Rakaydos

Have you compared the price of an orange tank to the half-orange-tank oildrum? Yea, prices will vary. If you think you know how budgets will work, feel free to talk about it over here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76001-How-will-budgets-work

So, how do I set them to more thrust and more fuel consumption per thrust?

4 bigger stages, right? Still useful for getting large payloads into orbit? Something I noticed while playing with a bigger saturn replica, was that the size 2 nosecones fit nicely inside the bell of the size 3 upper stage engine, without any clipping issues at all. Now that nosecones have fuel in them, I'm thinking of making a larger lifter with staged boosters to take advantage of this. maybie land a class E or something, once I get the bugs worked out.

What if you could use 3m parts to build TALLER rockets? sure, they'd burn through fuel a lot faster, and wouldnt be able to single stage to jool, but they'd be able to lift even bigger things through the atmo than now? If so, you should try the Stock Rebalance mod.

If you're interested, come talk about how budget should work over here. There's been a few developer comments that touch on the subject, so we can at least start speculation.

So... RM48= Probe Booster LV30= 1m Booster Mainsail/LFB= 2m booster stock rework SLS cluster= 3m booster RM 55= Radial Booster(??) Ant engine= Probe core LV45= 1m core Skipper= 2m core Large bell= 3m core Ion: Probe transfer engine NERVA: 1m transfer engine Not sure how all the radial engines fit in, as they tend to be anemic but easilly spammed. Really, they should have give us 1m shuttle engines and a 3m cluster adaptor pack. That way those of us who wanted to buils an SLS could use the x4 adapter, those that want to build a saturn 5 could use a 5x adaptor, and those of us who want to put 27 ion engines under a size 3 tank can do that too.

This is my saturn 5 using the Stock Rebalance project. Lander is a poodle and landercan with legs, the service has RCS and a skipper, and the command has a Claw to grab the LEM.

That's the thing, the mainsail IS a crappy engine, but one you use anyway because it can carry a stack 4 orange tanks high. The crappyness means you only use it whenn you have to.. not just put fuel tanks on it and fly anywhere. Barring the Stock Rebalance project , the x4 cluster can only carry a stack of 3 s3 tanks. When it comes to making a rocket look like a rocket, the most powerful engine in the game is actually undergunned compared to it's "crappy" smaller cousin. But it's ISP is so high that an ugly, squat rocket can get anywhere in the kebin system without even dropping asparagus stages to thin it down. The stock rebalance project is a mod that changes the stats of the over and underperforming engines. In it, the x4 cluster is a heavy fuel hog, even worse than a mainsail... but it can lift a stack of 5 size 3 tanks agains kerbin's gravity. You use it in a first stage to make a rocket look like a rocket- not to make a squat monster that goes where it pleases.

Parts have had prices in the VAB since forever, though some of them make little sence. (why use an Orange tank when you can use two oilcans for much cheaper?) People are talking about using cost to balance otherwise OP parts, when we still dont know how money will work. This topic is to speculate how the budget system will work, and how it SHOULD work, for a fun game that followers the hints left to us by the developers. One of the few things we know about budgets is that it will be something that can be traded for Science, or traded for Reputation, which will be used to qualify for missions used to earn more budget and reputation. We also know how science works- you get a limited amount of science from doing things, and you spend it (permanantly) to unlock new parts (permanantly), presumably to go out and get more science (and budget and reputation) Reading between the lines, Reputation seems to be intended to be a similar resource. You spend (stake?) reputatation on Missions, so you can go and earn more Reputation (and possibly budget). However, the missions are procedural ("Test Part X in Biome Y" was the example) making it an unlimited source. (science may be EFFECTIVELY unlimited with all the Mun and Minmus biomes, but there is an upper limit) Another thing to keep in mind is that when career launched, one of the developers was quoted as saying it was a form of tuturial- it was less about realism, then about a guided exploration of KSP, to soften the learning wall for new players. (hence rockets being before jets and rovers) As such, the combination of Science, Budgets, and Reputation should be something new players can grasp, and carear should be something they cannot easilly lose while still learning the game. If we assume Budget works on the same pattern as Science (and presumably reputation), would you prefer fixed budget-cap per launch or a running total that is added to each mission? If the second, how should it be set up to prevent newbies from being unable to play if they crash the first 10 rockets they launch, while preventing "spawn capsule, recover, pocket rest of budget" abuse? If you think budgets should use a different system, how do you think it should work? And how do you think "trading" money, reputation and science will work?

For that matter how is Science (a limited but permanant resource) supposed to be exchanged for budget? (which most people seem to be thinking is a renuable, expendable resource) Can you give away your budget to unlock the tech tree, launch a capsue, recover it, then repeat?

