1.875m parts

[GoSlash27]

31 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Hmmm, as low as 645/ton, I'll have to go back and calculate exactly how much under 700 I was getting. I'll also note that in that challenge, they didn't have to drop the payload off in orbit, just close to orbit (80km x 1m).. which changes things a bit...

Actually, It was *much* lower than that. the OP stopped maintaining the leaderboard. The best entry got under $600/tonne. Also, the first iteration of the competition required placing the payload fully in orbit, but those rules took the focus away from booster design. The difference between that and full orbit is 45 m/sec DV.

Quote

 

We weren't just talking SRBs,

 

 Even if your argument is correct, the Buran still requires 1.875m boosters, so....

Best,
-Slashy

Edited April 15, 2016 by GoSlash27

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm not fussed about a new shuttle external tank. The current 3.75m parts are the right size for that even if they are the wrong colour.

And yes you can cluster 4 SRBs to get roughly the right thrust but it is fiddly and takes quite a few parts compared to a 1 or 2 part SRB.

The boosters are the most important part and I wouldn't mind if they were the only 1.875m parts added, but a full lineup would be nice as it would make a much better workhorse size than the current ones.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by Frozen_Heart

[John JACK]

On 13.04.2016 at 5:22 PM, KerikBalm said:

A heat shield is exactly for that purpose... to protect from heat.

That's right. But heat shield should not be able to protect from heat absolutely everything. Aerobraking fragile space-only parts at upper atmosphere is okay, but cardboard landing cans should not survive reentry by any means, bar being shielded from all sides by a cargo bay.

Actually, even heat shield is not necessary. I often land not just pods but entire orbital ships, with tanks and engines. With heating at 120% they barely but survive reentry from LKO speed. And that's absolutely not right.

Procedural fairings are procedural. But fairing is not exactly a part. It's more like a wrapping to protect your model from elements while you carry it to space. You build it fast and shed it fast and forget about it.

On 13.04.2016 at 11:14 PM, John FX said:

There is a 2 kerbal pod, the Mk2 Lander Can.

It's not a pod, it's a can. With full crumple-body technology, not fit to survive anything more than a sneeze. 2 kerbal pod must be heavier, have more crash and heat tolerance, and look like a pod.

The lack of pods in stock KSP is just another problem. We have a generous assortment of two pods, two cans, a cupola, and FIVE plane cockpits. Because plane parts recently got attention (as in stocking entire big mod enirely with it's author) and rocket parts did not. Devs has more pressing problems to solve RIGHT NAO™, but some new shiny tanks and engines would be greatly appreciated.

[tater]

I use 1.875 parts if I have those mods installed, though I'm at the point of even deleting the stock tanks altogether and just using SSTU, frankly.

Edited April 15, 2016 by tater

[John JACK]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

lots of fully disposable lifters under $700/ tonne

Is lifter price really that meaningful? In stock engines may cost less than tanks, and both of them may cost less than decouplers. Thus abundance of asparagus designs, jet stages and too muck TWR everywhere. There are even no mods to rebalance prices and economy to more sensible, like "every engine costs much more than any tank it can lift".

[GoSlash27]

John JACK,

Lifter cost per tonne is definitely important to people who play career, but KerikBalm was the one who mentioned it in this thread.

Best,

-Slashy

[John JACK]

Even in career (without masochistic low income rate) lifter price does mean something only at lowest tier. When you earn your first million after couple of "explore Mun" or "launch space station" contracts, rocket may cost 20 or 50 thousand but it's just a pocket change. That's a problem endemic to economical srategies (games that have some kind of economy and strategy) — grinding poverty at first, abundant wealth in late game. Short intermediate period when incomes are balanced with expenses may be or not be there.

Though, 2.5 m parts do not actually cost much more per mass/capacity than 1.25 m, so for once economy is not a reason to want 1.875 m size.

