Boat propellers!

[Razorforce7]

I've been watching suggestions and developments for years in which I regularly found multiple threads which brought forth the idea of implementing electrically propelled propellers.
I would wanna go there but since this idea hasn't been implemented yet for reasons unknown I want to limit the idea to where it will actualy fill in the gap that limits surface exploration in this game.

Yes, this can be solved with electric airplane propellers. And I vote for this. However, It can also be solved by boat propellers.
That is where I want to go with this, since Squad seems to ignore the stock electric propeller concept because otherwise it would already be here since it is been suggested countless of times.

A boat propeller would only produce sufficient thrust when submerged in liquid. Whether that be Eve's explodium seas or the beaches of Kerbin's KSC.
Just like a ION thruster only produces thrust in Vacuum, a boat propeller will give little to no thrust once exposed to anything other then liquid.
This makes exploration on Eve alot easier, and the same goes for Kerbin and Laythe.
I want both a electric and chemical combustion boat propeller. In the latter case it would require intake air so it will only work on Kerbin and Laythe.

This will also make exploration on Eve's surface more easy.
I see reason why you want a planet in the game that is the hardest to tackle in getting to and back from.
But once I'm there I want parts that guarantee uninterrupted surface exploration without having to refuel or send multiple vessels just because little green man discovered the rocket nozzle before the wheel was invented.

And no this is not KBS (Kerbal boat program)
But propellers in whatever modern way they are driven are very real and modern applications that are by timeline categorized before Ion thrusters, ISRU converters and even Nerva rocket engines.
If space exploration allows terrestial surface exploration, it should allow it to be done so. If that involves parts that are not necessarily space related then they should be in the game regardless.

Where are my props?

Edited April 3, 2017 by Razorforce7

[Numerlor]

Spoiler

 

Kerbal space  program

[Razorforce7]

If you take "Kerbal space program" literally it should exclude all non "spacey" parts and objects just because it says it's a space program, right?

Then what draws the line to what should or shouldn't be in this game? If it just space and rockets then why all the rover wheels?
What is the logic here?
Is it that rovers have actualy been made for interplanetary missions and hydronautical vessels have not? Both do the same. One on land, the other on water.

A ISRU converter isn't part of spaceflight. Yes this is scientificaly viable and yes this will one day exist, but proppelers already do.
So why add something that doesn't exist yet over something that does?

Jet engines are aeronautical, and do not get things into space. They may assist getting a vessel (spaceplane) up more efficienty, but that is it. So why are jet engines in the game?
Proppelers assist navigating through water, which makes my surface exploration missions more efficient because I can pack something lighter.
All the currently available parts help one or more aspects of the Space program game. My idea helps in the surface exploration aspect of it. Which is something a player does regularly especialy through career contracts.

How is such a motorized part then not to be compared with a Space program?
It seems more of a personal viewpoint of yours vs mine as to what is part of this "space" game and what isn't.
But if anything, the decision of whats part of this game should not fall solely on the name of the game. And even if so, I think it's questionable whether you could argument that propellers are not part of KSP.
They easily could be.

 

 

 

[Numerlor]

Those things are there to make gameplay easier and for career but propellers specially for water exploration? That would require to add diversity to water to be worth exploring too much time for one thing that isn't main part of the game

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Numerlor said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Kerbal space  program

That has not stopped Squad from introducing a bazillion airplane parts.

There are submerged biomes, and a lot of manned space craft landed in the ocean, to be retrieved by ships. I'm not someone who wants to see ship parts but the arguments in favor of them are just as valid as the arguments against.

[Razorforce7]

@numerlor

Easier? Maybe. I would call it less grindier.
Take eve for example. I want to visit 3 biomes in one go.
I can only visit 2 but up to 4 if I had a way of crossing the water and it would take me a couple of minutes to cross (depending on the speed ofc)
Because I can't cross the water I have to build a whole new mission just to get to a place I'm a dozen clicks away from.
 

By the diversity of water I assume you mean the physics part of it? It also should be updated to a more realistic state. And I don't think its going to be implemented by tommorrow.
If anything there should be a way to make surface exploration easier. So that I don't have to create a secondary mission.
My idea is proppelers, maybe you have a better one. But it is a gap within the gameplay that I'd rather see fixed. I'll stick to mods in the meantime to fix that gap.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Razorforce7

[Numerlor]

@Kerbart

Airplane parts are to make early career a bit easier on harder difficulties and maybe to focus on bit wider portion of gamers but I'm sure nobody would just go for water exploration.

