KSP - Real Life part parity

[t_v]

I've seen quite a few suggestions asking for parts that more or less specifically reflect parts that exist in real life. Stuff like SpaceX or Blue Origins parts, parts from historic spaceflight missions or even parts from military aviation history. I'm wondering how close KSP should stick to real life in part design

KSP 1 had some parts like this, with the Mk. 3 parts representing the Space shuttle, many engines taking inspiration from real ones, and rover wheels looking like real rover and car wheels that have been used in spaceflight. there were even collaborations with the ESA to reskin or introduce parts that directly correspond to ESA crafts. 

In KSP 2 we already have seen some things, such as the Crucible engine being an analogue to the engine from the Daedalus project, the Orion drive and VASIMIR thruster, so there seems to be an effort to mirror theoretical technology in form as well as function. 

My question is, given all that, should KSP 2 try to create specific real parts based on current space agencies, companies, governments, militaries, etc. and if so, how should they do it? I think partnering specifically with space agencies after release and putting out parts to educate people about the capabilities and specialities of those agencies would be a good idea. 

[shdwlrd]

No they shouldn't. I'm going to use the "this isn't human space program" argument. I can understand using modern, past, and theoretical equipment as inspiration for parts. Most items will have similar design principles for a functional part. (Bells for engines for example.) But direct copies, no.

If they do work with ESA or NASA on a project in the future, then the fundamental design should be relayed, but with a Kerbal twist.

[PDCWolf]

35 minutes ago, t_v said:

My question is, given all that, should KSP 2 try to create specific real parts based on current space agencies, companies, governments, militaries, etc. and if so, how should they do it? 

This'd be great, but requires a lot more effort than just a 3d model and its texturing job. Real motors have a lot of components not even close to being simulated in the original game: Inefficiencies from deep throttling, chamber pressure dropoff, myriad of fuel combinations, etc. Add to that the fact that the universe is 10 times smaller, and you get a whole level of inconsistencies that's unreconcilable. This is exactly why Realism Overhaul pretty much requires RSS and breaks everything in the game if you don't get the real solar system size. This means they have to rework the parts for the toy scale, add the missing systems, and then somehow find a way to translate that to a performance level that matches the real world. The level of compromises they'd have to take makes it pretty impossible for it to be anything more than a simple visual representation (which some parts already are).

If we leave realism aside (which should be the point of something like this), I think it'd still be cool to see more real-life analogues, even if just visual.

[t_v]

The balance would have to be fit to the kerbal universe, naturally. But things like the MTM in KSP 1 which were designed to fill the same niche as in real life- to provide enough dV for a direct transfer to the Mercury analogue - were what I meant. Parts that I would be interested in seeing via collaboration, if they aren’t included in stock, are things like the balloons used for bouncy Mars landings, or parts like the sun shield that the James Webb has. Things that aren’t necessarily fuselage or engine analogues but instead are there to educate people about what things are really used in space flight. 
 

As for aesthetics, perhaps controversially, I don’t want to see even close visual analogues to real parts. An example of this is landing gear: I don’t want to see the triangular style of landing gear that spacex uses, I’d rather the larger landing gear be designed visually differently. Now this is a pointless example since we’ve seen how the larger landing gears look, and they look boxy, but this still stands for all the parts. I’d rather the visual design diverge a lot, while functionality is mirrored in educational collaborations. 

[The Aziz]

Depends on how far we're going with recreation. Engines may look like specific engines, but otherwise they're just that, they make things go. Mastodon may be inspired by F1 but is nowhere near being the most powerful engine in the game, or the biggest. Mammoth may look like it's made of 4 Vectors (RS-25) but if you compare them side by side...

SpaceX or Blue Origin landing legs then. On the plus side, they're very aerodynamic when retracted, and fit nearly seamlessly on a rocket. So if they happen to be somewhat recreated, I want them to keep the general idea (how they extend, how they fit on a rocket, their size) but otherwise they can look however the designer wants. Hell, give the SpaceX legs little feet as they extend for better stability, for all I care.

But then we have lander module introduced by Making History. It's clearly inspired by Apollo lander but also has so many functionalities that it serves only one purpose. It's hard to use it anywhere else other than a lander. I mean of course you can but there are better tools to do these jobs. Before that we had to make our own landers out of Mk1 Can, rcs thrusters etc. And we can use these parts in whatever configuration we want. So what I'm trying to say is that problem starts when a part is too specific and limits our creative freedom. I'd honestly vote for not adding the lander to KSP2.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

But then we have lander module introduced by Making History. It's clearly inspired by Apollo lander but also has so many functionalities that it serves only one purpose. It's hard to use it anywhere else other than a lander. I mean of course you can but there are better tools to do these jobs. Before that we had to make our own landers out of Mk1 Can, rcs thrusters etc. And we can use these parts in whatever configuration we want. So what I'm trying to say is that problem starts when a part is too specific and limits our creative freedom. I'd honestly vote for not adding the lander to KSP2.

