Do we need another size of Rockets? Or Two? At any rate, capsules are in need...

[Whirligig Girl]

Oh, yeah, no no no. I'm not suggesting two LARGER sizes of rockets! That would be insane for stock scale KSP! No no no no! But I think we do need at least one more size range for parts. 1.875m (Size 1.5) and 5.5m (Size 4). Why? Well, there's a few parts missing, and 1.875 meter parts would fit better than 1.25 or 2.5 would. It would also open the range of mod parts available. And 5.5m parts would allow proper monstrosities at the end game. Saturn Vs, Full-Scale SLSs, etc. And I'd really also recommend making the KS-25x4 Cluster a 5.5m engine.

Why? Well, we're missing a few command pods, and some command pods are too far back in the tree. Here's what I'd like to see.

The Mk1 Command Pod: No EVAs ever, at all. But make it even cheaper! It's a cheapo little pod built for the first steps into space, and unless you're on a small budget, you shouldn't need Mercury-Capsules after you've got good rocket technologies.

The Mk2 Command Pod: EVAs available as soon as the astronaut complex can support it. 1.875m diameter, stores two. Great for rescues and pilot/scientist combos.

The Mk1 Lander Can: Make it available closer to the start of the tree. How the heck does Jeb land on the Mun with NO visibility of the ground at all? See THIS page, scroll down to Pilot View. It makes no sense, considering that Kerbals are supposed to be the pilots themselves, to be able to land on the Mun with nothing but a vertical altimeter and a speed gauge. Not as a tier 3 or less pilot, certainly.

The Mk1-2 Capsule: Also make it available closer to the start, but not quite so close. Make it available the same time as the Skipper, because that closer matches reality with the Saturn-IB Rocket and the J-2 Engine and the Apollo CSM. Also, give it a heatshield. Seriously.

The Mk3 Capsule: A 3.75m Capsule near the end of the tech tree. Seats 4 Kerbals and a bunch of monoprop, and it's own nifty little science experiment. Orion Capsule anyone?

The KS-25x4 Engine Cluster: A 5.5m rocket with adjusted thrust and weight to the new size.

The KS-25 Advanced Engine: A 1.875m Rocket Engine with a huge gimbal range, to be strapped to the end of a Mk3 Shuttle.

The KF-1B Liquid Engine: An insanely high TWR, low efficiency 3.75m Engine. Think "M-1 Engine" (Nova) or at the least, "F-1 Engine" (Saturn V).

The KR-2L Advanced Engine: Made smaller and lower thrust to facilitate the invention of the KF-1B Engine. More of a J-2X.

The LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor: Burns LiquidFuel only, because we have tweakables to remove the oxidizer.

The LV-K Advanced Fission Engine: A High Thrust, advanced Atomic Rocket Engine for 1.875m rockets. Think of not only the real NERVA rocket, but also classic hard-scifi atomic rocket engines. Very advanced, very expensive. You better reuse them.

I don’t think any of us really trusted the Nerva-K under our landing craft.

Think it through. For long trips in space' date=' you use an ion jet giving low thrust over long periods of time. The ion motor on our own craft had been decades in use. Where gravity is materially lower than Earth’s, you land on dependable chemical rockets. For landings on Earth and Venus, you use heat shields and the braking power of the atmosphere. For landing on the gas giantsâ€â€but who would want to?

The Nerva-class fission rockets are used only for takeoff from Earth, where thrust and efficiency count. Responsiveness and maneuverability count for too much during a powered landing. And a heavy planet will always have an atmosphere for braking.

Pluto didn’t.

For Pluto, the chemical jets to take us down and bring us back up were too heavy to carry all that way. We needed a highly maneuverable Nerva-type atomic rocket motor using hydrogen for reaction mass.

And we had it. But we didn’t trust it.[/size']

Obviously there's some problem with this idea, but using Nukes as a Launch rocket should be possible. As well as everything else. The romantic idea of atomic rocket engines in Sci-FI is too magnificent to leave out of KSP.

But yeah, I think we need a series of 5.5m tanks and engines, and 1.875m tanks and engines, and the pods need some reordering in the tech tree.

[THX1138]

Right now I just want bigger solid rocket boosters. My computer performs very poorly during the first stage of launch due to the ~50 S1 SRB-KD25ks (and associated struts) it takes to get my payload en route.