@GoSlash27, sorry if me quote bothered you. I often quote just some statements to tie my answer to, it may not mean that I argue with you personally.

[FungusForge]

I'd want this, if for no other reason then 1.25m to 2.5m just seems like a more aggressive change then 2.5m to 3.75m (and if tweakscale has anything to say, it most definitely is). That, and 1.875 fits better for delivering 1.25m payloads ten 2.5m or 1.25m are.

 

Also @John JACK, I gotta agree with Slashy. A 2.5m rocket is still more expensive then a 1.875m would be. Its less about the direct efficiency, more about you're simply paying more for the same job, especially when you consider that most 'working' designs are over-engineered. That means more fuel and bigger, more expensive, engines left in orbit or doomed to smash into Kerbin at terminal velocity.

Edited April 16, 2016 by FungusForge

[GoSlash27]

6 hours ago, John JACK said:

sorry if me quote bothered you. I often quote just some statements to tie my answer to, it may not mean that I argue with you personally.

John JACK,

 Oh, definitely no offense taken. I'm just trying to clarify what my argument is on the matter and what it is not. I never made an argument for 1.875m hardware on economic grounds. That's not to say that I disagree with the point, mind you...

FungusForge,

5 hours ago, FungusForge said:

I gotta agree with Slashy. A 2.5m rocket is still more expensive then a 1.875m would be.

 Again... I never said that. Not that I disagree, but it's not why I think we should have 1.875m boosters. I just want them because the 1.25m boosters are undersized for shuttle/ SLS replicas.
 So in this matter, it's more accurate to say that "I gotta agree with you" rather than the other way 'round.

Best,
-Slashy

[Knaapie]

On 4/14/2016 at 1:10 PM, GoSlash27 said:

 Actually, yeah... I think it does. As long as we have a shuttle cockpit, shuttle cargo bay, shuttle wings, shuttle tail, etc. etc. we oughtta have the parts to build a shuttle stack that looks like a shuttle stack.

 Trust me... we are all aware that we *could* build a STS with an undersized tank, 4 undersized SRBs, and a Rhino in the back if that's what we wanted to do. That's not really the point.

 Best,
-Slashy

Lol, you really got the point. And glad someone enthusiastic for this idea makes it.

It looks to me that most of you guys really only need this one part. One should be easy to add. And judging from the likes you give eachother, the demand for this one part is pretty high ^^

Imo this is the time to use the info from this topic and write something nice here:

The topic where all the new part ideas are gathered.

pce

[MaxL_1023]

It is not really just that one SRB. The square/cube law alone causes trouble, especially due to the inability to easily cluster engines in stock. If you want to lift a 30 ton LF stack off the pad, you either need to somehow fit 2 reliants under a 1.25m tank, 4 thuds (which are inefficient) , or use radial staging. If you want to use 2.5m parts, you are stuck with the skipper which is too powerful. 

Think of it this way:

Strongest 1.25m lifter engine - Reliant at 216.667 KN (Vector is end-game so does not really count here)

Weakest 2.5m lifter engine - Skipper at 650 KN (Poodle is useless on the pad)

Strongest 2.5m lifter engine - Mainsail at 1500 KN (Twin Boar is a unique part)

Weakest 3.75m lifter engine - Rhino at 2000 KN

There is a big ratio gap between 1.25m and 2.5m parts, especially considering that using a shorter tank can let you end up with the same fuel mass on the larger stack. You just can't fit enough thrust on a 1.25m node to lift it all, while a Skipper is a waste of engine mass. 

 

[Knaapie]

Exactly, and that is where you need to get creative. Do you use radial SRBs ? or fit 2 engines under there? How creative can I be with the few parts that I have. How can my building techniques improve to resolve this issue? 

Imo THAT is the core of the game, and what I love. I dont care about recreating a shuttle, I want to create my own inventions... Yet I understand that ppl do want this, especially in a game like Kerbal.

