Space stations

[swakey]

I'm sure a lot has been said on the topic but being new to the game I'm not really looking forward to shuffling through all the suggestions so sorry if I'm bringing up old news.

What if stations could have some kind of purpose in the game? I've only found reason to have a refueling station so far and others are just for aesthetics i suppose. What if you had to build something like the hubble telescope for instance in order to be able to explore and visit planets beyond kerbin? They could be locked or out of view before you do so. Or if asteroids were introduced in the game then the telescope could scan the skies checking for any possible impacts where, if they did occur you'd have to do something about. But if they hit kerbin you'd loose money or science.

Or having satellites up in order for your communications devices to work better outside kerbins orbit? or for controlling probes for that matter

Maybe building something like the ISS gives you bonus science for every science you collect? the hitchhikers storage container already exists time to put it in good use

[ibeinsane]

I have joined the forum mainly to reply to this post and to start offering some suggestions.

I have been playing KSP for quite a while now and agree there should be some greater purpose for Space Stations and also ground based stations other than purely aesthetics, refuelling and a rendezvous point (which a tanker can provide).

Science is the obvious point at this stage, perhaps attributing small science points over time depending on where the base is and how many kerbals are on it. It could also provide material to bring back to kerbal to obtain science.

Additionally in future versions the use of contracts and monetary system could offer incentives to build space stations and ground stations but not necessarily to work them. This could be obtained unless additional funds were available for subsequent visits, supplies, additions and kerbal exchange.

I think considering space stations, satellites and bases are common place by most users a definite purpose for a permanent space craft and/or stations should be defined with a purpose for longer term visits by kerbals (and reasons for multiple kerbals) to orbits and planet surfaces.

At the moment science and cash is the obvious one when it is introduced, but additional repairs, automation and functions available only the kerbals would be great.

[Kasuha]

Space station is generally a ship which is parked in orbit. To make space station useful means you need to find some mechanism which will make it more beneficial for that ship to stay put instead of traveling somewhere. Which in means giving them some "production" or "service" function which is not possible or beneficial while traveling.

"Production" examples include producing electricity, science, money, or some form of fuel (e.g. antimatter).

"Service" examples include habitation, storage, communication, parking, or manufacturing.

For all of these there are options either in core game or in available mods.

So... well... I'm not sure if anything can still be added to that.

Adding specific tasks to build space stations e.g. in Career is not making them more useful. That just means building station so they are built.

[ibeinsane]

Although I take your point I'm not sure I agree.

Yes you could put a station into orbit to generate electricity, indeed I have had several very large solar generators around different bodies and a couple of nuclear reactors from kethane but they serve no real purpose beyond the ability to build it. Stations can double as communications and fuel stores etc but these would always be secondary purposes. A satellite provides comms and a tanker provides fuel. The ISS was not built for communications or fuel storage.

Antimatter or other form of orbital fuel production IMO detracts from the reality of the game so is something I have stayed away from. Even so do any of these mods require kerbals on the stations?

The idea of having a station as part of the career is to add a reason to the many stations people are building, and specifically a reason to have kerbals on the stations.

For what purpose would I have to place a large space station into eve orbit generating lots of electricity with 10 kerbals other than the pure challenge? Science would be expended rather quickly and I can find no reason for a station rather than a single 1 (or 3) kerbal craft on a single trip.

I would be interested to know if someone has found a mod that really necessitates a permanent or semi permanent space station in any orbit which specifically requires a kerbal to be on board. The only exception to this is the science module but IMO the only use for this is planet surfaces you are not going to return from and I am yet to sacrifice a kerbal in this way. In all other circumstances the kerbal should return and therefore the science too.

[kiwiak]

Space station coudl be used for orbital construction..

Not like in extraplanetary launchpads mod when you have orbital shipyard that can spawn any part possible. Just for some very large parts of ships, not necessarly very heavy, but something of big size that just cant be strapped on top of rocket.

[Doozler]

The science lab is a good use for a station - I have one around the Mun so my small lander can visit multiple biomes without returning to kerbin. Only really usefull for mun and minmus, but would be a must if multiple biomes get added to other planets.

