Rakaydos

Yes... below a certuian point the compression you need to cause supercriticality in a tiny mass is too hard to maintain, and the bomb only burns a fraction of it's (already small) mass scattering the rest of it's mass around. Basically, the smaller you make a bomb, the less efficent and dirtier it is.

An adjustable timer doesnt work as well because the timing of the bombs is synchrinized to the shock absorber's motion. However, a variable speed launcher fills the same role, able to keep the bombs detonating at the same intervals but mdifying how far from the plate they detonate.

I use Stupidchris's mod. In addition to therevision of the SLS parts, it also buffs underperforming engines like the Poodle and the RM 55. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75272-0-23-x-Stock-Rebalance-Project-v1-1-6-04-14

Actally, the orion nukes are tiny. You're only looking at destrying an area a few city blocks across.

"Parts shouldnt be balanced for sandbox, even if they're unlocked so late in the game carear might as well be sandbox."

Both. This topic is my reasoning: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75661-The-7-Balance-Points-of-engines-in-a-Full-Career-Mode

There has recently been a lot of discussion about the SLS engines in 23.5... and while this topic is tangental to the topic, I do NOT want it to turn into a "Engines are OP!" "Then dont use them" argument. We've already got, like, 3 or 4 threads for that. :/ (And as a personal note, I suggest everyone try the Stock Engine Rebalance mod by Stupidchris before arguing. Useful RM55 radial engines are useful) This topic is specifically addressing the concern that "Budgets will balance them." I am personally of the opinion that the game should be balanced for sandbox- I will attempt to show that a sandbox-balanced game can also be balanced in a Tech and Budget limited carear. In sandbox, I've pointed out 4 "balance points," and 3 of them relate to how much thrust an engine has. Part Effectiveness (or just "Power") is how much thrust you can get from a single part. Seems straight foreward enough, until you start running into quad-coupled LV engines having better performance than their larger cousins. It also specifically doesnt care how much it weighs, as that is the next point. Thrust to Weight Ratio is a term you see fairly often on these forums, but for engines specifically the TWR defines an absolute upper boundry to where they can land or take off from. It also gets used as a shorthand for other aspects, but it ist to be confused with... Thrust to Cross Section ratio. Basically, how tall can you make a rocket who's entire bottom is made of that engine? The LV45 has less power than a skipper, but it has a higher thrust by cross section and a better ISP, which is what makes LV45 and LV30 clusters so popular. ISP is the last sandbox point- how much fuel do you need to carry to get where you need to go. In carear mode, the tech tree is considered a balance point by some- a common defence of the SLS parts seems to be "but they're at the end of the tech tree," and that real life technological progress is a justification to obsolete earlier engine designs. I disagree that carear mode tech can justify overpowered parts, but the tech tree is still something to pay attention to... as a tutorial. As said by a developer... The tech tree is meant to balance Expected Player skill. That's why the small, well rounded LV engines are presented to the new player first, while additional complications like air breathing engines are delayed. The aerospike is rarely worth using outside an endgame eve surface return or Jool datum return, so it shouldn't clutter up a newbie's engine tab until their tech tree is complete, despite it's otherwise lackluster performance. Which leaves the most speculative balance point, Cost. There's been prices in the VAB since forever, but noone has any idea how budgets will work. My theory for Budgets is that they will be a limit-per-launch, but not carry over between launches. (beyond success bonuses/failure penalties) If this is correct, Price would be balanced against Part Effectiveness, from the sandbox balance points. A skipper is more expensive than a LV45, but cheaper than 4 LV45s and a rockomax-to-4-engine adapter. An SLS engine would be even more expensive, but not to the point that it's cheaper to make an asparagused monster to get the same payload to orbit. Having Cost reinforce Part efficiency would balance various designs by capability- an asparagused monster for X budget has similar capability to a powerful cluster of high tech parts for the same budget- and if you dont have enough budget, getting beyond kerbin SoI may be beyond your capability, even with a fully unlocked tech tree. This is the very problem NASA has in real life. I could be wrong about budgets- but noone else knows either. to claim some unknown system will balance a part has to be some kind of logical falacy. Appeal to... something. I dunno, it's late and I'm rambling. Let me know what you think.

I dont agree with Eric's point, but he' referring to how, if all the engines are perfectly balanced for sandbox, and price and tech tree position are the only things added to that balance for carear, than he believes that price must cancel Tech Tree position in order for balance to be maintained.

-Sandbox- Size/part efficency (skipper vs a cluster of 3 LV45) Thrust to Weight Ratio (what planets can it land/launch from) Thrust to Cross Section ratio (How tall a rocket you can put on top of it) ISP (How little fuel do you need to do what you do) -Carear only- Cost Tech Tree placement Expected Player skill To explain the terms, The SLS parts have the best Size in stock, crazy good thrust to weight, making up for a lackluster Thrust to Crosssection, and some of the best ISP outside dedicated orbital engines like NERVA and Ion. There is a mod available that changes the SLS parts, reducing their TWR and ISP, but increasing their thrust to Cross section. (More thrust, more weight= taller rockets, less single-stage-to-jool) Concerning Expected player Skill, I believe there's a developer quote goig around that the intent of carear is a tuturial for sandbox- therefore Science should go from simple to understand and general purpose, to more specialized equipment needed for specific missions. (the aerospike is rarely worth using outside an endgame eve surface return or Jool datum return, so it shouldnt clutter up a newbie's engine tab until their tech tree is complete.) In short, Tech tree placement corrisponds to Expected Player Skill. My theory for Budgets is that they will be a limit-per-launch, but not carry over between launches. (beyond success bonuses/failure penalties) If this is correct, Price would be balanced against Partcount. A skipper is more expensive than a LV45, but cheaper than 4 LV45s and a roccomax-to-4-engine adapter. An SLS engine would be even more expensive, but not to the point that it's cheaper to make an asparagused monster to get the same payload to orbit. Having Cost reinforce Part efficiency would balance various designs by capability- an asparagused monster for X budget has similar capability to a powerful cluster of high tech parts for the same budget.

