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

[KSK]

Some people might be wasting their time defending idea that are fundamentally flawed, myself I'm just blazed by how many person here "just assume" their idea is the only one that make sense, rather than discuss the broad subject to learn something out of conflicting ideas.

The same logic apply to anything else, as long as all participant in the discussion aren't stuck-in baseless obsession, such as chemistry realism...

Looks like there's more folks than you thought assuming their idea is the only one that makes sense. Seriously though - surely defending 'fundamentally flawed' (to you) ideas is all part of 'learning something from conflicting ideas.'

Edited November 27, 2014 by KSK

[Kegereneku]

To : Laie

I know, sorry to bring back the most basic question but in between each other personal suggestion I felt we didn't discussed them much.

As you say, intermediate resources are only justified to separate one resource across multiple place, which is a balance measure.

But it is necessary ? As of now there is only two sort of fuel that can do heavy lifting, and the most important of them already have two subtype LF/O.

I won't bring back the "all type" discussion.

But thank you for addressing the main problem of a mono-resources Nuclear engine. As you say :

a) the need for a new set of fuel tank (even if LF only)

the possibility to mess up

And I agree we shouldn't suggest here new engine, parts or change in other's engine working. But your answer get me to broach the subject of messing up fuel dosage.

Our unit to measure "rocket fuel" is the number and size of fuel tank. Not the volume ratio of LiquidFuel vs Oxidizer.

The repercussion it have on ISRU is that you'll likely plan to refuel the same fuel tanks. We all see that coming but if you had refuel the duo LF/O from different place, it mean either :

- specialized fuel tank (or one that can carry one resources or the other).

- or to carry it in half-empty fuel tank (which would certainly annoy the most efficiency-driven of us)

There's a post from CaptRobau (about RPG-like inventory) that I didn't took the time to answer.

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.

[......]

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.

If I do not see "inventory system" working for KSP's large quantity of liquid resources this is not because because the UI would be impossible, but because of how we measure quantity in number of tank (and deltaV). Space Engineer allegedly cheat a la minecraft over the quantity you can carry and encourage hoarding. I do not see it translate at all for KSP where :

A) every gram count.

deltaV vary with Isp

In short :

Our unit of measurement is more volume than mass. how do we deal with that?

If it were efficient a fuel cell would be nice as a reactor for night-side ion burns on hybrid drive ships.

Even as some kind of extremely more energetic battery, I do not see the interest in it being refuel-able. Ion-drive -normally- don't land and have enough trouble getting good acceleration even in sunlight.

Looks like there's more folks than you thought assuming their idea is the only one that makes sense. Seriously though - surely defending 'fundamentally flawed' (to you) ideas is all part of 'learning something from conflicting ideas.'

You make a good point.

But do we learn anything if one refuse to envisage the possibility that his idea is 'fundamentally flawed' and consider all detractor as people who don't get his genius ?

Please tell me if you see me camping on a position. To my knowledge, the only position I have been defending is that we do not require realistic volume ratio, name or chemistry. So unless I miscommunicate the rest should only look like opinion, suggestion and remark about conflict rising from others idea. (such as the change of spaceplane balance if we change fuel volume ratio)

I'm not claiming any kind of superiority here. (though my example were indeed targeted)

[CaptRobau]

To : CaptRobau

I'm being a little pedantic here, but since the diagram is in itself a basic schematic, you(we) are scrapping most of it.

I would go one step further by asking :

- Do we even need intermediate resources ?

Again I speak as a detractor to chemistry, but if we drill/pump/scoop, use electricity, and fuel goes out on the other side. Then any intermediate process is redundant or only have meaning for design restriction and game-balance, which can be addressed by biome and availability.

- Do we really need to cover all type of fuel ?

Xenon is quite "OP" as we say, monopropellant isn't used much and can be stored in quantity large enough that (myself) I do not see the need for more than one resupply run (from Kerbin) at most. Nuclear fuel is... let's just say infinite

About it, a nuclear thruster do not require electricity, on the opposite it can produce some easily. But what is require is another resources to be used as "reactive mass".

