What's happened to the Kerbal SPACE Program?

[Uncle Mort]

First off I’ll admit I don’t do aircraft or spaceplaces; up to the point where I don’t even upgrade the SPH or the runway.

Having said that, the recent upgrades and the much heralded version 1 (hurrah!) seem to be overdoing the “aero†side of the game and neglecting the “space†side of the Kerbal Space Program. I now have loads of cockpits, cargo bays and passenger modules for aircraft but still have to resort to using the “hitchhiker†for all my space stations, bases and spacecraft passenger modules. The cupola and research module do add a bit of variety but not enough.

Now I read about even more (and much bigger!) wing parts on way, as if there isn’t enough already. Enough is enough, let’s have more (and bigger) space modules for living, storage and even colonisation.

Before I get inundated with links to various mods please note I’m saying that calling the next upgrade Version 1 implies a certain amount of completeness, and it ain’t so.

And a two-Kerbal capsule would be nice as well.

[John FX]

I also do not bother with the SPH but I am looking forward to the aero model update as it will make the rockets I build matter in stock, as opposed to the best rockets being asparagus pancakes.

I'd like the pure rocket/space parts to get a similar amount of love to the spaceplane parts.

Procedural fairings will be nice, as will a version of FAR and DRE. I'd like the range of engines to be looked at. Often I need a 100kn low profile engine for landers but all we have is some roughly 200kn engines, most of which are quite tall and then a jump down to 50kn light lander engines.

Some mix of the poodle and the 909 would be nice. 100kn, low profile roughly 1T and about 380 ISP with terrible atmo ISP to balance gameplay if needed.

More capsules would be nice, also more sciencey parts.

[SaturnV]

Well, I don't think the refueling system are made for aircraft, so do all those balancing and control overhaul. If you really hate those new aero parts you can just delete them instead of blaming Squad.

I can't say that you‘re wrong, however, since ksp IS a rocket game in the first place. But aircrafts are fun and more importantly they are mainly designed for shuttles and SSTOs which play an important role in space program. I see no problem Squad concentrating their focu on a more realistic aero model for this game.

[Daze]

Yes, we certainly need more station parts (maybe inflatable one, please Squad!) and more variety for rockets

Edit: And maybe since Porkjet is now working with Squad he can make the other parts too since he give an incredible stock touch to his parts

[PB666]

First off I’ll admit I don’t do aircraft or spaceplaces; up to the point where I don’t even upgrade the SPH or the runway.

I don't do sp either, but I've found a ton of uses for space plane parts

http://i.imgur.com/7mJToGy.jpg

[Red Iron Crown]

Can't say I disagree with the OP. I mess around a bit with planes and spaceplanes but they aren't the focus of my game, I'm all about rockets, orbital craft, and landers. Better aero and reentry heat are welcome additions (especially reentry heat) for me, but there does seem to be a dearth of new parts for non-plane spacecraft.

I'd also echo the desire for a 2-kerbal hitchhiker or pod. Cylindrical with 1.25m nodes at either end. And an orbital engine with Isp/TWR between the LV-N and the best chemicals would be useful, too.

[Uncle Mort]

I'm not blaming Squad merely pointing out (IMHO) that the direction of recent upgrades hasn't necessarily gone in the way I'd like.

[Liowen]

There are lots of things that should be added to make rockets more enjoyable and streamlined, yet I have my doubts that those items will be implemented beyond mods. Nosecones that have fuel in them to make them a useful part wold be a nice idea, currently they are nothing more than a part to add to the part count. Containers to store things like; rovers, science experiments, spare parts, and just to make the rocket a bit cleaner. Better landing legs would help with heavy landers/ground bases, rather than making static legs to make up for it. More crew pod/can choices and/or revamp of the ones we currently have, the two man can is kind of ugly IMO. Just a few of the glaring ones, not listing fairing because it has been said to death.

[Puddin]

Are you kidding me? We are getting mineable (if that is really a word) asteroids. This is such an awesome addition to the space exploration aspect. The big parts that are really missing altogether that would help both the plane side and rocket side is basic mechanical parts. Things like a rotor, hinge and piston. I think those three parts would make such a huge difference in the game.

[cantab]

http://kerbalx.com/KSpaceAcademy/KSA%20Majesty%20mkIa

http://kerbalx.com/KSpaceAcademy/KSA%20Empress%20mkII

What was that about the Hitchiker being the only suitable passenger compartment for spacecraft?

[SorryDave]

I agree a bit with the OP, except that I find the new MK3 parts make better rocket parts than spaceplanes. Larger wings and new landing gear may help.

Of course this is still early and my feelings about neglected rockets may change when they release pictures of the procedural fairings and cargo bays.

[WhiteKnuckle]

The reason Squad is focusing so much on aero and spaceplane parts is because they are so far behind what you rocket guys have.

Imagine if you had an orange tank, but no 2.5m engines, so you had to cobble together engine clusters that increased your part count and gave crappy performance... Well that's how us spaceplane people feel with Mk3 cargo bays and cockpits, but no wings or landing gear that can support them.

I'll also point out that 1.0 is supposed to come with fairings and IRSU, so it's not like you guys are being neglected.

