Add concrete to make the early game easier instead of oversimplifying everything

Keks shared this feedback 3 months ago
Under Consideration

Just a little idea to prevent the game from being oversimplified, while still making the early game easier.

The problem with the early game in SE is that a huge amount of materials is needed just to build a little starter base.

A good portion of the materials is iron, which is only used to build a basic structure with armor blocks. Iron has to be processed by machines to get the needed steel plates.

So, what Keen has done is:

  • Simplified how resources are obtained (materials from environmental voxels)
  • Simplified the production chain (no ingots and backpack building)


What if these exact issues could be countered by adding concrete blocks?

  • Concrete could be a cheap building block that can be obtained by mining stone and crafting it via backpack building.
  • This would massively reduce the amount of required iron.
  • The most remaining blocks aren't that expensive, so that the total amount of required resources is much lower.
  • Without that high demand for resources, it's not necessary to have materials from environmental voxels everywhere. It could be replaced with a more realistic and believable approach.
  • It's also not necessary to simplify the production chain that much because it loses a bit of its relevance in the early game (fewer items to produce). Add some slow, small but cheap machines for the early game but leave ingots in.
  • Backpack building should be limited to building concrete blocks and producing certain items from ingots (not smelting ores!), to keep it more or less believable and having a dedicated smelting/refining step in the game (this would be similar to Minecraft and Factorio, btw).

This wouldn't turn SE into a hyper realistic game, but it would be a fair compromise between believability and playability.

The idea of adding concrete is far from new and has countless votes on this site, but adding it now makes more sense than ever.


Nice side effects:

  • There would be a noticeable difference between building a base (concrete blocks) and a ship (armor blocks).
  • If concrete could not be crafted from asteroids, there would also be a difference in difficulty level between space and planetary gameplay.

Replies (7)

photo
2

Concrete blocks need a clear disadvantage compared to armor blocks to prevent fleets of concrete ships. I'm not sure if simply making them heavy and less robust is enough.

Maybe they should be restricted to static grids entirely?

photo
10

Restricting them to static grids and planets would be needlessly annoying, and having exceptionally high mass relative to other common structural blocks should be more than sufficient, even without low hp.


A solid 2.5m block of even the lightest EPS-concrete (not suitable for structural use) would weigh 40% more than the equivalent heavy armor block. If we eyeballed things with more reasonably (sturdier and more dense concretes in a hollow structure) we could still easily be looking at 4 times the EPS-weight (a bit over five and a half times the weight of heavy armor) for the lighter structural concretes.


If someone really wants to fly a "concrete-glider" so badly that they're willing to handle more than five times the mass of heavy armor for for the "light" stuff, then I see no reason to nerf them any harder than they're already going to be nerfing themselves.

photo
10

I'd also prefer more natural incentives rather than hard restrictions.

Like we used to build concrete ships in real life, they are much cheaper, but there is a reason we don't do that anymore. By adjusting properties of concrete blocks we might achieve the same effect in the game economy. And there still might be cases where using concrete on ships is justified. I am thinking about kinetic weapon systems and ramming ship designs. Concrete should be much easier to destroy and penetrate with weapons compared to proper armor. In other word, concrete is cheap but less effective than armor and can be used on non static grids only in certain situations and can be easily countered. The main usage would still be ofc as a cheap building material for static structures.

photo
2

Massive weight alone should be disadvantage enough for (not) using them in ships. Lets say concrete is somewhere between light armor and heavy armor n terms of strength but at least as heavy as heavy armor.

photo
3

Heavy should be incentive enough. With durability similar to stone voxels.

A Concrete ship would handle like a bathtub, and break apart at the slightest impact. Cheap? Sure. Effective? Meh. Good solution? Hell no.

photo
2

Assuming reinforced concrete, it can be pretty sturdy, but yes definitely too heavy to consider for ships save for maybe a huge concrete ram in the nose of my pocket space battleship. In those cases the added mass has an advantage :)

photo
2

did somebody say "concrete salvos as ammo for my mass driver?"

photo
2

Ho yesss concrete slavos what a realistic idear!!!....

So can i suggest ships in straw bale ???? a biological space biodegradable ship. fully natural.

photo
photo
13

I can imagine backpack building as having a small 3D printer attached to your suit.

That is a technology I can believe in and relate to. I loved SE1 for this very reason. It was abstracted in many ways, but it still remained grounded in reality and generally complied with the laws of physics. I also liked how mining worked in the game. In many other games you just point a laser beam and magically extract materials, while here we had proper drills that actually excavated voxels.

