Worst engine in KSP

[Norcalplanner]

Just now, Corona688 said:

The Swivel is pretty close.  It's not as efficient as the terrier, but an ISP of 320 is nothing to sneeze at either.

Would need to be 2.5m to avoid aerodynamic weirdness, or the expense and weight of inline fairings.

[Armisael]

What are you hauling in that mass category that dictates a 2.5m engine? It's just as bad to get stuck with an oversized engine as an undersized one.

[Corona688]

1 minute ago, Armisael said:

What are you hauling in that mass category that dictates a 2.5m engine? It's just as bad to get stuck with an oversized engine as an undersized one.

Tell me about it.  I'm not sure what use that octuple-scale terrier engine thing has yet.

[Norcalplanner]

4 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Tell me about it.  I'm not sure what use that octuple-scale terrier engine thing has yet.

It would only be about double the thrust of a Terrier, or half of a Poodle.  I've found it to be a really handy size when playing with Strategia and ScanSat when deploying multiple probes at once to an atmospheric target.  You stick a 2.5m to 1.25m adapter upside down (either 3x or 4x depending on the number of probes) on top of the rocket, then mount the probes to the adapter with decouplers.  The whole mass is pushed by the large-ish Terrier (although I suppose I could use two standard Terriers) for a decent amount of high Isp thrust for the "mother" probe.  

Can also be used for a 2.5m lander where a single Terrier isn't quite enough and a Poodle is just a bit too much.  I recall that Randazzo used to have a 120kN 2.5m engine in his Vanguard parts pack, and there's probably some other 2.5m mod engine out there that would be a good fit.

I guess I just have unique desires, sort of like those who also want a 2.5m engine between the Skipper and the Mainsail (which I personally don't have much use for).

[Corona688]

14 minutes ago, Norcalplanner said:

It would only be about double the thrust of a Terrier, or half of a Poodle.

I don't mean your idea, I mean that enormous and silly top-tier 340-isp space engine in stock KSP.

[cantab]

3 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

I don't mean your idea, I mean that enormous and silly top-tier 340-isp space engine in stock KSP.

The Rhino? Well, it's for enormous and silly builds, of course. Actually quite popular as a transfer engine for people who build big and want a quick departure burn. Good lander engine too for sticking really big stuff on anywhere not named Eve.

[Maltman]

I dont like the NERV either. I feel it is too good for how early you get it in the tech tree. It basically allows you to go anywhere in the system with plenty of room for error. (especially if you use drop tanks).

The thud is pretty cool. I like that it is different and unusual and a little quirky. You can use them as low tech lander legs.

Reliant is the worst. If you are going to have an uncontrollable first stage engine then why not have an SRB instead?

Edited August 29, 2016 by Maltman

[Sharpy]

3 hours ago, Corona688 said:

I don't mean your idea, I mean that enormous and silly top-tier 340-isp space engine in stock KSP.

That's a 1500 ton asteroid.

600m/s delta-v at 2.8m/s^2. And when that's gone, there are ISRUs.

I had spent a week of realtime moving such an asteroid using nukes. Now catching the encounter takes most of the time, maybe an hour of real time from encounter to LKO, and actual hauling feels like moving an orbital station equipped with a poodle.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Sharpy

[Red Iron Crown]

The Rhino's not strictly a vacuum engine anyway. It has enough atmospheric Isp to make a good sustainer engine for big rockets, my usual design of sustainer+SRBs for lift vehicles calls for a Rhino for the core stage in 3.75m. 

[WillThe84th]

On 7/3/2016 at 7:13 PM, goduranus said:

While there's no best engine, does anyone think that there may be a worst engine?

The Thud(medium radial)is pretty bad imo, it's expensive and heavy, it's too big for small rockets, but if you have a rocket big enough to use the Thud it's better to use inline engines.

It's got a good gimbal range but I've never found a use for it.

I actually like the Thud quite a bit, I have a launch that has three large engines that don't gimbal, so I clip three Thuds into a tank and use them as control engines.

[Aegolius13]

8 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

The Rhino's not strictly a vacuum engine anyway. It has enough atmospheric Isp to make a good sustainer engine for big rockets, my usual design of sustainer+SRBs for lift vehicles calls for a Rhino for the core stage in 3.75m. 

Glad I'm not the only one using the Rhino as a core stage.  It's pretty surprising how quickly in the climb the Rhino's ISP overtakes the usual heavy launch engines.  You can also turn it on at the very start of launch, turn it off again once your radial boosters pick up TWR, and then turn it on again once its ISP improves.  

My vote for worst engine is probably the Puff.  Still haven't come across a situation where the need to stick with one fuel surpasses the awful ISP.  

Runner up: Reliant.  I would almost always rather use a Swivel, Dart, or even SRB if I'm being cheap.

[Dafni]

6 minutes ago, Aegolius13 said:

 

My vote for worst engine is probably the Puff.  Still haven't come across a situation where the need to stick with one fuel surpasses the awful ISP.  

 

I found a situation where the Puff is actually usefull. The nice thing about it is that its "flame" does not burn/overheat parts that it touches... think now of dropships for unwieldy cargo on low gravity bodies. A bit far fetched maybe, but yeah, there you go.

[KerikBalm]

13 hours ago, Aegolius13 said:

Glad I'm not the only one using the Rhino as a core stage.  It's pretty surprising how quickly in the climb the Rhino's ISP overtakes the usual heavy launch engines.  You can also turn it on at the very start of launch, turn it off again once your radial boosters pick up TWR, and then turn it on again once its ISP improves.  

My vote for worst engine is probably the Puff.  Still haven't come across a situation where the need to stick with one fuel surpasses the awful ISP.  

Runner up: Reliant.  I would almost always rather use a Swivel, Dart, or even SRB if I'm being cheap.

When it was first released... pre 1.0, it was more of a vacuum engine (although back then, low atmo Isp just meant higher fuel consumption but same thrust)... 380 Isp vac and 170 Isp asl. They increased the asl Isp to 255, which is not so bad, by 5km IIRC it overtakes the mammoth, and thus works well when paired with SRBs to get it up to 5km or so...

Still hating on the Rhino... how many times in this thread am I going to need to post examples, for those that remember, you can skip these

Spoiler

Pre-vector shuttle

by the time the SRBs have burned out, that Rhino's Isp is far better than that of mammoth.

Or combine with a recoverable mammoth liquid fuel booster

 

Or use it as a reusable ejection stage

Retroburned to stay in SOI, and ready to refuel (ideally from ISRU from a moon)

 

 

[Rodhern]

On 7/4/2016 at 4:02 AM, solarbearman said:

The reliant. Swivel is better.

They even swapped places in the tech-tree so that the Reliant is now the more high-tech of the two(?)! When did this happen?

[Sneaky Bstard Sword]

On 7/3/2016 at 7:13 PM, goduranus said:

While there's no best engine, does anyone think that there may be a worst engine?

The Thud(medium radial)is pretty bad imo, it's expensive and heavy, it's too big for small rockets, but if you have a rocket big enough to use the Thud it's better to use inline engines.

It's got a good gimbal range but I've never found a use for it.

I used to be of the same opinion, but recently I've found they work pretty well if you need to add just a bit of extra TWR to a 1st stage, particularly for 1.25m early/mid career lifter designs.