Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'engine gap'.
Found 1 result
-
Inspired by this post: One of the things that irks me about the 1.25m parts is that lack of an engine reasonable in capability but not excessively expensive for launches. The Reliant is an early game engine and it shows, with a TWR of 16.7 at sea level and 19.6 in a vacuum. The high-end 1.25m, the Vector, produces a very impressive TWR of 23.9 at sea level and 25.5 in a vacuum. For the purposes of comparison, the venerable Mainsail manages a TWR of 23.45 at sea level and 25.5 in a vacuum. The following is what I would propose for the characteristics of an engine that fills the gap outlined above. Others may differ, but my opinion for the stats of such an engine are roughly as follows: 1.8 tons 360 kN in Vacuum (TWR 20.41) 325.16 kN at Sea Level (TWR 18.43) 310 ISP in Vaccum 280 ISP at Sea Level 2° of vectoring 2,650 funds cost The stats of this hypothetical engine also reflect consideration of its other competitor: the Aerospike. It is superior to the Aerospike for low altitude flight (better TWR, gimbaling, cheaper) but remains inferior at higher altitude (heavier, worse vacuum ISP). What do you guys think about it? Do you think such an engine gap exists, and if so, would you agree at least roughly with my hypothetical stats?
