More Containers Please

[Jonfliesgoats]

Since the craft files in KSP don't support hinged parts, can we get more variety in containers?  Service bays and cargo bays are fantastic, but it would be nice to have stackable 1.25 and 2.5 meter cargo bays.  Unfolding ramps would be cool too.

Also, fairings right now only work on the nose or tail or other end of a structure.  Can we use the something similar to fairings to engineer deployable aerodynamic blisters.

I am sure there are mods, but that doesn't do much for the Xbox community.

[Wjolcz]

Oh, OK. I just googled what a blister is. Don't do that fellow not native English speakers.

Not sure what would you need a round cargo bay for. You can already put things into fairings between the stages. Much like the engine fairing work, except you create them yourself.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that more procedural parts wouldn't be a bad thing to have in KSP.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Veeltch

[Red Iron Crown]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

Not sure what would you need a round cargo bay for. You can already put things into fairings between the stages.

Can't close a fairing after it has been opened, it's single use.

[Snark]

13 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

Also, fairings right now only work on the nose or tail or other end of a structure.

As @Veeltch points out, this is not the case:  fairings work in the middle just fine.  And with the new "support truss" multi-node stacks added in 1.2, this really opens up a lot of possibilities for fairings now; you can put all kinds of things in them, with a lot of flexibility.

Advantages of a fairing over a cylindrical cargo bay:

• Adaptable to pretty much any size you need, both for length and (crucially) for diameter
• Lots of potential attachment points in both directions, not just one-at-each-end.
• Already exists. 

As far as I can tell, there's really only one significant disadvantage of a fairing, compared with a cylindrical cargo bay, as Red Iron Crown points out:

5 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Can't close a fairing after it has been opened, it's single use.

...so if that really matters to you, yes, I could see that may be an issue.

I note, however, that the OP didn't actually mention reusability as being important to him.  (And mentioned "something similar to fairings to engineer deployable aerodynamic blisters", which I interpret, perhaps mistakenly, as "can we please have radially attachable fairings".)

I used to covet cylindrical cargo bays, since I'm a rocket person and not a spaceplane person.  However, I gotta say that the recent developments with fairings-- in particular, the ability to have that multi-node truss structure in them-- has obviated the need, at least for me.  They now do pretty much exactly what I want.  It's true that they're not reusable, which I suppose could be a hindrance for some folks... but the lack of reusability doesn't come up for me.  Re-use is mostly important for folks who build SSTO (since they want to recover the whole craft), and I never build SSTO's; my rockets are multi-stage, throw-away-when-done things.  The only reason I ever recover anything is to get back my, 1. crew, and 2. science.  In which case I generally engineer my rockets to recover as little as I can get away with, which makes the overall rocket smaller and simpler.

(The one thing fairings don't do particularly elegantly is the equivalent of the inter-stage thrust plates from SpaceY, which let you put a small-diameter thing inline with a big-diameter stack, such as an inline 1.25m engine in the middle of a 2.5m stack.  Yes, it's possible to cobble this together with interstage fairings, but it's kinda clunky and a lot less elegant than the thrust plates.  But for payload hauling, they do exactly what I want.)

It seems to me that the main target demographic for cylindrical cargo bays would be people who make vertical-takeoff (i.e. rocket-style) SSTOs.  Horizontal-takeoff spaceplane-style SSTOs generally do just fine with the Mk2 and Mk3 bays, and vertical-takeoff stage-and-throw-away rockets can generally get the job done with fairings (better than a cargo bay, IMHO).

And I kinda get the impression that people who fly vertical-takeoff, cylindrical-stack SSTOs are a tiny minority of KSP players.  (Perhaps I'm wrong?  Speak up, folks!)    I get the impression that the overwhelming majority of KSPers are either spaceplane-SSTO pilots or staging-vertical-takeoff rocketeers.

So unless I'm missing some other important use case for cylindrical cargo bays, it seems to me that the target audience for them is small enough that it may not be worth Squad's while to add this in stock (though it could be a great mod).