- The question is which one ?

Myself I would go with Liquid Fuel, plain and simple. Late-game it would be even easier to refuel, yet possible to limit to space-only.

As for fuel-cell, I don't think fuel-cell belong here as something we can refuel (we will have battery/RTG way before we can refuel them). Maybe as a low-level non-rechargeable source of energy, but that's another subject.

1. I see your point, although getting to mine the water and not immediately having to convert it would give some flexibility to the game. For example if you scoop up water from Laythe's oceans, you might not be able to extend your solar panels in that precarious situation. So if you can keep the water in the large converter behind the scoop then you can wait with converting until you get out of the water.

2. Xenon would be low on my priorities list, but the old flow chart gave the idea that Squad wanted every engine type to eventually be able to become self-sufficient (if you put in the money, time and effort to set up the production chain). So I kept that idea.

3. Nuclear Fuel is meant to be uranium aka nuclear fuel rods. Those are necessary for the nuclear reactor/nuclear thermal rocket to work. If those are spent, then the reactor/engine won't work. This way there'd also be a nice limit on the use of NTRs, so that their OPness can't be used forever (unless you refuel them). The nuclear fuel resource would be in the NTR/reactors so they wouldn't need special tanks (except a couple that you could use for refueling purposes). I am a proponent of ditching odizider use in the future for NTRs, but that would require a different fuel tank logic (you'd need to be able to change the entire tank to LF only).

4. A fuel cell gets electricity from liquid fuel + oxidizer, so it'd be useful from day one. They were used by Gemini and Apollo, so it's pretty low-tech stuff.

[Kegereneku]

(1) Don't that idea rely entirely on being able to get out of the water (fully loaded) without needing to use said fuel ? I wouldn't hold my breath on the devs adding electric propeller for this. Hypothetically we could have Kerbonaut setting up line, but that's speculation.

(2) I guess. In the scope of manned exploration of all planet I think we can do with only the "main drive" fuels.

(3) nuclear fuel is freaking durable and hard to replace, by simplification I would consider them infinite and just balance other criteria accordingly. As pointed out by Laie, it would require a new line of fuel tank unless we repurpose previous tank. (it could get confusing on screenshot if they do not differ visually)

(4) Understand that, and I guess it could be used for said "refueling base" night time (more than probes), but once again we are talking of getting both LF/O at the same location (night trucking put aside). I believe we have a consensus in that probes (roughly smaller than a 2.5 fuel tank) should not be self-sufficient in themselves.

About this : for or against Kerbonaute being required in the refueling process ?

Real space agency would automatize it to have the fuel ready when the astronaut arrive, but in our case KSP need "focus" and favor gameplay.

But now... it would make a very big difference if you need a Kerbal Engineer to run the things.

[Laie]

1. I see your point, although getting to mine the water and not immediately having to convert it would give some flexibility to the game.

Not sure if that's really worth it. In your example, you'd be hovering in powered flight over Laythe's oceans, scooping up fuel, right? I think it would be a lot easier to design your vessel so that it won't tip over in the water. I'd probably do so anyway, because hovering is tricky. I seriously can't imagine myself ever mining in a precarious situation, even if it would only take 20 seconds.

As you say, intermediate resources are only justified to separate one resource across multiple place, which is a balance measure.

But it is necessary ? As of now there is only two sort of fuel that can do heavy lifting, and the most important of them already have two subtype LF/O.

Again, this has been discussed before in this thread. Browse backward for details.

In a nutshell:

Water would be a prime example of a single resource: you can turn it onto H and O in matching proportions. A single "mining/converter" part could do all the work, so you only stick one end into the resource, spread solar panels, and wait until your fuel is replenished. However, many people think that this would be altogether too easy.

