More Boosters

So for the first time in my numerous KSP careers (I restart a lot) I decided to unlock Ion Engines. The burns take even longer than with NERVA, even for small satellites, so how do you deal with this?

[quote name='zolotiyeruki']Yes, and that's generally the most common way to do it. I've only done it once (for a "ssto to laythe and back" challenge), but the ideal is to put your Pe (around Jool) right on Tylo's orbit and time it perfectly so that you meet Tylo at your around-Jool Pe.[/QUOTE] And how do you go about doing that? I currently set up an orbit that gets me 9km close to Tylo and barely bends my trajectory, in fact I'm not sure if it's a way I'd want as the projected orbit once I'm out of the Jool system is smaller than my current orbit; which means I'll slow down with respect to the sun and speed up with respect to Jool. I think.

Hey guys... Is this a thing? I mean from a ballistic transfer straight from Kerbin and not just catching up to Jool from a more or less resonant orbit. I figured that since Tylo is as massive as Kerbin with none of that atmosphere, I might be able to get a gravity assist from it to slow myself down enough for a capture. My alternative is to just go for a Laythe aerobrake, but my only experience with that and Laythe in general was the time when my early game probe that somehow got to Jool got tossed around a bit by the meanie moons before Tylo decided they had enough fun and launched it straight at Laythe with a 90 degree angle of attack. Poor thing got instantly vaporized at the upper atmosphere. :D

[quote name='Kyrt Malthorn']hydrogen and oxygen, they're already cryogenic and as dense as they're going to get.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily true. Further refrigeration can make hydrogen slightly more viscous and therefore a bit denser.

Keep this to mods.

After the Vector I kinda want to see a standalone radially attached KR-1 Engine.

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']The laws of physics would preclude that. Aerospikes are good but they're not magic, they still have to work against the atmospheric pressure. Think of it instead as a near-constant percentage of the theoretical maximum Isp for a given pressure and it will make more sense. An engine with very similar vac and atmo Isps is one that's been optimized for atmo.[/QUOTE] I guess it doesn't matter much anyway as the Aerospike all but reaches maximum Isp at the 25-30km altitude where you'd fire it anyway. I personally prefer a heavier aerospike with more thrust as attachment nodes matter more for spaceplannes.

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']The Isp values for it in stock now are pretty good IMO. Not the absolute best in vac or atmo, but close and not bad in either like the specialized bell nozzles are. It pretty well represents the aerospike's advantages.[/QUOTE] But I thought it was counter intuitive that an engine that is advertised as relatively constant performance between atmo and vac to have one of the largest differences in atmo and vac Isp. What do you think about the mass and TWR change suggestion then? Or on the other engines?

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']This discussion of stock engine balance has been moved to the Suggestions and Development Discussion subforum. I would point out that an aerospike never beats a bell nozzle at that bell's optimized air pressure, the aerospike should not have the highest atmo Isp. Also, it has a bottom attachment node.[/QUOTE] Yup, I just checked in game, apparently that changed in 1.0.5? Or earlier? Not sure, but I'll definitely edit that bit. What Isp value would you recommend?

[quote name='Temstar']atmTWR30 would be extremely overpowered. Currently the highest atmTRW is Mammoth with 25.46. And that's an end game, highly expensive engine dedicated to lift huge stacks at lift off, to the point that it doesn't have a bottom node. atmTWR30 means vacTWR would be even higher. If that's the case no one would use Poodle or Skipper or Mainsail, you just cluster the OP Reliant together into clusters instead.[/QUOTE] Vacuum TWR 30 duh. Then again, the LFB-1x2KR has a higher TWR than the Mammoth all around to begin with, and what use is a bottom node in a Mammoth to begin with? What would you place below it? Highest ATM TWR is LFB-1X2KR with 28,718.

