Larger Deployable Solar Panel, Larger Static Solar Panel

[Northstar1989]

I couldn't find any rules against making *specific* part suggestions that haven't been made before, only general suggestions, so I hope this will be allowed.

I know it's probably been suggested many times, but then again maybe it hasn't. I suggest upscaled versions of the Gigantor Solar Array and the OX-STAT solar array be added to the stock game.

Larger solar arrays have already become a popular subject of many mods. It would be nice to see them in stock gameplay as well.

The main use of these would be, I think, to power craft sporting many ion engines in the Inner Kerbol System (Eve and Moho), and possibly to power any future power-hungry parts introduced to the stock game. It would also, dare I say, be useful for players running mods with more power-hungry parts, such as upscaled ion engines, or ion engine "array" parts...

It might also, perhaps, open the door to someday including Solar Electric Propulsion of larger scale and thrust than ion engines in the stock game, such as VASIMR, if Squad ever became interested in implementing that propulsion system... (in fact, I made another thread suggesting VASIMR engines)

The specific parts:

A "Mega" deployable solar array of larger size than the Gigantor XL, and producing more EC/s. I would suggest a panel with at least 4 times the surface area and 2-3 times (or more) the ElectricCharge production.

A static solar panel of significantly larger size than the OX-STAT, and producing more EC/s, with better mass/EC production ratios than the deployable panels, for when players are willing to orient their entire craft towards Kerbol to save on mass, but can't afford the lag from part-count of spamming OX-STAT panels...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited May 27, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Deathsoul097]

What about inline panels, like the Balka from KOSMOS? And make them a stock representation of the ISS main solar arrays?

[Northstar1989]

What about inline panels, like the Balka from KOSMOS? And make them a stock representation of the ISS main solar arrays?

The ISS main solar arrays aren't inline. They're mast-based, much like the stock Gigantor XL panels...

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

I don't understand the suggestion of "inline panels". Do you mean panels that are built into a fuselage as a combined fuselage-panel part? (that would qualify as "Combining Parts", a banned suggestion, by the way)

Regards,

Northstar

[Deathsoul097]

The ISS main solar arrays aren't inline. They're mast-based, much like the stock Gigantor XL panels...

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

I don't understand the suggestion of "inline panels". Do you mean panels that are built into a fuselage as a combined fuselage-panel part? (that would qualify as "Combining Parts", a banned suggestion, by the way)

Regards,

Northstar

No no, I mean a new part, like the KOSMOS Balka. It is a 1.25m section that allows the panels to rotate freely around both axis of rotation, so that it always has the most efficient angle on light. Think of a small fuselage or truss section with panels probably bigger than the Gigantor on the side, which allows the panels to extend and rotate as per normal, but with the added bonus of being able to rotate around the stack it was a part of. As for the panels on the ISS, I know they aren't inline, I was only bringing them up as a suggestion for art style.

This kind of shows what I mean, though it may be misinterpreted again.

[Northstar1989]

Isn't there anybody else out there who has any thoughts on this?

Regards,

Northstar

[r4pt0r]

we need more uses for all that juice.

[Deep silence]

Bigger static panels would be great!

[Tex]

we need more uses for all that juice.

Ooh, I definitely agree with this point. Often if you have enough solar arrays, you never have to worry about power again. The only time I've run out, other than if I forget the panels completely, is on a Kethane miner.

[Northstar1989]

Ooh, I definitely agree with this point. Often if you have enough solar arrays, you never have to worry about power again. The only time I've run out, other than if I forget the panels completely, is on a Kethane miner.

The devs should probably nerf the panels' EC production. It's currently way too much for the size/mass of the panels.

Then they should add larger panels that players could use to keep producing tons of EC/s. It's not like it's really going to hurt most players- most have no use for all that poser anyways...

If you're looking for a GOOD use of all the power from larger panels, though, see my suggestion to implement VASIMR engines in the stock game.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81368-VASIMR-engine/page3

Regards,

Northstar

[Tery215]

I have to say that this does reduce lag, but there isn't a need of it in any other area.

Need to power something? It's probably a mod. It can't hurt to use another mod to power it.

Rovers, ion engines, comms devices? Batteries and smaller solar panels would usually work.

[Northstar1989]

I have to say that this does reduce lag, but there isn't a need of it in any other area.

Need to power something? It's probably a mod. It can't hurt to use another mod to power it.

Rovers, ion engines, comms devices? Batteries and smaller solar panels would usually work.

You're forgetting than an Inverse Square law for solar panel effectiveness is on the chopping block for the devs at some point in the future. To get decent EC production for, say, 2-3 stock ion engines out by Jool- you'll need significantly larger solar panels, or have to spam existing types...

Plus, it would also pave the way for addition of more energy-intensive features, such as ISRU if they decide to work on that again at some point... (it was rejected in its last incarnation because that rendition was "not fun"- they didn't reject Resources totally...)

Regards,

Northstar

[WhiteWeasel]

I'd like a middleman solar panel because going from 2 e/s (from the 1x6/2x3) to the 18 e/s of the gigantor is a bit of a spike. However if you're don't mind modding in a temporary solution, Nerteas' Near future has a variety of them. From large static panels to curved to 250 e/s monsters.