More than one resource (even only a second one really) creates the need to deal with intermediates and ship them around, possibly even managing regular shipments. Unless both resources are abundant in the same place, in which case it becomes indistinguishable from having a single resource.

[architeuthis]

I believe the common thought is liquid fuel is close to RP-1 (which is pretty much kerosene), the small tank volumes, mass flow rates, and usability in jet engines implies it. The only evidence pointing to LH2 is the LV-N's high Isp when using it, but it mixes it with oxidizer so that number is inflated one way or the other.

I think the evidence is somewhat contradictory myself. Isps seem too high on average to be RP-1/LOX for most of the KSP engines, and as you noted LV-N wouldn't get anywhere close to 800 seconds with hydrocarbon propellant. On the other hand isps seem too low on average to be cryogenic.

I think the NASA ARM/SLS pack gives us a convenient point to anchor our speculations. Many of the new engines are obviously modeled on RL analogs. I think the Kerbodyne KR-2L is based on the Aerojet Rocketdyne J-2X, a cryogenic engine originally planned to power the SLS upper stage. The Kerbodyne KS-25 is clearly based on the Rocketdyne RS-25, a cryogenic engine which powered the Space Shuttle will power the the SLS core stage. I think the KR-1 is the same as the Dynetics "Pyrios" advanced liquid booster (powered by two LOX/RP-1 Rocketdyne F-1 engines) which may or may not replace the Shuttle-derived five-segment SRBs boosters on later flights of the SLS. Apart from the obvious visual and naming similarities the parallels are not perfect between the Kerbal and RL engines. The KR-2L has better vacuum isp than the KS-25 even though the RL RS-25 has slightly better isp than the J-2X. The KR-1 has substantially better vacuum isp than the mighty F-1. Interestingly the model used for the KR-1 is smaller than the one used for the KS-25 (even though the RL F-1 easily dwarfs the RS-25s used on the Space Shuttle), and they have the same isp, but the KR-1 has slightly higher thrust (per engine). In comparing the performance of the KSP rocket engines to their supposed RL analogs, they generally tend to have slightly lower isp on average and a lot less thrust. Generally propellant tanks have substantially lower mass fractions than in reality.

My guess is that Squad scaled isp and thrust to suit gameplay, and only went with a single liquid fuel for the sake of simplicity. So even if Kerbal rocket performance is worse the RL, they may not have been scaled down enough to compensate for the Kerbol system's reduced delta-v requirements. Our attempts to retcon things now seem doomed by the possibility that Kerbal rocket performance was never intended to be consistently realistic.

I think it would be interesting if there were separate cryogenic/kerosene-analog fuels, dedicated upper stage engines, and if the sea level isp/thrust/mass flow rate relations a little more realistic. It would add interesting new research paths, and would make rocket design a little more multi-layered, which is of course the meat of this game.

Those are my thoughts, for what they're worth.

[Bill Phil]

Could be propane. If I remember correctly, propane's density is similar to kerosene'a ( under pressure at a certain temp) and has vacuum ISPs in the 370s range, possibly more if you're clever with the engine.

[CaptRobau]

(1) Don't that idea rely entirely on being able to get out of the water (fully loaded) without needing to use said fuel ? I wouldn't hold my breath on the devs adding electric propeller for this. Hypothetically we could have Kerbonaut setting up line, but that's speculation.

Oceans are probably the hardest area to get stuff from, even without watching out for your solar panels, so it might not be the best example

(2) I guess. In the scope of manned exploration of all planet I think we can do with only the "main drive" fuels.

If we're talking manned, then it's indeed not important.

(3) nuclear fuel is freaking durable and hard to replace, by simplification I would consider them infinite and just balance other criteria accordingly. As pointed out by Laie, it would require a new line of fuel tank unless we repurpose previous tank. (it could get confusing on screenshot if they do not differ visually)

Been looking into it and I think you're right. NTRs do have limited lifetimes, because they operate at such high temperatures while thrusting. But the fuel rod doesn't need replenishing by then. Refueling them is probably not a design issue then. Also the fuel tank doesn't have to be different. I'm talking about an in-VAB switch that switches it from a tank with LF + O, to just O. That wouldn't need a new kind of tank.

