What would the third launch place be?

[Grand Ship Builder]

We have the runway and the launchpad, but what about a third place to launch your crafts?

This could sprout a whole new set of parts, crafts, and vessel types, and open even more possibilities. Maybe a dock for all your sea operations? Or the helipad on the VAB as a separate place for all your VTOL crafts? Maybe even a garage to test your rovers and cars!

What do you think it should be, and do you support the idea of a third one?

 

 

[Tex_NL]

Either wind tunnel or rover proving ground. Preferably both.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Tex_NL

[RatchetinSpace]

2 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

Either wind tunnel or rover proving ground. Preferably both.

I +1 this

[MrWalrus123]

A rover testing ground would be nice, the ground near the KSC is really flat (wich is good if your rover is meant for the salt lakes of Minmus, or the poles of Kerbin). Even something as basic as a track with a couple of inclines/declines and slopes would be nice, since the terrain of KSP isn't super bumpy on the scale of a small rover.

[Firemetal]

Eve?

(And I agree with @MrWalrus123)

Fire

[Jas0n]

A dock would be good, but not super practical seeing that there are no boat parts in the stock game.

[The_Rocketeer]

+1 Rover Proving Ground
+1 Dock - stock seaplanes and submarines are definitely viable these days.

I also support the wind-tunnel idea, but I'd take it a step further and make it a 'local conditions simulator'. I envision a facility that allows you to load up a spherical-body (think 1990s-era visuals) of the same size and with the same atmosphere and gravity as any body you choose, either in an orbital re-entry scenario, or as a surface launch.

Why not HyperEdit? Too cheaty, breaks immersion, can get Kerbs killed, can be saved. It isn't a simulation if it uses virtual magic to make persistent changes to the game.

Edited August 5, 2017 by The_Rocketeer

[klgraham1013]

How about making the old KSC usable by the player.

[MrWalrus123]

9 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

How about making the old KSC usable by the player.

Theres mods that do stuff like this, but they take a lot of ram and don't run well on certain computers

[The Aziz]

4 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Why not HyperEdit? Too cheaty, breaks immersion, can get Kerbs killed, can be saved. It isn't a simulation if it uses virtual magic to make persistent changes to the game.

Finally someone said it. It bugs me out when someone asks "how to test a craft in x conditions" and people are like "use sandbox and HyperEdit/debug window it to the x location. If it works, you're go for launch" ugh.

[NSEP]

I would like a spawn place for sea launches to happend. Like a dock in the ocean.

[KerBlitz Kerman]

Aircraft carriers.

Docks.

VAB Helipad.

Polar Launch Facility. 

Under Water Launch Facility.

Rover Test Facility.

[linuxgurugamer]

15 hours ago, MrWalrus123 said:

A rover testing ground would be nice, the ground near the KSC is really flat (wich is good if your rover is meant for the salt lakes of Minmus, or the poles of Kerbin). Even something as basic as a track with a couple of inclines/declines and slopes would be nice, since the terrain of KSP isn't super bumpy on the scale of a small rover.

The old bumpy runway used to be good for that.

While not the same, you can use KRASH to do a sim from anywhere in the system.

[53miner53]

I'd say large garage for rovers, with a testing facility. Have the garage, with doors open, be the standard spawn for a garage-built craft, and the testing facility be standalone, with Garage/SPH crafts spawning normally, and VAB crafts spawning sideways, in a wind tunnel, which opens up on a test track. The wind tunnel would be operated by a kerbal in a small room overlooking the wind tunnel. The test track would have a long stretch, a skidpad, and other car testing systems, as well as rough terrain for rover testing.

[Alshain]

Given that SpaceX landed a rocket on a barge, being able to launch said barge without strange and awkward means wouldn't be beyond the scope of this game.  The problem is, once it is there, people would assume that means we need boat parts, which is very much outside the scope of the game.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Alshain

[natsirt721]

I could care less where the other site is, I just want practice launching from a non-equatorial site.  There's really no incentive to operate outside of the equatorial / ecliptic plane, seeing as how the launch site is there, the landing site is there, the equatorial keostationary belt is there, the Mun is there, and most of the planets are near there (Moho excluded).  The old KSC would be a neat spot if only because it would require you to launch payloads to inclined orbits and work from there.

Also, an oblique runway at KSC would be amazing.  There's plenty of room for it!

[Casualnaut]

I want a Polar Space Center, for console.

[Alshain]

1 hour ago, natsirt721 said:

I could care less where the other site is, I just want practice launching from a non-equatorial site.  There's really no incentive to operate outside of the equatorial / ecliptic plane, seeing as how the launch site is there, the landing site is there, the equatorial keostationary belt is there, the Mun is there, and most of the planets are near there (Moho excluded).  The old KSC would be a neat spot if only because it would require you to launch payloads to inclined orbits and work from there.

Also, an oblique runway at KSC would be amazing.  There's plenty of room for it!

I'd rather have Axial tilt for that problem

[blorgon]

On 8/4/2017 at 3:18 PM, Tex_NL said:

Either wind tunnel or rover proving ground. Preferably both.