[Anquietas314]

I'm just going to leave this here from the other thread, since you never responded to it (perhaps you just haven't noticed it yet), regarding the 1.875m parts:

Well, okay, but what purpose would they serve that the existing parts don't already accommodate to some degree? Remember a whole new class of parts means a significant investment of the devs' time, or incorporating a mod that already exists (which admittedly will still use a lot of dev time due to planning and so on). If there's not a significant benefit for that, I don't think it's worthwhile at the moment

A larger class of parts than the ones in the game, for example, would serve a purpose: you can lift even bigger things to orbit with them. Similarly a smaller class would let you build even lighter probes/satellites/etc allowing you to send a probe to, say, Laythe, for even less than is currently possible.

I do of course want to see more parts in the game, but only if there's a decent reason for them being there

As indicated I'd be fine with a larger scale of parts, although make it exactly 5 meters for consistency (4x 1.25m).

However, why no EVA on the mk1 pod? It has a big-ass door making up about a quarter of the capsule! I don't think Jeb really needs air in there with his spacesuit on

[Wallygator]

The ability to tweak certain part sizes as an unlockable tech node would be a great addition to later career play. Fractional tank and pod selections could be easily baked into this.

[Chris_2]

I do agree on the need for 1.875m parts (and especially more powerfull SRB's). Not so much need for any larger parts, it is already very easy to lift very heavy loads with the 3.75m parts.

[Bill Phil]

Maybe oy a 1.875 meter station part ( 3 kerbals) and a 1.875 meter capsule( 2 kerbals). Add an adapter for 2.5 to 1.875 and 1.25 to 1.875. That way we don't need new 1.875 meter tanks and rockets.

[Whirligig Girl]

But then you have ugly things that go down. A capsule needs a rocket.

[klgraham1013]

I'm not sure if 5m rockets are necessary. What I'd like is more varied SRBs reminiscent to KW.

Also, if KSP bought KW, how much time would it actually take to integrate? I did a find and replace with the stock parts in less than an hour. I still wonder why SP+ seemed to be a big time drain on Squad when the parts were already done, with the cargo bay barely making release. I got the impression they had PorkJet re-model and/or re-texture many of the parts for some unforeseen reason.

[Kegereneku]

I don't see a need for new rocket size or capsules except for the ones we already have.

Increasing size is mostly a part-saving measure for equal functionality.

More parts with the very same functions, and tanks too similar in quantity would be redundant.

I only have a remote interest for theses :

- high-thrust 0.625 engines

- Long 0.625 tanks

better 1.25m nose cone and inline-cockpit

turning the mk2 landing can to 3 places

- Nuclear 2.5m engine

- Aerospike 2.5m engines

- Intermediary 3.75m engine

- mk3 drone core

Adapter that give secure joint and fairing for multi engines intermediary stage

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Primary thing I noticed - "Closer to reality"

Do you realize KSP isn't supposed to model NASA? Maybe the Kerbal's don't know how to put enough life support in a 2.5m capsule yet. And 5.5 meter? That's quite a jump from - 0.625 - 1.25 - 2.5 - 3.75 - (4.0) - (5.25)*

*Brackets are for parts that are not modeled in game, but showing how the parts should scale.

[Red Iron Crown]

Also, if KSP bought KW, how much time would it actually take to integrate? I did a find and replace with the stock parts in less than an hour. I still wonder why SP+ seemed to be a big time drain on Squad when the parts were already done, with the cargo bay barely making release. I got the impression they had PorkJet re-model and/or re-texture many of the parts for some unforeseen reason.

They remodeled them to make them symmetric and therefore reversible (bomb bays and cargo bays the same part). Cargo bays were questionable because the SP+ ones depended on a third party .dll for functionality, reimplementation was necessary IIRC.

[Anquietas314]

0.625 - 1.25 - 2.5 - 3.75 - (4.0) - (5.25)*

*Brackets are for parts that are not modeled in game, but showing how the parts should scale.

Uh, 3.75 + 1.25 = 5 (= 1.25x4) mate. The 4.0 one doesn't belong (technically neither does 5.25, but that's at least close)

Edited December 29, 2014 by armagheddonsgw

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Uh, 3.75 + 1.25 = 5 (= 1.25x4) mate. The 4.0 one doesn't belong (technically neither does 5.25, but that's at least close)

Last time I checked, besides 0.625 the rockets go up by .25 meters

[Whirligig Girl]

Primary thing I noticed - "Closer to reality"

Do you realize KSP isn't supposed to model NASA? Maybe the Kerbal's don't know how to put enough life support in a 2.5m capsule yet. And 5.5 meter? That's quite a jump from - 0.625 - 1.25 - 2.5 - 3.75 - (4.0) - (5.25)*

*Brackets are for parts that are not modeled in game, but showing how the parts should scale.

This coming from the guy who hates KSP.

