Boats

[Shna_na]

What are boats but rovers for the water.

That's a good way of putting it. That's also why I'm pro-boat. The reason that we need specific boat parts is to reduce part count as, essentially, optimisation. Where you would currently, for example, 30 parts to create a boat with the current version, this could be reduced to as little as 3 parts. Making parts isn't all that much work when you know how to do it, so it shouldn't take too much out of development time.

[pizzaoverhead]

in reality Space programs do not however build ships.

*ahem*

[Capt Snuggler]

*ahem*

http://www.redorbit.com/media/gallery/neemo-nasa-extreme-environment-mission-operations/nasa-liberty.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Liberty_Star_with_SRB_after_STS-121_1.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/images/content/167001main_ET118_5_516.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m53ncujm571r3kmkso1_500.jpg

nasa did not build these boats. My statement still stands.

Both recovery boats were built at Atlantic Marine Shipyard on Fort George Island, Florida, and delivered in January 1981 to their original owner, United Technologies Inc.

The barge used to transport Shuttle enterprise was loaned by Weeks Marine in NYC.

Both external tank barges, Orion and Poseidon, were originally constructed in the 1940s to support America's World War II effort and were converted in the mid-1960s for use in NASA

thank you Wikipedia.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Dodgey]

nasa did not build these boats. My statement still stands.

Both recovery boats were built at Atlantic Marine Shipyard on Fort George Island, Florida, and delivered in January 1981 to their original owner, United Technologies Inc.

The barge used to transport Shuttle enterprise was built by Weeks Marine.

thank you Wikipedia.

NASA does not create a lot of things, private companys create a lot of the components that NASA uses. Just because NASA doesn't manufacture something doesn't mean that it doesn't use them.

So no, your statement doesn't still stand.

[Capt Snuggler]

NASA does not create a lot of things, private companys create a lot of the components that NASA uses. Just because NASA doesn't manufacture something doesn't mean that it doesn't use them.

So no, your statement doesn't still stand.

I didn't say use, I said build. I am all for floating parts for probes, landers, space planes, bases, etc. but I am not for yachts, ships, tugboats, carriers, etc.

At least not dedicated parts for ship building.

if you can build it with the parts available, then more power to you.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Dodgey]

I didn't say use, I said build. I am all for floating parts for probes, landers, space planes, bases, etc. but I am not for yachts, ships, tugboats, carriers, etc.

At least not dedicated parts for ship building.

if you can build it with the parts available, then more power to you.

I don't understand why you are against adding boat parts, they added plane parts, rover parts, why not boat parts? I just don't understand how you can draw a distinction, and when I say boat parts (I can't talk for everyone) I mean structural parts that are specifically designed for boats to aid in construction, not parts that would make an aircraft carrier in three parts.

[Capt Snuggler]

I am trying to draw a line, to prevent this:

parts that would make an aircraft carrier in three parts.

I am not against buoyant parts or engines to propel in liquid, I just don't want to see things that are two specific. like an entire ship hull in 3 pieces or what ever.

*edit: something like a floating, streamline version of a RoveMate for example, would be fine.

*edit edit: personally I think multi-purpose inflatable floatation parts would better complement the existing part set.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Dodgey]

It seems that we are on the same page Capt Snuggler, I mistakenly thought that your argument that "NASA doesn't build boats" meant that you were against boats in general; NASA doesn't build boats so why should be so to say. As I said I did not want 3 part boats, only parts to aid in the construction. It seems that I forgot that you want the same (amazing what you can forget). Though I still don't know NASA not building their own ships have to do with it if you would please explain.

[pizzaoverhead]

I didn't say use, I said build. I am all for floating parts for probes, landers, space planes, bases, etc. but I am not for yachts, ships, tugboats, carriers, etc.

At least not dedicated parts for ship building.

if you can build it with the parts available, then more power to you.

By that definition, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything built by NASA. The Shuttle Orbiter was built mainly by Rockwell International, the external tank by Lockheed Martin and the SRBs by United Space Boosters Inc.

I am trying to draw a line, to prevent this:

parts that would make an aircraft carrier in three parts.

I am not against buoyant parts or engines to propel in liquid, I just don't want to see things that are two specific. like an entire ship hull in 3 pieces or what ever.

Agreed. The game would be much less fun if all we had were a couple of types of pre-made systems, like a four-part STS for example. By providing independent single-purpose parts, we can combine them in ways that are far more useful and interesting than the sum of the parts themselves.

[Majorjim!]

OK chaps,

Lets do what scientists do and use logic on this problem.

I have stated before that Squad made planets with water. Why the hell would they make the MAJORITY of the planet inaccessible?

I agree with Snuggler that ship specific parts will probably not come. All Squad need to do is fix the water physics.

MJ

[Capt Snuggler]

It seems that we are on the same page Capt Snuggler, I mistakenly thought that your argument that "NASA doesn't build boats" meant that you were against boats in general; NASA doesn't build boats so why should be so to say. As I said I did not want 3 part boats, only parts to aid in the construction. It seems that I forgot that you want the same (amazing what you can forget). Though I still don't know NASA not building their own ships have to do with it if you would please explain.

Nasa use allot of things that they don't build. I just think the Craft in the images above, in pizzaoverheads post, are beyond the scope of what the KSC construction facilities (VAB) are for, and parts specifically for the construction of those Craft shown should be avoided.