(4) Understand that, and I guess it could be used for said "refueling base" night time (more than probes), but once again we are talking of getting both LF/O at the same location (night trucking put aside). I believe we have a consensus in that probes (roughly smaller than a 2.5 fuel tank) should not be self-sufficient in themselves.

I don't think you understand my intent. Fuel cells don't have anything to do with mining, it was just on the resource flow chart that I talked about. It's just an early game alternative to solar panels or batteries for providing electricity. They'd be cheaper to buy than solar panels, but since they consume LF and O to create the electricity they wouldn't be infinite. So for longer, more complex missions solar panels then become more ideal. Also these parts would be large in diameter, 2.5m or maybe 1.25m, as they're designed for manned vehicles.

About this : for or against Kerbonaute being required in the refueling process ?

Make both possible, but adding (more) Kerbonauts would increase efficiency.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think the evidence is somewhat contradictory myself. <Snip interesting comparisons with real life engines>

Oh definitely. LF is a big simplification, meant to reduce the complexity of rocket design for non-rocket scientist types (which includes most players and the devs AFAIK). I'm not sure a variety of fuels is a good idea for the stock game, it would likely be a bit overwhelming for new players and some experienced ones.

I would prefer that thrust scaled with Isp, but I suspect that's not going to happen in stock.

[Pthigrivi]

Even as some kind of extremely more energetic battery, I do not see the interest in it being refuel-able. Ion-drive -normally- don't land and have enough trouble getting good acceleration even in sunlight.

Ive done some really efficient apolo style duna missions with an Ion transfer stage that takes advantage of the landing stage's LVN's alternators during night-side burns. Id have loved to have just convert that fuel directly into electricity at that stage.

Have you played with Ion drives much?

[Kegereneku]

Since their thrust boost more, but I've always reserved Ion drive for small probes as their only engine, not on bigger spaceship for which I would use LV-N on tug/transfer stage for maximal efficiency.

In any case, I do agree with the use of fuel cell as a low tier "battery" (before solar panel) and I do see now how they would become useful again specifically to power a refueling base at night. In fact, as the only alternative would otherwise require a lot of RTG or sunlight, such power-source look to be an unforeseen requirement for deep space refueling on planet.

[Laie]

In any case, I do agree with the use of fuel cell as a low tier "battery" (before solar panel) and I do see now how they would become useful again specifically to power a refueling base at night. In fact, as the only alternative would otherwise require a lot of RTG or sunlight, such power-source look to be an unforeseen requirement for deep space refueling on planet.

During the day, we make fuel from water. During the night, we convert fuel to water so we can turn water into fuel. Sounds like a stab at a perpetual motion machine, though in KSP physics you may actually draw even.

[Kegereneku]

Ah drat !

It slip my mind we are not so much "extracting" usable resources as much as "converting" it so it become usable, which of course require more energy than the opposite reaction. Even in the fictional world of KSP I wouldn't want to break thermodynamic.

...so basically we will end up needing nuclear power-source if we want to refuel during month long night.

[Superfluous J]

Okay I'm going to throw in an idea I had that would actually implement what Squad said they're going to do, without implementing resource collecting/refining/etc: 3rd Party Refueling Outposts. We've already got random Kerbals ending up in orbit and other references to us not being the only space agency out there. So what if a 3rd party (Kexxon?) were just in this whole space thing to make a profit selling gas?

The way this could work with asteroids is that agency could give you a contract (Fine Print anyone?) to put an asteroid into a specific orbit. Probably not random, but equatorial at a random altitude and very low eccentricity. Once you've done that, it becomes a refueling outpost where you can dock, pay money for fuel, and then go about your merry way. They're not mining it. You're not mining it. You're paying about what it would cost to get the fuel up there, plus the cost of the fuel, plus a bit of a premium because you're saving yourself a ton of time and effort bringing it up yourself.

