Heavy Lifter Designs

[freibuis]

Hi there.. here is my firstsecond third ok maybe 1oth design... basic rules.. no mods

this was my first in the idea of lifting a heavy object into orbit/Direct Moon shot(not using slingshot). I could not used gimble rockets as the weight was to much and I needed lift. so it did not aim well...

ok here it is. 3 Stages (18 Engines + 6 boosters main) stage

here is the image of the end of the first stage. I can usually get this to the moon.

more on next post

[freibuis]

Then I revised this the previous one with this one.

[freibuis]

sorry for the multple replies.. this forum is broken it only lets me post about 30 ish chars before it fails with a 500 internal errors

showing the new booster stage

These where my first base designs...

I will post my new ones in the next couple of days.. just need to sprouse them up with the new 0.14 engine,.

lets just say 49 engines the first stage stage 42 are Gimble and 7 High thrust,, no need for SAS.. and it lifts pretty quick and chews throw the fuel

[Guest Flixxbeatz]

no mods

why?

[freibuis]

why?

just to make it harder

[Damonjay]

Very Nice man

I love it when i see another stock enthusiast

The largest i ever made was this bad boy

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=78.msg17019#msg17019

Sadly it was only ever launched once (every other time crashed the computer)

if you try and download the craft file you will be sad to know that its an old .craft file

0.9 i think (wayyy before fuel lines, Vectured Thrust, ASAS and RCS)

[Kosmo-not]

One issue I can see is your new booster stage. I don\'t see them accomplishing anything except adding on more mass. If you positioned them to fire in parallel with the engines above it, then it would be justified to add those engines.

[freibuis]

One issue I can see is your new booster stage. I don\'t see them accomplishing anything except adding on more mass. If you positioned them to fire in parallel with the engines above it, then it would be justified to add those engines.

absolutely correct.. was a stupid Idea infact I dropped that stage in favour of detachable Fuel tanks.

[togfox]

Nice - I never thought of using the tricoupler like that.

[freibuis]

ok here is new design. Heavy lifter. all Stock.

1st stage 7x6 Gimble + 7 Non Gimble = 49 first stage engines. no boosters. (yet)

1. Heavy Lifter Stage

This does not show the Detachable fuel tanks stage (6x4)

2. Earth Trajectory -> Moon orbit Stage

I tried to make this stage as relistic looking as possible with stock parts

3&4 Lander & moon take off stage

I have so much fuel left over that I could actually make it back on the lander stage!!!

This is a screen shot on the moon.. I wasnt watching what I was doing. broke a couple of legs off. because I put heaps on I was all ok

[togfox]

Good heavens! :

[freibuis]

Good heavens! :

some sick stats.

500m/s at 5km height.. now I throttle down to 75% until about 25km+ to conserve fuel otherwise energy is wasted to drag

I was to slap on the detachable fuel on the side of this I can get the first stage into moon orbit with no need for the 3rd stage on this design.!!!!

[togfox]

Good heavens!

[freibuis]

I forgot to mention that I have 63 engine first stage design. but every time I go to launch it. the game crashes. I also have to turn down the graphics to there lowest setting. but still no luck. my core I7 2700K cpu spinning up big time!!!!

[Darkshadow]

Wow I think I\'m going to need a new category for the repository... the super-heavy lifters

[freibuis]

Wow I think I\'m going to need a new category for the repository... the super-heavy lifters

I would like to build bigger. but in the process I will need to build a bigger machine

[freibuis]

does any one know how to get moar FPS. I am building a 80+ engine lifter Stage but I cant even launch because the lag of 1 frame about every 10 seconds..

I droped the count back to about 60ish engines for the lifter stage but I get about a frame a second. when this happens I loose access to the altimeter and other gages. this makes it impossible to know where you are. I am not sure if this is a bug or if the program cant handle some many physic\'s

any way I will try to get screen shots.. lagg makes it impossible

[Kosmo-not]

When it starts lagging to hell, it\'s probably time to look into making your rocket more efficient.

