Jump to content

3m Crew capsules

Rdivine
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rdivine

Rdivine

Posted
Posted

3m Crew capsules

I suggest that there should be a 3 metre wide crew capsule, that houses 6 kerbals.

Below is my mock-up of the new, bigger capsule.

8PGszWN.png

Name : Mk1-3 Command Pod

Radial Size : Small , Extra Large

Mass : 7.5t (dry)

Crew : 6(maximum) , 1(minimum)

Monopropellant : 140.0u

Electric capacity : 220.0

The characteristics of the capsule, and the shape is similar to that of the orion capsule.

43109007.jpg

Since there is a crew capsule for every size (except tiny) , why not add a 3-m wide crew capsule? It will allow for more vessel designs and will carry more kerbals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MKI

MKI

Posted
Posted
The whole 3.75m line needs finishing. Its missing many pieces not just a crew capsule. I do agree with you though.

The whole 3.75 line is for launch vehicles. Say there were just as many parts as the 2.5m line, with science bays and all. Wouldn't you need a LARGER SIZE to carry up all that cargo? You wont really need a larger size fuel tanks and engines if everything important you carry as cargo is smaller. Almost anything can be put up in orbit with the SLS system (or systems if you need that much!) all in stock. The line doesn't need finishing, its fine as is because all it needs to be is a set of large fuel tanks and engines. All to carry all that OTHER stuff into space without much hassle, nothing more nothing less.

A 6 man Orion esque pod is cool, but it would also mean our three orange suits would be sharing their ship with 3 randoms which kills some of the fun. Frankly this is what the hitchhiker is for anyways, so its not like the game needs a larger pod. There are now only 3 professions and I don't see much use in need more inside of one pod.

Really the game needs something more akin to LeathDose said. The game lacks an actual 2 man command pod, it has the lander can but no space pod.

Don't get me wrong Orion is awesome but a larger size pod is not needed or even supported (you would need a 3.75 Orbital type engine for starters). Leave it to modders to make a larger pod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree a 3.75 meter crew pod would be nice (particularly for recovering crew from a doomed 3-man mission while still launching 3 fresh crew of your own). But there would need to be an even larger (5 or 6.25 meter) line of parts to go underneath it...

Not that I have a problem with that- the Saturn V was 10 meters in diameter, and SLS has a 8.4 meter core (and SRB's strapped to the side of that!) But if we're going that big, the devs also need to reform the fuel system to be more realistic- the current stock combination of fuel density and ISP is impossible. The ISP for many engines is at about the level that would require Methane/LOX, but the fuel-density is similar to hypergolics (and like with hypergolics, there is no boil-off). Bigger rockets become capable of being safely built to increasingly tall heights (especially if the devs added a size 4 node to go with a larger size line) and have better ballistic coefficients (important when the devs reform the aerodynamics system), and can be cost-effectively staged to a larger degree: thus they can achieve greater payload fractions.

So, what I'm saying is, for balance reasons the devs need to make the game harder in other ways if they add a 5+ meter line (just making 5 meter parts expensive wouldn't cut it- and with the fuel tanks would be especially unrealistic, as larger fuel tanks become CHEAPER per litre of fuel in real-life due to the Square-Cube Law... Larger fuel tanks have relatively less surface area, and *proportionally* thicker walls as they are pressure vessels, for the same overall mass ratios- but it's much cheaper to build a 1 cm thick wall to within 0.1% accuracy than a 200 mm wall...)

Bringing fuel-density and ISP in line with real life (probably adding all the fuel mixtures below for advanced players to play around with- newbies could just stick with the defaults for an engine, and fuel tanks would be tweakable to different mixes and try to auto-default the correct mix for the engines attached...) and possibly adding boil-off (*GASP*) would make for a much more difficult/balanced experience if larger parts were added, and a much more realistic system when ISRU is implemented. With a toggle on boil-off under difficulty options, and electricity-hungry parts (active-cooling thermal fins) to allow players to mitigate it for longer missions, of course!

