Orbital Vagabond

Thanks, this was addressing this posters comment (Emphasis mine):

Two main, complementary thoughts on this. 1 - How much dV does your 3 Dawn/3 big tank craft have? I'm guessing it's A LOT, and you really don't need that much to rescue Kerbals from orbit around Kerbin. It's probably cheaper to build traditional LFO-propelled vessels that have amounts of dV appropriate for the mission, than use all this Xe. 2 - The Xenon engines are primarily designed for very small probes on high dV trips (typically, 1-way). Basically, think Moho or Jool tours. What makes the Dawn engines so economical (grammar?) is that you can build SMALL high dV vessels, that are much less expensive to launch (small payload -> exponentially smaller vessels). They aren't designed for what you're using them for; they're designed for long distance trips without refueling. Basically, it sounds like you're WAY over building for the mission you describe, AND you're using the wrong tool for it. I'd simply recommend re-evaluating your design instead of calling for game re-balances.

I'm 98% sure the demo got updated. I think it's 0.25 or 0.90. Agreed with both of these: 40 Euro feels like a scam for this game (and YES I KNOW THATS BECAUSE OF STEAM), but even $40 is too much for a game that is basically still in beta. There are still too many promised features not in the game, e.g. dV readouts and reasonable aero/heating models. I may be biased, though. I'm really disappointed with how Squad has communicated with the community during development, so even now I don't feel all that great about the $23 I paid for the game at 0.22. I'd love to buy some of the lil Kerbals for my desk at work, but I don't want to give Squad any more $$$.

Yeah, I want to see the intake air logic improved. I think it makes sense to run the logic for all the intakes first, THEN the consumptions/sinks. I think a big, simple improvement would be to lock all the engines that use intakeAir on a single throttle, so when one starts coming down automatically, they ALL do. without other logic improvements, that throttle might bounce around a bit at the equilibrium point, but MAN it would make flight a lot easier.

You clearly can't compare KSP SRBs to IRL SRBs on a unit-to-unit basis any more than you can for any other engine or parameter, with the exception of ISP. And yeah, they do kinda suck from that point of view compared to IRL. However, everything got beat with the Nerf bat, so I really don't feel that bad. But, again, that doesn't justify the need for multiple new SRBs, only modifications of current parameters, but I prefer the increased difficulty. So who's "right" based on their own preferences? In a more abstract sense IRL and KSP SRBs are comparable on the following two points: the SRBs in KSP are useful for strap-on boosters to increase thrust off the pad SRB-only launch systems frankly suck, and are only useful for small payloads. The rockets under discussion (and that you conveniently chose to ignore to make irrelevant points) were portrayed as being "fully capable" launch systems compared to LFO systems. They aren't. It feels right to you, but I don't think many people will agree with you that the shuttle's SRBs were the primary system to get the shuttle into orbit. You only see it as more relevant because it supports your stance. In reality, the boosters are a method to exploit the Oberth effect, which is dependent on work. Also, I can't see how you can claim 2 minute burn times are "long burning" in any kind of sense. Wikipedia's "booster" entry describes them as "shorter-burning" and used to "augment" thrust, not as primary orbital systems. Clearly. The post to which you refer never denied or argued that the SRBs worked for strap-on boosters as I stated in my original post. As that point was never under contention, it required no discussion. But it's all you seem to want to talk about. And I don't anymore. So I'm done. - - - Updated - - - Thank you. I was looking for that information in the wrong places. - - - Updated - - - Listen, it's pretty clear my points of view aren't welcome here, so I'm not even going to try to discuss it anymore. Best of luck with your problems.