In SE2 we still have drills, but somehow they are now capable of extracting pure elements straight from the ground, basically acting as refineries too. So you are effectively already using “ingots” inside your backpack 3D printer - they just call them ores for some reason. If they were actual ores, we would need to refine them first, and there would be mass and volume reduction during processing. Instead, all drills - handheld and block versions - are perfectly capable of purifying whatever materials they mine while automatically voiding all the remaining waste.

And honestly, this is a huge step back in how the technology is portrayed and it breaks immersion quite badly. So yeah, bring back a proper refining step and limit backpack building to use ingots produced by refineries or smelters.

Now, going back to the concrete idea - there are actually countless possibilities here, and one does not exclude another.

To begin with, we should be able to “build” with voxels in survival. The prerequisite for that is of course being able to collect materials as they are, and this ties nicely into having a proper refining step. Instead of one generic stone or the three generic “environmental voxels” (which are basically just the same “stone” from SE1 with the same issues), all voxel materials could be collected directly and contain traces of different elements, if any.

This would allow players to place them back into the world immediately using some kind of dedicated tool, or even existing tools like grinders for shaping and “cutting” terrain. That alone would massively improve base building. Things like leveling terrain, building walls, landing pads, ramps, roads, tunnels, and so on — all without requiring production blocks for a true accessibility.

We already have different voxel hardness values in the game, so stone, gravel, sand, and similar materials could naturally serve different purposes. Most importantly, you would finally be able to repair voxels damage properly while saving huge amounts of PCU for things that you would otherwise "spend" block on.

The engine already fully supports this, as we can clearly see in creative mode. It is honestly beyond my comprehension why this is not an actual gameplay feature already. It feels like having a car but still pulling it with horses :)

Beyond simply extracting and placing voxels, players could even create entirely new voxel materials that do not naturally generate. For example, proper concrete.

Concrete could be made by combining specific rock-like voxels (such as calcite) with water. For that you might need a production block, or you could even pour water directly onto calcite material to convert it into concrete while consuming water in the process. That would actually feel immersive :)

Of course this would not be early-game technology. It would be intended for building large, durable structures. On top of that, we could still have rigid stone and concrete blocks of various shapes. Something similar to the XL blocks recently added to SE1 would work really well here, allowing players to quickly construct large bases out of relatively few blocks and cheap materials instead of mining half a planet worth of iron.

So yeah, bring back a proper refining step so we can collect all kinds of raw materials. There is nothing complicated about putting raw material into a refinery block and getting usable ingots out of it for your backpack printer. And if do not like word “ingots”, replace it with “filaments” or something similar and use those as the input material for onboard 3D printers and production in general.

Make the technology believable and it will also be intuitive so the new players will understand it naturally, instead of oversimplifying that was never even that complex.

And allow us to use voxels as actual building materials to simplify base construction. Why should I need to mine several iron deposits just to build a floor for my starter base? Or mine through "environmental voxels" for half an hour?

If voxels cannot be perfectly straight in every orientation, fine - let me at least build a 15x15 meter slab out of stone-like material. It would be extremely heavy and still much more brittle than steel blocks, but it would drastically speed up boring construction work and actually make things SIMPLER overall.

And guess what? We would not even need to refine things like gravel anymore. We could simply collect it directly. Combine it with iron grids and suddenly you can create gabions - metal cages filled with gravel - something that already exists in real life as cheap and ecological construction material.

Combine calcite stone, sand, and water and create highly durable concrete that cannot be damaged by collisions with grids, yet is still vulnerable to weapons and explosions. Perfect for defensive bases and protection against kinetic impacts.

Bases were always inferior to movable grids in SE. Concrete could finally give them a real sense to exist. You should not need to spend enormous amounts of PCU and valuable metals just to build a decent-sized base.

I want to build many bases, especially on planets. I want to use rovers and have them function as a real alternative to “helicopters” and rockets. But for that, we need infrastructure. We need roads, ramps, bridges, tunnels, terrain leveling — and we need the tools to create all of that in survival mode.

Not just drills. Why is it still so difficult to shape voxels the way we want? We need more terrain manipulation tools in survival too.

There is so much unused potential here, yet we barely hear a single word from the developers about whether they are even looking into these systems.

photo
5

Been thinking about this one, agree some sort of foundation concrete block would be useful and game-friendly.

photo
6

This is actually the first suggestion that's made me take the time to create an account and vote.