By the way, for reference, here is a list of major real-life chemical-rocketry fuels in order of increasing ISP, decreasing fuel-density, and increasing boil-off (all 3 follow the *exact* same pattern/order)

Hypergolics (MMH/UDMH/Aerozine + N2O4) [iSP rarely exceeds 340 seconds in vacuum, no boil-off]

Kerosene + Liquid Oxygen [iSP rarely exceeds 360 seconds in vacuum, moderate boil-off of LOX component]

Liquid Methane + Liquid Oxygen [iSP rarely exceeds 380 seconds in vacuum, moderate boil-off of *both* components]

Liquid Hydrogen + Liquid Oxygen [iSP rarely exceeds 480 seconds in vacuum, HEAVY boiloff of LH2, moderate boil-off of LOX]

It's also worth noting that Nuclear Thermal Rockets (such as NERVA) can use the following propellants instead (they can also use Meth/LOX or LH2/LOX, via an "afterburner" effect for improved thrust but reduced ISP- but never Kero/LOX or hypergolics...) listed, as before, by decreasing density:

Liquid Ammonia [iSP around 420-480 seconds, NO SIGNIFICANT BOIL-OFF IN SPACE]

Liquid Methane [iSP around 520-580 seconds, moderate boil-off]

Liquid Hydrogen [iSP of 840-1000 seconds, HEAVY boil-off]

It's worth noting that if Squad ever wanted to include a Microwave Thermal Rocket system (doubtful, but I really wish they would- as the technology is *just* around the corner in real life, and it would draw more attention/support to it), it would work off the same fuels as NERVA, with slightly lower ISP, but none of the heavy mass of an onboard reactor... (a Microwave Thermal Receiver would be much lighter than even a chemical rocket engine)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kegereneku

Kegereneku

Posted
Posted

Sigh...

I just wish you stopped asking an attention to details that do not belong in this video game].

KSP is not, do not aim to and will never be Orbiter 2.0. The Developers do not "need" to do this and that, you can suggest them to but in this case I think they know better. This game's goal isn't to be realistic, it is to look realistic while using any simplification of gameplay necessary to be fun for as many people as possible.

Rant aside,

Such capsule is hardly needed now (although the mk3 part will allow to carry a lot of Kerbonaut), yet I wouldn't mind a 3m wide capsule (for 5) for the aesthetic.

However I don't think there's a need for new 3m low-thrust engine or any newer parts to go with it, myself I would certainly use smaller tanks to propel it anyway, turn it into an heavy lander, a ground base or an evacuation capsule for space station.

The suggestion might be for an oversized mk1-2 pods but the propulsion system doesn't need to be upscaled for it to accomplish its mission, nor streamlined to fit on 3m launch vehicle (Stock fairing, when !?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kerbiloid

kerbiloid

Posted
Posted
Saturn V was 10 meters in diameter, and SLS has a 8.4 meter core

As it seems, Kerbals are kinda halflings.

For example, a TAC LifeSupport calculation gives more details.

https://github.com/taraniselsu/TacLifeSupport/wiki/FAQ

KSP is not, do not aim to and will never be Orbiter 2.0.

Seems, KSP is already Orbiter 3.0 if you take into account several thousand mods created by its community and being widely used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted
Kerbal rockets are roughly half size. Aka their SLS is 3.75m diameter.

The math doesn't work out quite that simply. For starters, Squad uses real-world masses for half-sized payloads (the 1-man capsule is a Mercury capsule analogue, and has the correct mass for one- but has a fraction of the volume, making it much denser...) Beyond that, a larger diameter rocket can safely be built to a taller height (and thus contain more Delta-V) without wobble.

Also, if you start applying realistic aerodynamics (like FAR and NEAR already have, and stock may someday have soon- as the devs have announced aerodynamics will be getting an overhaul) then a larger rocket has a better ballistic coefficient due to the Square-Cube Law, and thus experiences relatively less aerodynamic drag. If you add fairings, then you can enclose exponentially more volume relative to fairing mass the larger the rocket the fairing sits atop (a 5 meter diameter fairing in a conical shape 5 meters high encloses 8 times the volume of a 2.5 meter fairing 2.5 meters high, for around 3 times the fairing mass...)

All in all, when it comes to rockets, bigger is better. Between the reduced-scale of parts in KSP, the use of real-world payload masses (and thus unrealistically high density- the 1 man capsule might as well be made of lead), the unrealistically low ISP limits (Hydrolox can achieve ISP's of over 480 seconds, stock KSP never hits 400 seconds with the best engines), and the unrealistically high fuel-densities for the ISP you *do* have; KSP's balanced is totally messed up. The unrealistic features actually make for a *HARDER* game, not an easier one- and the effects of these errors will only become more pronounced with aerodynamics and re-entry heat.

Regards,

Northstar

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted (edited)
Sigh...

I just wish you stopped asking an attention to details that do not belong in this video game].

KSP is not, do not aim to and will never be Orbiter 2.0. The Developers do not "need" to do this and that, you can suggest them to but in this case I think they know better. This game's goal isn't to be realistic, it is to look realistic while using any simplification of gameplay necessary to be fun for as many people as possible.