I see the gap between the engines and yes, landing on the moon and getting back early in career isnt too easy with 30 parts and low tier items. Adding these parts would make landing on the mun as hard as lego. I dont know If I'd want that, yet, on a tier meant to be researched after you land on the mun, I would applaud it: more parts is more creativity later on. So yes, add as many parts as ppl would love to see.

But imo there is a charm in not having parts early on. Making the game hard on purpose and thereby demanding creativity.

We choose to go to the Mun! .. We choose to go to the Mun in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ..   ~ quote of some random guy ~

 

 

[The Great Potato]

4 hours ago, Knaapie said:

Exactly, and that is where you need to get creative. Do you use radial SRBs ? or fit 2 engines under there? How creative can I be with the few parts that I have. How can my building techniques improve to resolve this issue? 

Imo THAT is the core of the game, and what I love. I dont care about recreating a shuttle, I want to create my own inventions... Yet I understand that ppl do want this, especially in a game like Kerbal.

I see the gap between the engines and yes, landing on the moon and getting back early in career isnt too easy with 30 parts and low tier items. Adding these parts would make landing on the mun as hard as lego. I dont know If I'd want that, yet, on a tier meant to be researched after you land on the mun, I would applaud it: more parts is more creativity later on. So yes, add as many parts as ppl would love to see.

But imo there is a charm in not having parts early on. Making the game hard on purpose and thereby demanding creativity.

The difficulty for mun landing in career is funds and facilities, not max thrust imo.

There is far more to mission difficulty in KSP than the max power of your current boosters. Playing career, I don't think I've ever managed to get maneuver nodes before filling out the tech tier where 1.875m would fit most nicely. In fact, I usually already have a handful of 2.5m parts by the time I get nodes (unless I really turn down the science slider). And then I still have to upgrade the VAB before I can make a suitable mun rocket.

I also disagree with the sentiment that limiting parts demands creativity. The power gap between sizes 1 and 2 actively teaches the 'MOAR BOOSTERS' dogma to new players - after reaching orbit the first time, contract requirements go up dramatically but you won't get better hardware for another two tech tiers. What are players to do in that situation, other than go hard brute force tactics? Currently, the only kind of problem solving early career mode teaches is how to game the weaknesses within its own simulation.

Bridging the gap between sizes 1 and 2 will present more options for rocketry: for the same job, 1.25m is cheaper and lighter but 1.875m is simpler and uses fewer parts. Assuming the existing size 1/2/3 power, weight, and cost ratios hold true for 1.875m, of course. A little more granularity will help players understand and work with size-based engine stats and their tradeoffs, which are a very real engineering concern. Teaching simplified real-world mechanics while encouraging engineering creativity...isn't that what KSP is known for?

[Knaapie]

19 hours ago, The Great Potato said:

The difficulty for mun landing in career is funds and facilities, not max thrust imo.

There is far more to mission difficulty in KSP than the max power of your current boosters. Playing career, I don't think I've ever managed to get maneuver nodes before filling out the tech tier where 1.875m would fit most nicely. In fact, I usually already have a handful of 2.5m parts by the time I get nodes (unless I really turn down the science slider). And then I still have to upgrade the VAB before I can make a suitable mun rocket.

I also disagree with the sentiment that limiting parts demands creativity. The power gap between sizes 1 and 2 actively teaches the 'MOAR BOOSTERS' dogma to new players - after reaching orbit the first time, contract requirements go up dramatically but you won't get better hardware for another two tech tiers. What are players to do in that situation, other than go hard brute force tactics? Currently, the only kind of problem solving early career mode teaches is how to game the weaknesses within its own simulation.

Bridging the gap between sizes 1 and 2 will present more options for rocketry: for the same job, 1.25m is cheaper and lighter but 1.875m is simpler and uses fewer parts. Assuming the existing size 1/2/3 power, weight, and cost ratios hold true for 1.875m, of course. A little more granularity will help players understand and work with size-based engine stats and their tradeoffs, which are a very real engineering concern. Teaching simplified real-world mechanics while encouraging engineering creativity...isn't that what KSP is known for?

