Propellers Please?

[James M]

I have seen one other suggestion topic about this before and it was abruptly closed and not re-opened again. Really my question is why don't we have propellers yet and what might the chances of us getting them be? (And yes, I'm aware of mods, but I happen to like playing games stock)

[sumghai]

My personal opinion is that given the theme of the game is Kerbal Space Program, any aircraft parts included in the stock game are those that can be feasibly used to construct spaceplanes - fixed wing aircraft that can transition between atmospheric and spaceflight. The fact that a player could also use some of the engines to build aircraft capable of only atmospheric flight just happens to be a bonus.

No propeller-powered aircraft are capable of escaping from or operating outside of the atmosphere, therefore they would see limited use. If propellers are added to the game, the title and theme would then have to be changed to Kerbal Aircraft and Space Program.

[James Kerman]

Actually I wouldn't mind the addition to stock.  I agree they will not be efficient for a space plane departing Kerbin however I have used electric props on an Eve biome hopper and LF on Laythe so they do serve some roles quite well on atmospheric bodies.

[pizzaoverhead]

I would argue that both propellers and rotors have been part of space flight for quite some time, just not successfully deployed. Some examples below:
 

One of NASA's re-entry concepts for Apollo, resurrected for Orion:

 

The Rotary Rocket Company's helicopter-style SSTO:

 

Airplane for Mars Exploration (AME):

 

JPL Mars Helicopter Scout:

[sumghai]

14 minutes ago, pizzaoverhead said:

I would argue that both propellers and rotors have been part of space flight for quite some time, just not successfully deployed.

All of the examples listed are conceptual and/or abandoned designs of esoteric applications, so I feel it's a bit too much of a stretch to include propellers as stock parts.

The only way propellers would be appropriate is if they were introduced as part of a History of Flight DLC, which would most likely dilute the essence of KSP's identity.

[FleshJeb]

18 minutes ago, sumghai said:

All of the examples listed are conceptual and/or abandoned designs of esoteric applications, so I feel it's a bit too much of a stretch to include propellers as stock parts.

The only way propellers would be appropriate is if they were introduced as part of a History of Flight DLC, which would most likely dilute the essence of KSP's identity.

No one EVER has esoteric applications in stock KSP. /s

The NERVA is largely conceptual (despite some test firings) and abandoned.

The SABRE/RAPIER is conceptual.

The helicopter scout is scheduled to go to Mars in 2020. That's a long way from conceptual.

The logic of your argument doesn't even hold up based on the conditions YOU set. Also, you forgot to add the words the words "precious bodily fluids" to your last sentence.

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by FleshJeb

[James M]

On 9/27/2018 at 5:46 AM, sumghai said:

All of the examples listed are conceptual and/or abandoned designs of esoteric applications, so I feel it's a bit too much of a stretch to include propellers as stock parts.

The only way propellers would be appropriate is if they were introduced as part of a History of Flight DLC, which would most likely dilute the essence of KSP's identity.

Stratolaunch. Its feasible, has already been manufactured and is awaiting its first real payload. I know it's just one case, but there are plenty more applications. (Not to mention the one's we young engineers have not conceptualized)

 

On 9/27/2018 at 6:09 AM, FleshJeb said:

No one EVER has esoteric applications in stock KSP. /s

The NERVA is largely conceptual (despite some test firings) and abandoned.

The SABRE/RAPIER is conceptual.

The helicopter scout is scheduled to go to Mars in 2020. That's a long way from conceptual.

The logic of your argument doesn't even hold up based on the conditions YOU set. Also, you forgot to add the words the words "precious bodily fluids" to your last sentence.

 

Quad-copters and such were also a concept I was hoping we one day would be capable of using in ksp. Thank you for the reminder and support!

 

Finally, one last mention. Project Adeline. In short, recovering rocket motors by jettisoning them from their fuel tanks and returning them home as a pseudo-plane. Of course pulling this off in ksp would require a modification in the game's programming thereby allowing us to control multiple craft in atmosphere beyond 20km (And we know that wont happen so..) 