[freibuis]

When it starts lagging to hell, it\'s probably time to look into making your rocket more efficient.

define effcient, having about 70ish engines (thats the goal) makes it hard to get any FPS in any configuration.

[Corax]

define effcient, having about 70ish engines (thats the goal) makes it hard to get any FPS in any configuration.

more efficient: having less than 70ish engines to lift about the same mass to the Mun

Not that I claim it to be the most efficient, I guess there\'s still room for improvement. And yes, even this turns into a slideshow...

[freibuis]

more efficient: having less than 70ish engines to lift about the same mass to the Mun

Not that I claim it to be the most efficient, I guess there\'s still room for improvement. And yes, even this turns into a slideshow...

Guys Agreed being more effienctient is better...

but my designs are about liffting heavy objects.. this requires huge amounts of lift. I can get to the mun and back on half of the size.. but thats not the point. I want to lift large mass this requires moar engines... and moar engines require moar fuel

[OrtwinS]

We require more Spacecraft stats! stuff like Mass (per stage), fuel (per stage), and maximum thurst (per stage), that way we will be able to make better comparisons of how many thrust/fuel we spend to get a Netto Mass of Payload where we want it.

Categories could be:low orbit, high orbit, moon orbit, moon landing, moon land and return, etc.

I have tried similar designs, but I usually end up with rockets like Corax just posted, ortherwise you just spend fuel and engines on getting your fuel and engines up...

True, there is a minimum of thrust you need go get up, but dont forget the stock KSP parts are very unbalanced (compared to reality), and adding more stages/engines is less a good idea than it is here on Earth.

[maceyneil]

no mods. why?

I prefer to go without mods so i can keep an eye on how the balancing in Kerbal space program is going.

I mean anyone can mod fuel tanks to carry 5000% more fuel and thrusters that give the same explosive power as a nuclear bomb, but the fact of the matter is your really just cheating your way to the moon.

[maceyneil]

We require more Spacecraft stats! stuff like Mass (per stage), fuel (per stage), and maximum thurst (per stage), that way we will be able to make better comparisons of how many thrust/fuel we spend to get a Netto Mass of Payload where we want it.

Categories could be:low orbit, high orbit, moon orbit, moon landing, moon land and return, etc.

I have tried similar designs, but I usually end up with rockets like Corax just posted, ortherwise you just spend fuel and engines on getting your fuel and engines up...

True, there is a minimum of thrust you need go get up, but dont forget the stock KSP parts are very unbalanced (compared to reality), and adding more stages/engines is less a good idea than it is here on Earth.

I would have to agree with you at this stage (ver1.15) the greatest thruster you have can handle 5 fuel cells at 2.5 mass each and a glorified 3 stage rocket still has a bugger of a time escaping earths gravity well, which considering anything more expansive introduces crap-loads more drag as well as cataclysmic complexity to the build means there\'s currently some major balance problems.

I mean explain why the rocket pictured should have problems getting more than a 3rd of the way to the moon? It has very low drag, the stages are balanced to continue the necessary amount of thrust to continue an increase to acceleration, it\'s re-enforced enough not to shake itself out of existence.

[Analogy]

I mean explain why the rocket pictured should have problems getting more than a 3rd of the way to the moon?

Honestly? Because it\'s not a very good design. There\'s not very much thrust on your lower stage, so you\'re wasting a ton of your delta-v in the atmosphere. Also remember that fuel and engines are mass that need to be lifted too, simply adding fuel tanks will increase the amount of fuel you need to burn, and a heavier rocket with the same amount of thrust won\'t climb out of the atmosphere as fast, so you\'re gonna have to burn more fuel to offset drag. I would actually try *removing* fuel tanks from that rocket, swapping out some of those engines for the higher thrust ones, and revising your staging to drop unneeded engines and empty fuel tanks at optimal moments in your liftoff. Oh, and use crossfeeding to make it so that when you drop stages, the fuel tanks on the remaining stages are full.

You wanna make a real heavy lifter, you have to pay a lot of attention to what you are spending vehicle weight on, and try and optimize your staging so you are dropping parts off your rocket at times that are going to actually be helpful to you.