In water it is dark and monotone for most of the things (not in reality), terrain scatter to make it interesting wouldn't be easy to make

Water vehicles would also be late in techtree for submersion because of pressure limit needed with option enabled

And @Razorforce7 you may have noticed that planets with water also have atmosphere to make easier air travel using ISRU "air"planes on Eve and normal planes on Laythe

Edited April 3, 2017 by Numerlor

[Combatsmithen]

MODS MODS MODS MODS MODS. That said I would like Squad to give more love to water physics and biomes in said water. 

[Razorforce7]

I may be a bugger at this but it is a matter of perspective.
I think ISRU are unrealistic in that they are far from being mass produced irl.
Using fuel converters on every place like Eve for instance to do small hops is not my desired way of playing. Something like a robotic science probe is light and small. It doesn't pack a drill and a converter, much less the required fuel and engines.

Basicaly I want to build small. Which I can't because the game forces me to bring bruce willis with his drills and refineries along the way.

instead of a piece...

 

Also in career you may not have a ISRU converter.
On Eve a LF/O plane can fly for up to a few minutes. A electric propeller indefinitely through water.
I don't necessarily want a turbine/reaction combustion engine for every task in the game or for every probe that weighs under a ton.
I don't have a reaction/turbine engine on my personal in real life drone like i.e. a jet or rocket engine. I don't expect to only put jet/rocket engines on my KSP craft if its intention is to only navigate over the surface.



 

[DoctorDavinci]

3 hours ago, Numerlor said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Kerbal space  program

Many of us out there use their space program for things that will not take you to space

For example, this .......

Spoiler

 

And this ......

Spoiler

 

With that being said, some propellers would be a nice addition to KSP ......

Spoiler

 

 

[Wjolcz]

About the Space vs Airplanes discussion: spaceplanes were added not to make things easier or because NASA uses them but because there was a demand for them. People saw what @C7Studios did and really liked it so SQUAD added a runway and eventually C7 became a part of the team.

Now, am I against spaceplanes? No. In fact I love them and at this point I'd rather buy an aeronautical game with kerbals made by SQUAD than a KSP DLC. But I also like rockets. I don't mind seeing both in the game since both are a way to go higher and higher. Boats on the other hand aren't. Sure, you can dive in Laythe's and Eve's oceans and it's one way to make these bodies worth exploring, but there are also things concerning exploration which this game is still clearly lacking. Example: the scientific experiments don't gather real data but some "techi-unlocki-pointi" crap. You go to a planet to grab them, put them in the lab, start the lab, plant a flag and wait until the heat death of the universe because kerbals don't eat. 'cause exploration, right?

Now, am I against nautical exploration? As long as the "exploration" part is neglected and it's added "just because" then I am.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Veeltch

[TheKorbinjer]

2 hours ago, Razorforce7 said:

If you take "Kerbal space program" literally it should exclude all non "spacey" parts and objects just because it says it's a space program, right?

Then what draws the line to what should or shouldn't be in this game? If it just space and rockets then why all the rover wheels?
What is the logic here?
Is it that rovers have actualy been made for interplanetary missions and hydronautical vessels have not? Both do the same. One on land, the other on water.

A ISRU converter isn't part of spaceflight. Yes this is scientificaly viable and yes this will one day exist, but proppelers already do.
So why add something that doesn't exist yet over something that does?

Jet engines are aeronautical, and do not get things into space. They may assist getting a vessel (spaceplane) up more efficienty, but that is it. So why are jet engines in the game?
Proppelers assist navigating through water, which makes my surface exploration missions more efficient because I can pack something lighter.
All the currently available parts help one or more aspects of the Space program game. My idea helps in the surface exploration aspect of it. Which is something a player does regularly especialy through career contracts.

How is such a motorized part then not to be compared with a Space program?
It seems more of a personal viewpoint of yours vs mine as to what is part of this "space" game and what isn't.
But if anything, the decision of whats part of this game should not fall solely on the name of the game. And even if so, I think it's questionable whether you could argument that propellers are not part of KSP.
They easily could be.

 

 

 

But there are planets with water and air. People will want to explore the water, so why not add propellers for both air and water? There could be new missions specifically for those types of things.

