efficient last stage for manless flights

[synketa]

i have discovered that you can get 4k delta v with only toroidal + "ant" engine

the efficiency so suprised me that i wanted to share

[nigelvn]

Interesting, the probe core unfortunately does not have sas and with this loadout no science...

[Cuky]

very efficient but be prepared for long burns as that TWR is quite small

[Caelib]

Typically, using a low-weight engine with a larger fuel tank will always give you a pretty good amount of delta V ... I like to use the LV-909 "Terrier" with the 2.5m fuel tanks for anything above the atmosphere.

Also, the new politically-correct term is "crewless" instead of "manless"

[vicwarrior]

There is no power source on the probe, meaning it will die some time after being deployed, also it hasn't any scientific equipment which makes the probe quite useless.

Anyways, sticking a small, efficient, engine on a relatively big fuel tank to move a small payload does net you a lot of deltaV.

[synketa]

Also, the new politically-correct term is "crewless" instead of "manless"

thanks i am pretty new here:D

very efficient but be prepared for long burns as that TWR is quite small

spark engine gives ~4x twr but ~500 m/s less delta v but it has gimbal

good news: i added 1 battery 1 antena and solar panels and new delta v is still around 3800 m/s

[Slugy]

May this be the start of much building small

You will also probably want an SAS (or better probe core).

[synketa]

sas+ 150 unit electricty + 6x1 solar + antena

with spark engine (for higher twr)

also check weight and price

[severedsolo]

Typically, using a low-weight engine with a larger fuel tank will always give you a pretty good amount of delta V ... I like to use the LV-909 "Terrier" with the 2.5m fuel tanks for anything above the atmosphere.

IMO the 909 is the best orbital engine in the game. FL-T400 + LV-909 = more DV than you'll ever need (usually)

[Kuu Lightwing]

Also, the new politically-correct term is "crewless" instead of "manless"

Maybe "unmanned"?

[Alshain]

very efficient but be prepared for long burns as that TWR is quite small

TWR of 0.5 is not going to make burns all that long.

[Aerindel]

TWR of 0.5 is not going to make burns all that long.

Yep, my interplanetary ships usually run about .2, .5 is great.

[BlackAdder128]

Yep, these are really cheap and fun career mode sat launches. One 8K satellite net me something like 250K funds from 2 contracts.

[magnemoe]

IMO the 909 is the best orbital engine in the game. FL-T400 + LV-909 = more DV than you'll ever need (usually)

Depend on payload, its very good for medium payloads, for heavy weight hid dV the LV-N rules, for tiny lander the 48-7S.

The ant and the radial ant is not terible anymore, and is good on tiny probes, the oscar tank is also buffed.

[Hcube]

Depend on payload, its very good for medium payloads, for heavy weight hid dV the LV-N rules, for tiny lander the 48-7S.

The ant and the radial ant is not terible anymore, and is good on tiny probes, the oscar tank is also buffed.

yeah, and even tho i haven't looked up the stats about it, i also "feel" like the Poodle got buffed (indirectly maybe) ! i think its lighter and has a fairly ok TWR... I like to use it on my small-medium 2.5m ships

[Spatzimaus]

Pfft. Efficiency is overrated. MY small satellites cost about 200k apiece.

The big problem with the tiny probes are that once you start stacking on "essential" non-propulsion systems (like ore scanners and such) your efficiency will go WAY down on a probe that only masses 0.5 tons by itself. First, because each scanner masses 0.1 or 0.2 tons, and secondly because you need power generation and storage to handle those scanners' operation. Once you unlock ions, I found that the sweet spot for cost vs. capability was between 2 and 3 total tons.

One thing you might want to do is stick a small parachute on that probe. That way, you can use them for the "return a craft from Mun/Minmus orbit to Kerbin" missions as well, and those things pay a tremendous amount for the effort (assuming it survives the reentry). With the new contracts, it becomes very easy to use a single launch to complete half a dozen or more individual contract requirements, as long as you design carefully.

But honestly, money hasn't been a problem for me even in my Hard career. I've got small unmanned satellites around Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus containing a thermometer and an antenna, and I've got tiny unmanned landers on Mun and Minmus with a similar setup (dropped off by manned landers, as they don't have any propulsion of their own). Every time a "get science from X" mission comes up, I can complete them for no additional cost. I've even got a pair (satellite+lander) on the way to Duna right now, which'll make the money come in even more quickly. And instead of hiring kerbonauts, I've got a fleet of tiny recovery vessels orbiting Kerbin's equator to rescue any stranded folks (which also pays nicely). So I haven't bothered with any of the satellite placement contracts.

[Renegrade]

Dry mass is definitely a critical section of the rocket equation~

Depend on payload, its very good for medium payloads, for heavy weight hid dV the LV-N rules, for tiny lander the 48-7S.

The ant and the radial ant is not terible anymore, and is good on tiny probes, the oscar tank is also buffed.

I haven't updated my own TWR/mass efficiency charts, and I don't think Tavert has either (but I haven't checked recently so...information may be dated) - but my gut feeling is that the 48-7S's niche is actually smaller than the ant's niche at this point.

yeah, and even tho i haven't looked up the stats about it, i also "feel" like the Poodle got buffed (indirectly maybe) ! i think its lighter and has a fairly ok TWR... I like to use it on my small-medium 2.5m ships

It is indeed slightly lighter and stronger. It was buffed in previous versions too. It has better specific impulse than the 909 AND better TWR, so as soon as you have more three 909s, you should really switch up to a Poodle.

[BlackAdder128]

"Pfft. Efficiency is overrated. MY small satellites cost about 200k apiece."

It sounds like you invest big up front and try to get a lot of use out of them. Still efficient, but not cheap.

"But honestly, money hasn't been a problem for me even in my Hard career."

I had a hard career going for beta, and I just kind of got bored with it. Yes, I made money with every contract, but it felt a bit grindy. I'm playing a "moderate" career mode, because it kind of makes me think about cost efficiency, even though I can progress in relatively few missions. I like the challenge of incrementally improving the cost of going to, say, Gilly and back, with a full science load for 230K (it turns out I could have eliminated the bottom stage, because I made it back with 1900m/s of delta-v). I just like having the measure and having it matter enough to act as a motivator. In career mode, it seems unmanned missions are generally better for quick cash, though.

[SRV Ron]

Prior to 0.9 Beta, Stayputniks made great lightweight probes for transmitting data from other worlds.

The low cost ship on the left is what sent that probe to Duna.

[uglyduckling81]

Maybe "unmanned"?

unkerbaled?

[n0xiety]

I honestly don't like long burn times and noticed your burn for that ant engine takes 15 minutes. Well decided to look for an alternative and found that monopropellant puff engines are quite efficient too and have good thrust so here is the result;

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[iVG]

Mass of the monoprop engine and fuel is more than 7t compared to a little over 1 t for the ant engine. I'd take the ant any day and have 3 times smaller launcher.

Edit: 0.6 t for the ant.

[n0xiety]

Mass of the monoprop engine and fuel is more than 7t compared to a little over 1 t for the ant engine. I'd take the ant any day and have 3 times smaller launcher.

Oh i can remove the scanner which weighs 0.2 ton. That is alot of payload for ant and drops the dv like hell. If the ant had 5000dv with that scanner it will have 3000dv. And i really didn't needed that second tank i should have gone for a smaller aproach. But yeah if you are ok with 15+ minute burn time ant is better. Like i said i don't like long burn times and was just checking alternatives. I always try to avoid NERV engine too since i don't like 30+ minute burns either.