Jump to content
  • 0

Launching a 44t payload


Question

Ok, ok. It had been some time until I uploaded it, guess I do have another one coming very soon i guess. But the problem here is tech tree. I need to launch a 44t payload into LKO and dock it with my space station (cuz it is the second segment). I placed it inside a 1.875m fairing (I want to use a 2.5m one but it is too advanced so I need to expand the 1.875m one). But the payload still works. I placed it in my super heavy launch rocket - The resilient 1b. It's used to be one of the most expensive and the heaviest in my fleet, costing over 200000 in funds. Contains a fairing which just fits, a transfer stage (second stage), transfer booster stage (That's how I call it, boosters beside the second stage), first stage, and side boosters. Everything was good at first, the first boosters started to jettison around 20 seconds into the flight and fell back to KSC harmlessly, around 30 seconds later, the second set of boosters fell back. Around 90 seconds into the flight, the last set of boosters jettisoned. The main rocket is still having a TWR of 1.1. But that's where the problem came in, my rocket is already facing at something like 70 degrees. The time to AP started to decrease. In the end, it started to fall straight back down despite having all 5 main engines firing. Then it crashed. All 200000 funds was gone. Money wasn't a problem for now, as I have around 8000000, but i'll need a successful rocket, if not after 40 missions my money would be burned up. Any help?

 

Perhaps pictures can help :)

O10YmH4.pnglfYN3gN.png

 

I had a new rocket, the Resilient 1C-A, a smaller variant of the upcoming rocket Resilient 1C. But that thing literally costs 500000, so i don't wanna fly it.

 

P.S. most of my money was burned so i only have 6789982 in funds

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
1 hour ago, Anonymous49 said:

cannot shut down, like i they burn up their fuel when my apogee is something like 150km. 

u know what u said was asparagus staging, which was my original idea

 

53 minutes ago, Anonymous49 said:

a few thumpers usually bring me over 100km. A command pod with a thumper goes over 100km ;)

 

32 minutes ago, Anonymous49 said:

i always use my traditional way it usually go beyond sometimes though

Don't worry about how high or what Ap a particular thing does. It appears as if you're designing your rocket by adding a random number of [insert part here] until it looks good, then wondering why it doesn't fly. 

Suborbital: You point the thing directly up, don't care about horizontal speed and a deltaV of 1300m/s (with TWR 2.53 at start) will get you into space.

Orbital: The only altitude you need to worry about is 70km. Get the Ap over 70km then KEEP IT THE SAME by burning TOWARDS THE HORIZON to raise the Pe to over 70km too. Orbital NEEDS a LOT of horizontal speed (about 2300m/s). Orbital is all about getting enough horizontal speed to remain in orbit. In fact what people do is start vertically then gradually tip over and over to horizontal in a smooth turn - the GRAVITY TURN.

I would suggest the path you've taken so far - of designing a randomly-specified rocket, then multiple attempts at flying it, a lot of crashes, then installing MechJob to try and launch it - is ultimately limiting, for the amount of enjoyment you will gain from KSP. Go back to the basics. Stick to the tried-and-tested advice we see many times here - design a simple understandable rocket, based on the 2 important performance numbers which define how it will fly - deltaV and TWR.

At the risk of repeating myself.....

First stage: 1000m/s, TWR ~1.3-1.5
Second stage: 2000m/s, TWR 1.2
Third stage: 1000-1500m/s TWR 0.5

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Hotel26 said:

Then lately I stole an idea from a recent suggestion by Corona688 -- an idea that turned out to be a Great Idea -- and produced a brilliant little 20t$$ lifter, based on Stage 1 SRBsWhat an eye opener?!

One can say that SRB are for one thing and one thing only, but heck they are good  at that thing!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Maybe the only people stupider than me are those trying to help me??

Oi... I resemble that remark. :huh:

Much too harsh on yourself here; not at all what I see when we cross paths on tinker projects. So you don't take anyone's word for it and need to *see* it first. That's just good sense.

 

2 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Good luck with what you are trying to accomplish, I'm under the impression that you will need it.

To be honest, after quietly monitoring this thread for a few days now, and despite all the good advice given about the rocket, I'm surprised no one has yet put the finger on the real sore spot yet.