Well, then please try to see the intent behind my words in my intial response (to someone else): SRBs are as capable in KSP as they are IRL. Again, nitpicking about how you and I see the interpretation of rocket sizes differently is practically immaterial !? This is straight up wrong, and you need to check your facts. The shuttle's boosters burn for 2 minutes, while the SSMEs burn for almost 9 (source). The Ariane's Boosters provide 90% of the thrust at launch but only fire for 130s, while the Vulcain burns for 10 minutes (source). The boosters are not the "main form of propulsion" for either launch system, as you claim. It's not even close. Strap-on boosters are supposed to provide high thrust for a short time to improve the efficiency what is actually the primary launch systems (the SSMEs and Vulcain, respectively, in the above examples). If you look at the work (F x d) done by various stages you've brought into this conversation, you'll see the contribution of the booster vs main stages isn't even close Beyond your misleading claims, strap-on boosters like you've mentioned here are NOT what was mentioned in my initial response. That was discussing SRB-Only rockets, e.g. the Minotaur, Vega, and Athena. Please don't change the topic. tl;dr: There's a reason the SSMEs are referred as "Main Engines". Frankly don't care about part proliferation. At least this argument is a more direct and doesn't hide behind false claims of realism about why the engines are "needed." I still disagree, though, that more SRBs are required. This post skates dangerously near the whole 'procedural tanks' issue. - - - Updated - - - Just saw this. I still don't understand the problem with the 30 and 45. To build a rocket so large that the 30's and 45's aren't sufficient to get it into space, it's a long wobbly mess that's better off as a 2.5 m stack. While I understand it's not exactly what you said, I don't think a perfect engine needs to exist for every application. Having situations where the best engine is "by no means perfect but good enough" really is good enough. Well, I found it myself. According to this image, the shuttle's SRB's had a thrust vector control system in the skirt attached to their nozzles.

Well, first, if KSP rocket sizes are arbitrary, then "we need bigger bigger SRBs because there are IRL bigger SRBs" is an invalid argument. How do we know the Mainsail is the F-1 equivalent? That's a ton of extrapolation based on one flimsy interpretation. Separate from physical size, which you've already stated is arbitrary (at least in your view), all your arguments are based on thrust. If the thrust needs to be increased, then increase the thrust. We don't need to double the number of SRBs in the game as the post I was responded to was claiming; You just need to increase thrust on the existing SRBs Overall, though, all the additional points I made still stand, separate from nitpicking about what rocket sizes.

Uhm... Why did it take until a month after release for Squad to realize that there was no functional balance point using the heating system they implemented? Seems like that would have been picked up in beta... oh wait. I answered my own question.

The only thing I can agree with in this statement is that size 0 (0.625 m) SRB would be convenient. I'd also like to see the SRBs cheaper, but I'm not sure if that's a point you're trying to make here... The SRB-only rockets you've cited are simply not very effective orbital platforms. Except for the Athena II, they're all "small-lift launch vehicles" (<2000 kg to LEO, per NASA's guidelines), and the Athena only eeks out of that category by 65 kgs. All use at least 3 stages to get into orbit. The Athena's 4th stage uses a hypergolic engine, not a solid engine and the wiki you cited claims that stage is used for "final insertion", but I'm feeling generous and won't disqualify from the discussion, even though it's not an "all-SRB rocket". Regardless, you can build an SRB only rocket with 4 serial stages and use it to put a small payload into space. If you need me to show you how, I can make a video and walk you through it. And SRB single stage rockets can go suborbital in KSP. Not sure how that capability apparently isn't in the game... As far as form factors, all the rockets you cited are in the 2-3 m in diameter, similar to the diameters of the Titan GLV (3.05 m), Falcon 9 (3.5 m) and Soyuz (2.95 m). Consider that shuttle SRBs are also similarly sized (3.7 m), I can't find any IRL mention of using scaled up SRBs beyond this size, with one exception: Apparently Aerojet worked on some massive prototype SRB with a 260" diameter, but this was obviously never put into use, and only 2 prototypes were built. Note: For clarity I would consider 5 m rockets IRL, like the Delta IV rocket and S-IVB stage to be most similar to KSP's 2.5 m rockets, and larger rockets, like the Saturn V and Proton-K, to be most similar to KSP's 3.75 m rockets. And despite looking, I can't find any mention of any SRB engine being gimballed. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I just can't find evidence. I'd like to see it, if it exists. In summary, I can't see how you can build a case for more/larger/vectored/improved SRBs being added to the game on the grounds of "realism" because IRL, they're aren't any cases to point to representing what you're asking for. - - - Updated - - - I agree. This is just freaking weird. Also the fact that 3 fins on a rocket cost more than a rocket engine is baffling. I had hoped that Squad would have done a better job in their "massive 1.0 rebalance", but... /shrug.