Well, yes the game is pretty hard at the beginning of the career, especially if you want to skip mission grinding at Kerbin,. Even harder if you want to skip science spamming at Minmus (for the tiers you're missing).

There is a balance in the career that could be improved. Especially when we talk about the abundance of resources in the mid/late game, imo John Jack is right about that. This actually starts at Duna missions, the first time where you have an actual choice in engines. New players will and should overbuild, but will definitely do research on engine characteristics (they do want to get home ^^). Which is part of the game . Some of those new players like the calculations and perfection, while others just want to build monstrosities and wacky inventions. 

I would almost like to know how you think the career fails both player types and how can we work it out for all (or most) players ? 

I'm somewhat in between the monstrosities and perfection playing style. And I just think 1.875m parts are cool and should be added for aesthetics. Nicely balanced needle rockets is the perfection ppl seek and this size is missing to enable that in some situations. I do not yet see how i'd use them to land on any body other than tylo or Eve I also cant see how a 1.875 SRB would do much more than reduce the number of parts and make it look better. But I'd definitely vote for a bigger NERV or ION engine (also to reduce parts)...So perhaps even for the 1.875 SRB ^^

 So yes do it! 

Edited April 18, 2016 by Knaapie

[Pthigrivi]

I'm still not 100% convinced 1.875m parts are strictly necessary, but if we were to stick to form you'd want 4 LF and 4 LFO tanks, at least 2 rocket engines and a jet engine, an SRB, a faring base, a nosecone, adapters to 1.25m and 2.5m, a 2-crew cockpit and maybe that Gemini capsule everyone wants. That's 18 parts, which would occupy porkjet for a while but doesn't sound insane to me. 

Edited April 18, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Rath]

On April 13, 2016 at 10:22 PM, KerikBalm said:

*Sigh*... cheating, really? its a mod that basically generates procedural parts. Procedural fairings are cheats now? any mod is a "cheat" I think we're all tired of hearing about what someone considers cheating.

second, who is to say its not propoer use of parts?

A heat shield is exactly for that purpose... to protect from heat. I use heat shields to protect all manner of parts from heat... not just 2000K limit parts, not just 1200k limit parts, but even the tiny basic fins with 934k heat tolerance.

Heat vulnerable part+ heat shield= heat tolerant part (from one direction at least). A hitchhiker can with a heat shield and parachute is a perfectly valid re-entry device in KSP, and you won't be able to find a developer that will tell me that I'm using the parts wrong if I do that.

In part I think the problem is that the can sticks out, but is still protected.

[Stoney3K]

On 18-4-2016 at 4:11 PM, Pthigrivi said:

I'm still not 100% convinced 1.875m parts are strictly necessary, but if we were to stick to form you'd want 4 LF and 4 LFO tanks, at least 2 rocket engines and a jet engine, an SRB, a faring base, a nosecone, adapters to 1.25m and 2.5m, a 2-crew cockpit and maybe that Gemini capsule everyone wants. That's 18 parts, which would occupy porkjet for a while but doesn't sound insane to me. 

Maybe we can give a shout out to @Nertea and suggest the idea to him, given his excellence in creating mods in the past.

I'm up for 1,875m parts even if it's purely for balanced progression in aesthetics. The size gap from 1,25m to 2,5m is a ratio of 2, where another size up (3,75m) is a ratio of 1,5. That doesn't really add up. You would expect 'size 3' to be 5m in diameter for the progression to be equal.

If the diameters are going up linearly, the sizes would be 0,625m (size 0), 1,25m (size 1), 1,875m (size 2), 2,5m (size 3), 3,125m (size 4), 3,75m (size 5). So there would be two intermediate 'steps' which are currently not there.

