Do you guys ever find yourselves mega-obsessed with replicas?

[G'th]

Because I've got that problem SOOOO bad. When I started playing KSP my crafts normally just resembled what I saw in that first tutorial video I watched. But then I started getting interested in NASA and Apollo in particular and all of a sudden, all I find myself designing is Apollo style missions, even to the point where any other method of landing on a moon just seems silly.

And now, after seeing Atlantis in person, I'm obsessed with space shuttles, to the point where I'm modifying B9 parts to create a shuttle replica that does everything I want it to. Ugh.

I really shudder to think of what I might end up obsessed with next. It'll probably be SpaceX's stuff.

[Pecan]

No.

If I wanted to play with ancient Earth machines made by someone else I'd be messing-around with Orbiter.

I want to build my machines the way I want to using KSP rules, so I play KSP.

I don't do missions Apollo-style because they don't make sense in KSP.

I particularly don't do US Shuttle replicas because they don't make sense.

[G'th]

No.

If I wanted to play with ancient Earth machines made by someone else I'd be messing-around with Orbiter.

I want to build my machines the way I want to using KSP rules, so I play KSP.

I don't do missions Apollo-style because they don't make sense in KSP.

I particularly don't do US Shuttle replicas because they don't make sense.

Wow, buzzkill .

[Fiddlestyx]

after seeing Atlantis in person

I am super jealous. I wish KSP had a working mod like NASA's Space Shuttle (one that doesn't require a bunch of plugins/other mods). When they released the NASA pack, I was hoping it had the shuttle.

[Pecan]

You needed saving

[General Rarity]

I'm not obsessed with replicas, but most of my craft have a hint of many historical spacecraft in them. A lot of my lifters are a mix of SLS, Saturn, Proton, Energia, Soyuz, and Falcon 9. My crewed spacecraft that aren't winged are usually based off the Soyuz TMA or a Dragon. My winged spacecraft always have a cargo bay along with a crew compartment and a robotic arm. Stations usually are based of Freedom, Mir, ISS, Tiangong, and Salyut, and usually have a robotic arm.

Examples:

Saturn style lifter: http://i.imgur.com/uQY8Jek.png

Start of a Mir style station, with a crew shuttle that looks like Boeing's new CST-100 (whatever its called): http://i.imgur.com/mc5vorg.png

SLS/Jupiter 232 inspired launcher: http://i.imgur.com/Q8T3zOd.png

[No one]

No.

If I wanted to replicate what someone else already did then I wouldn't be No one, I'd be someone else. But I'm not someone else, I'm No one.

Replicas are annoying because A) They force you to focus on annoying things like looks, and Because they force you to do things in one specific way, and don't allow you to choose how to solve the problem for yourself.

[GusTurbo]

I love replicas because it's too easy to do things in this game using ugly rockets. Aesthetics add to the challenge, which makes things more fun.

[katateochi]

I love that both free-style and replica designs work in KSP. When I started I was all about making the craziest things I could but gradually I've got more into trying to do replica(ish) designs. Curiosity was the first replica I attempted, I've also done an Apollo11 style craft and more recently I did a DragonX V2 replica. The one that probably more folk have seen was my Constellation style mission (not really a replica as it's been axed but it was based on the plans). I built an Orion replica for that mission, but more recently I've upgraded it and now Orion is one of my most useful craft (although strangely I don't have any pics of the recent one).

I've tried to replicate fighter aircraft but that's not worked so well, but I did make an SR-71 replica which I'm really pleased with. I've not tried any station replicas, although I keep meaning to build an ISS replica, just haven't got round to it yet. I also keep coming back to attempts at recreating Serenity from Firefly (and don't you dare tell me its not real) but so far I've not been satisfied with my attempts.

So yeah, I like doing replicas a lot, but I don't just use replicas, my space program is a mix of replicas and home-brew things.