So hey, there are some parts in the game that under perform and here are a few suggestions on how we could fix them. Reliant: The reliant is truly meh. With a vacuum TWR of 17,2 and a sea level TWR of 16, it falls behind most engines in the game. What's more, it doesn't even have a gimbal. For the Reliant to be worthwhile after the point it is your only rocket engine, I think it should have the TWR of the LFB KR-1x2, which is 30,769230769... and let's just round that down to 30 since this is a 1.25m engine. At its mass of 1.25 tons, it should then have a thrust of 375kN at vacuum. Sea level thrust is automatically calculated via Isp. So wait, why do I think the starting liquid fuel engine should have one of the best TWRs in the game!? Well, you see, it doesn't have a gimbal which puts it in a rather unique position. Its ISP is also less than that of the LFB KR-1x2, and I couldn't think of a better engine to compare this engine to. The booster doesn't have bottom attachment points, and the Reliant can't gimbal. They're both engines that don't fit any slots in your typical upper-middle-first stage engine configuration where weight, TWR, thrust and Isp scale with rhyme and reason. At 375kn vacuum thrust, the Reliant should be strong enough to be worthwhile in various situations, especially with a better TWR than the Vector. Overpowered? Probably not, low Isp and all. One concern there may be is that it kind of does replace the Aerospike especially considering their sea level Isps aren't that different, but we'll get there. Swivel: This one is a bit tricky. Swivel is actually "usable", as in you go for this if you have a 1.25m stack. Sure, AV-R8 Winglet can make the Reliant just as good, but that's quite the expensive among other things like added drag, mass and not working at higher altitudes so that should be expected. I'd make it more like the Skipper actually. The Isp values actually confirm this already, with the Swivel having the same vacuum Isp but a 10 less surface Isp, which is fine by me. Skipper gets a TWR of 21,666666667 so once again rounding down for diameter balance reasons rather than how you should actually be rounding values, we get an ideal TWR of 21 for the Swivel. Which translates to a 315 kN vacuum thrust for the Swivel. I'm personally not very comfortable with how close that is to the reliant, but that is because the Swivel is more massive. Any ideas? Aerospike: The Aerospike is... weird. My version of Reliant definitely puts it to shame except as a high thrust vacuum engine, which is really a role the Aerospike doesn't feel like it should have. Its description says that its almost equally effective at all altitudes, but it has some of the largest Isp change between sea level and vacuum with the lack of a gimbal. So here's what I'd do with it; compare it to the Rhino. Rhino has roughly 22 for its TWR, a great gimbal range and 255-340 Isp. So here's where we do some rationalizing. Rhino has a great gimbal range with poor surface to vacuum Isp but Aerospike is supposed to be the opposite. Quoting the trivia section for the aerospike engine at the KSP wiki: "An aerospike provides comparable performance to a De Laval nozzle in space, but at lower altitudes it can be 20-30% more efficient." 20% higher than the Rhino puts the lower end of Aerospike at 306, and lets round that up to 310 since we like neat numbers. 310-340 seems like a fair Isp range for a gimballess, bottom nodeless engine eh? Another thing is that the aerospike is supposed to be heavier yet it is the second lightest stack attacked 1.25m engine. Vector is rather nuts with mass for a 1.25m engine, so let's just make this the second highest at 2 tons. The end result is 440 kn for 2 tons and an Isp range of 310-340. Pretty formidable! Kickback: The best SRB in the game is rather wimpy. A gimbal would probably solve the issue though.

Something about the wheel having a native rotation speed which makes the satellite rotate itself when that native rotation speed is changed. Don't quote me on that, I need an ELI5 myself.

[quote name='Nuke']those exist irl [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Y5-Zw5TW0[/URL][/QUOTE] Yes and that's why he mentioned them lmao.

[quote name='Penguinhero'][URL]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Concorde_landing_Farnborough_Fitzgerald.jpg[/URL] ahem[/QUOTE] A plane with just one counterpart, neither of which endured the test of time. Much viability, such wow.

Yes, whenever you do this we are silently judging you so cease your cheating lest you invoke our wrath.

I could always barely get past 343 m/s and you're going with 500... You're pushing the envelope hard and the envelope doesn't like it. Just hang in there until you can get Panther, then you can cruise around at 15km and at over Mach 2 easily.