Might help if we could talk specifics rather than abstract generalities, though.  @Jonfliesgoats, do you have a specific example of a problem you're trying to solve that a cylindrical bay would help with, but a fairing wouldn't?

[Jonfliesgoats]

I like rocket SSTOs!  Thatnhas been a cool prospect ever since the DC-X days in the 90s.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, all.  Part of my problem is lack of creativity with stock fairings, I guess.  I am trying to engineer a module that can deploy and recover rovers from 1.25 meter parts.  So far the best option I have to get my wee rovers into a 2.5 meter service bay, land it, raise the great to set the service bay on the ground the drive in and out with the rovers.  That has only given my fleeting glimpses of success so far.  Something that lands and unfolds allowing rovers to roll off and on is what I want.  

[septemberWaves]

On 10/7/2016 at 5:04 PM, Snark said:

Advantages of a fairing over a cylindrical cargo bay:

• Adaptable to pretty much any size you need, both for length and (crucially) for diameter

Whilst in KSP fairings can be adapted easily, it's not the case in reality. I know the game isn't supposed to be realistic, but lately I've been making a few standard fairing shapes and trying to fit payloads to the existing volume (as is generally done in reality when fairings are manufactured to a set size). I've found it to be a very interesting exercise in spacecraft design, and perhaps an in-line cylindrical (or conical) cargo bay would not be as much of a hindrance as one might initially anticipate. In fact, I've seen no complaints from spaceplane engineers about having to design payloads to fit inside a non-adaptable cargo bay; the additional limitation is seen merely as a routine restriction on design, and generally doesn't make it much more difficult to create a payload.

[Jonfliesgoats]

Another advantage of conical cargo bays: aerodynamics.  Our Mk1 capsule aerodynamically holds a retrograde attitude during reentry.  No need to drain the batteries with reaction wheels all through the landing.  When we want to land something unmanned through an atmosphere, we don't have the ability to put our cargo into a cone.  So now we have to constantly run reaction wheels and carry much more electric charge through the entry which means more mass in batteries.  For small payloads, the bulk and mass of batteries becomes significant.

[panzer1b]

While i wouldnt say no to more cargo bays, i think 90% of anything you want to make with them is doable stock.  What i do feel KSP needs badly is a few hinged door like parts.  Im not talking about all out infernal robotics style doors, but something as simple as a larger sized airbrake that has a open/close animation and can be used to create custom doors and custom bays (i habitually use airbrakes for doors, windows, even retractable landing legs occasionally). 

Airbrakes are great for certain applications, but they are just too small and not really a good shape for making traditional doors out of (not to mention the part count if you try to make a large carrier door out of airbrakes).  I know its isnt a priority, but a few very basic door pieces (for starters perhaps a 1x1 and 2x2 structural panel sized "door" with one hinged side) would really make the game better for those of us who prefer making our own designs and not just using the very limited cargo bays/airbrakes/antennas to make doors out of.  While i would absolutely love to see a robotics mod in the stock game, doors are much easier to do right (its just a square thing with an animation similar to the already existing parts), and dont require that much time to implement...

[septemberWaves]

8 hours ago, panzer1b said:

While i wouldnt say no to more cargo bays, i think 90% of anything you want to make with them is doable stock.

Just because something is technically doable with stock doesn't mean it's a good solution. Much like when people used to make fairings out of ridiculous numbers of structural panels, using the existing stock solutions for a conical cargo bay is way too massive, un-aerodynamic, and doesn't look great.

[Sharpy]

IMHO, stock doesn't need bigger cargo bays.

By the time you've advanced in stock so far you need them, you should be adept enough to install the Mk4 mod.

A single Mk4 cargo bay fit two orange tanks side by side, and with room to spare - or one large Kerbodyne tank, with enough room on the sides to stow sixteen big mining drills. They are also fully stackable - and additionally stackable with modules like Mk4 passenger compartment, Mk4 probe core, or Mk4 service bay, which all have most of the open space available for cargo.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Sharpy