- - - Updated - - -

Going up by a certain size scale is ridiculous. You don't get much bigger amounts of fuel from only 3.75 to 4.0, or from 4.0 to 5.5. There's several mods which add 4 meter parts, and the size difference isn't actually big enough for Saturn Rockets. There has to be a bigger jump, it can't stay linear.

At any rate, KSP's parts are very much based upon real parts, heck, the Space Launch System looks practically identical to 3.75m parts! The Mk1 pod looks like a Mercury Capsule, the Mk1-2 pod looks vaguely like an Apollo capsule, where's the Gemini capsule?

- - - Updated - - -

Last time I checked, besides 0.625 the rockets go up by .25 meters

2.5m plus .25m = 2.75m; not 3.75m

[Overfloater]

We don't need 5m until selecting "hard" gameplay difficulty will mean bigger solar system.

1.875m sounds great, the game's been lacking a Soyuz sort of thing 8-)

Doesn't have to be a whole new rocket diameter, but maybe just a capsule and service module - and the small lander can could be the KSP version of Soyuz's round little hab module.

[Renegrade]

Re: Size Increases

I believe the concept prior to the NASA parts was that the diameter doubled for every size - 0.625, 1.25, 2.5. Squad probably passed on 5m parts back during ARM because they realized that it's not really needed at stock scale (as Overfloater points out).

At any rate, KSP's parts are very much based upon real parts, heck, the Space Launch System looks practically identical to 3.75m parts! The Mk1 pod looks like a Mercury Capsule, the Mk1-2 pod looks vaguely like an Apollo capsule, where's the Gemini capsule?

I'd also like a Gemini or Soyuz dealie in stock. Maybe a Soyuz-ish design would be best, to balance out the large number of NASA-like parts.

(I've been experimenting with rockets made out of SPP bits as a makeshift in-between size..)

[Vaporo]

Well, I could vouch for 1.875 meter parts. I've always felt like the gap between 2.5 meter and 1.25 meter parts was a bit on the large side.

As for 5 meter parts, I'm not so sure. If the developers add 5.5 meter parts, people will inevitably want 7 meter parts, then 10 meter, then 13.5 meter, etc. I might vouch for them, just to have 5 part sizes instead of four (Nice, round number), but the devs have to draw the line somewhere.

[Whirligig Girl]

Well, I could vouch for 1.875 meter parts. I've always felt like the gap between 2.5 meter and 1.25 meter parts was a bit on the large side.

As for 5 meter parts, I'm not so sure. If the developers add 5.5 meter parts, people will inevitably want 7 meter parts, then 10 meter, then 13.5 meter, etc. I might vouch for them, just to have 5 part sizes instead of four (Nice, round number), but the devs have to draw the line somewhere.

5.5m parts is similar to Saturn V parts, and there are no larger rockets than the Saturn V. So there. That's where you draw the line.

[LABHOUSE]

5.5m parts is similar to Saturn V parts, and there are no larger rockets than the Saturn V. So there. That's where you draw the line.

No rockets taller or heavier, but there was the 8.75 m shuttle (not including wings), and the proposed bfr or mct or mars colonial transporter.

No rockets taller or heavier, but there was the 8.75 m shuttle (not including wings), and the proposed bfr or mct or mars colonial transporter.

Just get a 1.25 m part and 6x cubic struts and place mk1x1 panels on it for 1.875 m parts. You can also place a lot of cubic struts radially to a 1.25 m part and offset it slightly (turn off angle snapping).

I think we need a 5m, 7.5m, and 10m parts, this fits into the current system, just skipping a size each time after 5m.

Here is how I think it should be.

Mk1 sizes (diameter is shown, the smallest part of it)

.125/.3125m (not rockets, just like small drones and mini unmanned lander parts/pieces)

.625

1.25

1.875 (maybee, you can make 1.875 parts like I mentioned earlier)

2.5

3.75

5 (technically size 4)

7.5 (skipping a size)

10 (skipping a size) (close to the size of the spaceX proposed mars colonial transporter, just rounded to nearest size that fits in the ksp size pattern)

Mk2 size parts (the smallest diameter is shown first aka height, not width)

.635 x 1.35 (.1 m extra for space for cargo in the bays)

1.5 x 2.6 (extra space for cargo bay room)

2.6 x 3.85 (extra space again)

Mk3 size parts (again, smallest size is shown first aka width not height)

1.5 x 2.75 (.25 m extra space in the cargo)

2.75 x 4 (extra space for the cargo bay)

4 x 5.25 (extra space again)

5.25 x 7.75 (extra space)

Edited May 26, 2015 by LABHOUSE