As someone who primarily plays on planets because I enjoy designing large bases, this has always been one of my biggest gripes with Space Engineers. It has never really made sense that nearly every structure—from a small outpost to a massive bunker—is built almost entirely out of steel armor blocks.

I think concrete would not only improve the early game, but also give bases their own identity instead of feeling like grounded ships.

To keep it from simply replacing armor blocks everywhere, I think it should have some meaningful tradeoffs. I'd make concrete:

  • About as heavy as heavy armor.
  • Better at handling impacts from collisions
  • Significantly weaker against combat/weapon damage.
  • Not airtight.

That would naturally give it a unique role. It would be ideal for planetary construction, foundations, retaining walls, landing pads, defensive barriers, and non-pressurized sections of space stations or hangars, while steel armor would remain the obvious choice for ships and pressurized or combat-critical areas.

Beyond the gameplay benefits, I think it would also dramatically improve the visual variety of the game. Concrete is one of the most essential construction materials in the real world, and its absence has always made bases feel far less believable. Adding it would create a clear distinction between buildings and spacecraft while opening up a whole new architectural style for both planetary bases and space stations.

photo
8

As for the properties of concrete:

Concrete should be very heavy—around 3–4 metric tons per cubic meter—so a 2.5-meter block should weigh 45–62 metric tons.This is not important for static structures.

Its damage resistance should be that of heavy armor—partly due to its great weight and partly because concrete blocks are solid, unlike standard light and heavy armor blocks, which, given their specific gravity, cannot be made of solid metal.

Other advantages and disadvantages:

- A damaged concrete block cannot be repaired normally; it must be removed and replaced

- The raw materials for concrete blocks should be inexpensive and easy to produce in large quantities

- Building concrete blocks “from a bacpack” is very impractical due to high material consumption. Machinery is required.


The airtightness of concrete structures is a consideration. In reality, concrete is sufficiently waterproof and gas-tight. Concrete blocks should be sized to allow for easy “construction” of an airtight structure inside concrete structure.


Ideally, there could be three types of concrete blocks:

- plain concrete—resistance equivalent to heavy armor

- reinforced concrete = a lightweight armor block filled with concrete—strength twice that of heavy armor

- high-strength concrete (concrete for fortifications) = a heavy armor block filled with concrete—five times the resistance of heavy armor

Reinforced and high-strength concrete could be airtight, just like light and heavy armored blocks.


There should be an option to use concrete as a material for the voxel hand—as a substitute for stone

------------------------------------------------------

In several threads, I have suggested the possibility of blocks made of smelted stone.

photo
4

@ 4Peace: I think drills also being refineries is worse than refining in the backpack. Because I think refining should be relatively slow in the mini-refinery, and if you use the backpack for refining, you can store the ore inside and refine it on the way to your next activity. Keen's choice, I would personally prefer a return to the SE1 concept with refining in the survival kit or refineries. Either way materials should show up as ingots after refining.

@Semtex:

A quick web search shows that real life concrete has a density around 2.3 metric tons per cubic meter, that would put the 2.5m block at 36 tons. Still massive and more realistic.

photo
2

so ive avoided this thread for a while, but now ive got a delivery mission for getting 100k of materials on planet to station... twice... so.... i would love to grab me some rocks, throw some mortar together and build some concrete drilling stations.


so heres what this needs... decay.. natural decay from physics vibration.


i was amped about wind. and making gliding machines... so i thought hey, wood! we can have some lumber too, natural decay, time based, non repairable. physical decay broken off from physics collisions, non repairable.


here we would have a real start going from "ive got these tools, to make those things, to get me over there." where i would subsequently get new things to make stronger things to get me WAY over there, then off planet. a more natural progression of materials for specific use cases.


lastly, im gonna be honest about this one, i really think the "lack of ingots" and it being "super easy" is just short term for practical application of the current state of development. all that stuff can easily just swich gears later on after Keen have worked out all the game development goals.

photo
3

I also like the waste material handling I love to hate the damn stone waste getting everywhere It ads to the later game complexity especially late game with huge production.

photo
photo
1

Concrete would be too porous to use for general use. If we handwave this away, it is too brittle to use in something that moves. Where as metal can be melted/hammered back into shape, concrete would have to be ground down into concrete powder and replaced. So damage/repair would have the consequences of removing it from the grid, potentially collapsing other damage or things that only connect to that block.


