Jump to content

K.R.A.S.S.H. Industries Rogue's gallery of unorthodox creations.


Klapaucius

Recommended Posts

Since there is no KerbalX for KSP2 at the moment, I thought I would just put them all in one place.

Dorothy:

X3R72r8.png

Don't have a name for this one yet:  It flew to the small island next to the Island Runway before running out of fuel. I had loaded 25 tonnes of fuel. It actually got off the ground fully loaded with 50 tonnes, but could not stay airborne.

QB0yGeg.png

More to come soon...

Edited by Klapaucius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tundra said:

For the good of the game not just being "SPAM BIG NUKES!",  I hope that they nerf the nuclear engines atmospheric ISP.    It's fun and all, but it can't stay.

Nuclear engines are already more terrible than they should be in an atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Nuclear engines are already more terrible than they should be in an atmosphere.

That's fair, but they should be much heavier.  So unless you want to also ruin the use of nuclear engines for space travel by making them vary heavy, I think the best scenario it to nerf it's TWR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tundra said:

That's fair, but they should be much heavier.  So unless you want to also ruin the use of nuclear engines for space travel by making them vary heavy, I think the best scenario it to nerf it's TWR.

Its TWR isn't unrealistic.

I am really not seeing the problem with having engines as powerful as this. Don't forget the future is bringing us engines that are specifically built for constant-thrust transfers, the SWERV should hardly be the most of your concerns if you don't want to see futuristic technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with futuristic technology, but for gameplay reason I personally feel (tough others may not agree) that there should still be a reason to build rockets with older, present day parts even when you've unlocked futuristic engines or when your playing in Sandbox.  Since there is not cost in Sandbox and its the only mode we have on release, as well as it being the mode a lot of KSP 1 players prefer, there should be some incentives to not just use nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tundra said:

That's fair, but they should be much heavier.  So unless you want to also ruin the use of nuclear engines for space travel by making them vary heavy, I think the best scenario it to nerf it's TWR.

From the few h ssto's ive seen, its actually not worth doing them as they have roughly the same or lower delta.v then conventional ssto's, so i wouldnt worry to much about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a challenge to myself to see if it was doable. That SSTO was VERY slow and took ages to get to orbit, the acceleration only kicking in at high altitudes. For most of the time, it was crusing at about 300 m/s.  It used over half the fuel just getting to the edge of space.   It was interesting, however, to see the delta V indicator actually go up as I ascended!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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...