In a scale of 1 through 6, how efficient are you?

[TimePeriod]

I spend around 2-3 hours designing a rocket in sandbox just so I can use the exact same rocket in careerer mode.

[NovaCoru]

I'm simultaneously a 5 and a 3, so i guess that averages out to a 4 I rarely use spaceplanes because I'm terrible at designing them, and i tend to only put heavy, bulky things into space anyway, so they're not ideal for my playstyle anyway. That said, I do use the Stage Recovery mod and put about 10-20 parachutes on each main rocket stage to recover them You kind of have to try when every rocket you fire is like, 500k and up

[r_rolo1]

Well they may not be efficient when you're taking about fuel, but when it comes to money they are, because you can recover a much larger portion of the initial launch, and thus only pay for fuel used

It depends. First of all, the rocket equation makes clear that you get decreasing extra dV per booster in the same stage, so there is a upper bound for Single stage rockets or planes. That is why real rockets stage out. And given that, a cheap fine tuned discardable 1st stage can easily beat in terms of both costs and fuel a expensive attempt to give extra boost to a SSTO after a certain point.

On planes and rockets, rockets are more efficient simply because of the weight of the wings As in the current game there is no issue of getting air-breathing engines in rockets, all of the RL advantages that a 1st stage being a plane would bring go down the drain. The only real reason to use a Space plane is the bigger control on the landing spot, but you can do the same pinpoint landing with a rocket ( it is just much harder ... )

[LABHOUSE]

I'm 4 most of my rockets are 3/4 recoverable and all are 1/3 recoverable and I use sstos for smaller contracts in kerbal system I try to use space planes but I can't land them. And I always land on land within 100 kilometres of the space centre.

[fairytalefox]

There is no such option in the poll, but I'm 7: unmanned one-way missions only (since probe cores become available), smallest payloads possible, potential two cents of recovery value are virtually invisible.

[cesarcurado]

Probably 2. I don't even mind anymore at this point

[Heimdall5008]

I would see me somewhere at a 3.

- My rockets have a saftey margin on dV but not that much. Other than that they are optimized for low weight/fuel efficiency.

- I try only to discard SRBs or empty LFO tanks. The ascend/circulization stage is usually recovered (probe core and a few m/s dV left for deorbiting).

- I do not use space planes for anything other than atmo science on Kerbin and crew transfer to my space station.

- I try to land near the KSC (but regularly failing to get within 100 km ).

- I make enough money in my career save that I have no problems. Normally I combine 1 or 2 contracts with my ascend stage.

[Thomas988]

When it comes to going to LKO, the Mun, and Minmus, I'm very good at making efficient spacecraft. However, anything beyond that is really bad, and it's for that reason I have barely left Kerbin's SOI.

[TimberWolffe]

Honestly it depends. If I'm out doing a science mission then I'm a 5 or 6, but if I'm just messing around or doing something for the second or third time I'm about a 1 or 2

[Spatzimaus]

I'd say I'm a 6. Initial exploration is through ion-powered unmanned probes, launched by a small SSTO spaceplane. More advanced exploration is through a larger SSTO spaceplane containing both LV-N-equivalent engines and small ion engines (several hours for a burn to Jool, but VERY efficient), which works for anywhere other than Duna or Eve. Heavier lifting (stations and such) are handled through giant SSTO rocket boosters, designed to be fully recoverable and land back at KSC. Spaceplanes land on the runways; with rockets I aim those for the grassy fields just west of KSC, not the runway, but the principle holds. I leave no debris in orbit.

[Whackjob]

Hrm. Tough question. How efficient am I? Well, I suppose it has a lot to do with how you rate efficiency. If you're talking fuel efficiency, then between a one and ten, I'm probably around a negative four hundred and fifteen. But if you're going by how much of Kerbin's atmosphere you can burn off per launch, I'm probably an 8 or a 9.

[cantab]

I've never properly played career. For my sandbox play, does this answer the question?

[Jon Tash]

Hmm, It depends on my play style I guess. If I'm doing career mode then I suppose I'm 3.5. I pack just enough Dv for the mission and reuse a lot of my rockets and spaceplanes. When I'm playing sandbox mode, I build mainly for fun but I always plan to have the most possible Dv that I can fit with the part count being the smallest possible (not a good PC). Which I think would be 0 in your scale.

But in both modes I tend to build rockets and planes that makes the job done (which means that my Munar lander is not the same as my Minmus lander). And I tend to land near the place I launched if I'm in a rocket or land on the runway if I'm in a plane.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

Anywhere between 3 and 5, so I voted 4. Depends a little on what goals I set for a mission.