Add life support requirements and you need a reasonable size station already.

[ibeinsane]

I would still say that the science lab for science and exploration would be best used on an extended duration large space ship mission with multiple landers if necessary, not a permanent manned space station as once all biomes are explored there is no advantage for a space station and no need for kerbals to remain on board.

I suppose this may come down to definitions.

1)Does a large space ship in a single orbit for 1 year constitute a space station

Or is a space station a permanently manned structure

[CaptainKipard]

The way I see it there's no fundamental difference between any of the vehicles in KSP, and I like it that way. It's much more open-ended. It allows you to imagine your own purpose for "stations". I don't agree with any restrictions in this case.

[Stargate525]

The way I see it there's no fundamental difference between any of the vehicles in KSP, and I like it that way. It's much more open-ended. It allows you to imagine your own purpose for "stations". I don't agree with any restrictions in this case.

You can have any color you like, so long as it's black?

There are fundamental differences between landers, probes, planes, and rockets. You design those differences. I see zero reason why you couldn't have a part, like some of the currently-existing science instruments, that requires you to maintain relative altitude/speed over a planet to do its thing.

[Doozler]

...once all biomes are explored there is no advantage for a space station and no need for kerbals to remain on board.

I think this is the fundamental problem. Once any one-time science is done, you could of course abandon the station.

I think ongoing science (one point per day) feels great but would be open to abuse by time warp.

The most realistic reason for a permanent station, I think, is resource mining. I think this is on the back burner as far as stock, unfortunately.

I suppose this may come down to definitions.

1)Does a large space ship in a single orbit for 1 year constitute a space station

Or is a space station a permanently manned structure

Agreed! There is no way I am going to try to fly my moon base back to kerbin though. I'll just leave it there and imagine they are doing non-points science!

Edit: And I agree that contracts/ money might sort this all out. Contracts could do a lot for this sort of justification.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Doozler

[Red Iron Crown]

The way I see it there's no fundamental difference between any of the vehicles in KSP, and I like it that way. It's much more open-ended. It allows you to imagine your own purpose for "stations". I don't agree with any restrictions in this case.

This.

I, too, like that there is no clear distinction among spaceplanes, space stations, rockets, and rovers. Helps encourage rules that treat everything equally and gives more creative freedom in construction.

There are fundamental differences between landers, probes, planes, and rockets.

If I make a rocket-powered plane with wheels and a probe core, which of these is it?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Red Iron Crown

[CaptainKipard]

You can have any color you like, so long as it's black?

There are fundamental differences between landers, probes, planes, and rockets. You design those differences. I see zero reason why you couldn't have a part, like some of the currently-existing science instruments, that requires you to maintain relative altitude/speed over a planet to do its thing.

That's just a self-contradictory post

The Ford reference implies you don't want restrictions, You're saying I have the freedom to design what I want and then right after that you're arguing for parts that restrict your actions.

I don't know what I expected.

[vger]

Space station coudl be used for orbital construction.. Not like in extraplanetary launchpads mod when you have orbital shipyard that can spawn any part possible. Just for some very large parts of ships, not necessarly very heavy, but something of big size that just cant be strapped on top of rocket.

That just feels far too unrealistic. Not to mention it would make the game disgustingly easy by allowing us to completely remove 'Phase 1' from all of our missions.

That aside, OP falls in with what I've read in a lot of threads. There are many aspects of research and exploration that don't yield any science, but probably should. For example, a probe orbiting a planet a couple of times, can gather just as much data as a manned space station that has been in operation for 10 years. That doesn't sit well with me.

Edited March 25, 2014 by vger

[Deathsoul097]

This.

I, too, like that there is no clear distinction among spaceplanes, space stations, rockets, and rovers. Helps encourage rules that treat everything equally and gives more creative freedom in construction.

If I make a rocket-powered plane with wheels and a probe core, which of these is it?