And since you're asking for station parts, I'd recommend checking out Rune's Von-Braun Station, stock parts, looks amazing. But you'll have to dirty your hands with *gasp* spaceplane parts!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/109477-Von-Braun-Station-Part-friendly-gorgeous-docking-hub

So quit yer whining, more parts are better for everyone, even if you don't use them for what they were originaly intended for.

[Red Iron Crown]

Honestly, I think ISRU is as much about making SSTanywhere planes possible as it is throwing a bone to the rocket/conventional spacecraft players.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

If you're only going to airless bodies (the Mun or Tylo) I agree.

But once you have places like Laythee and Eve, your landers are going to need wings! (before anyone flames me -- ok ok you don't NEED wings.)

The space model is fine but the aero model does need work.

Personally Lathee has so much water, I've been working on boats!

[Nitrous Oxide]

Imagine if you had an orange tank, but no 2.5m engines, so you had to cobble together engine clusters that increased your part count and gave crappy performance... Well that's how us spaceplane people feel with Mk3 cargo bays and cockpits, but no wings or landing gear that can support them.

Seriously, half of you probably never build planes because most of the essential parts require something like B9. I used to be a rocket-only guy too, but after 300 hours you start to get curious about planes and what it takes to build one and make one fly... and the game is really lacking in that area.

[Coam]

I'm quite looking forward to larger wings. At current, bolting huge numbers of small wings together to get a Mk3-based airplane to leave the ground is quite tedious. Other spaceplane parts are quite useful in rocketry, such as the round Mk2 spaceplane adaptor, which is useful for emulating Gemini with a Mk1 pod or widening the base of a Mk1 Mun lander, as well as providing fuel in a nose-cap for Rockomax parts.

That said, I'd love to see more rocket parts too. Perhaps a 2 Kerbal capsule based on Gemini or Voskhod? a few more stock Soviet-style parts would be cool.

Adding more uses for space-stations would also be quite nice. At the moment I've found nearly all of my needs for one can be met with a Skylab style station attached to a big fuel tank, although building something more complex may be a fun project, there doesn't appear to be much practical advantage to it.

[RainDreamer]

I don't mind, because better airplanes means I can do things like this: http://www.space.com/28504-darpa-satellite-launching-jet-alasa-xs-1.html

[WhiteKnuckle]

Honestly, I think ISRU is as much about making SSTanywhere planes possible as it is throwing a bone to the rocket/conventional spacecraft players.

Sure it's going to work for spaceplanes too, and that's kinda my point. Moar parts = Moar Better (for everyone!)

I was just pointing out that 1.0 isn't just going to be about wings and new aerodynamics.

[Red Iron Crown]

Seriously, half of you probably never build planes because most of the essential parts require something like B9. I used to be a rocket-only guy too, but after 300 hours you start to get curious about planes and what it takes to build one and make one fly... and the game is really lacking in that area.

This statement confuses me. There are all kinds of stock planes out there, if anything a bigger variety than stock rockets. It's certainly true that some mods add parts that make planes easier/better, but the same can be said of rockets.

[WhiteKnuckle]

This statement confuses me. There are all kinds of stock planes out there, if anything a bigger variety than stock rockets. It's certainly true that some mods add parts that make planes easier/better, but the same can be said of rockets.

Sure there are tons of stock planes out there, but not many big stock planes. Again, it's like having big rocket fuel tanks but no big engines to lift them.

To get an orange tank to orbit in an SSTO using stock parts I need probably around 12-20 wings. Using B9 I can do it with 2. That means a much higher part count, higher chance of structural failure, and a more complicated build process. Can it be done? Sure. Can you build a rocket that lifts an orange tank with nothing but Ant engines? Probably, but wouldn't you rather use a mainsail?

[Red Iron Crown]

I see what you're saying, WhiteKnuckle. I'm generally against procedural parts, but wings are one place where they make a lot of sense given the big variations in size and shape that are desirable.

[cantab]

Seriously, half of you probably never build planes because most of the essential parts require something like B9.

Personally, I never built planes for a long time because I knew the aerodynamic model was atrocious. Then once I was done with my old rockets that were built for the stock aerodynamic, I installed FAR and started a new save.

[Liowen]

Seriously, half of you probably never build planes because most of the essential parts require something like B9. I used to be a rocket-only guy too, but after 300 hours you start to get curious about planes and what it takes to build one and make one fly... and the game is really lacking in that area.

I know for me personally I have not built many planes because I do not want to, not because I "need" a part to do so. However with rockets we have parts that serve no function at all other than ascetics that need attention, as well as rover parts and ways to pack them on to a rocket are far behind satellites and cargo bays. Not to mention the look alone of the spaceplane crew cabins looks far nicer than the rocket end, granted the MK1(the non pointy one) and MK3 cockpits do still need interior views done yet. Also the plane adapter tanks have fuel in them where as the ones for rockets are still a static part that just adds weight without function, but most of the rocket adapters have this nagging issue. Since the aero model is getting an update these parts, might, make these parts more of a necessity, however they should have some substance that makes them more useful.