Docking a 44t and long thin module.... with 0.625m Jr (*) docking ports?? This project is dead in the water even IF that payload ever gets to orbit. That station will shake itself to bits the minute it docks.

(*: you'll notice from the very sparingly offered details that none of the other bigger docking ports are available)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Oi... I resemble that remark.

Ashamed to admit it, but I was, of course, speaking in highly metaphorical terms.  ;)  The only literally truthful part of what I wrote was the bit about SRBs.  First use on Feb 4th, this year, after 6 years playing.  And the 'slow learner' part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Funnily enough I did (for me) an unusually heavy launch yesterday – about 40 tons payload. This was the first time I used the fancy new heavy SRBs introduced in the More Boosters! update.

Man they're fun. They have the same guilty appeal as a big-block V8. Big, heavy, loud, and face-meltingly powerful. After they flamed out, the rest of the launch felt like an afterthough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Man they're fun.

Strangely, this thread may have propelled this forum-kind into a wide-spread exploration of SRB power like never before.  Introducing a whole new generation of SRB-newbies to Brute Force.

I'm betting there is a new SRB challenge announced within 48 hours.

 (OK, OK, shameless plug: Stick Grenade)

Edited by Hotel26
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The reason SRBs are recommended is the first part of the launch is really uncomplicated. Its full power, pointy end up flamy end down. If you're doing something different or unusual in the first 1000m/s, fair game!

Having said that I've used liquid for 1st stage plenty of times, for example: 

* My first stage burns longer/does more, eg 1500 or 2000 m/s. It might be because its a "less stages --> more simple" kind of craft
* I don't have radial decouplers yet and I don't want to make it thin and long.
* I don't have the kind of SRB I want unlocked yet (eg there is a big gap in performance from one to another and I want one in the middle).
* I am not bothered with cost

Lack of control or throttling ability, in the initial lift off, are not reasons though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Hotel26 said:

(OK, OK, shameless plug: Stick Grenade)

Ironically perhaps, that may be the most fitting solution for this thread too. There's still no clear view of the entire payload, but just inferring from the long thin and light end shown sticking out of the fairing in the one screenshot, it's got to have most of the weight on the other end. A stick grenade, stick end up.

Turn it upside down, put four relatively light boosters with radial decouplers directly around it, shore it up with some strategically placed struts, and I can't imagine it having much difficulty getting to LKO even without a fairing.

Edited by swjr-swis
struts
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

To be honest, after quietly monitoring this thread for a few days now, and despite all the good advice given about the rocket, I'm surprised no one has yet put the finger on the real sore spot yet.

Docking a 44t and long thin module.... with 0.625m Jr (*) docking ports?? This project is dead in the water even IF that payload ever gets to orbit. That station will shake itself to bits the minute it docks.

 

I docked a 400 ton eve lander with a 3600 ton orbiter with a small docking port, and it worked.

of course, it required autostrutting. and rcs and major precision and lots of patience for the docking.

so yeah, the OP likely won't make it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, Anonymous49 said:

i always use my traditional way it usually go beyond sometimes though

sorry, but your traditional ways are highly inefficient. 200k :funds:for 44 tons to orbit? I don't have a dedicated 44 ton launcher, but my donkey launch vehicle sends 25 tons to orbit for 30k:funds:, and it recovers the rocket for 20k :funds: recovered. even when i am not trying to save money, i won't spend nowhere near that much. last time i had to send a 50 ton payload to orbit i spent, like, 50k.

the thing is, this is a game where you learn stuff all the time. i never had a standard launcher until after i had hundreds of hours of gameplay, because every time i had to launch something new, i would make a new launcher and it would be better than the previous one. if you stick to your traditional ways, you can never improve.

that said, another thing you can try that i didn't see a suggestion for would be to start the core stage from the beginning, burning at less than 100%. this way, when you detach the boosters, the core stage already lost some fuel, and it will have a better twr.

of course, that would be less efficient, but still better than any alternative if you don't nwant to massively redesign the rocket

Edited by king of nowhere
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
19 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Given the fact that you keep changing the subject to anything but the big station mentioned in the OP, I'll assume that you are not interested in it anymore. 