On 8/4/2017 at 6:40 PM, MrWalrus123 said:

A rover testing ground would be nice, the ground near the KSC is really flat (wich is good if your rover is meant for the salt lakes of Minmus, or the poles of Kerbin). Even something as basic as a track with a couple of inclines/declines and slopes would be nice, since the terrain of KSP isn't super bumpy on the scale of a small rover.

On 8/5/2017 at 10:26 AM, linuxgurugamer said:

The old bumpy runway used to be good for that.

While not the same, you can use KRASH to do a sim from anywhere in the system.

6 hours ago, 53miner53 said:

I'd say large garage for rovers, with a testing facility. Have the garage, with doors open, be the standard spawn for a garage-built craft, and the testing facility be standalone, with Garage/SPH crafts spawning normally, and VAB crafts spawning sideways, in a wind tunnel, which opens up on a test track. The wind tunnel would be operated by a kerbal in a small room overlooking the wind tunnel. The test track would have a long stretch, a skidpad, and other car testing systems, as well as rough terrain for rover testing.

I feel like you guys are forgetting about the R&D building!

I'm pretty sure this is a wind tunnel on the right:

Obviously it's just art, but since it's there, it would be nice to be able to use it. There'd probably need to be an extra building added for the rover proving ground which would be totally freaking awesome:

It'd be sweet to select the rover proving ground and then get a prompt for the type of terrain you want to test your rover on. That would also open up research possibilities, since you'd need to send a probe/impactor to get some good science on the type of terrain on any given body you haven't been to yet in order to be able to replicate it in the "Mars yard".

EDIT: I guess having different terrain types in the Mars yard would necessitate including different types of terrain in the actual game 8{

Edited August 7, 2017 by blorgon

[The_Rocketeer]

11 hours ago, Alshain said:

The problem is, once it is there, people would assume that means we need boat parts, which is very much outside the scope of the game.

I'm not sure how you define the scope of a vehicle creator/sandbox interplanetary exploration game without allowing that it's totally up to the player what vehicle they want to create and which parts of those planets they want to explore. Boat parts are long overdue in my opinion and well inside the scope. Given the lengths Squad went to to overhaul buoyancy and submersible depth issues (used to despawn at -600m), I don't think there's a lot of evidence they agree with you.

[hms_warrior]

A Orion-drive spaceship facility.

Think big.

(and the parts for it, after all it's 1960 tech^^).

Ps: yeah i know there are two mods for this.

[Waterlimon]

A giant balloon/airship-based launch / drop test facility.

There should be multiple such facilities. They would either just drop things from launch clamps (like an inverted launchpad). Or they would have a runway. Or both.

Uses:

• Test parachutes and other parts of landers by dropping them from high.
• Get to places with gliders, not requiring any fuel at all. You cant glide if you start at sea level.
• Make kerbin-based contracts actually fun, when you dont have to fly 10 hours to get to the other side of the planet. You can just drop a glider or a lander with a rover from a nearby airship (not TOO near, has to be balanced). You can still use planes or rockets, but more options seems fun here to keep things nonrepetitive
• Launch spaceplanes and specialized rockets above dense atmosphere (with drawbacks, ofc)
• Allow more interesting contracts for planes (transport things to/from airships)
• Allow challenging attempts to land on one from orbit (destructible like the buildings on land).
• Act as relay or point of reference for ground based things

Ideally balloons and such would be added as player-usable parts at the same time. The facilities could be built using those, if some mobile launch pad stuff is added as well.

The facility does not generate fuels. It has finite storage for that stuff. Refill must be done by player. Refill contracts are possible. Refill is not necessary for drop tests or gliders, since those do not need fuel. Perhaps monopropellant could be generated by the facility on its own (assuming its just nitrogen from the air or smth).

Lack of fuel generation would be the main drawback. For practical reasons, mass/size limits might exist as well, but I feel like those just make things less fun. There COULD be some mass based launch cost (presumably the parts have to be shipped up there somehow), to balance things against ground facilities.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Waterlimon

[klgraham1013]

17 hours ago, Alshain said:

Given that SpaceX landed a rocket on a barge, being able to launch said barge without strange and awkward means wouldn't be beyond the scope of this game.  The problem is, once it is there, people would assume that means we need boat parts, which is very much outside the scope of the game.

If we don't have boats and subs on other celestial bodies before I die, I will be generally disappointed.

[FungusForge]

20 hours ago, Alshain said:

Given that SpaceX landed a rocket on a barge, being able to launch said barge without strange and awkward means wouldn't be beyond the scope of this game.  The problem is, once it is there, people would assume that means we need boat parts, which is very much outside the scope of the game.

They could probably get away with just a water jet or propeller and some ballast tanks in a few sizes, since that's all that's really required in the naval department since most everything floats.

[natsirt721]

11 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

If we don't have boats and subs on other celestial bodies before I die, I will be generally disappointed.

Prepare to die disappointed