Here's some pics/vids of some of my replica(ish) craft;

(for some reason the imgur albums inside spoilers show the first pic really small, but it sorts itself out if you click on it)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Javascript is disabled. View full album

someone else's work I saw on Imgur

I recently stumbled across someone on Imgur who's been making a series of "History through KSP" posts (up to part 35 now) which have really interesting historical background info and some nice replica designs. I don't think he's on the forums, but here's a link to his submissions on Imgur - http://imgur.com/user/mendahu/submitted

[Xavven]

Because I've got that problem SOOOO bad. When I started playing KSP my crafts normally just resembled what I saw in that first tutorial video I watched. But then I started getting interested in NASA and Apollo in particular and all of a sudden' date=' all I find myself designing is Apollo style missions, even to the point where any other method of landing on a moon just seems silly.

[/quote']

I do a little bit of both, usually drawing inspiration from real life missions to design my own craft. Yes, the Apollo-style mission mode (Lunar Orbital Rendezvous) is a very efficient one, but it's not always the most appropriate for every celestial body in KSP or even in real life. For example, some proposed manned missions to Mars use a direct ascent mission mode with in-situ resource utilization, which is just a fancy way of saying you manufacture rocket fuel from Mars' atmosphere and then blast off straight for Earth without docking in Mars orbit. The more I learn about NASA, the more variety of solutions I learn that the human race is capable of coming up with. It's amazing, really, and real life space craft should broaden your flexibility in KSP, not constrain it.

[Mister Kerman]

I love this thread already. Recently I made a replica of the Apollo 11 CM/SM and it's Lunar Module.

Just the LM

Here it is attached to the CM/SM

I failed at doing a mock Apollo mission with it because of weight issues and too many parts. But my Apollo phase isn't over. Here's a less historically accurate version that's much more viable for missions.

This one is a Kerbal style lander. Not a separately staged Descent/Ascent module like above.

Wish me luck!

Edited August 4, 2014 by Mister Kerman

[Ruahrc]

I would say I'm definitely guilty of this! Playing KSP has for me too led to me reading a lot about historic space exploration missions, and then ultimately leading me to attempt a recreation of the same mission in KSP. It also started when I came across DMagic's orbital science parts which included the boom magnetometer and RPWS antenna needed to make a passable Voyager replica (the first replica I made).

I have made a number of probes however I have only launched a few because I am waiting for launch windows in my career save, and in some cases mission planning is non-trivial (multiple flyby with Voyager probe... very difficult with the mission planning tools available for KSP ) The other problem is that since there are more planets in real solar system than in KSP, some of the probes have nowhere to go

It's not that I don't have the creativity to make my own probes (I already did that in a previous version of KSP) but I find myself enjoying the challenge of making a craft that looks and operates like the real thing.

So far I have made:

Ranger probe to impact Mun (launched/success)

Munar Surveyor lander (launched/success)

Munar Orbiter for surface mapping/photography (launched/success)

Mariner 1/2 probe to Eve flyby (launched/enroute)

Mariner 3/4 Duna flyby

Mariner 8/9 Duna orbiters

Mariner 10 Eve+Moho flyby

Viking Duna lander ("simulated launch" in sandbox)

Pioneer 6/7/8/9 interstellar space network (launched one)

Pioneer 10/11 outer planet exploration

Voyager 1 and 2 outer planets/Kerbol escape (particularly proud of this one)

Magellan Eve mapping

Galileo Jool exploration with Jool atmospheric probe ("simulated launch" in sandbox)

Cassini Jool exploration with Laythe surface probe ("simulated launch" in sandbox)

Ulysses kerbol polar exploration

Kerpollo Munar and Minimus manned landings (did this in earlier version of KSP, want to re-do it)

I will probably next attempt Juno probe to Jool.

[Umlüx]

it depends. sometimes i am really obsessed and try to be as accurate as possible. i have at least one apollo and voyager in my saves.

but usually it gets tedious/boring fast and i start to kerbal things up a bit

[Seret]

Do you guys ever find yourselves mega-obsessed with replicas?

Nope, I like the creativity aspect of designing something from scratch to suit my needs.

[Romby]

I like trying to replicate real like missions to a certain degree. For example almost all my missions to the moon it with a lander/orbiter design. But i dont make the lander a 2 stage lander like the apollo LEM. Just isnt worth it when you look at cost and looks.

I like to challenge myself though. Using the mods FAR, DRE and KIDS and made my own challenges like having to use fairings to cover importain parts and avoid using asparagus to much. When playing like this rockets will look like real rocket. But im not trying to replicate.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Romby

[falconek]

I don't do missions Apollo-style because they don't make sense in KSP.