That said I think it would be fun to add some ship/carrier set pieces that could be interacted with. (crashed in to)

Edited February 17, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[SpaceKadet]

First off I think people need to be clear on terms. Boats and Ships are two separate things. A boat is any vessel small enough to be transported by a ship. Usually under 100ft in length. A ship is anything over that. What most people are against are ship parts. While most people here that are advocating boat parts are advocating for just that, small parts that are used to create small vessels to explore the seas.

I support any part that helps us explore. Boat parts should be included in the game so they could be used like rovers. Ship parts if included in the game should be used similarly to Bases or Space Stations. Also for the people who are citing that NASA does not build boats, ships, or have an interest in maritime tech; NASA has never built a base on another planet. Yet those are in the game. NASA has not built space stations around other planetary bodies and yet this is something which we can do in this game. The only reason why NASA hasn't built boats is because they have not had the need, money, resources, and ability to do so; but if they had the space program with the seemingly inexhaustible supplies that the Kerbals do they would build boats. In fact they are starting to because of Titan and Europa, but these things will be years off just like any space station around Mars or base on Io.

If they are added to the game and in career mode then I would suggest that they be expensive and high up on the tech tree to represent the complexities of. (insert strange announcer voice here) Boats in in in Space Space Space...

[Majorjim!]

First off I think people need to be clear on terms. Boats and Ships are two separate things. A boat is any vessel small enough to be transported by a ship. Usually under 100ft in length. A ship is anything over that. What most people are against are ship parts. While most people here that are advocating boat parts are advocating for just that, small parts that are used to create small vessels to explore the seas.

I support any part that helps us explore. Boat parts should be included in the game so they could be used like rovers. Ship parts if included in the game should be used similarly to Bases or Space Stations. Also for the people who are citing that NASA does not build boats, ships, or have an interest in maritime tech; NASA has never built a base on another planet. Yet those are in the game. NASA has not built space stations around other planetary bodies and yet this is something which we can do in this game. The only reason why NASA hasn't built boats is because they have not had the need, money, resources, and ability to do so; but if they had the space program with the seemingly inexhaustible supplies that the Kerbals do they would build boats. In fact they are starting to because of Titan and Europa, but these things will be years off just like any space station around Mars or base on Io.

If they are added to the game and in career mode then I would suggest that they be expensive and high up on the tech tree to represent the complexities of. (insert strange announcer voice here) Boats in in in Space Space Space...

Ignoring the pedants, we are of course discussing water craft.

Squad made an exploration game. Why make 75% of a planet 'un-explorable'?

Use your noodles folks. Water craft will get some kind of attention from Squad. At the very least they will change the water physics.

MJ

[Capt Snuggler]

NASA has never built a base on another planet. Yet those are in the game. NASA has not built space stations around other planetary bodies and yet this is something which we can do in this game.

both these things are achieved with current broad-purpose part set. I'm not against new parts or building boats, but I am against adding lots of narrow-purpose, overly specific parts*.

*with the exception of boat propellers which are inherently limited use.

*edit: just had an idea of using lots of boat propellers to make a orbital debris grinder/slasher.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[coolitic]

Isnt this on already suggested?

[Nemrav]

Undoubtedly yes, but, as its not on the ol'what not to suggest or already suggested lists, its still open for discussion in the suggestions

[Greenspan]

I am pro-adding stuff to the game, I'm be all for them adding boat parts and ship parts, but at the cost of fixing/adding things more directly related to the space aspect of the game? erhm not so much. If your really into boats, there are a lot of really good boat/ship simulations out there.

IMHO, the problem with boats isn't the lack of parts, it's the wonky physics used in simulating water. I'm guessing when they were developing KSP they decided to model the physics of the water just enough so you could have an apollo style splashdown and not much more. The ingenious boats people have been able to create so far are a testament to people's creativity more than proper water physics.

If your pro-boat, how much time should squad spend improving the water physics and/or adding more boat parts? Should they scrap some of the items slated for .24 to add boat stuff? I don't know, I've just started playing with making boats, I'd love to see more boat stuff; but there are also a lot of aerospace things I'd like to see them fix/add.

[guest91111]

Spaceplane hangar. Boats can not go to space for any practical reason, and it would simply clutter up the parts menu.

We should try to recreate 'Voyage of the damned' episode from Dr. Who with KSP, by naming a Kerman David and making the Titanic in KSP with some of the engines from Interstellar (Or just about 1 000 mainsails on the back!). You can try using that in water!

[Guest]

I think some sort of floats should be in KSP. Not really for boats, but primarily for seaplanes. Right now, landing at Laythe is a pain, because you need to plan your landing carefully, or ditch. With floats, you could land and takeoff from the ocean, making it much more efficient. Also, right now, designing a pod for water recovery is trivial. It should take some effort to make a pod that doesn't sink when you land it in the water. A water-based engine would be nice as a taxi aid in water (you'll probably want to orient yourself before taking off to orbit), but one should be enough.

As for boats themselves, they should be allowed by creative combinations of rover and seaplane parts. Perhaps hovercraft could be added, as more flexible and easier to power with plane engines.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Guest

[Nemrav]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryobot

I know I shouldnt use wikipedia for my sources but, as other people are, why not ?

There have been proposals to send probes to europa for investigating its sub-surface SEA

I know that some plans were cut and the submarine one not in serious planning stage but only a concept : BUT THESE ARE MISSIONS ABOUT WATER !

and as for "cluttering the parts menu", guess what ? they just add another category alongside propulsion/aerodynamic/utility etc.. maybe this new category could hold rover wheels and boat things..