Make the OX-4 solar panels non-retractable to differentiate them from the SP panels

[CaptRobau]

At the moment the SP line of solar panels are, aside from aesthetic purposes, useless compared to the OX-4 panels. Because the SP have a heavy cover, making them produce less electrical charge per ton. Yet this heavy cover offers no advantage, even though the description mentions it:

The SP model comes with a protective shroud, allowing recovery when it's no longer needed.

This imbalance is rather easy to solve. Make the OX-4 line non-retractable and keep the SP line retractable. This means that you can only deploy the OX-4 panels once, meaning that atmospheric reentry with them remaining intact becomes impossible. So if you want solar panels that need to survive an atmospheric landing or a deep aerobrake, the SP line becomes a viable choice. In a lot of cases the lighter and cheaper OX-4 panels will be sufficient. But for some specialized missions the heavier and more expensive SP line become a viable choice.

The Stock Rebalanced Project mod implemented this and I have to say that it works like a charm.

EDIT: The 1x6 and 2x3 could be differentiated by having one of them not be automatically tracking the Sun. The Soyuz for example has these non-tracking panels. The non-tracking panels would be lighter (no motor) to make it a worthwhile choice.

Edited July 14, 2014 by CaptRobau

[Red Iron Crown]

That's a good idea, there's basically no reason to ever use the SP panels as they are now.

Not so sure about disabling the sun-tracking, it's nice to have the aesthetic and packaging choice between the two styles.

[Sky_walker]

Yep. Good idea in deed.

As for not being able to track the sun - I'm not a big fan of that - if anything: It should exist as a separate (cheaper and a bit lighter) item line.

[CaptRobau]

Not so sure about disabling the sun-tracking, it's nice to have the aesthetic and packaging choice between the two styles.

As for not being able to track the sun - I'm not a big fan of that - if anything: It should exist as a separate (cheaper and a bit lighter) item line.

That's probably best. I tried it out in-game, but the setup of the panels are just not made for it. Non-tracking would be interesting for solar panels, but they have to be tailor-made to really make it work. Perhaps be 3x6 in size. So if you turn them right, they get a lot of power for not that much more weight (no tracking motor remember) but they're not as easy to use as other panels.

[Javster]

Or maybe they can be retracted, but they'll still be torn off in the atmosphere.

[CaptRobau]

I think it'd be more graphically clear what happens. If the entire part just falls off due to atmospheric stresses, people will wonder what happened. If all the solar panels fly off like they do when you enter the atmosphere with them deployed, then it's far more clear that it was because of the atmosphere. It also looks a lot cooler.

[GusTurbo]

At the moment the SP line of solar panels are, aside from aesthetic purposes, useless compared to the OX-4 panels. Because the SP have a heavy cover, making them produce less electrical charge per ton. Yet this heavy cover offers no advantage, even though the description mentions it:

This imbalance is rather easy to solve. Make the OX-4 line non-retractable and keep the SP line retractable. This means that you can only deploy the OX-4 panels once, meaning that atmospheric reentry with them remaining intact becomes impossible. So if you want solar panels that need to survive an atmospheric landing or a deep aerobrake, the SP line becomes a viable choice. In a lot of cases the lighter and cheaper OX-4 panels will be sufficient. But for some specialized missions the heavier and more expensive SP line become a viable choice.

The Stock Rebalanced Project mod implemented this and I have to say that it works like a charm.

EDIT: The 1x6 and 2x3 could be differentiated by having one of them not be automatically tracking the Sun. The Soyuz for example has these non-tracking panels. The non-tracking panels would be lighter (no motor) to make it a worthwhile choice.

I like this idea a lot. I do think they should have sun-tracking though.

[Laie]

Or maybe they can be retracted, but they'll still be torn off in the atmosphere.

To the degree of not even surviving a launch without fairings?

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

Why not just simply add a much higher cost to the OX4 and mke the SP stronger? or effectiver?

[BudgetHedgehog]

It also looks a lot cooler.

I like to think of it as confetti to herald a safe return to Kerbin.

Anyway, on a slightly related note, I recently installed the Stock Rebalance mod and am planning a trip to Duna now. With aerobraking at the other end, I had to use the covered ones for the first time since I got the game 7 months ago. That was a great feeling, to have it finally make sense to use them. I hate that you see a kind of evolution in KSP that eventually settles on the ideal solution. For landers, it's either the Toyota Corolla or radially attached fuel tanks/mat. bays. It's great - it's stable, reliable, plenty of dV - but it's also boring. Same with LV-Ns for interplanetary tugs, everything just ends up being the same thing over and over again, only the destination and objective change. Encouraging the use of other parts based on their relative merits is wonderful - as with me right now and this Duna mission, with Near Future changing the LV-Ns - and I would heartily support such a change in KSP.

[SpaceXray]

I want solar panels that give you the option between tracking and locked, retractable and non-retractable.

Good suggestion indeed.