think this is the most straight-forward implementation. The task of mapping resources, launching and carefully landing drill rigs and refineries is challenging enough. I see no reason to overcomplicate things. And some obvious simplification aside I think it most mirrors real planned space exploration strategies. The other nice thing about this is you could dovetail it into life support later in development, with greenhouses converting H20 and electricity into snacks.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Pthigrivi

[Tux]

wait...what? we are not in beta already? wow...

This is the best game that has stayed in early access...ever..

[Brotoro]

I was considering the question: "What kinds of propellants do KSP rockets appear to use based on what we see in the game (tank sizes and masses, and the oxidizer-to-fuel mass ratio used by engines)?". I had previously calculated some of this in a spreadsheet, so I dug that out and added a few new numbers.

The data on propellant densities and optimum oxidizer-to-fuel mass ratios mostly come from Encyclopedia Astronautica at www.astronautix.com. Some of the oxidizer-to-fuel mass ratios come from real rocket data (such as from the Space Shuttle SSME and Saturn V).

The tank used for these calculations was the FL-T400. I placed a capsule on the launch pad and EVA'd the kerbal to measure his altitude...and then I placed a capsule on top of a stack of 20 FL-T400 tanks and did the same thing. The result is that an FL-T400 tank is 1.9 meters tall. Measuring the length and diameter of the tank on the screen showed that the tank was 1.112 meters in diameter. This is not the 1.25 meters expected because I measured the surface of the tank that is indented in the image. Assuming a wall and bulkhead thickness of 2 cm, this gives an internal tank volume of 1.661 m³. If you want to ignore the on-screen measurements of the apparent indented diameter and use 1.25 meters as the diameter, you get a tank internal volume of 2.116 m³ (again, assuming 2 cm wall and bulkhead thickness). The 2 cm thickness is enough to easily account for the 0.25 metric ton dry mass of the stage (allowing for double-wall aluminum construction with insulation between). Whether this is a reasonable thickness for enough insulation to allow long-term storage of liquid hydrogen is questionable.

The results from my spreadsheet are in the image below:

The real-life propellant combination that comes closest to KSP's ratio of 1.22 is hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide...storable propellants that can easily survive during long space voyages. This propellant combination also results in about 2 tons of propellants in an FL-T400 tank (using my smaller tank diameter), which is what we observe in the game. For the full 1.25 m diameter tank, the closest fit to 2 tons is kerosene/LOX. I was sad to see that my preferred choice of methane/LOX does not result in getting 2 tons of propellants into the tank. Squad could easily change the fuel/oxidizer mass ratios of their tanks...but they would need to make the tanks bigger to allow them to contain 2 tons of methane/LOX...and MUCH bigger if you prefer LH₂/LOX.

So...what would it take to manufacture Hydrazine and Nitrogen Tetroxide off Kerbin? Probably ammonia or some other nitrogen-rich compounds that could be used to derive ammonia...and you'd need water or water ice to make the hydrogen and hydrogen peroxide that would also be needed to manufacture the hydrazine.

The hydrazine/N₂O₄ propellant combination has the unusual advantage that our liquid fuel would also be our monopropellant.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Brotoro

[Nuke]

Yeah, possibly Xenon as well, but my example system at the start of this thread didn't include that.

The answer to question 2 defines rather than depends on the system being decided. As I said, the idea is these questions provide a framework to define the resource system. Once we figure that out, we can get back to wrangling over the fine details.

Just an idea anyhow.

id make xenon strictly at atmospherically harvested resource, because thats primarily how inert gas products are made irl. it would require a cryo plant to separate the xenon from the atmosphere. it could also be used to extract oxidizer from kerbin/laythe atmo and lf from jool and condense them into liquids. what a cryo plant cant do is separate compounds such as co2. way i see gas mining it would involve doing this: atmosphere->intake->atmoresource->cryoplant->tank

atmoresource is a resource that represents the atmosphere of what planet/moon you are running the intake through. on kerbin and laythe* this would be 'intake air', or 'duna atmosphere' on duna, and so on. this also means you dont need a new part module, just an intake that knows where it be. cryoplant can take one of several types of atmospheric resources and produce outputs based on the composition of that atmospheric resource. obviously only things we care about will be removed and the rest can be vented back into the atmosphere. i figure all atmospheres would have traces of xenon, since atmospheres are pretty uncommon in the kerbin system. however lf and oxidizer would never be found together in the same place (since they would react and form something you can't use without a chemical process). cryoplant is just a freezer on steroids and would only need electricity.

*laythe might be intake air. another idea is it could be 'laythe atmo', and make engines behave differently based on what atmo its being fed. such as what resources it uses and its performance characteristics. you might also be able to run a reverse burning engine on jool. rocket engines could also have multi-fuel options, where they work on a wider range of fuel options at expense of performance depending on what fuel is being used. but thats kind of out of the scope of this topic.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Nuke

[CaptainKipard]

The results from my spreadsheet are in the image below:

That's great, really, but this relates to the question that you never answered and that was: What is the sense in simulating resource wastage? I just think that's too technical for a game. There's probably a lot of factors that go into exactly how much hydrogen evaporates or whatever it is. I suspect it would be too difficult to implement. Having perfect reaction ratios is enough IMO. I'd love KSP to be a sim, but even I have my limits. We can pretend that rockets don't waste anything, can't we?

With that said, your mass and volume ratios will be different.

Edit

I'd really love for someone to go over my calculations here just to make sure I got it right. Thankyou.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Red Iron Crown]

Different reaction ratios than stoichiometric are not about fuel wastage, it's usually about preventing damage to the engine, controlling temperature, or other concerns. I agree that there's no real need to simulate those concerns in stock, but it does give some leeway in ratios, i.e. we don't need to be stuck with exactly stoichiometric ratios if there are reasons why it would be better to have different ratios.

[CaptainKipard]

Different reaction ratios than stoichiometric are not about fuel wastage, it's usually about preventing damage to the engine, controlling temperature, or other concerns. I agree that there's no real need to simulate those concerns in stock, but it does give some leeway in ratios, i.e. we don't need to be stuck with exactly stoichiometric ratios if there are reasons why it would be better to have different ratios.

I just want consistency, that's all, and stoichiometric (learned a new word, thanks) ratios provide a simple way to do that.

I don't see any justification for "fudging" the numbers.. Now I do.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Pthigrivi]

Brotoro I love the research I guess my question would be would it actually be practical and fun from a gameplay standpoint to require the player to mine 2 different areas, cart those materials in their own tanks to a refinery, and then process them into LFO? Im talking for casual players who might only be putting in 3-6 hours a week. Also how many worlds could you imagine have plausibly rich deposits of ammonia? I mean does is there any practical sense in collecting ammonia on laythe, returning it to orbit, carting it to duna and mixing it with water when you could just launch more fuel at kerbin for cheaper? Isn't it much simpler and challenging enough map a planet, precision land a drill on a single resource, refine and return to orbit?

I guess all Im saying is whatever the resource system is there needs to be some noticeable advantage to it vs launching fuel from Kerbin or no one will use it.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Pthigrivi