Good luck with what you are trying to accomplish, I'm under the impression that you will need it.

 

indeed i am rebuilding a better one, but because of a docking port anomaly on the station it could not dock. I tried to send a space shuttle up there to fix it tho, which is why i might say unrelated things

14 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

sorry, but your traditional ways are highly inefficient. 200k :funds:for 44 tons to orbit? I don't have a dedicated 44 ton launcher, but my donkey launch vehicle sends 25 tons to orbit for 30k:funds:, and it recovers the rocket for 20k :funds: recovered. even when i am not trying to save money, i won't spend nowhere near that much. last time i had to send a 50 ton payload to orbit i spent, like, 50k.

the thing is, this is a game where you learn stuff all the time. i never had a standard launcher until after i had hundreds of hours of gameplay, because every time i had to launch something new, i would make a new launcher and it would be better than the previous one. if you stick to your traditional ways, you can never improve.

that said, another thing you can try that i didn't see a suggestion for would be to start the core stage from the beginning, burning at less than 100%. this way, when you detach the boosters, the core stage already lost some fuel, and it will have a better twr.

of course, that would be less efficient, but still better than any alternative if you don't nwant to massively redesign the rocket

becuz it uses asparagus staging, my core stage already burns at sea level at full thrust. My first stage had 23 engines which is why it is expensive. My module itself already costs over 50k

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Ironically perhaps, that may be the most fitting solution for this thread too. There's still no clear view of the entire payload, but just inferring from the long thin and light end shown sticking out of the fairing in the one screenshot, it's got to have most of the weight on the other end. A stick grenade, stick end up.

Turn it upside down, put four relatively light boosters with radial decouplers directly around it, shore it up with some strategically placed struts, and I can't imagine it having much difficulty getting to LKO even without a fairing.

not possible to flip it, has a RA-2 antenna on the top

14 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

sorry, but your traditional ways are highly inefficient. 200k :funds:for 44 tons to orbit? I don't have a dedicated 44 ton launcher, but my donkey launch vehicle sends 25 tons to orbit for 30k:funds:, and it recovers the rocket for 20k :funds: recovered. even when i am not trying to save money, i won't spend nowhere near that much. last time i had to send a 50 ton payload to orbit i spent, like, 50k.

the thing is, this is a game where you learn stuff all the time. i never had a standard launcher until after i had hundreds of hours of gameplay, because every time i had to launch something new, i would make a new launcher and it would be better than the previous one. if you stick to your traditional ways, you can never improve.

that said, another thing you can try that i didn't see a suggestion for would be to start the core stage from the beginning, burning at less than 100%. this way, when you detach the boosters, the core stage already lost some fuel, and it will have a better twr.

of course, that would be less efficient, but still better than any alternative if you don't nwant to massively redesign the rocket

my traditional way is just to use LF's unless there's bankruptcy. Usually just use/edit explorer boosters like the first stage (which is a extended and more powerful explorer booster 2) and the boosters (which is extended for the first iteration and uses 3 skipper engines instead of a bobcat explorer booster 1).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, Anonymous49 said:

not possible to flip it, has a RA-2 antenna on the top

If you only see impossibilities, KSP (or space, or flight, or Life) is not the game for you.

You could simply relocate the one part that appears to make it 'not possible'.  Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
33 minutes ago, Anonymous49 said:

just saying that you cannot put things on top of things like the stayputink and the RA-2

You can, actually, in many ways. If you're willing to learn and apply a trick or two, people could show you.

  • The RA-2 can be attached radially to the top, leaving the top attachment node of the part under it free to attach something else.
  • You can add a 'magic' top node above a Stayputnik (or RA-2) by placing them on a 1.25m fairing base, and enabling the interstage nodes.
  • You can place a 1.25m service bay at the top with the Stayputnik and/or the RA-2 attached to the inner nodes of the bay, and then offset or rotate them
  • Or the  much simpler suggestion I made: simply move them to another place in your module. They don't *have* to be at the top.

