|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 4, 2017 5:48:05 GMT
The ingame 3He costs 5.42 c/kg compared to 4He's 4.7 c/kg. This 13% difference in cost is unnaturally low considering that 3He is 10,000 times less common than 4He.
This disparity combined with issues noted by others related to material costs leads me to believe that the pricing system is due for a overhaul.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 4, 2017 5:52:12 GMT
Wait, can you show me the code of Helium-3?
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 4, 2017 5:57:06 GMT
Wait, can you show me the code of Helium-3? From Data/elements.txt Element Helium-3
Symbol He-3
AtomicMass 3
AtomicNumber 2
MolarMass_g__mol 3.0160293
IsANonmetal true
FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 2372.3
MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 6.26e-3
MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b .849
MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 1.15e-6
MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 3.66
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b 3.25e-3
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 9.27
SolarAbundance 2.7e5
Emission Helium
Element Helium
Symbol He
AtomicMass 4
AtomicNumber 2
MolarMass_g__mol 4.0026
IsANonmetal true
FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 2372.3
MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 6.26e-3
MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b .849
MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 1.15e-6
MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 3.66
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b 3.25e-3
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 9.27
SolarAbundance 2.7e9
Emission Helium
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 4, 2017 5:58:31 GMT
Wait, can you show me the code of Helium-3? From Data/elements.txt Element Helium-3
Symbol He-3
AtomicMass 3
AtomicNumber 2
MolarMass_g__mol 3.0160293
IsANonmetal true
FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 2372.3
MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 6.26e-3
MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b .849
MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 1.15e-6
MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 3.66
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b 3.25e-3
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 9.27
SolarAbundance 2.7e5
Emission Helium
Element Helium
Symbol He
AtomicMass 4
AtomicNumber 2
MolarMass_g__mol 4.0026
IsANonmetal true
FirstIonizationEnergy_kJ__mol 2372.3
MicroscopicThermalNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 6.26e-3
MicroscopicThermalNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b .849
MicroscopicFastNeutronCaptureCrossSection_b 1.15e-6
MicroscopicFastNeutronScatteringCrossSection_b 3.66
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralCaptureCrossSection_b 3.25e-3
MicroscopicResonanceIntegralScatteringCrossSection_b 9.27
SolarAbundance 2.7e9
Emission Helium
Well, that's just weird.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 4, 2017 6:05:53 GMT
Yeah, it's pretty bizarre. The same issue affects a lot of things, like potassium and selenium being cheaper than carbon despite being far less common.
|
|
|
Post by qswitched on Jun 11, 2017 18:54:40 GMT
Solar Abundance is only one of many factors for determining price. Other factors include outgassing potential, volatility, roughly estimated production costs, molecular complexity, fissile fuel cycles, and radioactive half lives.
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jun 11, 2017 20:53:55 GMT
Solar Abundance is only one of many factors for determining price. Other factors include outgassing potential, volatility, roughly estimated production costs, molecular complexity, fissile fuel cycles, and radioactive half lives. So, as a result, can you find a way to severely nerf Graphene/Carbon Nanotubes even more based on production costs?
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 11, 2017 22:34:51 GMT
Solar Abundance is only one of many factors for determining price. Other factors include outgassing potential, volatility, roughly estimated production costs, molecular complexity, fissile fuel cycles, and radioactive half lives. That's why I chose this element as my main example, as the other factors you listed should be almost identical. You system seems to rate solar abundance far too lowly and puts too much weight on other factors. 3He should be at least as expensive as tritium, its decay parent.
|
|
|
Post by qswitched on Jun 12, 2017 1:40:20 GMT
Solar Abundance is only one of many factors for determining price. Other factors include outgassing potential, volatility, roughly estimated production costs, molecular complexity, fissile fuel cycles, and radioactive half lives. That's why I chose this element as my main example, as the other factors you listed should be almost identical. You system seems to rate solar abundance far too lowly and puts too much weight on other factors. 3He should be at least as expensive as tritium, its decay parent. Solar abundance relevance to cost is asymptotic (that's why Hydrogen isn't insanely cheap compared to everything else. It's cost is entirely in other factors.). Helium-3 is abundant enough to be in the same boat, where abundance is irrelevant compared to all the other factors. Regardless, in the next patch, costs can be overridden via mods at your pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jun 16, 2017 21:55:52 GMT
So, as a result, can you find a way to severely nerf Graphene/Carbon Nanotubes even more based on production costs? You could change graphene's element count from 1 to 100k or 1M to inflate its price massively while allowing to the game to arbitrate the exact value by itself within its own system.
|
|
utilitas
Junior Member
I can do this all day.
Posts: 59
|
Post by utilitas on Jun 17, 2017 6:11:47 GMT
Due for an overhaul? I'd rather an entire simulated economy.
For example, the extraction and processing of helium-3. An isotope formed in a variety of ways, it can be found anywhere with an active main sequence star. Specifically, there are three sources of helium-3 I'd point to: The surfaces of airless bodies near the Sun, excretions of the Sun and the Sun itself. The first is the simplest way of obtaining helium-3 - just park on Mercury or the Moon - or the gas giants, actually - and scoop it up. The second would involve statite ram scoops or other similar megastructures to collect the Sun's flares directly, cooling them down and sorting hydrogen and helium into tanks as well as any metals. Then there's just taking it directly from the Sun using stellar lifting and artificial stellar mass ejections. That last one is probably unfeasible for this setting, but the first two could be done. Without lifters, using plain solar abundance as a basis for a material's cost is invalid.
Then there's the possibility of producing helium-3 in breeder reactors, though it may be inferior to plain collection. Gather data using estimations, assign weights to each and you'll have a yearly rate of production in tons. Then multiply that by an estimated cost of production (the sum of all the maintenance and workforce pay per a single ton for each method) and you've got the going rate for each rate. Then add in transportation costs to the area of manufacture, process tax and you've got a figure.
This could lead to a stock and market system that, honestly, could add a whole additional dimension to the game. You could pick a preferred manufacturer, ferry and route to optimize prices for the specific station where you're commissioning new spaceships or simply refueling the old. Synthesizing your fuel in breeder reactors might be cheaper out in the trans-uranian regions than in Mars' orbit, but cheap and tax-exempt, barely-legal shipping might make that moot (though it might take a few decades to arrive, and there's no guarantee half of it will arrive at all.) And that's just the matter of helium and hydrogen production - once you add in manufactured materials like UHMWPE or even plain rubber, the supply chains and markets might get real interesting. But that would only work for a dynamic campaign, wouldn't it?
But for now, adding something as simple as listing all the different factors taken into each cost would be nice. I'd like to know exactly why something costs so much, down to solar abundance and outgassing. Note that these costs aren't really the same, and could vary from container to container - at least raw material costs should be separate from the maintenance and building costs required to store it - in the case of fuel.
|
|