Am I missing something? I just can't get my mind around opening claim. I haven't played 1.x into deep career, but in previous career games, I was launching 1.25m rockets all through the game. And those 1.25 rockets need 1.25 engines... I don't get why they become "bad" when you get bigger engines for bigger rockets because you still need them for small rockets because small rockets continue to have a place, largely due to cost and the amount I need to lift. That is unless you want to use spaceplanes for launching payloads of that size, but case was already addressed in this same passage. For example, I think the Terrier's a great engine. It's high vacuum ISP and good TWR are perfect for orbital and transfer stages, and it got a thrust buff from Beta... And whats better for getting a 1.25m stack into orbit than a t-45? Whats the issue? - - - Updated - - - I think we see the purpose of SRBs differently. SRBs are about supplemental thrust off the pad, not dV (at least not directly). Strap-on boosters improve TWR at lift-off so the LFO stages can carry more fuel, which improves the reaction mass fraction, which in turn increases dV.

To be fair, this has almost always been the case. Pre-1.0, I believe there was enough science in the Kerbin system to complete the tech tree twice, and since then, they've relaxed the requirements for use on several of the science tools (e.g. pre-1.0 you couldn't take temperature scans in high orbit, now you can). It's not as if the science labs have suddenly changed that.

Uh, any chance you could explain the significance of that value for us lesser minds?

Lazy coding is what's going on. The resource flow rules in the current game are still a mess, tho better than they've been in the past. The general advice is still to place half of the intakes, then place one engine, and then the other half of the intakes, and the opposite engine. Have you tried that? It may be that your engines are consuming the air from the previous frame first, then the intakes are taking in air, which is what's being displayed, which could cause an apparent air shortage despite the meter staying full. Did you place the engines BEFORE placing the intakes? (Yes, it's absurd that the ORDER in which you placed the parts matters).

Emphasized part is correct, which is another way of saying: The axes of rotation for every body in the Kerbin system is parallel to the axis of the the sun's rotation, regardless of the body's orbital inclination around it's parent.

It's not the answer you're looking for, but an alternative method could be to save each stage as a sub-assembly (I usually mount mine on a decoupler root part). Balance each stage like that, then assemble them all in a new craft.

Can I just say how much I love how bob is looking to the side like "what happened over there".

I assume "Spare tank" refers to a full orange tank, weighing in 36t total, 32t of which is reaction mass. It's always seemed a bizzare standard by which an SSTO's utility is judged, but seems to be widely used by the community. Most of my LKO payloads weigh less 20% of that, and most of my modular stations weighed less than 36t in their entirety. The closest functional spacecraft we have IRL to compare to an SSTO is the shuttle. The shuttle made something like 15 or 16 fights to the ISS, which consists of more than 20 modules (including the various trusses). Even the shuttle couldn't carry a load comparable to an orange tank to the station, and it's not even an SSTO. Basically my point is that I don't think it's fair to claim "SSTOs are dead" because it's more difficult for them to get an oversized payload to orbit. - - - Updated - - - This has always been the most appropriate mission for an SSTO: Moving crew and material between the KSC and LKO. It just makes more sense to let other specialized vehicles handle everything else. In fact, that was job description of the shuttle in the original description of the Space Transportation System.

Actually, Minmus isn't tidally locked. I think it rotates ~ 25 times for each orbit. Surprisingly, Gilly is the only other moon that isn't tidally locked to it's parent.

I strongly second this. I think we need a non-LFO option for exploring bodies with atmospheres.

With stock you can play the game consistently as the devs release new content, while modded games typically need to wait for the stock update, then the mod updates. This is much less of an issue since Squad only really releases about 4 patches a year. There's also the issue where mods can lose support, and will never get updated to the most recent vesion. This includes mods developers that have 'rage-quit' their mods for various reasons.