Make stock adapters be able to hold fuel

[RidingTheFlow]

Now that we have tweakables...

I know that "stock rebalance project" mod (or similar) does this, and I think stock KSP could really benefit from this. Also this will make adapters a lot more useful than pure visual purpose they have now.

[technicalfool]

An interesting idea. There are already tanks for mods such as KW Rocketry or Novapunch that effectively function as fuelled-up size adapters. There are also size adapters that function as decoupler fairings.

Not to mention that stock KSP already has liquid fuel-only aircraft parts that function as size adapters. It would seem logical to have this kind of part for rockets as well.

(Naturally, the usual caveat about "if/when Squad has the time amongst everything else" applies)

[RidingTheFlow]

As I understand this involves just editing the text in .part file so not exactly the significant work by any means...

[Alshain]

They should go ahead and add oxidizer to all fuel parts or remove redundant ones as well. With tweakables you can get rid of the oxidizer in a tank so having parts for both purposes is clutter.

[RidingTheFlow]

Not exactly, parts which hold only fuel could hold more overall than similar "combined" part with oxidizer set to zero - because tweakables can limit upper limit for each component, but not for the sum.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

With the new Tweakables, nose cones should also have fuel in them. I know they would be useless on solid fuel rockets (unless you fuel lined them to normal engines) but you could always tweak them down to 0 if you don't want fuel in them.

[Kasuha]

I support this suggestion. The only exception maybe being the ARM adapter since its model is obviously hollow.

And nose cones could hold fuel, too.

Since both can now be tweaked to empty to restore original properties it should not limit any existing designs.

[cpast]

I support this suggestion. The only exception maybe being the ARM adapter since its model is obviously hollow.

And nose cones could hold fuel, too.

Since both can now be tweaked to empty to restore original properties it should not limit any existing designs.

Alternatively, the ARM adapter's model could be sealed top and bottom.

[technicalfool]

Alternatively, the ARM adapter's model could be sealed top and bottom.

Double-alternatively, the ARM adapter could be a decoupler fairing. Have the engine from the upper stage fit inside the adapter, like the decoupler fairings from KW Rocketry.

[Jouni]

We need two kinds of adapters: fuel tanks and hollow structural elements. Right now the structural elements are rather pointless, but I assume that eventually we'll be able to move kerbals from one part of the ship to another without going EVA.

[RidingTheFlow]

They could allow crew transfer automatically if you set fuel amount to zero, probably no real need to make separate part for it.

Theoretically even appearance could be altered based on if tweakable fuel was set to be inside (e.g. orange tank could appear inside originally "hollow" part).

[StrandedonEarth]

I agree. The other thing I thought would be useful is if adapters were hollow so you could stuff them full of batteries, RCS, avionics (probe cores) etc. Yes, I've clipped probe cores inside adapters, but then it doesn't quite sit right on the next piece due to the attachment nodes.

[Jouni]

They could allow crew transfer automatically if you set fuel amount to zero, probably no real need to make separate part for it.

Theoretically even appearance could be altered based on if tweakable fuel was set to be inside (e.g. orange tank could appear inside originally "hollow" part).

An empty fuel tank is a completely different thing from a structural part with a passageway through it. It would be a complete waste of developer time to implement crew access in a lazy way that's utterly unbelievable. We don't really need crew access for anything, except for roleplaying purposes. For those purposes, a bad implementation is worse than no implementation at all.

[sumghai]

I'm definitely down with adding fuel storage to adapters, nose cones and large aircraft wings.

As for adding oxidizer to fuel-only tanks, I'm against that notion - bear in mind that said tanks were designed specifically for use with atmospheric aircraft, which would utilize oxygen from air intakes.

[Random Tank]

Yeah, I agree with this idea; nose cones, adaptors and the aircraft tail connector should be able to carry fuel in stock.

Also, maybe a couple of the large, single purpose parts could contain other things, like: Inline docking ports could hold 100-200 units of monoprop; the Rockomax Hubmax could hold ~500 units of electricity; the RoveMate could hold 300 elec; the Not-Rockomax HubNode could hold 100 elec; the Hitchhiker and Mobile Labs could contain charge (200-1000?); and maybe the tri coupler and tri adaptor (and the rest ofc) could hold 100-200 units of elec.

Also, I'd like a longer 2.5m-1.25m adaptor, to look more aerodynamic and to match that the 1.25-0.625m adaptors have a short, medium and long variant; these larger ones only have a short and medium length one. This new adaptor would also hold fuel.

[Sky_walker]

+1.

Even more so as in real life spaceprobe parts that look more-or-less like Kerbal adapters nearly always hold fuel inside.

[BudgetHedgehog]

An empty fuel tank is a completely different thing from a structural part with a passageway through it. It would be a complete waste of developer time to implement crew access in a lazy way that's utterly unbelievable. We don't really need crew access for anything, except for roleplaying purposes. For those purposes, a bad implementation is worse than no implementation at all.

Wet workshops - using empty fuel tanks as parts in a space station. But I do agree with your second point - until they make crew access important, there's no reason to do this.

[Jouni]

Wet workshops - using empty fuel tanks as parts in a space station.

That's about permanently converting empty fuel tanks into space station modules. Here we're talking about repeatedly using the same parts as fuel tanks and structural components, depending on whether they happen to contain fuel at the moment.

[RidingTheFlow]

Here we're talking about repeatedly using the same parts as fuel tanks and structural components, depending on whether they happen to contain fuel at the moment.

I never meant such a thing. I meant whether there will be fuel inside is set once, in the editor. Once you get in the game, it becomes unchangeable. Though its more of far future improvement, as there is no support for crew passing in game ATM. For now I just want parts to be able to hold fuel.

Edited June 20, 2014 by RidingTheFlow

[Jouni]

I never meant such a thing. I meant whether there will be fuel inside is set once, in the editor. Once you get in the game, it becomes unchangeable. Though its more of far future improvement, as there is no support for crew passing in game ATM. For now I just want parts to be able to hold fuel.

We would still need to make the distinction between an empty fuel tank that can be filled later, and a purely structural component that can never hold any fuel. The empty fuel tank would probably be heavier than the structural part, because the adapters currently weight much less than fuel tanks of similar size.

[RidingTheFlow]

Well, there is lot to be improved, but as I said, I would be satisfied if at least some fuel could be stored inside adapters.

And I am fine that it will not be as much fuel that in dedicated fuel tank of comparable size, to keep mass fraction the same.

[Moss]

You should also be able to store at least liquid fuel in wings, as thats how I assume it's done IRL

[BudgetHedgehog]

You should also be able to store at least liquid fuel in wings, as thats how I assume it's done IRL

Correct, but IIRC, Taverius or Lack or somebody said they tried that and ran into some interesting problem regarding fuel flow. I'll try and find it, but it should be easy enough to test - just edit the wings cfg and see what happens.

[Random Tank]

You should also be able to store at least liquid fuel in wings, as thats how I assume it's done IRL

The stock wings are way too small and thin though, you'd probably get 5 units of jet fuel per delta.... B9 wings are much more appropriate, but obviously they aren't stock...

[Alshain]

They should go ahead and add oxidizer to all fuel parts or remove redundant ones as well. With tweakables you can get rid of the oxidizer in a tank so having parts for both purposes is clutter.

Ah, well that makes sense but in that case I would suggest to Squad a modification of the tweakables to have a max combined resources providing the same effect. So if you take all the oxidizer out it would increase the amount of Fuel you could put in it. But I do understand what your saying.