[quote name='CitizenAerospace']I got one for you... chucked it together in 4 minutes, so not very polished. It works though, and it'll bring a MK2 Crew cabin into a 150km orbit and back, enough fuel for a rendv but no docking port / RCS. Powered by 2 Turbo-ramjets and 2 LVT-45 swivels. Below is the picture album (Forgot to take pictures of the ascent, I was writing this while it flew itself), and [URL="https://www.dropbox.com/s/huarf7vx33wv390/SSTO%20%27Cutback%27.craft?dl=0"]here[/URL] is the download. Pretty standard launch procedure: 1. Press [1] to activate the jets. 2. Take off and fly up at a 20 degree angle. You should hit 400m/s at 6.5km 3. Begin levelling off at 9km by bringing the plane down to a 15 degree angle. 4. When the engines hit a thrust level of 75kN press [2] to activate the rocket motors. Keep the jets on until they burn out. 5. Burn until you reach an AP of above 75km. I usually aim for 150km though. 6. Circularise [CENTER][URL]http://imgur.com/a/5MTfN[/URL][/CENTER] Landing has to be done by feel, you might need to pump so fuel into the front of the ship. It's got a huge surface area and glides like a feather. Although, word of advice: RAPIER's really are the most efficient way to go. The more engines you add, the more mass. RAPIER's are also better jets then the standard Turbo-ramjets; Max thrust of 465kN at Mach 3.7 VS 386kN at Mach 3 - that really is quite a big difference. And only for 0.5t more. Don't forgot, with that extra 0.5t you also get a rocket motor. A rocket motor that pushes a shocking 180kN of thrust. On most of my spaceplanes, I use RAPIER's and Atomic motors. The RAPIER's are mainly used as plain jets, although I often add 100 units of Ox or so for a bit of rocket boost before switching to the Nerva's. That's really the most efficient way to go. Oh, one more thing. That above design can easily be modded to take a 3-4 ton payload up with a bit of tweaking - I did it on a different craft file.[/QUOTE] Thanks, I'll try this soon. [quote name='Redshift OTF']Heh, well it's not just about looks, it's usability as well. There's usually some trade offs when making something aesthetically pleasing.[/QUOTE] Your plane is gorgeous, though I'm not the biggest fan of that clipped Vector. Still, I'll definitely take it for a joyride. [quote name='Rune']Hey, I don't think this fits the bill, but it doesn't have RAPIERs... [URL]http://i.imgur.com/RB2vN04.png[/URL] And I'm working on a [I]smaller[/I] version with Junos. [URL]http://i.imgur.com/tQnOfJA.png[/URL] Rune. By "working" I mean it's done but I'm unlikely to release because it is basically useless.[/QUOTE] Is that a pure rocket SSTO? The LF/OX ratio matches that of a pure rocket.

Well if you fly a bit lower you'll go through more air which results in more heat getting convected away per second.

Or be a math wizard and get an ejection burn that gives you both the correct inclination and the velocity to reach Moho for about 5k Dv total I think.

[quote name='SomeGuy12']That's just a hole in the back of the gun that lets gas escape the other direction, right? And those "poor" miners are adequately compensated and our internal investigation reveals their conditions meet minimal UN requirements for humans. They are showing a flagrant disregard for the law and must be dealt with.[/QUOTE] Okay then tase them, chop them up and use them as fertilizer. And yes it's a cannon with a two holes.

[quote name='jarmund']Pardon the useless post, but this has to be said: I want to make that trip now, regardless of any fuel-related benefits or lack thereof. Kerbin->Moho->Eeloo->Kerbin sounds like a beautiful trip.[/QUOTE] No problem at all, I'm glad I could inspire someone!

[quote name='5thHorseman']If you had a 1.4k burn and actually burned 2k, you're not doing something right. Also, splitting burns doesn't reduce the accuracy any more than using a little draggable tool with pull-knobs on it to plan your burn. Just re-make the maneuver node in between each burn and you'll be fine. If you lose more than 100dV due to this I'd be shocked. If you lose less than a dozen I'd not be surprised. I've never bothered to do the math, or even check afterward. It WILL save a LOT of fuel compared to doing a 15-minute burn at periapsis in one go. There was a thread on here discussing... I don't remember the term. ________ orbits. I also don't remember the exact orbit to go for for the cheapest ejection, mostly because (as you stated) you have to get there, and it's still cheaper to just do the whole thing as low as possible. Note, though, that "as low as possible" may very well be 500km up if you are doing it all in one burn.[/QUOTE] You're thinking of ballistic transfers I believe. I tested both "Optimal" and "Ballistic" transfers and the results were the same. And yes, my mistake was to attempt a 12 minute burn at a 200 by 200 orbit.

[quote name='Arugela']I was thinking the same thing. But I was thinking you should go from eeloo to moho. I was thinking it may be a natural difficutly level thing. You start at kerbin. Go out to eeloo planet by planet. Then from Eeloo down to moho then Eve system. This would seem like it might follow a natural system of increase in DV or something for each destination and maybe follow some logical pattern. I have yet to fully test this yet though. But my next mission is to go to Eeloo with a miner then do this very thing on the way back to kerbin. A round the world/Solar System trip going outwards first.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, maybe you should look at the DV numbers regarding that.

[quote name='spaceman1999']Impressive! How do the ballasts work?[/QUOTE] Ore tanks, dump ore and you gain buoyancy.

Yeah if you want to kill poor miners from 10 kilometers away, why not go for a recoilless gun?