That said if someone is hellbent on a concrete ship or orbital base, a second composite ( reinforced and sealed) concrete block could exist that would require concrete, steel and plastic. That would have the mass of concrete, and the sealing against space and water, but would really be something intended to be “Heavy armor”/Structural, and be broken off like Lego bricks if subjected to bending.

photo
1

IMO, it would have to be a permanant static non convertable material. unable to add to a ship grid. and "demolition" would result in it becoming voxel fill use only.

photo
photo
5

Semtex: Other advantages and disadvantages: - A damaged concrete block cannot be repaired normally; it must be removed and replaced

Kisai: Where as metal can be melted/hammered back into shape, concrete would have to be ground down into concrete powder and replaced.


We should have a 'scrap' line on a block, just like we have a 'functional' line, on the block's component bar. Where that 'scrap' line is placed means that when damage or grinding brings that block's durability below that line, the block cannot be repaired, and must be completely replaced.


Lots of balancing ideas for this in SE2. A combat example would mean that welders only work on blocks that are not damaged below the 'scrap' line. Different blocks (i.e. concrete) would have the 'scrap' line placement at different levels in the block, closer or farther from the 'functional' line, depending on the type of block. Lots of ideas.


Would also create the necessity of fragile blocks vs sturdy blocks, as mentioned. Armor blocks would have a low scrap level with a high functional level, for instance. Some mods already have this, it would also be good addition to the gameplay logic, I think. It makes sense in real life, some damage amount to things is repairable, and some is too destructible to repair without scraping the whole thing starting anew.

photo
3

Splitting building and repair is genuinely an interesting idea, IMO.

We've always had the very simplified concept of doing everything with a single welder. On one hand it's simple and intuitive, but on the other it creates several gameplay problems.

One thing I always admired about the original game was its believable take on mining. While many similar games just let you point a laser at the ground and magically collect resources, SE used actual drills to excavate raw materials.

Unfortunately, SE2 moved away from that idea. Drills no longer just collect material - they instantly refine it into pure first-stage production resources. You can't collect true raw materials anymore. As soon as a working drill touches a voxel, that material is permanently destroyed and replaced with a small amount of purified resources, or nothing at all.

But back to welders.

One of the biggest exploits has always been auto-repair during combat. No matter how badly a turret or any other block was damaged, you could simply weld it back to full health (or build new from projection). While limited combat repairs can be an interesting gameplay mechanic, I don't think a universal "magic welder" should be able to completely rebuild anything on the fly.

If a block is damaged beyond a certain threshold, it simply shouldn't be repairable anymore. The same should apply to printing drones, missiles, or other equipment during combat.

Actual construction could instead require a completely different type of machinery - large, heavy, energy-hungry industrial builders. Something you'd realistically only install on a stationary base or maybe a large capital ship. Smaller ships would have to fight with whatever equipment they brought and then return to a carrier or base to restock missiles, drones, and other supplies.

What this game really needs is more reasons to build specialized grids, not fewer. Instead of universal "do everything" ships, we should have purpose-built bases, carriers, logistics ships, repair vessels, factories, and so on. Weaknesses are a good thing because they encourage variety and meaningful tactical decisions.

Once you've evaded an enemy's missiles and permanently disabled their turrets (ideally after identifying their condition with advanced scanners), you should know they can't simply rebuild everything in the middle of the fight.

The same goes for ammunition. It should be a finite resource, or at least much more significant in terms of weight and logistics. Personally, I don't like weapons pulling ammo directly from a universal cargo container. Ideally, you'd load dedicated magazines, which would add considerable mass. Weapons would only draw ammo from those magazines.

Reloading magazines could even be a manual task. Suddenly, having a second engineer on board becomes a real advantage. Now you have meaningful trade-offs: carry more magazines and sacrifice agility, or stay lighter and accept limited combat endurance.

And finally, the scrap mechanic.

I really like the idea of a "scrap threshold." You could recover components only down to that point. Grind the block any further and you only get scrap. Scrap would behave more like raw material that has to be processed again before it becomes usable.

I'd even go one step further: a basic hand grinder shouldn't be able to recover advanced components at all, or perhaps not components above a certain size. To properly recycle damaged grids and recover expensive parts, you'd need dedicated industrial grinder blocks.


That would make salvaging and recycling into proper engineering activities instead of just holding left mouse button on everything.

photo
3

Degree of block damage—there should be several levels of damage: functionality, transfer of ownership, reparability threshold, scrap...