How about I do it with the Fixed version of the big engines? And enjoy a useful RM 55 while I'm at it?

I had the same thing happen- it had an apoapse just inside kerbin SoI while still outside minmus orbit, so there couldnt have been any moon-related interactions.

Better at everything at once? yes, it shouldnt. It should be better at carrying large weights to orbit (A high thrust, particularly high thrust per cross section to allow tall stacks) or landing on tylo, but it shouldnt also be one of the most fuel effient space engines in the game.

We want a 3m lifter engine. we just dont want a lifter engine that's also a better space engine than the Lvl30.

The problem is landing *both* boosters. Perhaps if you could RCS the boosters together and land them as one unit? My current approach is to have the upper stage having a surface TWR of <1 including payload. This lets it circularize with plenty of time to get back to the booster, and lets it skycrane a payload. Unfortunately, I've been having probems getting a Sr docking port to dock under kerbin gravity

I've got a design for a 2STO that can easilly handle a Science Lab, using the Stock Engine Rebalance, stages connected by docking ports for reassembilly, and landing both stages back at the launch site. Reassembilly and attaching the next cargo are what I'm currently hung up on.

Also there's a mod that brings the engines in line- not just the SLS parts, but also underperformers like the RM 55. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75272-0-23-x-Stock-Rebalance-Project-v1-0-5-04-14

But you have no obligation to use it! why care if it gets implemented?

My issue is that tasks are accomplished EXACTLY THE SAME now, no matter what the objective is. Want to bring an asteroid back? SLS parts. Want to land on the Mun? SLS parts. Want to land on Moho? SLS parts, the whole way. Same goes for Tylo. Heck, throw a kethane miner on it, and you can probaby build a ship capable of a grand tour, including eve landing and return! Before, there were enginneering limitations that prevented this spammyness. Moho needed a huge transfer stage to reach orbit, and had not-insignificant gravity. Tylo needs kerbin ascent engins just to land safely, and there's no parashutes on it. Laythe allows some of the most efficent engines in the game to operate there, but you have to GET them there, first.

That depends. Will I have to page past the Merlin 1, Merlin 1A, Melrin 1B, and Merlin 1C in order to get to the REAL engine? In stock 23.0, a Turbojet/Ion SSTO to laythe and back was an achievement... but you wernt going to be landing it on the mun. Moho lander, Tylo lander, Eve return vehical, kerbol escape probe... all these things have different engineering requirements. Now the answer to to throw an SLS engine on it. Kerbin ascent sure, that's what it's meant for. But there is n reason to get rid of it once you're in orbit, and the lack of a bottom atta node is only encouraging asparagussed monstrocities.

Sure, because the Sepratron is a useless rocket engine. And the Launch Escape Tower is too. They are extreme cases that are almost useless for conventional asents... but they get used for OTHER things. And besides, there's a video somewhere of someone using stacks of LES engines Orion style. Stage! Stage! Stage! Stage! ...all the way to space.

Now imagine North Korea with one.

If you can reattach 100 solid boosters without recovering your craft, get back in the air, and not spin out of control from misaligned docking ports, I'd call that a win. It's an "abuse" that's far harder than simply pumping more fuel into your tanks.

Concerning the LFB, one idea floated was to give it the exact stats of a Mainsail+Orange tank, and rebalancing the mainsail as a kind of super-skipper, midway between the current mainsail and the skipper. The LFB's built in fuel tank is almost never a drawback for the mainsail's stats, as you generally want at least that much fuel in the stage with it. Conversely, the Superskipper works either as a mid level assent engine or a large payload 2nd stage engine- having a bottom attach node works out well for the former mainsail.

I would argue that balancing for sandbox and putting into carear, is better than ballancng for carear and tossing it into sandbox. Balancing for sandbox is about variety and niches. A turbojet/Ion SSTO to Laythe and back is an amazing piece of engineering, but it's not going to be landing on the Mun, as it just doesnt have the right engines. A Moho lander is going to look different from a Eve Return vehical, which is different from a Kerbol Escape probe and so on. This same logic transfers to career mode- you unlock new engines because they let you do new things, go new places and do SCIENCE! there. Budgets become an optional "hard mode" limiting, but also focusing your creativity. "Balancing for career" the way people have been talking about it here, leads to engines that are useless, clogging up the parts screen when there are better engines. When was the last time you used a Poodle engine, or an Inline Ant engine? Their sole reason for use (other than looking nice, like a space shuttle replica that uses Rocomax 55s as shuttle engines) is to handicap you until you unlock the REAL engines furthur down the tech tree- the ones like the s3 cluster that can, by itself, single stage to laythe... or mun, or Duna, all with the same design. And while you can throw arbitrary cost limitations on them to limit their abuse in carear mode, those limitations vanish in sandbox. In my opinion, engines with different specialties and sizes and focuses is a better choice than a "technological progression" that has you paging throgh obsolite parts to get to the "real" engines, and that is why once Stupid_Chris's rebalance mod gets posted, I'm going to get it, and promote it every chance I get.

Make the engines much heavier, and slightly stronger. They can still move 2500 ton asteroids just as well (or better) because the engine weight is low enough in comparison not to matter, but they'll be harder to maneuver unladen, making intercepts best done with a different engine.