You can argue whether these steps are really needed, but there is a good point for the 1,825m cross section, and maybe even a relevant plane fuselage size:

* Right now, there is no cargo bay which can fit 0,625m parts. You have a service bay which is too shallow for anything to fit, and the Mk2 cargo bay which is too large if you want to launch smaller probes. Aside from a cargo bay component, there is an entire Mk1 "space plane" set complete with docking ports, but without any component which can effectively carry a payload.

* 1,25m higher tier engines (in particular the NERV and Kickback) are underpowered for the size of craft which they would carry. If the Kickback was intended as a Shuttle-like SRB, it does not have enough power to lift a Shuttle-sized stack off the pad. A Kickback which is tweaked to be 1,5 the size with appropriate characteristics, does do that same job.

* 1,875m is a good intermediate size for airliner enthousiasts who want to build smaller jets in addition to the 3,125m Mk3 spaceplane payload fuselage, which would be for the heavies. It would also allow for compact shuttles to be built in the early game.

* The profile is also a good match for 3,75m stacks with side boosters, where 2,5m is just oversized.

I don't think such a cross-section system should necessarily be stock, but it would add a lot of interesting options when built as a mod, if the parts are properly balanced.

[Stoney3K]

On 13-4-2016 at 4:33 PM, Kosmognome said:

The game already has about 230 parts, and they fill all roles quite well.

if you added 1.825m parts, you would need at least 4 fuel tanks (for consitency with other stack sizes), 1 capsule (2-seats?), 1 lander can (how many seats?), at least two size adapters (to 1.25m and to 2.5m), one parachute, an inline battery, one inline monoprop tank tank, one inline reaction wheel, a heat shield, and at least 2-3 probe cores as well as 2-3 nose cones and 2-3 engines and 2-3 SRBs. Thats 21-25 parts extra at minimum for such a stack size to make sense at all. if you don#t include all those parts, then there will always be someone suggesting to fill the gaps that are left in that stack size, and rightfully so.

 

I think at some point there is not much to gain by bloating the game with additional parts. The part list will get some overhauls, but it still could use some more overhauls. Even with the changes in 1.1, its not exactly well structured.

I agree that having a two-kerbal capsule and some bigger SRBs (no, 2.5m would be too big) would be nice. But before adding a whole new stack size with all those parts, please let them add better filters in the part list.

Not necessarily, we won't need an entirely new parts lineage, if only for the addition of a new fuselage size. Here's the parts I would like to see in 1,875m:

* 2-Kerbal command pod, with 1,875m bottom and 1,25m top profile so existing docking ports and chutes can stick on top. Heat-shield built in with limited ablator.
* 2-seat aircraft cockpit, possibly modeled after something like the Embraer EMB-145 (sleek and pointy) for light, supersonic jets.
* (Maybe) a passenger cabin to accompany said cockpit.
* 1,875m cargo bay.
* Adapters to 1,25m and 2,5m.
* A NERV, supersonic jet and a hybrid RAPIER-like engine.
* A tall SRB with the right characteristics to serve as a Shuttle SRB.

No fuel tanks and no LF/O rocket engines, if people want to play with those they can just use the existing parts. IMO the current jet regime has to be reviewed as well, I can find no mission scenario for which the slow, subsonic jets (Juno, Wheesley, Goliath) are of any use.

[Darnok]

30 minutes ago, Stoney3K said:

Not necessarily, we won't need an entirely new parts lineage, if only for the addition of a new fuselage size. Here's the parts I would like to see in 1,875m:

* 2-Kerbal command pod, with 1,875m bottom and 1,25m top profile so existing docking ports and chutes can stick on top. Heat-shield built in with limited ablator.
* 2-seat aircraft cockpit, possibly modeled after something like the Embraer EMB-145 (sleek and pointy) for light, supersonic jets.
* (Maybe) a passenger cabin to accompany said cockpit.
* 1,875m cargo bay.
* Adapters to 1,25m and 2,5m.
* A NERV, supersonic jet and a hybrid RAPIER-like engine.
* A tall SRB with the right characteristics to serve as a Shuttle SRB.

