Does oxidiser count as liquid fuel for contracts?

[Xander Tyrann]

I have a contract for a space station around the Mun, it askes for facilities for 16 kerbals, for 7500 power and 6000 units of liquid fuel.

When i accepted this contract i was excited for the challenge, but i didn't quite realise how much 6000 units of fuel is. and i need to do this spending less than 600k to make a profit using tech of 300 science or lower.

Anyway, most fuel takes contain liquid fuel and oxidiser for space. now i could take up space plane canisters with just liquid fuel, but that wouldn't make the station very useful in orbit of the Mun. So i'm wondering, Does it count Oxidiser for the purpose of this contract?


Also if anyone has any tips for this contract given the specifications above, I'd welcome hearing them.

[Xander Tyrann]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=924765536

[Cato]

I do not believe it does - if it asks you for 6000 LF (Liquid Fuel) it means 6000LF not a mixture of LF and OX - It is counting purely LF

You may find this contract easier slightly later in the game when your tech level advances - I had two contracts similar to yours and once I got larger fuel tanks (and larger engines) they where much easier.

i'm gonna go get a screenshot of my orbital stations

[Joschi]

Nope - Oxidizer does not count.

[Cato]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=924776387
This is the core of my spacestations - note that you will need an extra hitchhiker as this only has space for 13 you need 16

So you can do this for under 300k however I can tell you for a fact you will not have 6000LF left by the time you reach the Mun so you will need to send a fuel tanker to fuel it.

[Xander Tyrann]

Thanks for all the replies guys. Big help. I've spent way too long designing the living space for this station not to put it into space now.

I'm thinking of trying to put this up first and then sending another rocket with the fuel as cato suggested, especially as i don't think the aerodynamics of this will help with my efficiency XD

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=924806141
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=924806010

Has all my power and living space needs, It went a bit kraken on me so i added some struts which helped.


I'm thinking of going with half empty tanks with just fuel and sending up Oxidiser later when i have more science for effiency.

I'll let you know when it explodes.

[Xander Tyrann]

I did it!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=925196015

in the end it cost me ~280k. so made a profit, though as RoofCat points out, that ring was always going to cost me, but its worth it :P

i did it in 2 launches, one for the ring and another for the LF so the ring's drag etc. only affected the much lighter weight of the station and not the fuel.

Made it by the skin of my teeth when bringing up the fuel shipment, only had 100 oxidiser left when i connected the fuel ship carrying the 6k LF to the Station.

I will now use it as a refueling and science processing station for landers returning from the mun.

[Xander Tyrann]

Originally posted by RoofCatA:

rings are overrated. In fact there will rather never be ring like space ship designs like you see in so many (bs) movies. A lot of players build them in KSP too and that's actually a mistake, as KSP rewards realistic approach due to (semi)realistic physics.

The reasons are simple - safety and rigidness. But more importantly the main limiter in space - launch weight. Because of how volume relates to shell size for different shapes. Slim ring is very inefficient due to low volume and high mass, with most walls beeing external (have to be thicker, safer) in space and a lot of frame weight. Not to mention getting there through atmosphere with terrible drag.
Balls, cylinders and cubes are much more volume/weight efficient. Cubes would be harder to launch due to rockets beeing ~round for other reasons, while easier to build. Ball formed would be hard to build and waste some room during launch like cubes. So rather cylinders it is.
Which means there is no reason to build nonsense in KSP as well and then having trouble keeping it stable or together.

btw, each strut weights 50kg. 10 struts = 0.5t. Did you mention you have weight and delta v issues? ;) You can make houses fly in KSP, but that's neither cheap nor easy.

Yeah, for my first station i built around Kerbin i used modular girder sections with mini docking ports as connections, stored within fairing, to build outwards once i got the station in orbit. I used a tiny building drone which was far more effecient.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=925226122
My technique improved quite a bit since doing that so i can actually build straight now lol.

But its KSP and you sometimes you want to create you own challenges :)

Its actually one of my next goals to land a sterotypical house on the Mun as a base :)

[Toastie Buns]

Originally posted by RoofCatA:

rings are overrated. In fact there will rather never be ring like space ship designs like you see in so many (bs) movies. A lot of players build them in KSP too and that's actually a mistake, as KSP rewards realistic approach due to (semi)realistic physics.

The reasons are simple - safety and rigidness. But more importantly the main limiter in space - launch weight. Because of how volume relates to shell size for different shapes. Slim ring is very inefficient due to low volume and high mass, with most walls beeing external (have to be thicker, safer) in space and a lot of frame weight. Not to mention getting there through atmosphere with terrible drag.

Troll harder, as if Gundam would lie to us.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YIHgCShRDsA/VFKEduXYT4I/AAAAAAAEf8k/7xs4nKz8Cbs/s1600/1476158_978254065523840_1020488613047553613_n.png

Sidenote: Those little boxes in the ring can jettison and (presumably) RCS away (they used some sort of hydrazine thruster setup). It was where cargo was stored, the 'spokes' housed maglev trains for bringing ♥♥♥♥ in. Everything was modular, there's no 'launch it as a big thing' involved in making the ring.

Conclusion: There's no reason NOT to make rings. Rings are cool. If you don't think so, you're a square.

[Cato]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=925299599

Someone ask for a square habitat? ;)

[Xander Tyrann]

Originally posted by RoofCatA:

it's all too complicated :)
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=925307753
92,5oo$, 50-50km Mun orbit in the end with 6080 Lf in single launch. Science st., 8000 energy, antenna and docking port included.
Then decoupled the top MK1 command pod and sent my astronaut home with Spark. After which the station had just 14 seats left, but it doesn't matter after you get contract complete.
That's how you get rich

Thats actually remarkably similiar to the design i used for my fuel ship, except you have less engines for more weight XD. I think i needed 8 kickbacks and thats without the weight from living space.

the main difference seems to be how you have mk1 tanks for the fuel on the outside and dropped your boosters off that where as i was using all half empty rockomax for the LF and dropped my external fuel tanks with the boosters.. Also how you obviously actually know what youre doing beyond adding more engines!

[Toastie Buns]

Originally posted by RoofCatA:

I'm Death star fan for peaceful travel purposes - best volume for all my cookies.
And for battle - Tetrahedron. Because of the best weapon coverage with least blocked spots by the ship itself.

Oh ♥♥♥♥, you're into triangles? No wonder you hate us circle bros.