[Wjolcz]

2 minutes ago, TheKorbinger said:

But there are planets with water and air. People will want to explore the water, so why not add propellers for both air and water? There could be new missions specifically for those types of things.

Since jets already work both underwater and in the atmosphere then I see no reason why electrictric propellers shouldn't do the same.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Veeltch

[TheKorbinjer]

Just now, Veeltch said:

Since jets already work both underwater and in the atmosphere then I see no reason why electrictric ones shouldn't do the same.

Jets should stall when under water. It's kinda dumb that they work down there anyway. And I don't understand why Props haven't been added to the game yet.

 

 

 

 

 

#putkspbackinbetapleaseorisueyou

 

kappa

[Razorforce7]

@TheKorbinger

I want aircraft propellers to. I left it out because I can imagine people building electric propeller/rocket motor hybdrids to cheaply get out of Eve's atmosphere. But if these props come I expect squad to nerf them accordingly.
Personaly I do not understand the priority whereby apparently is chosen to make jet engines work underwater, but leave out anything that should work underwater like a freaking propeller.

@Veeltch

A aircraft and boat propeller are 2 completely different things.
How then should a single part work as both because a jet engine works both down and under which is unrealistic to begin with.
Not that vanilla KSP is realistic to begin with but jet engines that work both down and under is a crossed line to me.
The only reason I and everyone accepts it is because it is the only current way to efficiently propel through water.
It's probably going to be kept as it is because it would involve quite a few other changes to meet realism standards.
I just hoped more people would see the use of this feature. But if it just doesn't categorize in this particular videogame then so be it.

I think it will work great.

 

 

 

 

[KenjiKrafts]

4 hours ago, Numerlor said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Kerbal space  program

Then why is there a massive plane community xD

@Razorforce7 I have made electric paddles and "Turboprop" paddles they are not the best, top electric speed of 0.4 m/s and turboprop was impractical 

[DoctorDavinci]

37 minutes ago, Razorforce7 said:

Personaly I do not understand the priority whereby apparently is chosen to make jet engines work underwater, but leave out anything that should work underwater like a freaking propeller.
 

It wasn't a choice to make jet engines work underwater ... more like a byproduct of the game engine and KSP code

1 hour ago, TheKorbinger said:

#putkspbackinbetapleaseorisueyou

Lol ... Good luck with that 

[kerbiloid]

Ground effect vehicles

Pump jets

Hovercrafts

P.S.
Using KSPI-E one can endlessly propel a ship with thermal nozzles powered by microwave network.

Edited April 3, 2017 by kerbiloid

[seanth]

6 hours ago, Numerlor said:

@Kerbart

Airplane parts are to make early career a bit easier on harder difficulties and maybe to focus on bit wider portion of gamers but I'm sure nobody would just go for water exploration.

Maybe not. 

 

[DarknessHasLost]

I'd be nice if they made any parts meant for boats

[TKO]

I'd go one further: not only should there be water propellers, there should be a dock by the KSC with a full KSY (Kerbal Ship Yard) to build and test water-borne craft in.

Then you also open the possibility of having a full space program where your rockets fly to wherever, return and splash down, and then are *recovered* by recovery-vessels of your own design. 

The nice thing with ships is that they're dead-easy to autopilot.  You can have all these autonomous vessels out recovering your capsules, solid boosters, etc that have splashed down .. and you can also build and test other propeller-driven vehicles, then import them into the VAB to put on top of a rocket bound for some watery planet/moon. 

(I'm kinda thinking that, by extension, there should be some dirt obstacle course near the KSC with a KRG (Kerbal Rover Garage) where you build rovers too .. but now I'm really digressing.)

[gomker]

For all your boat (and soon to be submarine) building needs

[NSEP]

I do agree with the fact that it is Kerbal Space Program. But because it can be usefull in space exploration so why not? 

As long as you can explore space with it, i accept it.

[Skylon]

2 hours ago, NSEP said:

I do agree with the fact that it is Kerbal Space Program. But because it can be usefull in space exploration so why not? 

As long as you can explore space with it, i accept it.

Why do I suddenly feel the desperate urge to build a space boat?

[NSEP]

10 minutes ago, Skylon said:

Why do I suddenly feel the desperate urge to build a space boat?

Dunno. Talking about space (any vehicle) probably?