[Laie]

Most of my launchers are SSTO + boosters. So not really SSTO, but 95% there from a financial standpoint (and often cheaper than a true SSTO would be).

I refuse to recover my boosters. A spent booster is nearly worthless anyway.

I don't return stuff from remote SOIs just for recovery's sake. If it's re-usable, great. If not, it's a write-off.

[Taki117]

I'm a 6. Everything has just enough dV for the mission (plus a safety margin) and all my spaceplanes land on the runway. My pods, not so much, but if it can land under its own power it will hit the runway in one piece.

[GoSlash27]

Normally I'd place myself around a 5, but lately I've been working exclusively with kraken drive and infinigliders. Kinda hard to gauge efficiency when you're exploiting the physics engine for unlimited DV...

100% reusability, no staging, no fuel and no dead weight on interplanetary hops measured in days instead of years. Where does that fit on a scale of 1-6?

Best,

-Slashy

Edited October 12, 2014 by GoSlash27

[moogoob]

Oops, voted a three without reading... I don't use spaceplanes. Not in career, at least. Rockets all the way, and I never bother making anything reusable. I guess I'm just not setting the difficulty high enough - I have tons of money in career mode.

[SlimeCrusher]

I say about 2-3, if i try to make a microscopic vehicle, i tend to notice it barely gets to orbit, and then i go "Screw funds and that carrer stuff!" and build a huge rocket that WILL, no matter what, get the job done!

I also tend to make my landers too big, i never make them "correct", because EVERY LANDER has to have 2 kerbals onboard, EVERY SINGLE LANDER HAS TO... And then i find myself using 3.75 parts for a simple Minmus landing...

[Zylark]

4.4 - do use StageRecovery, all lifters got parachutes. But I'm not that finicky about landing at KSC, not a big fan of Spaceplanes and I don't mind wasting a bit on transfer stages. Though I do look at my dV reading religiously in the VAB, and try to cram as much as possible into a light as possible payload package. Or get two or more vessels into orbit in one launch.

[b0b3001]

I am a solid 2. I would rate a three if it weren't for my series of deploy-able money wasting missiles.

[Francois424]

2.5 here.

I wont go space plane or bother landing at the KSC. I just land wherever the wind takes me.

I have put kerbal engineer and never play without it now tho. And I am beginning to be able to build much smaller than I was before. My launches are at least 3x more efficient now than they where 1y ago when I started.

But I get no satisfaction from wasting my time getting a spaceplane into orbit if I can do it less efficiently with un-reusable rockets and in a quarter of the time

[Teutooni]

Voted 4. I try to be efficient (mostly cost-efficient, as funds seem to be a bottleneck for me), but as I do all my vehicle testing in the career mode with no reverts, I tend to go for the simple, reliable design rather than hyper optimized and complicated. That means no freaking spaceplanes. But that's just for my latest .25 career. Usually I do way over-engineered stuff.

[Torham234]

I guess 5, bordering on 6. I always liked to play efficient, even before the career mode kicked in. Nowadays, I almost exclusively play career with a bunch of realism mods like FAR, Tac life support, remote tech...etc etc.

[Commissioner Tadpole]

Hrm. Tough question. How efficient am I? Well, I suppose it has a lot to do with how you rate efficiency. If you're talking fuel efficiency, then between a one and ten, I'm probably around a negative four hundred and fifteen. But if you're going by how much of Kerbin's atmosphere you can burn off per launch, I'm probably an 8 or a 9.

It's actually both fuel efficiency and part count(albeit weighed a little more towards fuel). So yes, you would be a 1 in my scale.

I've never properly played career. For my sandbox play, does this answer the question?

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3848/14910831157_c2ac5c8da5_o.png

You are now officially the King of Inefficiency. I'd give you a crown, but the vessel carrying it had so much fuel the Level-5 Efficiency pilot decided to make all that fuel worthwhile and is now in a biome-hopping trip on the Mun.

Normally I'd place myself around a 5, but lately I've been working exclusively with kraken drive and infinigliders. Kinda hard to gauge efficiency when you're exploiting the physics engine for unlimited DV...

100% reusability, no staging, no fuel and no dead weight on interplanetary hops measured in days instead of years. Where does that fit on a scale of 1-6?

Best,

-Slashy

Pretty much 6. The 6 and 1 levels can extend way further than they are described at. So there's no neccesity for a Level 7 or 0.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Commissioner Tadpole