This is a problem I have with many of making history parts, if we have to keep using the Lego analogy for KSP, Making History is Playmobil.

[The Aziz]

1 minute ago, Master39 said:

This is a problem I have with many of making history parts, if we have to keep using the Lego analogy for KSP, Making History is Playmobil.

Out of curiosity, which exactly? Sphere-shaped pods are a nice change from conical capsules, so I'll let them pass (plus you can squeeze 3 Kerbals in 1.25m sized rocket which is an achievement, and don't need a heatshield). Soyuz side mounted tanks aren't that different from usual SRBs or other LF boosters (and they're more aerodynamic), I can as easily apply them to a spaceplane. Admittedly I never used Kodiak engine, pretty much everything else is a better alternative. Used the Cub maybe once when I needed better thrust vectoring on heavy launch vehicle. Structural panels are useful for crazy contraptions, tubes are a godsend for fitting, say, a rover inside. Service modules are also pointless when I have service bays. The only problem I can find is with the Saturn V engine base. Yeah it does exactly one thing and fits only in one place.

[RealKerbal3x]

19 minutes ago, Master39 said:

This is a problem I have with many of making history parts, if we have to keep using the Lego analogy for KSP, Making History is Playmobil.

While parts like the MEM and the service modules really only have one use, I've found that most of the Making History parts have plenty of uses outside historical recreations. The 1.875m and 5m tanks are just as modular as any set of tanks in the base game, the Wolfhound and Skiff are great for efficient upper stages, and the spherical re-entry modules work out nicely as compact but crew-dense command pods.

There are some balance issues of course, but if you treat the parts like anything in the base game, rather than limiting yourself to using them for recreations, they're a nice expansion to the standard parts catalogue.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Out of curiosity, which exactly? Sphere-shaped pods are a nice change from conical capsules, so I'll let them pass (plus you can squeeze 3 Kerbals in 1.25m sized rocket which is an achievement, and don't need a heatshield).

The spherical capsules are too similar to each other and too specific to the DLC.

The first one is outright useless and the last one too powerful with 3 Kerbals and integrated heat shield.

Not that balance matters in KSP1, but still.

42 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Soyuz side mounted tanks aren't that different from usual SRBs or other LF boosters (and they're more aerodynamic), I can as easily apply them to a spaceplane.

Which will look like a plane with a Soyouz booster strapped to its nose.

For me that's definitely one of the worst offenders for parts that are too single-craft oriented.

A set of 2 or 3 inter-size adapters with a slanted variant, along with a variant for the separatron to be radially mounted un the center of the booster (instead of having to clip it inside manually) would have worked way better for all applications. Allowing you to easily recreate the Soyouz boosters at different scales and capacities.

 

35 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

The 1.875m and 5m tanks are just as modular as any set of tanks in the base game

And the part about the Soyouz booster I think also replies to this.

It would be difficult to make a new tank not as modular as all the others, but they still managed to do so with the Soyouz booster.

 

49 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Admittedly I never used Kodiak engine,

Funnily enough the Kodiak is my favourite part from that DLC, it's incredibly versatile, I have been using it as a rocket plane engine for my x-15 like planes.

 

That not to say that I don't enjoy making history parts, but any part that has any kind of versatility feels like it wasn't intended, that every new part was designed with a single craft in mind.

[t_v]

16 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Which will look like a plane with a Soyouz booster strapped to its nose.

I’ve personally used that part on the sides of spaceplanes to add extra fuselages/engines. It makes for a pretty sleek look. 

[SciMan]

I mean, I wouldn't object to having an RL-10 CECE or RL-10 LUNEX replica in KSP2.
Basically, I just like the RL-10 in general, whatever the variant. But if we could also have the RL-60 that would be great too.

For reference, those two specific types of RL-10 were purpose-designed to be lander engines, but they're still hydrolox so they're still very good upper stage engines too. And you can easily cluster them (the Centaur upper stage, which was the first application for any RL-10, initially used 2 of them).

In fact, there are probably enough hydrolox engines out there that we could have the entire KSP 2 hydrolox engine family be replicas of IRL engines (with stats chosen for game balance and not realism of course), and probably end up spoiled for choice when designing a hydrolox spacecraft.