Cheap, efficient and scalable "micro-stages" for career contracts.

[noorm]

11843m/s reported delta-v and 2 science sats for only 40318$!!! If it's good to shed dead weight, why not shed dead weight more often? Why drop engines when I could drop only the empty fuel tanks?

The video and pictures:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I've used this craft design twice, once on the duna/ike system, once on the eve/gilly system. For both missions, I fulfilled the exploration contracts, in addition to deploying satellites for futures data collection contracts. Of course, I finished both missions with fuel to spare.

In detail, the mission objectives:

1. Orbit ike or gilly
   
2. Do science in orbit
   
3. Deploy a science sat for future data collection contracts
   
4. Land on the moon
   
5. Do science on land
   
6. Takeoff and get in orbit around the main planet (duna or eve)
   
7. Do science in orbit
   
8. Deploy a science sat for future data collection contracts
   
9. Land on the main planet
   
10. Do science on land
    

[Starwhip]

But it's so ugly!

I love the idea, though!

[noorm]

I'm not an artist or a mad scientist... more like a min-maxer!

[EzinX]

So...why does this even work? What is KSP doing wrong in their simulation that makes this a viable strategy?

Let's see. Fuel tanks are too heavy empty compared to IRL tanks. Pumps that let you pump that much fuel vertically as fast as you burn it use 0 energy and add 0 weight. Gyroscopes provide too much torque, allowing this monster structure to be controlled. Structural stresses are probably unrealistically low. Any major reason I missed?

[Columbia]

Yay for funds!

[noorm]

So...why does this even work? What is KSP doing wrong in their simulation that makes this a viable strategy?

Let's see. Fuel tanks are too heavy empty compared to IRL tanks. Pumps that let you pump that much fuel vertically as fast as you burn it use 0 energy and add 0 weight. Gyroscopes provide too much torque, allowing this monster structure to be controlled. Structural stresses are probably unrealistically low. Any major reason I missed?

You didn't talked about aerodynamics or the decoupler...

I don't know what's the weight of decoupler in real life, but at 0.4 in kerbal (for the bigger one is used), it didn't really deter me.

I still think the initial philosophy is sound and could apply in real life if we had magic technology. (drop only what you need to drop, as often as possible).

[Dispatcher]

I've done something similar but with the tanks attached (and later detached) laterally, which would be more feasible with more realistic physics, etc. (pumping laterally is less demanding than pumping vertically against both ambient gravity and craft gee forces). My main motivation for such tank placement is simply to limit the length of the entire craft. I must say that I've used this approach more during interplanetary missions than I have for pad to orbit launching. As for the "realism" of your designs: if they work, no problem!

[EzinX]

As for the "realism" of your designs: if they work, no problem!

Well, I just wanted to know why no one yet does it that way. Because if this idea does work, I've got some contacts at NASA....

Amusingly, SpaceX actually intends a form of Asparagus staging for the Falcon Heavy. Some of the methods that work in KSP work IRL.

[Kerbart]

Kudos for originality! And for reminding us that KSP is a game, not a simulation!

[noorm]

According to Wikipedia... "Compressive strength for materials is generally higher than their tensile strength"

So, compressing fuel tanks from the bottom doesn't require strong fuel tanks like pulling them from the top?

But... like a few have pointed out, this is a game... and when you try to find an optimal solution to game mechanics, you don't usually handicap yourself with style or realism!

Edited March 15, 2015 by noorm
Fixed weird phrase... content is the same!

[quasarrgames]

Hey cool!

You know, this might work in RSS!

Also, how did you get your navball off to the side?

Edited March 15, 2015 by quasarrgames

[noorm]

Also, how did you get your navball off to the side?

Enhanced Navball: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50524-0-24-Enhanced-Navball-1-3

You can also scale it!

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I'm not an artist or a mad scientist... more like a min-maxer!

You called? Great idea!

+rep

[Varsi]

But it's so ugly!

I love the idea, though!

What! I think It's beautiful!

[Doodle]

Hmm Ok I have to admit I never went to Eve or Drees or any other Planet yet but this here is my design atm to sent Sattelites into Orbit on the cheap kind:

Thats 8500 DeltaV total on this Craft inkluding the 3.5k DeltaV of the Satelite and it only costs 12.5k Credits.

It includes a ProbeCore on the Lifter Stage to deorbit it (I really hate all those debris orbiting my Planet) If you remove the self deorbiting to crash abilities of the Lifter and the GyroWheel of the Lifter the cost are slightly below 10k .

But with this craft I make on my Kerbin/Mun/Minmus Satelite Contracts 100-200k Credits per assignement depending on the value of the contract.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Doodle

[HafCoJoe]

Hahaha this design is so awesome! I've used a similar design in the past actually XD. Stupid, awesome, and stupidly awesome as the phrase goes. Lol.

[Doodle]

After some small changes with dipping slightly into the fuel of the satelite that I want to launch you can launch satelites to Mun/Minmus for about 7k (including the Satelite) if you just use 2 small Solid Fuel Boosters with a decouple in between even.