Tweakable Science Parts

[Vallius]

In our world, science instruments are rarely (if ever) quite the same from one space mission to the next, even if they serve the same function. Using tweakables, KSP science could reflect this kind of customization.

For example, compare the mirrors on the Hubble, Chandra, and James Webb space telescopes. All are used for capturing images of the skies, but are sized differently, have different resolutions, and were designed for different types of light. The cost of each telescope is based on the size and quality of the mirrors, the computer hardware they run off of, and the cameras.

Each (appropriate) science part could have sliders, much like those used for fuel and oxidizer in fuel tanks.

1. Slider: Precision vs. Working Range:

Precision: How Precise is your measurement? How much science do you get under ideal conditions.

Calibrated Range: What range of conditions can you get a good measurement.

Reasoning:

Most real world measuring tools are only good for measuring values within a certain range (e.g. You wouldn't a bathroom scale to weigh a feather), and the accuracy that you can get a measurement has some connection to it's range (A good chemistry scale isn't mean't for more than say 500 grams, but can measure to 0.01 milligrams).

Implementation:

A thermometer calibrated to get temperatures on Eve might give you such great results on Eeloo. You could give it a wider range, but then you wouldn't get as much science, because you have to sacrifice precision. By default, all science instruments would have the maximum calibrated range, but maybe only 20% of the maximum science return value. This gives players an incentive to consider measurement conditions on a mission by mission basis. Additionally, this could give players a better reason (other than spamming) to put more than one thermometer or barometer on a probe.

2. Slider: Recording Device Quality (How much of Science can be Transmitted) vs. Cost and mass

Reasoning:

Once science instruments have made measurements, they need to record those in the pod's computer in a form that can be transmitted back to mission control, or analyzed when the pod returns to Kerbin. While it makes sense that players should be rewarded for returning science instruments to Kerbin, there should be a way to minimize science transmission losses (at a price) for really remote locations. Better recording equipment costs significantly more, as well as increase its mass.

Implementation:

The higher the quality of your recording device in your experiment, the more expensive it will be. This would be controlled by a slider. At the center of the slider would be the default transmission loss, mass and cost (1). This would allow players to beam back experimental results from Eve or Eeloo with a minimum of science loss, but could increase the cost of the experiment by as much as 10x or more. If we move the slider to the left, the experiment weighs less, and costs less (but no less than about 50% of it's initial mass and price), but transmission values become even worse, going down to maybe 10%.

And an aside: Antenna quality needs to matter

While not central to this discussion, transmission quality needs to be linked to the choice of antenna.

What are your thoughts?

Edited September 20, 2014 by Vallius
Kept messing up my html for [B]bolding[\B]...

[Javster]

Very good ideas, makes sense, once you go once, you know what range is appropriate.