Edited November 28, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[CaptainKipard]

Is anyone interested in writing a summary of this thread? I just wrote one for the tech tree discussion, so I'd rather not, but this discussion is pretty important and long, so it should be done.

[pxi]

Is anyone interested in writing a summary of this thread?

I've given it a bash, it may or may not be complete, so please treat this as a draft/request for comment only.

What Squad announced: Deep Space Refuelling via Asteroids

Points of general consensus amongst the community within this thread:

• The system should be relatively simple, but ideally be expandable via mods.
  
• Ideally the system should reference real-world proposals for ISRU, at least from a lore perspective.
  
• There should ideally be some method of resource detection.
  
• The system is a mid-to-late-game feature, suitable for players who have mastered many of the basic mechanics of KSP.
  
• New parts should have an appropriate weight and consume appropriate amounts of electicity, in order to encourage ship specialization.
  

Points of debate amongst the community:

• The minimum number of mining/seed resources:
  
  • 1 single resource, eg: water
    
  • Multiple resources
    

  [*]The number of refined products produced from said mining resources.

  • One mined resource to produce all end-product resources.
    
  • Various mined resources from various sources to produce different end-products.
    

  [*]Whether all existing resources should be producible.

  [*] Where resources should be found:

  • Asteroids
    
  • Planet atmospheres
    
  • Planet surface
    
  • Planet oceans
    
  • All of the above
    

  [*]Whether there should be a straight conversion of mined resource to end product, or whether mined resources should be storable for later conversion.

  [*]Are resoures depletable, or infinite?

Edited November 29, 2014 by pxi

[CaptainKipard]

Did we agree on reworking resource properties (density, and engine ratios) to be more like RL? I made the argument that it would allow easier and more consistent implementation of modded resources.

I like that you added contentious ideas, I'll do that too from now on.

Could you link from the lists to specific posts for in-depth explanation, like I did here?

Edited November 29, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Kegereneku]

Nicely done Pxi, I think we should start a new thread using your summary once you feel it's complete (using the comment from SQUAD).

My comment : I would use it as it is now, that's nicely neutral.

though I would suggest to transcribe the following :

- Whether all required resources can be found at a single place, at rover driving distance, or require rocket flight

- Most participants have different visions of what is tedious or not, simple or complex. Big source of debate here.

- The question of using single or multi-purpose storage-tank

- There was a bipolar opposition on whether to "just pay to make fuel appear", though that was a very short and minor debate.

And finally some concern about player getting trapped into deadlock situation. But I guess we can sum it up with what you said about the difficulty of setting up the system .

I wish we could have really debated the question of : "Should Refueling require a manned mission ?"

It have 3 possible answer : Yes, No, Both (Kerbonaute would facilitate it in some way)

Did we agree on reworking resource properties (density, and engine ratios) to be more like RL? I made the argument that it would allow easier and more consistent implementation of modded resources.

I would say ABSOLUTELY DEFINITELY NOT.

And strongly advise against trying to settle it now.

No seriously, there was definitely a call for verisimilitude, but there was strong argument against MORE than that.

Could you link from the lists to specific posts for in-depth explanation, like I did here?

I strongly advise against this, specific & summary are antinomic.

[CaptainKipard]

I would say ABSOLUTELY DEFINITELY NOT.

And strongly advise against trying to settle it now.

No seriously, there was definitely a call for verisimilitude, but there was strong argument against MORE than that.

Which was...? You keep doing this. You naysay, and never back anything up. It's just assertion after assertion. Make an argument. Why is this so difficult?

[Red Iron Crown]

Kegereneku, what is this Kerbonaute to which you refer?

Also, I think single line summaries with links to more detailed posts are a good thing, they don't clutter up the quickly-readable summary while permitting the reader to easily find more info on a specific idea.