No fuel tanks and no LF/O rocket engines, if people want to play with those they can just use the existing parts. IMO the current jet regime has to be reviewed as well, I can find no mission scenario for which the slow, subsonic jets (Juno, Wheesley, Goliath) are of any use.

And rover cabin 1.25 and 1.875m please.

[Kosmognome]

3 hours ago, Stoney3K said:

Not necessarily, we won't need an entirely new parts lineage, if only for the addition of a new fuselage size. Here's the parts I would like to see in 1,875m:

* 2-Kerbal command pod, with 1,875m bottom and 1,25m top profile so existing docking ports and chutes can stick on top. Heat-shield built in with limited ablator.
* 2-seat aircraft cockpit, possibly modeled after something like the Embraer EMB-145 (sleek and pointy) for light, supersonic jets.
* (Maybe) a passenger cabin to accompany said cockpit.
* 1,875m cargo bay.
* Adapters to 1,25m and 2,5m.
* A NERV, supersonic jet and a hybrid RAPIER-like engine.
* A tall SRB with the right characteristics to serve as a Shuttle SRB.

No fuel tanks and no LF/O rocket engines, if people want to play with those they can just use the existing parts. IMO the current jet regime has to be reviewed as well, I can find no mission scenario for which the slow, subsonic jets (Juno, Wheesley, Goliath) are of any use.

Without 1.875m fuel tanks and engines, what good does a command pod with that bottom size do? You either need a decoupler and a 2.5m stack - and then you could simply use the existing 2.5m pod, or you need to bring it to an 1.25m stack, which would simply be silly. 

Command pods don't have built-in heat shields. No matter what is done, parts should always adhere to the same logic. So either all existing pods get overhauled and the heat shields integrated, or we get a new 1.875m heat shield. Mind that the heat shields are seperate for a reason in the first place.

If you get SRBs, then nose cones are mandatory. Having to use stack adapters only to put on nose cones would be stupid.

[Stoney3K]

4 hours ago, Kosmognome said:

Without 1.875m fuel tanks and engines, what good does a command pod with that bottom size do? You either need a decoupler and a 2.5m stack - and then you could simply use the existing 2.5m pod, or you need to bring it to an 1.25m stack, which would simply be silly. 

Command pods don't have built-in heat shields. No matter what is done, parts should always adhere to the same logic. So either all existing pods get overhauled and the heat shields integrated, or we get a new 1.875m heat shield. Mind that the heat shields are seperate for a reason in the first place.

If you get SRBs, then nose cones are mandatory. Having to use stack adapters only to put on nose cones would be stupid.

I tried to make a fairly limited use case for the 1,875m command module here, so it would only be useful in an "inbetween" scenario where you have the Mk1 command pod unlocked, but the Mk1-2 command pod isn't available yet. For most early game rescue or tourist missions, you're stuck with either a command pod and a passenger cabin, or a command pod and a drone core -- both of which are just as silly, or maybe even more silly than a 1,825m command pod stuck on a 1,25m stack.

Fuel tanks are not difficult to make, but they may clutter up the parts tree. If there are going to be 1,875m fuel tanks, I feel like the 0,625m fuel tank set should also be expanded. Right now, the only LF+O tanks in that size are the ROUND-8 and the Oscar-B, even though we have more than one engine for the size profile.

I get the idea for 1,825m nose cones as well, but maybe we should just make the SRB one with a builtin nose cone. I agree with @Darnok that we need rover cabs for Kerballed rovers.

[Knaapie]

This one part group seems so insignificant to all the other suggestions and fixes, that I'd like to let it go south (down of the topic list). It already is a part of the common suggestions and it can be modded if ppl really want it.. 

Lets discuss something that is part of the core game and does not involve replicating real life. People are not green and do not have oversized heads ;)  Should we change that?  No