Heavy Lifters,more exploration

[mrclucks]

3 hours ago, Xyphos said:

because the first and second laws of thermodynamics prevents such a thing from existing, all the pumps in the world couldn't squeeze fuel through a garden hose fast enough to keep the engine(s) running.
just add more boosters, and maybe 1 or 3 vector-boosters for gimbal steering, you won't need to touch your lower stage until after the boosters come off at 20Km, and it'll still be a full tank.
 

What's the point of using real world logic when we could use kerbal logic? Plus I like using engines that I can control the throttle on

[Bill Phil]

On April 7, 2016 at 1:25 PM, steuben said:

I have a design series that can do 550 tonnes to a rendezvous at 1000km-0 deg, of course more to a lower/inclined orbit. No elegance to the launch or design. Lift to 80 km and turn right.  I'm working one that will lift 1000 tonnes to there. I'll post some pics when I get to my ksp comp.

0 degrees is the equator, if it's less than you lose payload.

[Xyphos]

9 hours ago, mrclucks said:

What's the point of using real world logic when we could use kerbal logic? Plus I like using engines that I can control the throttle on

[Pecan]

1 hour ago, Xyphos said:

Always worth showing again ;-)

Prehaps that's why NASA didn't go with "all the pumps in the world couldn't squeeze fuel through a garden hose fast enough to keep the engine(s) running", as you said before, and fuelled the Shuttle's engines from the great, big, external and unpowered orange tank.  Still, whatever rules you want to apply are fine.

[mrclucks]

On 4/10/2016 at 7:06 PM, Xyphos said:

I may be wrong, but shouldn't the orbit pass behind the planet to slow down?

[Nikolai]

3 hours ago, mrclucks said:

I may be wrong, but shouldn't the orbit pass behind the planet to slow down?

If slowing down is the point, yes.  I see it more as simply being deflected in the direction of the Sun, not being slowed down to the point where it falls in.

[Xyphos]

On 4/10/2016 at 6:09 AM, Pecan said:

fuelled the Shuttle's engines from the great, big, external and unpowered orange tank.

...through a rather large metal pipe duct with a high rate of flow, not a flexible drinking straw that has an infinite flow rate.

 

11 hours ago, mrclucks said:

I may be wrong, but shouldn't the orbit pass behind the planet to slow down?

if the planet's moving counter-clockwise, then the vessel should be performing an acceleration gravity assist, and the exit trajectory shouldn't be able to even be anywhere near the sun.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Xyphos

[Superfluous J]

6 hours ago, Xyphos said:

...through a rather large metal pipe duct with a high rate of flow, not a flexible drinking straw that has an infinite flow rate.

In the stock game there is no indication that the hose is flexible and I've yet to see it drain a tank in 0 seconds.

The hose can be set to any length and direction (within limits) in the VAB, but that just means it's procedurally created, not flexible.

Much like the strut I personally consider it more of an easy representation of the actual mechanism, presented in the way it is because this is a game, not a true Matrix-level universe simulator.

Edited April 12, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[Xyphos]

11 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

and I've yet to see it drain a tank in 0 seconds.

let's test this then, hmm?

get a large kerbodyne tank, empty it, lock the resources just to be sure.

set your symmetry to 6-point, place 6 vectors radially around the tank pointing in all directions, repeat for the adjacent side, giving a total of 12 vectors, translate them around so you can fit another set of 12 vectors, repeat until the whole tank is covered in vectors.

optionally, clone this vector covered tank; the more you have, the faster it'll drain the fuel.

now attach an I-Beam, decoupler, structural panel or anything else that prevents fuel transfer, then connect another large kerbodyne tank with full fuel and of course, add a single fuel duct and your command module of choice.

right click the full tank, fire up the engines, and watch every single engine burn without a problem as the fuel squeezes through a passage no bigger than a garden hose, with an infinite rate of flow.

if you optionally cloned the vector tank, the fuel should have drained completely dry the same moment you staged the engines, in zero seconds.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Xyphos

[regex]

5 minutes ago, Xyphos said:

right click the full tank, fire up the engines, and watch every single engine burn without a problem as the fuel squeezes through a passage no bigger than a garden hose, with an infinite rate of flow.

It's an abstraction, even Realism Overhaul doesn't bother with that AFAIK (not like you really need to with Procedural Tanks...)  This is Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Plumbing Simulator.  We're not designing slosh baffles for individual tanks or dealing with hydrogen boil-off either.  Also the fact that in your example all those engines are somehow being fed from the same tank without other obvious considerations like how much helium can replace the fuel without creating a vacuum or the additional plumbing required for pumping all that fuel back up from the bottom to the top tanks.  I mean, if you're going to get all realistic on KSP then make your examples realistic as well.

[Xyphos]

1 hour ago, regex said:

make your examples realistic as well.

that was realistic. in real life, a device like this wouldn't work.
but it does, using kerbal mechanics.

and a best example of why I shun the use of fuel ducts.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Xyphos

[regex]

 

5 minutes ago, Xyphos said:

that was realistic. in real life, a device like this wouldn't work.
but it does, using kerbal mechanics.

Yes, because KSP allows you to slap engines onto craft in whatever way you think will work without regards to thrust structures or plumbing.  It's an abstraction.  If you have an eye towards realism then you don't build that way but there's nothing wrong with the fuel lines as they currently stand because they abstract the plumbing process.

[Pecan]

3 hours ago, regex said:

 

... there's nothing wrong with the fuel lines as they currently stand because they abstract the plumbing process.

And to be fair to Xyphos, there's also nothing wrong with not using them.  My comment was just pointing out that drop-tanks have been around for a long time so the abstraction is also valid.  It's one of those mechanics like autopilots or clipping that people will never agree about, it's individual (or challenge) choice, as you point out.  All models are wrong, but some are useful (Box).

[regex]

1 minute ago, Pecan said:

And to be fair to Xyphos, there's also nothing wrong with not using them.

Yeah, I never dogged on the practice of not using them, just the method by which they were criticized.

[Pecan]

:-) We have consensus :-)

 

[Xyphos]

Look, my "issue" with the ducts is the fact that they have an infinite flow rate;

if there was a flow rate restriction to which "just add more" would be a solution, then I wouldn't mind so much, and I'll even consider it to be kerbal, in which realism isn't actually an issue, it's just the "wow. that's not even remotely believable."

Edited April 13, 2016 by Xyphos

[Superfluous J]

39 minutes ago, Xyphos said:

Look, my "issue" with the ducts is the fact that they have an infinite flow rate;

if there was a flow rate restriction to which "just add more" would be a solution, then I wouldn't mind so much, and I'll even consider it to be kerbal, in which realism isn't actually an issue, it's just the "wow. that's not even remotely believable."

You would need an infinite number of engines to make the fuel ducts transfer at an infinite rate.

"Moar fuel lines" seems like a really good way to increase both the part count and the micromanagement of craft without actually adding any gameplay.

[Bomaye]

Who of you actually share a heavy lifter? 

[Xyphos]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

"Moar fuel lines" seems like a really good way to increase both the part count and the micromanagement of craft without actually adding any gameplay.

the same thing can be said about struts, to compensate for the weak joint system in stock.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Xyphos

[Superfluous J]

36 minutes ago, Xyphos said:

the same thing can be said about struts, to compensate for the weak joint system in stock.

If the joints were so weak as to require more than a few struts here and there, I'd agree with you.

[RA3236]

I'm gonna call in @max_creative here:

And yes, that is 1915.60t of Taurus V Lifting power (thank you SpaceY)