[Kegereneku]

Kegereneku, what is this Kerbonaute to which you refer?

Also, I think single line summaries with links to more detailed posts are a good thing, they don't clutter up the quickly-readable summary while permitting the reader to easily find more info on a specific idea.

I'm talking of Kerbonaut.

Also, that's no so much the link to the more detailed post that pose problem, it's that linking to specific idea enter in direct contradiction with the neutrality required of a summary.

A summary goal's is to expose as many idea as possible without ever going "in-deph explanation" and detail.

In our case the goal is to sum up neutrally everything that have been discussed in this thread, without inflating the importance of someone's idea.

Which was...? You keep doing this. You naysay, and never back anything up. It's just assertion after assertion. Make an argument. Why is this so difficult?

Indeed, why it is so difficult for you to understand ?

I gave you many arguments you still don't seem to understand while others clearly did.

To be very brief, you seem to take for granted that "realism = better" regardless of balance and game design. But it is NOT and I am not the only one arguing AGAINST your (and more reasonable from others) insistence that realistic "chemistry" is necessary in any way, some for volume/mass ratio.

MY reasoning, which was supported by others but you seem to keep forgetting it or still doesn't make sense of it, is that the name & value of KSP's fictional Liquid Fuel are unimportant (unlike the equation ruling them) and should even remain unfixed for the Developers to be able to balance the game more easily.

I don't see how I back up this point more than the fact game-design use fictional fuel since forever, and you are the only one who seem to have problem modding this. Trying to make the core-game into your "mods" when you should be modding the core-game to become what you need.

[Pthigrivi]

Nice synopsis pxi. What do people think of having a main gatherable fuel resource (H20) that requires a catalyst material to process into fuel? The catalyst could weigh 1/50th what it produces in fuel, but would be 10x more expensive by the pound (1/5 the cost of its final product). There could also be very rare deposits of it which could be mined and brought to a refining module with water to make fuel. Can any of you chemistry nerds suggest an analog? It seems like it could make for a nice compromise between the 1 vs 2 resource crowds.

What could be cool about it would be making it possible to mine fuel from the Mun and from asteroids, but at a cost, while planets have small catalyst deposits that could make for truly sustainable colonies. Maybe Duna has small catalyst deposits near the equator, but ice can only be found in abundance near the poles, making for difficult transfers. Laythe might have endless water, but catalyst must be brought from Val or Tylo to make use of it. Eve might have both, but you would need to gather water from sea's or geysers and transport it to catalyst deposits on land.

I tend to think maybe mono-propellant could be made from water (Hydrogen Peroxide?) without catalyst, but at a much lower efficiency, and perhaps xenon is only gatherable from atmospheres with the use of intakes and a special processing unit.

Another question is does having 2 fuel resources kind of necessitate an attachable fuel line? Ive made rovers and bases that dock to each other on the surface but its can be really tricky.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Kegereneku]

Basically, you suggest to bring some amount or magic catalyst to be allowed to extract greater amount of fuel anywhere.

- On asteroid you can refuel "only as much"

- But on planet you can try to mine or ferry catalyst from nearby biome/deposit

The idea sound reasonable to me if you stop trying to use resources unknown in the Kerbol system. I'm imagining myself playing it right now.

The use of a catalyst is very useful for balance

- Its mass can be arbitrary without hurting believability

- Its conversion rate can be arbitrary for any resources as well

Deposit can be stretched over entire biome...

To simplify prospecting

Giving players more freedom over their landing zone

With little imbalance since biome can be made rare.

All this can potentially only require one storage part and one extractor

while being compatible with Kerbal getting XP in engineering (for bonus)

I doubt many players will consider worth/amusing to bring catalyst from another planet/moon but I see no reason it can't be balanced at will.

Note : I think it would be necessary to limit the amount of resources found in asteroid or I imagine those becoming "infinite-engine powered by catalyst-fuel" (it would be amusing though)

[CaptainKipard]

I gave you many arguments you still don't seem to understand while others clearly did.