But IMHO, as long as a block exists as a block, it should be repairable regardless of the extent of damage, even if it costs as much as building a new block or takes longer time (time to remove debris and scrap). Thus, without the need to create a “new block” in the grid. The reason is obvious—it maintains the continuity of the grid.

When it comes to resources, raw materials, and building materials—the whole thing is done wrong.


And I agree with 4Peace—the game should encourage players to build specialized ships and bases (or motherships). It makes no sense for a small ship to have a factory on board for producing missiles (or even ammunition).


In my humble opinion, the developers’ focus is on the “fighters,” not on the builders, engineers, and explorers. This is precisely what accounts for the “simplicity”—or even “stupidity”—of the solutions and rules used.

That's also why there are absurdities like “space pirates.” What do these guys live on? Where do they get their resources, energy, and food? Where do they repair their ships?

For an engineer or builder, they’re a useless and annoying element of the game. But for “fighters,” they’re necessary—they give “meaning” to their playstyle.

photo
1

A scrap line mechanic would be cool, but would also cause some difficulties, as you mentioned. As far as introducing a 'scrap component' to the game, or leaving the components salvageable, is a good question. Also, after a combat engagement...or hitting some trees and rolling around on the ground...blocks that are 'un-repairable' would require extensive refitting/rewelding for your grid. A massive time sink for larger grids or bases. Maybe a game mechanic to ease that, somehow.

photo
1

i could totaly see this. scrap line for end result being block fill, concrete putty to repair damage

photo
2

If a block is damaged below the repair line, it can no longer be repaired with a welder block, but it can still be rebuilt using a Builder block without necessarily grinding them down completely (which would be annoying imo). The idea is to separate building from repairing.

Building would be done by heavier, more power-hungry machines called Builders, while repairs would be handled by the existing Welder blocks. Players could also manually repair heavily damaged systems by carrying the missing critical components with them. After all, you're an engineer, and dealing with unexpected failures is part of the job.

Having an additional engineer on board larger ships would become a real advantage, as they could manually restore critical systems that automated welders cannot. Traditional Welder blocks would still be useful, but they would be intentionally less capable when it comes to repairing severely damaged blocks.

photo
2

Some of these ideas would be better as a separate post.

photo
1

For active combat, the salvage line would balance out the implementation of welders into the armor/blocks of your ships, necessitating the idea of a 'complete' grind down to rebuild and repair, but with : "If a block is damaged below the repair line, it can no longer be repaired with a welder block, but it can still be rebuilt using a Builder block without necessarily grinding them down completely (which would be annoying imo). The idea is to separate building from repairing."

...maybe to implement a distinction between a blueprint 'builder' station(for creating) vs a blueprint welder station(for repairs). Could solve some interesting balance issues. Neat idea 4Peace.

(edit)

photo
photo
2

I think we’re all circling the same core issue from different angles: early‑game construction feels too iron‑heavy, and the current “environmental voxel → pure resource” system doesn’t behave like a finished mechanic. Some voxels give nickel, some give iron, some give nothing at all, and asteroid voxels are wildly inconsistent. The texture‑based ore hints are there, but they’re not fully wired up yet.

That feels exactly like an alpha placeholder — something to keep survival functional while the deeper progression systems are still being built. I haven’t seen anything from Keen suggesting this is a final design choice, and nothing in the game’s behavior contradicts the idea that refining, ingots, and proper resource chains will return once the foundation is stable.

Concrete fits neatly into that future progression without requiring the current temporary systems to be final.

It solves the early‑game resource bottleneck without needing a full redesign of repair mechanics, salvage logic, voxel tools, or progression. It gives us a cheap, believable, stone‑based building material that takes pressure off iron and lets the early game breathe.

Concrete can exist as:

  • a static‑only material
  • heavy, brittle, and non‑airtight
  • repairable only up to a scrap threshold
  • convertible to voxel fill when demolished
  • produced from stone‑type voxels
  • crafted early‑game without needing full ingot progression

That alone solves the early‑game construction problem and gives bases their own identity. Everything else — proper refining, voxel placement, salvage systems, industrial builders — can be layered in later as SE2’s systems mature.

Right now the game is still in alpha, and the missing systems are almost certainly temporary. Concrete is one of the few suggestions that improves early‑game pacing without locking the devs into a huge redesign. That’s why it makes sense now.

photo
3

Good take.

