KSP 1.0.2 Engine TWR Bargraph

[Haze-Zero]

I hope this helps out my fellow Kerbals.

Rapier is in Rocket Mode only. The Twin Boar has its fuel drained.

Please note that ALL boosters are calculated as 'dry' of Solid Fuel but retain the weight of their empty Solid Fuel tank-structure. This was done because there is no way (stock) for the player to use the booster-engines WITHOUT having their TWR limited by the weight of the tank-structure.

Updated KSP 1.0.4 Engine TWR

Rapier is in Rocket Mode only. The Twin Boar has its fuel drained.

* KR-2L description updated, mass to 9t, SL Isp to 255.

* Aerospike mass lowered as a buff (it needed a buff to compete with late-tier engines) and tangents fixed.

* Rebalanced LV-1 to have Sea Level ISP of 80.

* Rebalanced Poodle to have Sea Level ISP of 90.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Haze-Zero
Updated to KSP 1.0.4

[KerikBalm]

It seems that the mammoth is definitely the engine that one wants for Eve ascents...

With the aerospike and mainsail also being in contention.

Somehow I think the mass of an orange tank should be subtracted from the twin boar... since itsa fuel tank+engine combo, but the rest are just the engines

[Farex]

This is a really nice sheet. Have some rep.

[Haze-Zero]

It seems that the mammoth is definitely the engine that one wants for Eve ascents...

With the aerospike and mainsail also being in contention.

Somehow I think the mass of an orange tank should be subtracted from the twin boar... since itsa fuel tank+engine combo, but the rest are just the engines

I did empty the fuel from the Twin-boar to weigh it and calculate its TWR.

[moogoob]

I think what was meant is that even emptied, the LFB still has tank structure (equal to an empty orange tank) that would be missing from the other engines.

EDIT: It's still not a fair comparison if you do it that way - what TWR would an Ant attached to an empty orange tank give? Would you even be able to plot it on your chart in a meaningful way? Better for the LFB to be the outlier with the pre-attached plumbing.

Edited May 6, 2015 by moogoob

[Pds314]

The RAPIER's TWR is essentially meaningless. It easily reaches a TWR of 50 under the right conditions. Maybe that's static thrust at sea level when not starved for air?

[Renegrade]

That is a nice chart. All labelly and everything. +Rep for you good sir!

I think what was meant is that even emptied, the LFB still has tank structure (equal to an empty orange tank) that would be missing from the other engines.

EDIT: It's still not a fair comparison if you do it that way - what TWR would an Ant attached to an empty orange tank give? Would you even be able to plot it on your chart in a meaningful way? Better for the LFB to be the outlier with the pre-attached plumbing.

Yeah, you can't make an easy adjustment to the LFB without running into issues in corner cases (ex. someone might try to build a really high accel craft with tiny delta-v and choose an LFB, even though a skipper+X200-8 tank would be higher accel). However, in common usage, it's thrust is rather high so I find myself attaching additional tanks to it, and it's built-in tank is no liability at all, and I think it's fair to subtract 36 tons of Jumbo64 from it with a little disclaimer star attached.

(LFO tanks are all pretty much 9:1 now I believe)

[Haze-Zero]

The RAPIER's TWR is essentially meaningless. It easily reaches a TWR of 50 under the right conditions. Maybe that's static thrust at sea level when not starved for air?

The Rapier has two modes, this chart was made in Rocket Mode only. Air breathing mode would need a different graph to be meaningful.

- - - Updated - - -

I think what was meant is that even emptied, the LFB still has tank structure (equal to an empty orange tank) that would be missing from the other engines.

EDIT: It's still not a fair comparison if you do it that way - what TWR would an Ant attached to an empty orange tank give? Would you even be able to plot it on your chart in a meaningful way? Better for the LFB to be the outlier with the pre-attached plumbing.

While I agree with you, there engine is carrying around an extra 4 tons due to the tank structure. Can the player do ANYTHING to separate out that engine and use the engine only, freeing it from that 4 excess tons? The player can not, not in stock. The player HAS to keep that tank with him no matter what craft design he makes.

How useful would it be to a new player to see this graph with only the TWR of the engine only to realize that when he uses it, he has 4 tons of tank-structure that will limit his TWR?

[Renegrade]

While I agree with you, there engine is carrying around an extra 4 tons due to the tank structure. Can the player do ANYTHING to separate out that engine and use the engine only, freeing it from that 4 excess tons? The player can not, not in stock. The player HAS to keep that tank with him no matter what craft design he makes.

How useful would it be to a new player to see this graph with only the TWR of the engine only to realize that when he uses it, he has 4 tons of tank-structure that will limit his TWR?

That's true, but I'd counter-suggest that a rocket that doesn't need at least that much fuel is an inefficient design in some manner (and in most cases, a terribly inefficient design).

Or to say it another way: How useful is an engine with NO fuel? None of the engines in the graph can ever attain their maximum theoretical TWRs anyhow.

[problemecium]

Wow, lol. I actually ended up making something very similar yesterday while trying to figure out why I should upgrade to the Skipper or Mainsail (answer: the Skipper is pointless, but the Mainsail outperforms the LV-T series both on the ground and in space).

Here's the spreadsheet for anyone who wants it: OpenDocument Spreadsheet