Nnnoo... I've looked over the thread it seems like most people either disagree or ignore you completely. And "Arguments" is not what you give. Look into what an argument is. I tried to explain, but it's not getting through.

To be very brief, you seem to take for granted that "realism = better" regardless of balance and game design.

Strawman. Those are your words, not mine, not to mention it's a really silly generalisation.

But it is NOT and I am not the only one arguing AGAINST your (and more reasonable from others) insistence that realistic "chemistry" is necessary in any way, some for volume/mass ratio.

Strawman. Dude the conversation has moved on from that a long time ago. Like I said before; You have not been paying attention. No one is going to do it for you.

MY reasoning, which was supported by others but you seem to keep forgetting it or still doesn't make sense of it, is that the name & value of KSP's fictional Liquid Fuel are unimportant (unlike the equation ruling them)

This is not even a coherent sentence, let alone an argument. Where's the premise? What the connection? How are you getting your conclusion? Why are you bringing up names and value at all? It has nothing to do with anything.

and should even remain unfixed for the Developers to be able to balance the game more easily.

This looks like a conclusion, but as always you've not backed it up with anything. It's a simple assertion.

I don't see how I back up this point more than the fact game-design use fictional fuel since forever,

This is circular reasoning. You're arguing for the status quo, by appealing to the status quo.

and you are the only one who seem to have problem modding this.

I can't expect you to know this because you don't mod, but why would you even have an opinion on it? The person who made the Community Resource Pack himself says it's difficult to get consistent behaviour with the way resources are now. Nathankell himself has said in a couple of my threads that modded resources based on real ones simple wont work with stock. You're just making stuff up. You don't know what you're talking about.

Trying to make the core-game into your "mods" when you should be modding the core-game to become what you need.

Another strawman. We're not arguing for modding the core game, we're arguing for making resources mod-friendly. Is that ok with you? It should be; you don't mod.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I just don't know enough about programming to know the memory implications of having lots of deposits everywhere each with a saved depletion status. I'm not against them being depletable, but requiring a catalyst could save them the trouble.

I think for flexibility of design, you'd still want a number of parts:

Catalyst storage:

0.18t radial mounted tank (enough to produce 1x X-200-16 tank of fuel) - 640 funds

0.72t, 1.25m in-line tank (enough to produce 1x jumbo-64 tank of fuel) - 2560 funds

3.28t, 2.5m in-line tank (enough to produce 2x S3-14400 tanks of fuel) - 9120 funds

H20 extractors:

0.5t Radial mounted drill (draws 4 e/s while operating) - 600 funds

0.8t, 1.25m in-line drill (draws 6 e/s while operating) - 900 funds

Processing Unit:

9t, 2.5m in-line fuel processor (draws 30 e/s while operating, produces 0.5t/s of fuel) - 12000 funds

Additional parts:

0.08t Radial mounted H20 detector (draws 1.5 e/s while operating) - 2400 funds

0.2t, 1.25m in-line biome surveyor (draws 2.5 e/s while operating) - 3500 funds

0.075t radial mounted fuel cell (converts fuel to electricity at 9 e/s consuming .005t/s of fuel) - 1250 funds

0.3t, 1.25m in-line fuel cell (converts fuel to electricity at 36 e/s consuming .02t/s of fuel) - 5000 funds

0.05t Field-deployable fuel line - 700 funds

So the smallest break-even-by-weight mining set-up would be 2 radial catalyst tanks, a radial drill, a processing unit and 2 gigantor solar arrays weighing 10.56t, costing 19880 funds, and capable of producing 18t of fuel. It wouldn't be worth the money at that scale of course, and only a much larger economy of scale (after approaching 2 orange tanks of fuel) would it start to pay off. You can save on weight with fuel cells, but at a 10% loss in efficiency.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Pthigrivi