Edited September 28, 2018 by James M

[Cassel]

On 9/27/2018 at 12:46 PM, sumghai said:

All of the examples listed are conceptual and/or abandoned designs of esoteric applications, so I feel it's a bit too much of a stretch to include propellers as stock parts.

The only way propellers would be appropriate is if they were introduced as part of a History of Flight DLC, which would most likely dilute the essence of KSP's identity.

We are talking about game with little green aliens living on a planet (which is not possible to exist) with two moons in imaginary solar system, but adding propellers is going to dilute essence of game? :-)
If "space program" part is so important then we should have real size Earth and real solar system in first place.

[Gordon Fecyk]

Modders provide many add-ons for popular requests, including for rotary engines.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Would love to see propellers. They would be perfect for aircraft exploring planets with an atmo. Making a Duna drone like the concepts would be great fun.

 

Maybe tweakable to toggle between electric powered and LF/Intake air powered in the VAB/SPH.

[James M]

9 hours ago, Gordon Fecyk said:

Modders provide many add-ons for popular requests, including for rotary engines.

 

There are many things that shouldn't HAVE to be mods to be incorporated into a game such as ksp. When you think fundamentally about the game and what it really is, (In our case, a glorified flight sim), something like propellers make perfect sense being stock. That's my whole argument. 

3 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Would love to see propellers. They would be perfect for aircraft exploring planets with an atmo. Making a Duna drone like the concepts would be great fun.

 

Maybe tweakable to toggle between electric powered and LF/Intake air powered in the VAB/SPH.

Your tweakable idea is great  I approve!

[Aeroboi]

16 hours ago, Cassel said:

.....
If "space program" part is so important then we should have real size Earth and real solar system in first place.

The reason is so every uneducated yokel can understand and play the game and not be annoyed with 10 minute burns to orbit. Because the "space program" part IS so important it has been resized for this reason. It's better to have masses play this game then a small group of astronautic nerds. I'm not among that group so I wouldn't have learned as much about spaceflight if it were realistically sized the moment I started playing it. I also would never got into learning Orbiter Space flight Sim if it hadn't started with KSP and knew even less.

Alternative suggestion

I do like propellers. But I like the "build" aspect of this game. What I would like is something like a stackable motor/engine piece that is throttleable and stock 1 part bearings with which you can create your own propellers plus a variety of cogs and springs. With that you can also make gravity rings, impellers, peddle wheels, custom wheels, caterpillars and you name it.

And preferably some way for the physics engine to allow more then 45 rads per second without kraken physics shredding the game so stock propellers can go faster.

Besides that ^
Stock propellers already make planes fly faster then real life propellers can go anyway. That said, you have to be a master stock propeller engineer to do so but everything one wants to suggest is already possible.

There's the limit of aeronautic utilities because this is a "Space program"
It's already glorifying enough to be able to build your own propeller. Squad has not modified or done something to prevent stock bearings. They could by putting friction on thermometers, stayputniks, ball bearings (Place anywhere rcs port) but they haven't. It's as if Squad is saying, "You want propellers in stock?" "We got that for you" "Now put your hands in your hair be a genius and make one for yourself"

Go to https://kerbalx.com/ Search on (Stock > SPH > Aircraft) and find many stock propellers you can DL from which to learn and make your own

Edited September 29, 2018 by Aeroboi

[Cassel]

11 minutes ago, Aeroboi said:

The reason is so every uneducated yokel can understand and play the game and not be annoyed with 10 minute burns to orbit. Because the "space program" part IS so important it has been resized for this reason. It's better to have masses play this game then a small group of astronautic nerds. I'm not among that group so I wouldn't have learned as much about spaceflight if it were realistically sized the moment I started playing it. I also would never got into learning Orbiter Space flight Sim if it hadn't started with KSP and knew even less.