Ideally I’d like concrete to require liquid water to make. Yes, this will make it less universal and early game available, unless you spawn near water. On the other hand it might be an intentional design for players seeking a body of water as first priority in early game. Iron can be made more rare and requires good scanning tools to find rich deposit. Concrete would be very valuable early game construction material once there is a more harsh weather in game forcing you to build cover for you and your rovers/ships/drones and even static equipment (imaging a hurricane damaging your refineries if exposed to open air). And there might be planets with even more challenging weather, making hi volume concrete producing a super important investment. At the same time, concrete blocks have to be really big, so you can finally afford building giant hangars and bases in general without worrying too much about PCU. This is assuming concrete is considered a block to begin with. Concrete might be instead a voxel material you add to the world. There can be plenty of methods of you doing it. In either case, having in your disposal giant concrete slabs, ramps, columns as blocks would work too. I’m talking about giant pieces, 15 meters or more. This way you can really build big bases using few PCU.

Converting beton structures into voxels when damaged is an interring idea. But I wonder if players would build dummy structures and damage them to create voxel material intentionally. I think it should be possible to collect and place voxel materials in general, not as an exploit of concrete mechanic. At this point you can use both tools to your advantage: build with concrete and terraform land around you. I would really like to be able to flatten an area for large ships landing, organize a park by placing grass voxels, make simple gravel roads and so on. And ofc be able to repair those annoying holes. All this will make playing on planets and moons reasonable, building bases and rovers not a waste of resources and PCU, but a valid grids giving you real advantages and therefore gameplay reasons to make.

photo
2

Water could be used for voxel-type concrete.

A tool—like a concrete cannon—could allow players to spray concrete into the world, which implies that the concrete is more liquid.

This way, there would be basic concrete blocks as well as more advanced voxel concrete that requires water and a tool.

photo
1

what about taking PCU out of the equation for planetary concrete structures? if that were possible, it would make even more of an argument for concrete.


almost like a world building voxel hand tool fed by the stone component (and perhaps even water to give another reason to find a good source of it) and build permanant or semi permanant voxel bases on planets.


it may be getting even further out of the scope of the post, but its an idea that may be worth thinking about, implementing the voxel hand in a useful way in the survival world. convert voxels into components, then re-apply voxels using the "concrete pump". heh concrete cannon... more like a concrete building printer that we control.


the scale and mass of it all would be the determing factors then on how little or how much we find use for it. and if it ends up being something that we have to wait to have until liquid water becomes a thing... that will bring us to this post i thought up recently.


https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/55891-liquid-water-and-its-effects-on-the-hydrogen-system-and-resource-balance

photo
photo
1

It is most likely PCU applies to blocks that have a status. eg destructibility. If it was not mobile then its PCU should be zero. There is no momentum or physics properties. It would still have a delta against the voxel space however, so if it was designed as “fill” (same with water) then the PCU should only have a voxel state to track, and can be paused when not visible.

photo
1

Mmmmh!

Im not sure the game make any difference between ship/base or ground/space so make concreet block have an hit absorbtion. but make it unable to keep atmosphere and porus to it. Unfortunately ther eis no atmosphear features...

You can add plastics too... but i don't know how you can add plastic recipes, there is no petroleums... maybe some fruit plants.. an fibers/sap from trees? let make us external with heavy/shielded materiels, and keep interior with lights materials.

May build lighter ships...

photo
1

I'm assuming the "water" update in the future will cover resources that would only be found on a planet that has a biosphere.


From a purely science angle, Oil, Coal, Peat, Wood, Grass (including rice and corn) and most other biomass are carbon sources as a resource. When you find any of these in reality, they can be burned, but to get plastics you need to do a bunch of refininig steps. Most games that introduce oil or coal as a crafting resource ignore the reasons why a planet would have them. Oil and Coal are different versions of "ancient decaying life". Oil is from ancient plankton filled oceans that decayed. Coal is from plants in ancient swamps. So "oil and coal" in space is never a thing. We will not find it on asteroids or the Moon. If Mars or Venus ever had life on it, there is a possibility of it having oil, or even coal if it got as far as plants before the atmosphere changed, but any planet like that in a fictitious story/game, likely would be impossible to find such resources since part of the reason we can even find either is from oil seeps (see the La Brea Tar pits as an example) or erosion of the surface. Many games usually get the idea of a coal vein or oil "pit" correct enough for the player not to question it's existence as a mechanic.