[Warhawk]

Cue elephant in the room:

Pull up Youtube and the vast majority of videos are about aircraft of some kind or another. Pull up random screenshots on Steam and they tend to be aircraft. Ask new players what they're doing, and over 50% will say "building a shuttle," after which the majority will give up and build a plane instead.

Makes sense, doesn't it? It's easier to make aircraft than it is to dare to go beyond LKO. It takes less time to cycle through ships/crashes, it's fancier to look at, and for most people there's "more to do" since many of the difficulties in spaceflight are either missing or don't strike new players as being justified: Who needs to worry about orbital eccentricity when you can stick to good ol' fashioned up and down, high and low, ground and sky? I get the impression that the relatively silent majority doesn't touch rockets nearly as much as people think around here. And apparently some of the would-be Youtube personalities get this because they keep churning out plane after plane in FAR, usually emphasizing how it's modeled after some combat aircraft or another.

[KerikBalm]

First off I’ll admit I don’t do aircraft or spaceplaces; up to the point where I don’t even upgrade the SPH or the runway.

Actually, given that there is virtually no difference now that we can move subassemblies, or use radial and mirror symetry... I've gone through only upgrading the SPH and runway, but launching mainly rockets.

Either way, you expand your mass limit and part count limit, and get access to action groups... the launch pad doesn't do anything the runway can't.

There are dimensional limits, but with current aero... pancake rockets are fine.

Having said that, the recent upgrades and the much heralded version 1 (hurrah!) seem to be overdoing the “aero†side of the game and neglecting the “space†side of the Kerbal Space Program.

To be honest, there is not much to do space side...

I suppose the most analogous change to the aero change would be to move to N-body physics... which they aren't going to do.

No Lagrange points or binary planets for us...

The 0.23.5 update gave you a lot to do in space (asteroid intercept)

Fine print adds a lot of "space" things by giving you missions to establish specific orbits

Besides... you don't really do much in space except small correction burns... almost everything involves interacting with a celestial body.

To do that, you always have to leave Kerbin, and its atmosphere is very relevant

There are 3 other planets with atmospheres, compared to 2 without. (although the moon comparision is very different... with just 1 moon with an atmosphere)

Atmospheric modeling is very relevant.

I now have loads of cockpits, cargo bays and passenger modules for aircraft but still have to resort to using the “hitchhiker†for all my space stations, bases and spacecraft passenger modules. The cupola and research module do add a bit of variety but not enough.

Now I read about even more (and much bigger!) wing parts on way, as if there isn’t enough already. Enough is enough, let’s have more (and bigger) space modules for living, storage and even colonisation.

Now it comes to a spaceplane vs rocket comparison. You can use "spaceplane" parts in pure rockets... in many cases, you should.

The Mk2 parts are definitely spaceplane biased, with the worse mass ratios, but lifting surfaces. In contrast, the Mk3 parts are basically the best rocket parts in the game.

No tank has a better mass ratio than the mk3 tanks. I also use the mk3 cargobay on some of my larger rockets - although most of the time, its just as a fairing (since once in space, I can just leave something attached by a docking port out in the open), we are getting fairings for rockets, so rejoice.

ISRU will favor SSTOs, this is true... but SSTO from where?

I've already made extensive use of spaceplanes... SSTOs with 150 ton payloads, and I never took them out of kerbin's SOI. Spaceplane to orbit, detach the 100% spaceship payload, land. Then I set up a rather large fuel depot, and use SSTO landers.

I see the ISRU as a means to set up fuel depots, and use single stage tugs, landers, etc... why the heck would I use spaceplanes for that? I'll be leaving the jet engines in LKO unless I'm going to Laythe... and even the wings... I probably won't take much... like the lander in this photo (ignore the plane... that was modded... what looks like basic jets are actually electric engines)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10646968_10103383186309343_3474581850619943652_n.jpg?oh=9ef96d73ab1f9bfb3eac48cbed264502&oe=55827148&__gda__=1434858541_a601e967f346e97146749ea9c0033871

https://scontent-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10993422_10103383186199563_5158911516060112349_n.jpg?oh=74619f2d4764553c7aeb459a5d8c6940&oe=554D6806

There you see short stubby fins to help guide them to their landing site (like fins on a guided bomb)... that was using NEAR.

That SSTO refueled from here:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/14061_10103383186214533_1729500212287608641_n.jpg?oh=7ef5b5794319f9ea224ca70ae3e3087a&oe=554A024F&__gda__=1435454013_b3101e98cc1173cea4f6de7fb93c5ee8

Which is the fuel depot + tug/return vehicle...

With ISRU... I don't have such an incentive to make single stage to kerbin orbit space planes, because my payload can be much larger, and I don't try to haul 60-80 tons of fuel to another planet.

So I won't need spaceplanes to do things like this:

https://scontent-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1555368_10102995132033223_2768149624041386113_n.jpg?oh=e8e40b868da5c9e04ba4bf47ad9df252&oe=558AAD3F

TL:DR for ISRU:

* I won't need to haul so much fuel to orbit.

* Therefore I won't need to reduce launch costs so much

* Therefore I won't need spaceplanes so much

* Therefore this change encourages "rocket play"