 

You've been getting a lot of good advice from some people with a proven track record of building (and putting to orbit) amazing things. But you'll start losing their willingness to offer help if you only keep dismissing their suggestions without even trying to apply them.

Edited by swjr-swis
more tricks
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

You can, actually, in many ways. If you're willing to learn and apply a trick or two, people could show you.

  • The RA-2 can be attached radially to the top, leaving the top attachment node of the part under it free to attach something else.
  • You can add a 'magic' top node above a Stayputnik (or RA-2) by placing them on a 1.25m fairing base, and enabling the interstage nodes.
  • You can place a 1.25m service bay at the top with the Stayputnik and/or the RA-2 attached to the inner nodes of the bay, and then offset or rotate them
  • Or the  much simpler suggestion I made: simply move them to another place in your module. They don't *have* to be at the top.

 

You've been getting a lot of good advice from some people with a proven track record of building (and putting to orbit) amazing things. But you'll start losing their willingness to offer help if you only keep dismissing their suggestions without even trying to apply them.

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

You can, actually, in many ways. If you're willing to learn and apply a trick or two, people could show you.

  • The RA-2 can be attached radially to the top, leaving the top attachment node of the part under it free to attach something else.
  • You can add a 'magic' top node above a Stayputnik (or RA-2) by placing them on a 1.25m fairing base, and enabling the interstage nodes.
  • You can place a 1.25m service bay at the top with the Stayputnik and/or the RA-2 attached to the inner nodes of the bay, and then offset or rotate them
  • Or the  much simpler suggestion I made: simply move them to another place in your module. They don't *have* to be at the top.

I will add another possibility that's become possible with the last update: put the antenna somewhere else, and then use EVA construction mode to shift it where you want once in orbit.

 

8 hours ago, Anonymous49 said:

 My first stage had 23 engines which is why it is expensive.

but that's the thing that doesn't add. i send 25 tons to orbit with a single twin boar, which is equivalent to 3 skippers. it should take 6 skippers in the first stage for 44 tons. i can understand using 10, but 23 seem way exaggerated for 44 tons to low orbit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

23 Skippers points to a severe defect in the design, something must be muddled with the staging (ie dropping hundreds of tons of unspent fuel, etc).

Hence, the suggestion to roll back and keep it simple with no more than 3 stages; and learn the basics of deltaV and TWR.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 2/10/2021 at 8:40 AM, Brikoleur said:

Funnily enough I did (for me) an unusually heavy launch yesterday – about 40 tons payload. This was the first time I used the fancy new heavy SRBs introduced in the More Boosters! update.

Man they're fun. They have the same guilty appeal as a big-block V8. Big, heavy, loud, and face-meltingly powerful. After they flamed out, the rest of the launch felt like an afterthough.

Did someone say big-block V8?! Lol as a fan of drifting I related all to well with your post xD

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
20 hours ago, Anonymous49 said:

my traditional way is just to use LF's unless there's bankruptcy. Usually just use/edit explorer boosters like the first stage (which is a extended and more powerful explorer booster 2) and the boosters (which is extended for the first iteration and uses 3 skipper engines instead of a bobcat explorer booster 1).

Sorry I'm jumping on the bandwagon late, but judging by the convo I thought I'd chime in. This^ would be a good habit to break. If you're bound determined to play a career save, nothing will save you more money than abandoning asparagus staging and liquid fuel boosters wherever possible. Both are very efficient yes, but also extremely expensive and unnecessary (except once already in orbit). Where a quad skipper booster set linked through asparagus staging might cost 100k kerbucks, you'd get even more lift power from say 4 Pollux's pricing out at only 24k kerbucks. I didn't see if anyone else mentioned it already but you can also set the thrust limiters on solids to more or less get an asparagus style boost profile where as you ascend you drop boosters. The downsides would be the lack of crossfeed but the upsides would include dropping dead weight and gaining better control authority of your craft as there'd be less overall mass. 

Edited by James M
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Anonymous49 said:

my first booster only costs 6k each, over 2 minutes of burn time, 400kn thrust in vacuum, TWR of over 1.6.

Well there you go. The boosters you're currently using are the same cost with approximately one third of the power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Answer this question...

×   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.

×
×
  • Create New...