How can you say, they don't make sense in KSP? The heavier the body you want to land on, the more you gain by making a two-stage lander. Of course, if you land on Minmus, the gain is very low, or maybe even negative. But for Mun, Duna and up, Apollo-style lander allows you to build smaller, lighter and cheaper. And also, the two-stage lander is safer for landing in rough terrain (if it goes wrong, only descent engine gets destroyed), which is good for Ironman play.

I only don't use apollo-style landers for Duna-Ike missions, where I use architecture in which a lander first lands on Duna, then discards parachutes, returns to CSM, gets partially refueled on CSM (or discards excess fuel tanks and gets fully refuelled) which effectively transforms it into Ike lander. Such a "two in one".

In general, I don't copy visual look of real life missions, but I often use their architecture, because it works both IRL and in KSP, which is beautiful.

[Corw]

No

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

[Frank_G]

I look at original spacecraft for inspiration, but never built any detailed replica. I love the massive Ares series of launchers though, so i modded myself a 3.75m orange tank to built a launcher that looks a bit like the Ares. But that ends my attempts to do replicas. I love to see my designs fly.

[Mister Kerman]

I like the idea of leaving a burnt out ugly lander bum next to the landing site flag. Like one of those dead flies you see on your window sill... Apollo style missions will always have a place in my heart no matter what the cost.

[Sky_walker]

I'm hardly "obsessed" but I did few replicas. Let's see....

- Soyuz

- Orion

- SLS

- Rosetta

- Ariane 4

- Ariane 6

and the one I published on a forums:

- Ariane 5 + ATV

[SpaceXray]

I impressed my examinations with a story about Mir, and I got so obsessed about a space station that doesn't even exist anymore

So I spend a month assembling and designing a Mir, which I also sent to Duna and made this awesome album:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Roskerbos]

Not really. My Mun lander/command module combo can look a bit like the Apollo combinations - especially the ones that include a rover - but that's just because it is an efficient approach, and makes good use of the available capsules. The rocket that gets them to Mun orbit is much more KSP-ish, though.

[blspblackdeath]

Nah, I would never do replicas . . .

[Pecan]

How can you say, they don't make sense in KSP? The heavier the body you want to land on, the more you gain by making a two-stage lander. Of course, if you land on Minmus, the gain is very low, or maybe even negative. But for Mun, Duna and up, Apollo-style lander allows you to build smaller, lighter and cheaper...

I can say they don't make sense in KSP because this is over-engineered even for Duna:

It would be needlessly harder, more expensive and less reliable to make it 2-stage. It lands, parachutes are repacked, returns to CM/space-station, refuels and is ready to go again or be brought back to Kerbin, where it can also land, for part-recovery - no expensive components left behind.

This IS a two-stage design, but that's from LKO to Mun and back to land on the pad - only small fuel tanks and legs left behind:

Laythe - use a spaceplane

Tylo - possibly two stage

Eve - I don't think anyone's got away with ONLY two stages.

So - apart from, possibly, Tylo - a two-stage lander doesn't make sense in KSP.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Pecan

[EdFred]

I can say they don't make sense in KSP because this is over-engineered even for Duna:

http://i.imgur.com/CrAk18Ml.png

It would be needlessly harder, more expensive and less reliable to make it 2-stage. It lands, parachutes are repacked, returns to CM/space-station, refuels and is ready to go again or be brought back to Kerbin, where it can also land, for part-recovery - no expensive components left behind.

This IS a two-stage design, but that's from LKO to Mun and back to land on the pad - only small fuel tanks and legs left behind:

http://i.imgur.com/tswybfEl.png

Laythe - use a spaceplane

Tylo - possibly two stage

Eve - I don't think anyone's got away with ONLY two stages.

So - apart from, possibly, Tylo - a two-stage lander doesn't make sense in KSP.

Challenge accepted!! OK, not really. I've gotten away with two engine types, but I drop more stuff on my ascents from Eve than a Redneck's over filled pickup truck. Back to the the thread premise, no. I build what I build and if it happens to look like something, it happens to look like something. If it doesn't, it doesn't.