Whichever you want, but I would say it's a plane, as there has been rocket powered planes before, and planes that are remote controlled ala probe core, and a plane can easily double as a rover even without with the extra wheels.

[Joonatan1998]

That just feels far too unrealistic. Not to mention it would make the game disgustingly easy by allowing us to completely remove 'Phase 1' from all of our missions.

That aside, OP falls in with what I've read in a lot of threads. There are many aspects of research and exploration that don't yield any science, but probably should. For example, a probe orbiting a planet a couple of times, can gather just as much data as a manned space station that has been in operation for 10 years. That doesn't sit well with me.

How is orbital construction unrealistic?

[Red Iron Crown]

Whichever you want, but I would say it's a plane, as there has been rocket powered planes before, and planes that are remote controlled ala probe core, and a plane can easily double as a rover even without with the extra wheels.

Right, so there's not really "fundamental differences" between them, rather there are large areas of overlap among all those categories.

[Jouni]

Industrial machinery is big and heavy. For realistic orbital construction, we would need space stations the size of VAB, at the very least.

[Joonatan1998]

If they are just putting parts that you have stored together they wouldn't need to be very big, A part that could construct small probes from stored parts could be same size as the new large fuel tank.

[vger]

Orbital construction isn't unrealistic. I have assembled ships in KSP by sending them up one part at a time. But having a drydock in orbit, with no regard to how the materials/parts are getting there, IS unrealistic.

[Joonatan1998]

I think that a realistic solution could be:

A: just carry the parts up in large container parts

+Very realistic

-Can't use the largest parts (They don't fit inside the container)

B: Have some different resources like

Electronics

Metal

Duct tape

And have different parts cost different amounts of different resources, just make sure that the resources cost more than buying the same part at kerbin.

It could also limit the parts constructed to some of the simple parts (no ion engines, LV-N engines...)

+More usefull

-Less realistic

[Tex_NL]

Both Orbital Construction and Extraplanetary Launchpads require you to bring more mass into orbit than is 'produced' when building a ship. The only thing that is used one on one is fuel.

Why should the largest parts be excluded? I have realistic looking lifters that can launch the largest 3.75m KW Rocketry tank to LKO still full of fuel. If I can launch something that big and heavy why shouldn't I be able to build something like that in orbit?

[Jouni]

I guess that limited orbital construction could be reasonable. As long as we are dealing only with electrical connections and relatively weak structural connections, quite a lot can be done with limited tools. When we start talking about stronger connections, fuel lines, and explosives, more extensive facilities will be needed. We could for example remove the science equipment and antennas from a probe, and replace them with a command seat and light landing struts to make it a lander.

[Clockwork13]

I'm sure a lot has been said on the topic but being new to the game I'm not really looking forward to shuffling through all the suggestions so sorry if I'm bringing up old news.

What if stations could have some kind of purpose in the game? I've only found reason to have a refueling station so far and others are just for aesthetics i suppose. What if you had to build something like the hubble telescope for instance in order to be able to explore and visit planets beyond kerbin? They could be locked or out of view before you do so. Or if asteroids were introduced in the game then the telescope could scan the skies checking for any possible impacts where, if they did occur you'd have to do something about. But if they hit kerbin you'd loose money or science.

Or having satellites up in order for your communications devices to work better outside kerbins orbit? or for controlling probes for that matter

Maybe building something like the ISS gives you bonus science for every science you collect? the hitchhikers storage container already exists time to put it in good use

Two ideas.

1. Get the space station science mod. It adds a lot more into space stations

2. Use the station for roleplay purposes.

I don't see much use coming to stations in stock KSP any time soon, although I agree they need more use than this.

[karolus10]

I'm generally against any "magic" ways of launching ready crafts into orbit but I would be glad to see orbital construction with use couple variants of robotic arms like canadarm.

In this case orbital assembly would be made on space station with robotic arms and docking ports for storing delivered modules... then you can assemble ship without trying to fly and dock with each part so you don't need any propulsion on modules or using RCS tugs.

[Horn Brain]

Resources would make these useful... I'm just saying...