Alternative suggestion

I do like propellers. But I like the "build" aspect of this game. What I would like is something like a stackable motor/engine piece that is throttleable and stock 1 part bearings with which you can create your own propellers plus a variety of cogs and springs. With that you can also make gravity rings, impellers, peddle wheels, custom wheels, caterpillars and you name it.

And preferably some way for the physics engine to allow more then 45 rads per second without kraken physics shredding the game so stock propellers can go faster.

Besides that ^
Stock propellers already make planes fly faster then real life propellers can go anyway. That said, you have to be a master stock propeller engineer to do so but everything one wants to suggest is already possible.

There's the limit of aeronautic utilities because this is a "Space program"
It's already glorifying enough to be able to build your own propeller. Squad has not modified or done something to prevent stock bearings. They could by putting friction on thermometers, stayputniks, ball bearings (Place anywhere rcs port) but they haven't. It's as if Squad is saying, "You want propellers in stock?" "We got that for you"
"Now put your hands in your hear be a genius and make one for yourself"

Go to https://kerbalx.com/ Search on (Stock > SPH > Aircraft) and find many stock propellers you can DL from which to learn and make your own

But some people want stock propellers, you can disagree if it is needed, but that is not going to change my mind. Yet nobody forces you to use every part there is, if someone doesn't like it he can refuse to use those parts and play game as he likes.

Look at this problem this way, what you want is limiting the fun of the game for me. What I want in no way limits and does not change the rules of the game for you, you can still play with your style.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Cassel

[Frozen_Heart]

1 hour ago, Aeroboi said:

The reason is so every uneducated yokel can understand and play the game and not be annoyed with 10 minute burns to orbit. Because the "space program" part IS so important it has been resized for this reason. It's better to have masses play this game then a small group of astronautic nerds. I'm not among that group so I wouldn't have learned as much about spaceflight if it were realistically sized the moment I started playing it. I also would never got into learning Orbiter Space flight Sim if it hadn't started with KSP and knew even less.

Alternative suggestion

I do like propellers. But I like the "build" aspect of this game. What I would like is something like a stackable motor/engine piece that is throttleable and stock 1 part bearings with which you can create your own propellers plus a variety of cogs and springs. With that you can also make gravity rings, impellers, peddle wheels, custom wheels, caterpillars and you name it.

And preferably some way for the physics engine to allow more then 45 rads per second without kraken physics shredding the game so stock propellers can go faster.

Besides that ^
Stock propellers already make planes fly faster then real life propellers can go anyway. That said, you have to be a master stock propeller engineer to do so but everything one wants to suggest is already possible.

There's the limit of aeronautic utilities because this is a "Space program"
It's already glorifying enough to be able to build your own propeller. Squad has not modified or done something to prevent stock bearings. They could by putting friction on thermometers, stayputniks, ball bearings (Place anywhere rcs port) but they haven't. It's as if Squad is saying, "You want propellers in stock?" "We got that for you" "Now put your hands in your hair be a genius and make one for yourself"

Go to https://kerbalx.com/ Search on (Stock > SPH > Aircraft) and find many stock propellers you can DL from which to learn and make your own

Stock props, and actual bearings for other uses would have to be different parts.

 

Yes in an ideal world they shouldn't be, but the physics engine would just collapse trying to spin separate parts at those speeds.

[ARS]

While I agree that propellers do have use in laythe and eve, it fills a rather niche use. KSP is intended as a game about space exploration, so, any part in stock game should be at least have any use in getting something to space, do something space related or getting from one planet to another. Every lf/ox engines are useful for space propulsion, stronger one for lifting, weaker one for precision maneuvering, structural parts are useful for space stations, jet engines are useful for SSTOs, (Their use as atmospheric craft propulsion is just a bonus, as pointed out by @sumghai), a propeller would have too limited use in space exploration

Personally, I prefer a jury-rigged propellers from stock parts, since while it's rather complex and increases partcount, it drives the creativity even further in building it (that's the core gameplay of KSP anyway). As a bonus, jury-rigged propeller from stock parts are way more capable than any propeller mods could ever hope to be since you can absolutely went nuts with over-engineering the damn thing

As demonstrated by @Stratzenblitz75

 

[James M]

My point is the fact that we shouldnt be required to make a monotonous contraption to do something simple. To me, it trades science and exploration for innovation and creation. Which is okay, but it's not why we fundamentally play ksp. 