Please, please, please *stop* making that Straw Man argument. Comparing KSP to Orbiter, with *or without* increased realism, is complete nonsense, and I do think you know better than that. Orbiter is a game that has silly-stupid limits on what players can build and design, and THAT is what makes it a terrible game- not the high levels of realism. KSP is a sandbox game with very free-form play, and THAT is what makes KSP a great game- not the low levels of realism.

Don't take this personally, but I think most likely the (real) reason you're resisting increased realism is because you've become accustomed to the unrealistic features of the status-quo, and you don't want them to change because that would make you feel like a newbie again.

Honestly consider, did you ever expect the current aerodynamics system to work as poorly and unrealistically as it does when you first started playing the game? Didn't you have any previous knowledge of how flight actually works, that was completely contradicted by the broken placeholder system in KSP? And a placeholder it is- the devs have been *very* clear about this from the beginning.

Some of the same principles can easily be applied to something like fuel mixtures. If you just picked up KSP today, as a new player, you wouldn't expect every type of rocket to magically work off one miracle-fuel with all the density and boil-off advantages of hypergolics and all the ISP of Methane or Kersosene, rolled into one. The first time you try to build a Space Shuttle, you *quickly* realize that the fuels in KSP are *far* too dense, but have much too low of an ISP compared to the LH2/LOX in the Shuttle's External Tank. The first time you try to build a suborbital rocket, and it has enough fuel to take you all the way to orbit, you realize there's something off with the fuel balance (or with the size of the planet and thus the Delta-V it takes to get to orbit in the first place- although it took me quite a few months to realize just how far off KSP's scale was from the real world when I first started playing, I must admit...)

KSP isn't more fun or intuitive for its unrealistic, over-simplified, often placeholder systems. It's a game about rocket science- so we EXPECT it to be extremely challenging. I was actually rather disappointed when I first started playing KSP, and found it didn't quite push me nearly as hard as I had come to expect from sayings like "it's not like it's rocket science" and such... Don't get me wrong, KSP is an awesome game with lots of cool moments- but the unrealistic features detract from that immersion, if anything.

Back to the point- if the devs added 3 meter command pods, I would want 5 meter or larger fuel tanks and engines to stick under them (or a stock Procedural Fuel Tanks system *gasp*). And if I had 5 meter fuel tanks, I would want to be able to fill them with low-density, high-ISP fuels like Liquid Hydrogen + Liquid Oxygen (especially with the upcoming weight-limits on your rockets until you upgrade the launchpad: I might want to use these fuels to bring down rocket mass for earlier in the game. This would add more flexibility and strategy to early rocket design...) If you give a mouse a cookie...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted (edited)

I know it's more of the "if you give a mouse a cookie" sort of thing- but if 3.75 meter command pods were added, having more than 3 Kerbal professions would be nice. Why will there just be a single "scientist" Kerbal in 0.90, for instance? Why not have a handful of science classes (the categories that immediately come to mind: physicist, chemist, biologist, geologist), each with different experiments they're best at?

Instead of a single general-purpose scientist Kerbal, each type of scientist could give a larger bonus to a particular science part or situation. Biologists and geologists could get large bonuses for surface samples, for instance, whereas chemists and physicists would have large bonuses for Materials Studies. Chemists and biologists might share an interest in Mystery Goo, whereas a geologist would have no use for it. No two professions would have the same experiments they were best at, and the bonuses could stack and even vary by planet and situation- for instance a biologist would expect little of interest in surface samples from Moho or Gilly, but might look for evidence of current or past life in surface samples on Duna, Laythe, or Vall...

This would encourage players to visit the same location again with different crew, or to send missions with a larger crew complement (which is a balance factor the devs really need to work on). Until 0.90, the only reason to ever send more than 1 Kerbal on a mission is to work the Science Lab. Once 0.90 is released, there will never be a reason to send more than 3 Kerbals- unless you're sending extra crew members solely to level them up... (and there are probably easier/cheaper ways to do this than sending them on interplanetary missions...) Additional professions (or sub-division of the "Scientist" profession) would also add greater immersion to the game, and pave the way for a more advanced/interesting Science system in the future...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to comment
Share on other sites
r4pt0r

r4pt0r

Posted
Posted (edited)
Sigh...

I just wish you stopped asking an attention to details that do not belong in this video game].

