Poll: monopropellant in the pod

[Bill Phil]

In career mode, even EVA fuel doesn't make sense to carry to orbit before you unlock EVAs.

Or, EVA suits take advantage of the fuel onboard. That's why it doesn't say EVA fuel.

[numerobis]

Or, EVA suits take advantage of the fuel onboard. That's why it doesn't say EVA fuel.

I'm confused. In career mode, you cannot EVA in space at all, until you've unlocked the upgrades that allow you to EVA -- when you try to EVA, the game gives a message saying what you need to upgrade (I've forgotten -- I think it's the astronaut complex?)

So if we're making EVA suits refuel from the mono prop supply in the pod, that supply is still useless until the astronaut complex has been upgraded.

[klgraham1013]

I really don't understand why the Dev's didn't keep pushing this idea. Yes it can cause your Kerbals to get stranded with almost no hope.

If they're worried about stranded Kerbals, just give us infinite liquid fuel too. Why even worry about any of your resources! Make all batteries have built in RTGs!

Re-entry heat effects without actual heat. Infinite EVA fuel. Essentially infinite life support by it's exclusion.

Thank science for mods. They're keeping this game alive.

[Camacha]

Monopropellant should not be in the pods and neither should any other resource. The whole idea of KSP is building and designing a craft. As such, it should all be as modular as possible and choices should not be dictated. Therefore, no RCS in the pods.

[Renegrade]

2. Add the EVA uses Monopropelent gameplay. I really don't understand why the Dev's didn't keep pushing this idea. Yes it can cause your Kerbals to get stranded with almost no hope. But at the same time the Claw and the new crew transfer system allows players to rescue any stranded ship regardless of where it is or how its designed.

They didn't push it because they're ScrubLords.

Exhibit A:

During experimental testing however, we noticed everyone was getting frustrated with it because those tanks, being just normal mono containers, would get drained out using RCS, and when it was time to EVA there would be no more fuel left for them. It didn't work as well in practice as it did in theory, and without a total rewrite of the RCS flow logic, which we just didn't have the time for, we had to think of something else.

RCS fuel flow was rewritten in... ARM? 0.24? It now uses stages for prioritization. Fuel flow: already rewritten. Problem: irrelevant now.

Exhibit B:

There were other issues as well, for instance, the mono on EVA suits had to be 'hacked' to zero density, otherwise the added weight would make Kerbals unable to walk properly (just those 5 units of mono was several times heavier than they are themselves). The EVA propellant resource can have its own defined properties, so it works without having to resort to hacky fixes.

5 units of monoprop is 20kg, and an EVA Kerbal is above 90kg. That's not "several times heavier". Plus the mods that add mass to the Kerbals haven't stopped them from walking (BTSM, EVAFuel, TAC_LS, etc).

Also if mass was such an issue, they could have easily converted the RCS propellant to EVA propellant at an aggressive ratio (like 5:1 or 10:1). The mass requirements to give a Kerbal 600m/sec delta-v is fixed - about 20kg, just by chance. Which JUST so happens to be 5 units of monoprop anyhow.

(Currently kerbals carry 0-mass fuel which gives them 624 delta-v via absolute nonsense and handwaving)

[klgraham1013]

snip

In conclusion, "ScrubLord" didn't manage their resources properly so decided hacks were better.

[Renegrade]

In conclusion, "ScrubLord" didn't manage their resources properly so decided hacks were better.

That's pretty much the short of it.

It really pisses me off since it was based on dated info (and he had to know the resource upgrade was coming eventually) and bad math or some other sort of error (ex. maybe he put 5 tons of monoprop on a kerbal, that would definitely make it impossible for 'em to walk..would be like being squished by a mk1-2 capsule). Now we have this annoying "infinite pushing the capsule" exploit, which is ruining the "authenticity" of the game.

People would be perfectly justified in adding a small 0.3kn engine to their pods that doesn't require fuel as long as this 'infinite pushing' nonsense exists.

Also if he really wanted to, he could have implemented EVA propellant in the capsule, and EVA propellant tanks for the game, which contained zero mass EVA fuel... The tankage would still add mass to a craft, so you couldn't have infinite pushing without infinite dry mass...

:C

[Whirligig Girl]

They should make a Kerbal carry only one unit of Monopropellant fuel for the Jetpack, but make the Isp of the thrusters higher so you have the same super-fun delta-v in the pack. This would mean you can have 50 EVAs out of a Mk1 pod! They only removed the feature because it meant you would accidentally use up all of your monoprop in the ship.

Or maybe just have a tank part of EVApropellant so that you can refuel without a space capsule. Or maybe you could have Kerbals capable of "docking" to each other to refuel eachother's jetpacks. (Say Jeb is floating in space with no more fuel, so Bill goes out to rescue him by giving him a puff of propellant.)

[tater]

Stranded kerbals are great, it just means a rescue op is required, and that;s already a stock thing anyway.

[Renegrade]

They should make a Kerbal carry only one unit of Monopropellant fuel for the Jetpack, but make the Isp of the thrusters higher so you have the same super-fun delta-v in the pack. This would mean you can have 50 EVAs out of a Mk1 pod! They only removed the feature because it meant you would accidentally use up all of your monoprop in the ship.

Running out of fuel IS part of the fun of KSP, as tater points out. The real, serious fun... not the five-minutes-and-it's-gone-one-time-fun of flying around in EVA. If someone wants to go EVA more, then they can simply put an external RCS tank on the ship. Part of the design fun then.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to letting kerbals transfer EVA fuel between each other for rescue-y reasons..just so long as it came from a real, fixed resource initially.

(note that the thrusters don't actually have an Isp; they're all completely fudged/imaginary BS. There's no specific impulse with a massless fuel as specific impulse IS per unit of mass/weight)

[tater]

Stranded kerbals is a rick anyway. You have infinite as long as you reenter the capsule, but if you run out outside… you are stranded. They need to have just enough for 1 EVA per astronaut, plus one extra, maybe. So 2 EVAs for a mk1, 4 for a mk1-2, etc (unless you have an RCS tank, then as much as you have there).

If they had kerbals drain the mono tank, maybe they could let them use RCS while grabbing (which would be a huge exploit right now).