Images from his OP:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[MixUp5]

Bigger static panels would be great!

Yes! I very rarely use the static panels mainly because they are so tedious to place and you need so many of them. Having larger ones would help with that.

[RenevB]

In my experience (or playstyle) a set of Gigantors has always been sufficient, so I don't quite see the point of even bigger panels. I can imagine adding an in-between extendable size, and definitely see the use of larger static panels.

[Northstar1989]

I'm not trying to necro this thread or anything, but the announcement that a Resources system will indeed make it into 1.0 kind of changes things. I can now foresee there being a much larger demand for huge solar panels other than just roleplaying on space stations and using clusters of ion engines (mounted on Cubic Octagonal Struts) for ion-tugs.

Anyone have some thoughts?

Regards,

Northstar

[Darnok]

A static solar panel of significantly larger size than the OX-STAT, and producing more EC/s, with better mass/EC production ratios than the deployable panels, for when players are willing to orient their entire craft towards Kerbol to save on mass, but can't afford the lag from part-count of spamming OX-STAT panels...

We need that one.

[CaptRobau]

I'm not trying to necro this thread or anything, but the announcement that a Resources system will indeed make it into 1.0 kind of changes things. I can now foresee there being a much larger demand for huge solar panels other than just roleplaying on space stations and using clusters of ion engines (mounted on Cubic Octagonal Struts) for ion-tugs.

Anyone have some thoughts?

Regards,

Northstar

I'd say so. Although there needs to be an overall change to electricty consumption. Even with resource mining, that still means that electricity is not an issue 99% of the time. It should be an issue far more often.

[r4pt0r]

What if the mining they implement is all done by hand by our kerbals? wont need power then.

[Ikaneko]

What I'd like to see is a wing with pre-attached static solar panels (like the solar panel trusses in NF-S).

It'd make my helios replica easier to make!!

[Northstar1989]

I'd say so. Although there needs to be an overall change to electricty consumption. Even with resource mining, that still means that electricity is not an issue 99% of the time. It should be an issue far more often.

Addition of Life-Support features could also drastically change the equation- if life support required electricity to operate like in real life or TAC Life Support...

Regards,

Northstar

[Solarspaceprobe]

I want bigger static panels! Awesome! Bigger RTG's would be nice too....

[Northstar1989]

Bigger RTG's

[choking on my own tongue]

Bigger *RTG's*? Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you just joking with me?

Scaling up RTG's makes *absolutely no sense whatsoever*.

The MAIN reason we use RTG's, rather than nuclear reactors, is that they scale easily to small sizes (although it also helps from a political perspective when it's not *technically* a nuclear reactor). When the total mass of nuclear fuel becomes large enough, it becomes almost *necessary* to build a proper nuclear reactor- once you reach a thermal pile of sufficient mass, "critical mass" is achieved and you experience a runaway nuclear reaction. An informal nuclear reactor (or a nuclear explosive, depending on the size/density of the pile) if you will.

In fact, this is *precisely* how the first nuclear reactors were built- as simple thermal piles of radioactive materials, to provide proof-of-concept for more advanced reactors...

So, in short, you would almost never want to scale up an RTG. You're MUCH better off building a proper reactor (which also produces a LOT more electricity for the mass...)

Regards,

Northstar

[Capt Snuggler]

[choking on my own tongue]

Bigger *RTG's*? Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you just joking with me?

Scaling up RTG's makes *absolutely no sense whatsoever*.

The MAIN reason we use RTG's, rather than nuclear reactors, is that they scale easily to small sizes (although it also helps from a political perspective when it's not *technically* a nuclear reactor). When the total mass of nuclear fuel becomes large enough, it becomes almost *necessary* to build a proper nuclear reactor- once you reach a thermal pile of sufficient mass, "critical mass" is achieved and you experience a runaway nuclear reaction. An informal nuclear reactor (or a nuclear explosive, depending on the size/density of the pile) if you will.

In fact, this is *precisely* how the first nuclear reactors were built- as simple thermal piles of radioactive materials, to provide proof-of-concept for more advanced reactors...

So, in short, you would almost never want to scale up an RTG. You're MUCH better off building a proper reactor (which also produces a LOT more electricity for the mass...)

Regards,

Northstar

yeah, what he said.

also, from a game play perspective bigger RTGs would be a bit cheaty.

my question is, what are we doing with all this juice anyway? other than ion engines of course (and possibly that mining thing). what I'm saying is I think they need to add some late game items/parts/functions that have bigger energy demands.

ideas?

[Northstar1989]

my question is, what are we doing with all this juice anyway? other than ion engines of course (and possibly that mining thing). what I'm saying is I think they need to add some late game items/parts/functions that have bigger energy demands.

ideas?

Two words:

Life Support

Regards,

Northstar

[Kaos]

Two words:

Life Support

Regards,

Northstar

That, and In-Situ Ressource Utilization, as well as long term science.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Kaos