KSP is not, do not aim to and will never be Orbiter 2.0. The Developers do not "need" to do this and that, you can suggest them to but in this case I think they know better. This game's goal isn't to be realistic, it is to look realistic while using any simplification of gameplay necessary to be fun for as many people as possible. -snip

I agree

-snip

Some of the same principles can easily be applied to something like fuel mixtures. If you just picked up KSP today, as a new player, you wouldn't expect every type of rocket to magically work off one miracle-fuel with all the density and boil-off advantages of hypergolics and all the ISP of Methane or Kersosene, rolled into one. The first time you try to build a Space Shuttle, you *quickly* realize that the fuels in KSP are *far* too dense, but have much too low of an ISP compared to the LH2/LOX in the Shuttle's External Tank. The first time you try to build a suborbital rocket, and it has enough fuel to take you all the way to orbit, you realize there's something off with the fuel balance (or with the size of the planet and thus the Delta-V it takes to get to orbit in the first place- although it took me quite a few months to realize just how far off KSP's scale was from the real world when I first started playing, I must admit...)

KSP isn't more fun or intuitive for its unrealistic, over-simplified, often placeholder systems. It's a game about rocket science- so we EXPECT it to be extremely challenging. I was actually rather disappointed when I first started playing KSP, and found it didn't quite push me nearly as hard as I had come to expect from sayings like "it's not like it's rocket science" and such... Don't get me wrong, KSP is an awesome game with lots of cool moments- but the unrealistic features detract from that immersion, if anything.

I disagree. I didn't(and still don't) care about whatever a hypergolic is, nor do I care about the ISP of real world fuels. Those don't exist in KSP. In KSP rockets are powered by Fuelâ„¢ and Oxidizerâ„¢. We don't need to over complicate things by saying what their chemical composition is. They have their own densities and ISPs that make complete sense in their universe, so stop thinking they are some real-world thing. Your quest for realism will turn KSP into a real-life space sim, something I am against.

Back on topic, I still feel the same as I do on page 1.

Edited by r4pt0r
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frozen_Heart

Frozen_Heart

Posted
Posted
The math doesn't work out quite that simply

I know that technically things aren't that simple. However I've found that if I build a rocket in KSP to half the size of the real one, the payload is also about half.

E.g SLS replica can lift 35 tons to LKO. S-V replica can manage 50.

I know that in reality things are much more complex but I've just found that this works out as a very good estimate. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kegereneku

Kegereneku

Posted
Posted
Please, please, please *stop* making that Straw Man argument. Comparing KSP to Orbiter, with *or without* increased realism, is complete nonsense, [.............]it took me quite a few months to realize just how far off KSP's scale was from the real world when I first started playing, I must admit...)

It is really unfortunate that you can put such effort into writing, yet miss the point of your interlocutors.

And worse : waste your effort trying to redefine other's opinions as less valid that yours. Because you do not merely disagree with other here, you also go on what they should be agreeing with. Also check your rhetoric, this is not what a "strawman" is.

I could waste hours demonstrating how my understanding of REAL astronautic is equal to yours, or superior because I recognize KSP as an entertainment driven video-game and not a simulator meant to train pilot. I could boast about being good at Orbiter which is more realist than KSP ever aimed to be, I could tell you it didn't took me an hour to know KSP fake more than you seemed to know at first (scale to density...). I could also show my Aeronautic background, University License and wastes more hours explaining you how the details you insists on adding are meaningless given the global state of unrealism that KSP require as a videogame...

But doing so would certainly make you more likely to miss the points, again.

This is precisely because Orbiter and KSP's goals are opposite that it was used as example. You are the one comparing them as video game.

I'm pretty sure I had already discussed with you the distinction between Realism and Verisimilitude, that's what you should be studying.

To correct you : I honestly consider that KSP's aerodynamic model only need to fit two criterias : Be FUN and not break the illusion of plausibility.

None of those criterias require to adhere to the tenet of the real world, in fact they are better not doing so.

Most KSP players do not come to KSP to test themselves over a realistic simulator, they come to knowingly pretend to manage a space agency, consciously play rocket-engineer and entertain themselves piloting rockets expecting and hoping those to not be too realistic.

This is a question of game-design, it might seem counter-intuitive but realism is abstract on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TKO

TKO

Posted
Posted

I'm in agreement with @MKI: the 3.75m parts are for launch stages. Leave all the capsule-y things in the 1.25m and possibly 2.5m sizes.

There will (and probably are) plenty of mods for larger capsules. I don't think they would add anything to the main game if they were included by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rdivine

Rdivine

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I know that technically things aren't that simple. However I've found that if I build a rocket in KSP to half the size of the real one, the payload is also about half.

E.g SLS replica can lift 35 tons to LKO. S-V replica can manage 50.

I know that in reality things are much more complex but I've just found that this works out as a very good estimate. :)

My version of the SLS can lift 41 tons to LKO

Block II can lift 47t to LKO,

Block III(Pryios) can lift 72t to LKO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...