Puff Engine uses

[Arsonik]

The bigger radial tanks are quite dense and he has an inline tank below the relatively light capsule. You'd get even further if all that weight was used for LFO-engines.

Yes but we are talking over 3k dV here. I'm surprised that has 3k dV. And the surface gravity on Tylo is 7.x versus Kerbin's 9.8. If it gets that kind of dV you could put it under a Flea Booster and have an orbital capable 2 man delivery system for Kerbin. That is 2 things I never use that would work very well for that narrow purpose (deliver 2 Kerbs to LKO).

[ryan234abc]

I have a monopropellant lander that can escape Tylo, which is powered by only a handful of OP "Puff" engines. It also served as a final stage for an Eve ascent and performed by all means flawless.

http://i.imgur.com/JzvgOUT.png

That is an amazing looking lander! And Tylo escape?!?! I can barely land on the place, never mind get back out again! Congrats!

- - - Updated - - -

I'll just leave this here.

Cupcake...

IMO there are few gods in KSP. Scott Manley, Rune etc. Nonetheless, this is evidence that you belong among them. AMAZING craft!! Love it!

[FlyingPete]

They make good escape pods for LKO stations as you can run them on the inbuilt monopropellant supply in the command pods. Similarly, they're handy for minimalist landers around Minmus. Back in 0.90 I built a small SSTO that ran on a single turbojet and a couple of O-10 engines- not sure if this is viable now.

[Frank_G]

That is an amazing looking lander! And Tylo escape?!?! I can barely land on the place, never mind get back out again! Congrats!

Thank you ryan234 (and all you other people for all the rep)! It has lost some power in 1.0.4 compared to .25, where it was originally created, but it can still make it. However carrying enough monopropellant to power the lander throughout a Jool-5 mission proofed to be very inefficient. The LFO lander below is 1 ton lighter and packs 300 m/s more deltaV... so the only advantage of the monopropellant lander is its size.

However i really like the concept of only using one type of fuel.

I just looked through some older designs and missions and found, that my Laythe constellation style lander used the OP engines to de-orbit and control the landing trajectory, as its main landing engines were hidden inside an aeroshell until they are finally needed, shortly before touchdown. Here is the lander inside the aeroshell, firing the OP engines for landing trajectory correction.

[ryan234abc]

Thank you ryan234 (and all you other people for all the rep)! It has lost some power in 1.0.4 compared to .25, where it was originally created, but it can still make it. However carrying enough monopropellant to power the lander throughout a Jool-5 mission proofed to be very inefficient. The LFO lander below is 1 ton lighter and packs 300 m/s more deltaV... so the only advantage of the monopropellant lander is its size.

http://i.imgur.com/e5JCOHW.png

http://i.imgur.com/nGr29OQ.png

Damn, you have some nice landers!

Also, I like that re-entry shell. Love the way it drags the cargo behind. And for the record I do like pointy (or rounded off) backsides (DON'T SAY IT YOU DIRTY MINDED PERSON) as opposed to engines lugging behind.

[ouion]

Without the atmosphere of Kerbin. The Puff engine is really good for landers and last stages

[Thomassino]

Never used them

[annallia]

My only real uses for them are mono landers and escape pods on my stations (which are really just command pods with puff engines and a parachute)

[Tynrael]

I haven't ever used these engine types but after seeing some of the interesting looking landers and other craft people have built that do use them... They can probably offer some benefits to crafts for many situations.

[problemecium]

I have a monopropellant lander that can escape Tylo, which is powered by only a handful of OP "Puff" engines. It also served as a final stage for an Eve ascent and performed by all means flawless.

http://i.imgur.com/JzvgOUT.png

Unbelievable! That small? Can you please post a craft file? I've been agonizing over my Tylo lander and it's still over twice that size :C

[Frank_G]

Thanks again ryan234... to be honest... the aeroshell was meant to fly the other way around, but i forgot to mount some stabilizing fins and it äh... flipped... But actually it flew better backwards than expected and the lander made it to the designated landing point with no further problems. To good, the lander was fitted with 2 separate sets of OP engines, one set for prograde, one for retrograde, so i could control it regardless.

[edit] @parameciumkid - Link sent as PM, i just dont want to spam this thread with stuff that does not belong here. Looking at the interest shown in this design, i will release the craftfile on my craftfile thread this weekend, probably with a proper Tylo descent stage attached.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Frank_G

[Temeter]

Yes but we are talking over 3k dV here. I'm surprised that has 3k dV. And the surface gravity on Tylo is 7.x versus Kerbin's 9.8. If it gets that kind of dV you could put it under a Flea Booster and have an orbital capable 2 man delivery system for Kerbin. That is 2 things I never use that would work very well for that narrow purpose (deliver 2 Kerbs to LKO).