Edited September 29, 2018 by James M

[KerikBalm]

On 9/27/2018 at 5:40 AM, sumghai said:

My personal opinion is that given the theme of the game is Kerbal Space Program, any aircraft parts included in the stock game are those that can be feasibly used to construct spaceplanes - fixed wing aircraft that can transition between atmospheric and spaceflight. The fact that a player could also use some of the engines to build aircraft capable of only atmospheric flight just happens to be a bonus.

No propeller-powered aircraft are capable of escaping from or operating outside of the atmosphere, therefore they would see limited use. If propellers are added to the game, the title and theme would then have to be changed to Kerbal Aircraft and Space Program.

With that logic, we shouldn't have turbofans either... or any jet engines except rapiers.

While stock single part props would really only expand gameplay on Eve and Duna, that's enough IMO, and they'd go well with mods like OPM and Tekto.

[The_Rocketeer]

If it's motive technology and I can build it, I want it in the game. I'd love a real transmission system that you could stick a wheel or a drill bit or a propellor or a rotor on the end of. I have made these in stock, the only disappointment is the outrageous size and mass of the things, which really is the biggest thing that currently makes them useless for putting on top of a rocket and sending... well, anywhere.

[MR L A]

On 9/27/2018 at 11:46 AM, sumghai said:

All of the examples listed are conceptual and/or abandoned designs of esoteric applications, so I feel it's a bit too much of a stretch to include propellers as stock parts.

like the rapier?

[sumghai]

9 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

With that logic, we shouldn't have turbofans either... or any jet engines except rapiers.

6 minutes ago, MR L A said:

like the rapier?

Personally, if I had my way, I'd have excluded RAPIERs from the parts list at the outset. I'd keep jet engines solely to allow spaceplanes to get some speed before kicking in their ramjets/scramjets/rockets.

But getting back to the subject of turboprops in KSP - my argument against stock propellers isn't so much "nobody will use it" (you guys would, and I probably would, too). It's more to do with the fact that stock propellers aren't directly relevant to the game's primary theme of space exploration, and with the finite resources and time the developers have between updates, it would be better for them to focus on other, more pressing features and enhancements, rather than try to turn KSP into a Minecraft/Garry's Mod/LEGO/Build-anything-you-want simulator.

Turboprops as mods? I'm fine with that.

 

 

[KerikBalm]

8 hours ago, sumghai said:

Personally, if I had my way, I'd have excluded RAPIERs from the parts list at the outset. I'd keep jet engines solely to allow spaceplanes to get some speed before kicking in their ramjets/scramjets/rockets.

Why exclude rapiers? why not exclude Nervas then too? neither have been used on an actual craft. They rapiers are a bit less developed than the NERVAs were, but there is working real world hardware for rapier engines (even if all the components haven't been assembled)

Quote

But getting back to the subject of turboprops in KSP - my argument against stock propellers isn't so much "nobody will use it" (you guys would, and I probably would, too). It's more to do with the fact that stock propellers aren't directly relevant to the game's primary theme of space exploration, and with the finite resources and time the developers have between updates, it would be better for them to focus on other, more pressing features and enhancements, rather than try to turn KSP into a Minecraft/Garry's Mod/LEGO/Build-anything-you-want simulator.

Turboprops as mods? I'm fine with that.

Why are you talking about turboprops? IMO the difference between turboprops and turbofans in terms of speed and efficiency is small enough that turboprops are completely unnecessary.

Electric propellers on the other hand... very useful for exploration of other bodies in space. Eve in particular is hard to explore, and electric propellers are very useful for that purpose.... As are other forms of atmospheric propulsion that don't require atmospheric oxygen: some people have made monoprop powered fans/props. I modded some "ramrockets"/"turborockets"/"Rocketfans" that consume LF and O.