But hoo boy, if a player wanted to power a starship from just biomass/coal/oil, it would just never be possible without first doing something to convert that energy into a battery or hydrogen (from natural gas in oil) fuel source.


That's why I'm fine without it being an fuel-energy source in the game, but I think plastics would be something that still has to exist at some point, and to make plastics would still require a dedicated carbon source, which means things like steel has to then "use it" since that's something that is missing from the production cost.


Concrete likewise likely can't exist in the game without there being defined calcium / "limestone" as a resource as well as "water", so I would not expect concrete to exist before liquid water does, and if you're going that far, oil/natural-gas and coal should exist to complete the biosphere resource extraction. Likewise if you have liquid water, electrolysis to get hydrogen/oxygen directly from it would be a thing. Though a ship might have to "fuel up" from a land-based/water-adjacent base instead of always finding solid ice for it. That said the game could also stop using infinite-energy/hydrogen/oxygen work arounds for the safe bases then, as you could simply make most safe bases be near a body of water and have massive concrete structures to support multiple heavy ships.


Another, sillier, way to go about is to mine carbon as just "diamond" material and use that as concrete along with other kinds of rock material. Diamond "Veins" would be something you'd only really find on planets with present or past vulcanism, since there is otherwise no way for the diamonds to form naturally. However making artificial diamonds for just "crafting material" could/should be possible using any carbon-source input. Likewise graphene (something described as being stronger than steel) is a carbon material. Graphite is also a carbon material. So Diamonds, Graphite, Graphene are all carbon sources. To get plastics (eg PET or polyethylene terephthalate) you need Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen (let's forget how the materials actually are refined.) So theoretically you could maybe make "graphene" concrete composite (actual reality.) to make concrete atmospherically/liquid sealed. So either way a reason for carbon to exist would have to be there.

photo
1

hhmmm...Blue Origin Alchemist project. They can take lunar regolith from anywhere and make solar cells, aluminum wire, oxygen, iron, and 'construction materials'.

photo
1

Kisai – I wouldn’t put it in such pessimistic terms.


In the universe—or, more precisely, within a single star system—there is always a relatively abundant supply of carbon and carbon-based materials—not just hydrocarbons. Giant planets are largely composed of methane; their moons, unless they are too close to the star, often contain methane, ethane, hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide, CO₂, CO, and, in smaller quantities, other hydrocarbon compounds, including all amino acids.

The origin of oil and natural gas can also be abiotic. A significant amount of water, CO₂, hydrogen, and carbon is trapped deep within the Earth’s mantle. These resources are present at ppm levels, but the Earth’s mantle is 85 times the volume and 145 times the mass of the Earth’s crust. There is pressure, there is heat—that is, energy—and millions and billions of metric tons of various catalysts. And millions and billions of years of time...

Diamonds also crystallize in the depths of the Earth’s mantle and reach the surface—the Earth’s crust—during rather unusual and rare volcanic events, when deep magma rapidly rises to the surface (it must be very rapid; otherwise, the diamonds in the magma will dissolve again as the pressure decreases).

Concrete—or a concrete-like material—does not have to be produced using only water. Sulfur can be used just as effectively in concrete-like mixtures.

By the way, you don't need life for carbonates to exist. All you need is liquid water (rain) and CO2 in the atmosphere. And enough time...


The possibility of producing construction and structural elements from molten stone or artificial/molten basalt is largely ignored. Yet it is a very high-quality material with a surprisingly wide range of applications.

Extreme abrasion resistance: It withstands mechanical friction better than alloy steels.

High compressive strength: It withstands extreme surface loads.

Chemical resistance: It does not corrode and resists almost all acids and alkalis.

Non-absorbency and frost resistance: It has zero porosity, does not absorb water, and does not crack due to freezing.

Heat resistance: It shows no significant changes in properties up to 300–400°C and melts only at 1100–1250°C. Basalt fibers, fabrics, and basalt wool can withstand temperatures ranging from minus 240°C to plus 500–750°C over long periods.

Long service life: Products often last for decades without wear and tear.

There are technologies for plasma and laser welding of basalt components. The welds are watertight and gas-tight. Technologies also exist for plasma, laser, and other direct welding of basalt components to steel components (without intermediate bonding or sealing layers). The joints are watertight and gas-tight.

photo
Leave a Comment
 
Attach a file
You can't vote. Please authorize!
You can't vote. Please authorize!