5 (empty) tanks single staged to kerbin orbit, using Stupidchris's Rebalance mod and just 2 SRBs "stage and a half'd." A stock lifter couldnt even get off the ground with that much payload. This mod does... but prevents singe-stage-to-jool abuses. My Saturn 5 Replica, using the same mod: Same engine with a tank and a half lifts everything else to just over 20km, at a 1.5(x) TWR. Then the large bell kicks in with a tank and a 3/2 adaptor (which in this mod has fuel as well), easilly lifting the LEM, Service and Command stages to mun orbit.

This is my model saturn 5, with the 1.2 version: Tank and a half for the quad, a tank and a 3/2 adapter for the large bell gets me to a mun encounter and orbit. I still havnt tested using the claw to grab the lander, though. Service moduel has a skipper with a quarter orange and an RCS tank, and the LEM has a poodle with the smallest s2 tank.

I go tthis into orbit with just 2 long SRBs, with this part mod. Much better than single staging to laythe.

KASA, putting a magrail in orbit is pointless- every action has an opposite reaction, even magnets. :/

Out of curiosity, has anyone run the numbers for the buffed ion engines vs the nerva? What mass makes one engine better than the other?

And this is different than completing the Science tree in two missions... how? That said, you are correct, we can only speculate at this point- I consider that an unstated axiom. but being able to exchange currencies was part of the initial announcment of budgets, so looking at budgets in isolation from Repution and Missions (which at this point are equally fuzzy) isnt looking at the whole picutre, any more than looking at stats without cost is incomplete. My speculation is focused arounf fitting the earlier "Carear mode is a sandboxy tuturial for the real sandbox" with the more recent "budgets, tech and reputaion will make carear feature-complete." The idea being "How can budgets, tech and reputation guide a new kerbal player into learning to enjoy sandbox?"

Unless repeatedly spawnig capsules to rack up "unspent budget" is their idea of a good time, I doubt the developers will add bugetary rollovers. And unless timewarping for a few years doing nothig is also appealing, I doubt there will a "money over time" system. Without them, there is no reason to make a vessel "smaller" than your budget will allow. (or if you do, sell your excess budget for Reputation and see if there's any other missions you can complete at the same time for more money!) Therefore, the Cost/effectiveness ratio of parts will deturmine what is best used in carear. (for instance, I doubt we'll see many Orange tanks, if the half-sized fuel cans are still a quarter of the price for half the fuel) The best approach, IMO, to pricing parts is to reinforce part efficency. It should be cheaper to buy an orange tank than 2 oildrum fuel cans, for instance, but a single oildrum fuel can should still be significantly cheaper than an orange tank, if you dont need the extra fuel. This approch, however, means OP parts are still OP. Conversly, balancing for sandbox will remain balanced for carear.

What about one craft, one launch that accomplishes multiple missions? Also the more efficent design can be used at a lower budget level (budget sold for Reputation and tech), opening more missions (for more bugetary opjectives) and different parts.

Unless repeatedly spawnig capsules to rack up "unspent budget" is their idea of a good time, I doubt the developers will add bugetary rollovers. And unless timewarping for a few years doing nothig is also appealing, I doubt there will a "money over time" system. Without them, there is no reason to make a vessel "smaller" than your budget will allow. Therefore, the Cost/effectiveness ratio of parts will deturmine what is best used in carear. (for instance, I doubt we'll see many Orange tanks, if the half-sized fuel cans are still a quarter of the price for half the fuel) The best approach, IMO, to pricing parts is to reinforce part efficency. It should be cheaper to buy an orange tank than 2 oildrum fuel cans, for instance, but a single oildrum fuel can should still be significantly cheaper than an orange tank, if you dont need the extra fuel. This approch, however, means OP parts are still OP. Conversly, balancing for sandbox will remain balanced for carear.

Not to mention, gun type deviced have a much higher minimum yield. The weakest of them would be too powerful for Orion.

I really only see 2 sources for a production Orion drive. Constructed an fueled in the asteroid belt, or North Korea decides to do a moon landing.

Nukes arnt supposed to crack apart an asteroid. It's more an impromptu Orion drive, without the need for pusher plates. You shoot a nuke at the asteroid , and the blast applies a few M/S of delta V to the target. repeat until nuclear arsonals are depleted.

Not to mention, the developers have been quoted as seeing Carear as simply a tuturial for sandbox- the tech limits encourage expirimentation with each part as you unlock them, and a per-launch budget limit would limit the ridiculus size of some monsters. Balancing for carear makes no sence if it's intended as a sandboxy tuturial anyway.

Lower thrust, but crazy high Thrust to weight and ISP?

If I were doing the balancing, In carear, cost would slightly bias toward larger parts over collections and clusters of smaller parts, but not actually be used as a performance balancer. So with budgets enabled, you cant make a Tech Zero SRB stack that does a Minmus landing as your very first mission, but you can easilly make a basic rocket that goes up and deployes a parashute. Successful missions give you a bigger budget, and by the time a new player is ready to fly to minmus, you dont NEED a stack of SRBs a hundred meters high.