3k D/V really are decivingly little when you're lifting a single capsule. And yeah, i's pretty easy to get to Kerbin orbit. It's a single Kerbal capsule, tho.^^

For bigger parts, take a 2.5m capsule and put a LFB below it. Congrats, you have an orbit capable SSTO!

Edited July 8, 2015 by Temeter

[Sharpy]

For Tylo, since it has no atmosphere to burn your Kerbals, you can really go with command seats instead of capsules. The only reason to take a capsule is to have somewhere to store science results (and dump the science equipment on launch).

[quantumpion]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Bishop149]

The LFO lander below is 1 ton lighter and packs 300 m/s more deltaV... so the only advantage of the monopropellant lander is its size.

It looks a damn sight nicer as well.

I had a go replicating this last night, after initially looking at isp's I started making something very similar to your LFO lander . . . . stopped halfway through after it broke the fugly threshold. Then I made the monoprop version, after additionally cramming it with as many science instruments as I could fit and some parachutes it has 2.3k d/V

Nice, I'm gonna send a few to Duna.

[LordFerret]

I had a Mun & Minmus science rover which I put mono tanks on and used the puffs to right the rover any time it began to flip. Of course none of this would have been needed if I'd just slow down while driving. They also were a help in driving up steep crater walls, and vice-versa.

[ygarl]

I use them on landers 10 at a time as landing engines - esp since they run on monoprop, so only need one type of fuel, and the external mono tanks can be quite small.

I even sling one under driving rovers with a couple Puffs on top and bottom to correct interesting driving malfunctions, plus front and back to get up hill and stop a bad choice of driving route from turning into a GEF (gratuitous existence failure) event...

[Frank_G]

Could you elaborate a bit? Are you saying this takes off from Tylo surface and makes orbit? I must know more. Sounds like witchcraft to me.

Sorry, i have missed your post. Yes it does and it is absolutely no witchcraft. The lander is pretty light and those small engines pack some serious punch, giving you a TWR of 1.7 on Tylo. You need about 2.3 k of delta V to get to orbit from the surface and this little dude has some to spare after the insertion burn.

I will release the craftfile together with a Tylo descent stage this weekend, so you can see that there is nothing magic to it and try for yourself.

[edit] First screenshots of the fully assembled lander are available in my craftfile thread .

Edited July 9, 2015 by Frank_G

[Brofessional]

I like to use them on tugs when building stations, or for escape pods. You need monopropellant for docking anyway, so you can make a more compact vehicle by using the same tank for attitude and propulsion. The engines themselves are very compact and convenient too, though I wish there was an in-line version for when 2 is overkill.

Occasionally I'll use them on probes, but usually xenon is preferable since most probes don't need RCS at all.

[BDelacroix]

If I have an unwieldy craft, I might use them to supplement maneuvering such as rotations.

I use them almost exclusively for construction and maintenance tugs. I have used normal rockets for docking but it is NOT fun.

I also use them for moons like gilly.

I use them for station keeping.

[spinomonkey]

I would love to use them in some way, but they are just worse than any other engine. And still far to large.

Agreed. I did a bit of math on it last night and I couldn't find any good reason to use them. In fact, now that you can use fuel as an alternative to even mono-propellant, it leaves me using them and their affiliated parts less and less.

[ryan234abc]

In fact, now that you can use fuel as an alternative to even mono-propellant, it leaves me using them and their affiliated parts less and less.

The problem with the Vernor RCS thrusters is they burn away at your main fuel supply. This means that you could lose DV before beginning transfer burns. Normal RCS thrusters (to my knowledge) are slightly more fuel efficient or at the very least, don't burn away at your main supply. This stops all those unwanted surprises and shocks like "Jeb, we told you not to drink the Oxidiser!" "I didn't..."

*X-Files music*

[SemiaCloud]

I used them for RCS on my gigantic station.

[THX1138]

Most of the scenarios people are describing here seem like they'd be much the same using a small LFO tank and twitch or spark engines. I don't see the point in using them. I used them to make small tugs for moving small loads around but I think I could probably have used LFO and get more miles per gallon.

[klesh]

Ive only really used them in the OMS configuration.  Those tiny cupcake landers look hot as usual.