Stock single part rotors would also be a very welcome thing, so we can have rotating parts one a single craft. Right now "stock rotors" involve many parts and are modeled as 2 or more craft, and they break when placed on rails: requiring a system to rejoin them into a single craft before they leave the active physics bubble (ie time warping in space vs physics warping, going back to the space center, or switching to a vessel far enough away). These could allow not only for better propellers, but also better centrifuges.

[Zosma Procyon]

I wouldn't mind some kind of electric blade driven propulsion. I have long longed to send a boat to Eve. I can make something that will float no problem, but other than a few tricks described by KSP youtubers, there are no fuel efficient ways to move a boat at any speed. Rockets will burn all their few in a few kilometers, and jet engines don't function on Eve.

[sumghai]

12 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Why exclude rapiers? why not exclude Nervas then too? neither have been used on an actual craft. They rapiers are a bit less developed than the NERVAs were, but there is working real world hardware for rapier engines (even if all the components haven't been assembled)

Yes, NERVs too. Thanks for the reminder, although it's all water under the bridge now.

12 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Why are you talking about turboprops?

That's what usually comes to mind when someone mentions propellers.

12 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

IMO the difference between turboprops and turbofans in terms of speed and efficiency is small enough that turboprops are completely unnecessary.

Yes.

12 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Electric propellers on the other hand... very useful for exploration of other bodies in space. Eve in particular is hard to explore, and electric propellers are very useful for that purpose....

While many bodies in the Kerbol system have atmospheres without oxygen, I do wonder if the developers simply intended players to make do with LF/LOX rocket engines, seeing as most space exploration happens in the vacuum of space anyway.

12 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

As are other forms of atmospheric propulsion that don't require atmospheric oxygen: some people have made monoprop powered fans/props. I modded some "ramrockets"/"turborockets"/"Rocketfans" that consume LF and O.

As mods, yes.

12 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Stock single part rotors would also be a very welcome thing, so we can have rotating parts one a single craft. Right now "stock rotors" involve many parts and are modeled as 2 or more craft, and they break when placed on rails: requiring a system to rejoin them into a single craft before they leave the active physics bubble (ie time warping in space vs physics warping, going back to the space center, or switching to a vessel far enough away). These could allow not only for better propellers, but also better centrifuges.

I think a distinction needs to be made between propellers (electric or turboprop) as a means of propulsion, and rotating turntables/bearing/actuators that actually move rocket parts relative to each other. The latter should be discussed in another thread.

(ASIDE - KSP does have a little-known ModuleRotatingJoint PartModule, although no parts use it and it most likely hasn't been updated to work with 1.4.x. I recall the developers experimented with this a little, but gave up after running into problems where rocket parts moving relative to each other got out of sync, resulting in floating parts)

[MR L A]

I think you're forgetting KSP is a game.

It isn't meant to be a replica of human space programs. We've already established that Kerbals, in some respects, are better engineers than us.

It is meant to be FUN and somewhat educational. 

It is also a game that practically begs for people to fly those missions that never quite made it off the ground in reality, of which there are plenty that require some sort of rotor.

It is also a bit daft to argue against rotors anyway considering the next mars rover with have a flying drone (last time I checked) which uses rotors.

Plus, the idea that KSP would have to include "and aircraft" is ridiculous. Have you seen how much work NASA has done for atmospheric aviation? There simply is no space program that doesn't involve "and aircraft" to a (large) extent.

It sounds like you want RO, not KSP.

[sumghai]

I'm very well aware KSP is a game - it simply needs to be consistent with its original theme of space exploration with rockets (and spaceplanes, to a lesser extent), not necessarily limited to Realism Overhaul.

Propellers are nice-to-have, but not strictly necessary for atmospheric flight in non-Kerbin atmospheres.

As for the (proposed and unbuilt) JPL Mars Helicopter Scout, I'd wait until it has actually successfully accomplished its mission in 2020 before considering the inclusion of electric rotors in the stock game.