Parts I Never Use

[KerikBalm]

My thoughts:

*Probe cores - there are too many

Some of the probe cores seem a bit redundant after the rebalance. I used to use the stayputnik, without SAS, I haven't used it since the update.

I have used QBEs for probes that I just detach on a suborbital trajectory over an atmospheric planet, and then deploy a chute at the right time.

In theory, I could use the stayputnik for the same thing, but I haven't due to its lack of a spare node.

Anyway, seems a bit redundant with the QBE.

Likewise the HECS and OKTO seem to similar to me. I use one and forget about the other.

Actually, many of these I only use in career mode until I get the OKTO 2, then I never look back.

Fuel tanks:

Mk3 to mk2 adaptor... can we get one that isn't slanted? I've never used this slanted thing.

RCS tanks:

So far I haven't used the bigger tanks much. The 2.5m circular, and the mk3 I've used at propellant depots. Never the mk2 tank.

I can see that they could be useful, especially if you want to make a monoprop RCS system for Role playing or something like that.

LF tanks:

Used pretty much all of them, although I don't use the engine nacelles much (I did use their model for my own mod to make an electric atmospheric propulsion.

I think with the 1.04 aero, I may not really have much use for the pre-cooler either, but I still use it simply because I haven't removed it from my older designs that stilll work in 1.04. (too lazy/not enough time to do a redesign, so these parts keep getting used on my SSTOs that I use heavily).

Radial engines: I rarely use them, due to their inferior Isp.

I've used the 24-77 for some VTOL applications/retrorockets, but the LV 1-Rs are too weak for that. I'd make the design work with an inline spark before I'd use a pair of these.

I have used them in the past... but I really don't use them.

Inline engines:

LV-T30... I really don't use this much once I unlock the LV-T45 (how could people name this engine, with its better Isp and gimbal!). Sometimes I use it as a first stage with a core stage feeding a LV-T45.... but it seems just to be a engine you use until you have better tech.

2.5m engines and aerospikes make this one pretty useless in comparison.

I use it only until I have something better

LV-1- I disagree with others, I use this one for lightweight probes, particularly now that solar panels have been properly nerfed for use in the outer solar system.

-Though I do admit I used an ion probe rather than this for Jool, simply with batteries and an RTG to recharge them... but that's because I wanted ot use 1 probe to visit all the moons (at least to orbit), and needed some more dV.

I think my Eeloo probe will use this one.

Skipper - disagree with others, I definitely use this either as a first stage (although rarely after unlocking mainsails), or a 2nd/upper(but not final) stage.

Its got a mix of TWR and Isp that I like for doing ejection burns/transfer burns to the moons without perapsis kicking.

Poodle - disagree with others. For lighter payloads, the poodle is also adequate for this.

So those that say the poodle, I also disagree. I also use the poodle on multicrew landers for airless bodies + duna. (RP reasons make me use it a bit more, as I dislike using LV-Ns with small crewed vehicles.

LES and Flea boosters: Disagree. They are great for recoverable RATO packs. Short burn times are not a problem if I want them to be discarded early enough that they land to be recovered before leaving physics range.

The LES is the highest TWR part in the game. It pairs well with a flea for an attachment node.

See this craft for a good use of the LES and Fleas:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0zxv4728zhed0ol/SSTNope.craft?dl=0

-The LFO rocket can SSTO on its own, but the LES+Flea boosters fire such that the core stage is going ~ 150 m/s before using any of its fuel, which should translate into more than 250m/s savings in orbit when one considers the core stage TWR, reduced sea level Isp, and the gravity losses it would suffer while accelerating to 150 m/s.

The RATO packs safely land before leaving physics range. Thus they convert any SSTO rocket into a fully reusable 2 stage rocket with more on orbit performance.

Hydraulic Detachment Manifold - I always use the TT-70: for the larger parts, I find the added clearance is a neccessity. I've never used this part aside from part test contracts.

Stack seperators in general - disagree with those that listed these, I use them to seperate payloads when I bring up multiple in a single trip, and don't want a decoupler stuck on either end.

Linear RCS ports: I don't use them much, but I do occasionally use them.

FL-A5 Adapter/Rockomax Brand Adapter 02 - the flat adaptors are pointless no? why not just stick a 1.25 m part directly on a 2.5m node, does this flat adaptor really serve any purpose? Oh its an 80degree angle instead of a 90 degree one? whoopeee

Although I've seen them used for RP purposes as radiation shields (ie, mount them directly in front of a LV-N)

Octagonal Strut - no, not the cubic one, this one... what is this for?

Rockomax HubMax Multi-Point Connector - very very rarely use... the thing is too heavy. I'd prefer to use a structural fusalage with 4x radial attachment nodes place on it. The only advantage of this rockomax part is reduced part count.

1.5 tons vs 0.24 tons.... yea, the structural pylon+ radial attachment points wins often.

Its even worse if I want it as a docking node. As docking nodes are already radially attached, I can just put them directly on the structural pylon: 1.5 tons vs 0.1 tons....

yea... no thanks.

Mk2 lander can/mk 1-2 pod- I use it.. sometimes... when I don't care too much about the mass, or for aesthetics. Particualrly for the cans on airless bodies, the aerodynamics don't matter, its better to use 2x 1 kerbal pods/cans. They need to make these lighter.

Part count vs Mass is *NOT* a good gameplay mechanic.

It may seem to make sense early in career when VAB upgrades limit part count... but later/in sandbox, its choosing between extra mass, or running the game slower...

Aerodynamic nose cone: rarely used now that they have advanced nose cones... something used during career until the better part is unlocked. I suppose its lower mass makes it potentially attractive if there is some middle ground between drag and mass that you are looking for.

I'd like to see it able to store fuel. Sperical shapes are good for storing large volumes for little mass after all...

AV-8/tailfin/standard canard... too redundant... particularly the standard canard and the tailfin. Their stats are sligtly different, but their sizes are very similar, and their functions nearly identical... so .. yea... I pretty much coose one or the other at random.

Mk-25 chute- I pretty much only choose it for aesthetics, as its chute model, with the long lanyard, looks better than the small radial drogues (radial drogues were something we needed though, they were one of the few mods I used to add)

Fuel cells- disagree with others. fuel takes mass, yes, but so do solar panels.

For an ion craft past dres, you're better off using fuel cells (but this is a bit silly/unrealistic)

With ISRU, I don't care about the fuel use so much. Fuel cell powered stuff is great.

Even better with mods: I have a solar powered duna plane, but it pretty much has to only fly around near mid day, stop and recharge from time to time, has a high part count (though I like the big OX stats from asteroid day - reduced part count is good).

A newer variant that I initially made for Eve uses fuel cells (eve, despite being close to the sun, has a really thick atmosphere that blocks a lot of power unless you are able to fly up really high).

Great duration, with the electric useage I have the parts set at for the moment, I'm thinking its still beating the wheesely for fuel efficiency on Laythe (though it is slower).

It would be cool if it had a mode that didn't use oxidizer, but used IntakeAir.

Fuel cell powered electric atmospheric propulsion, combined with a surface fuel depot/surface ISRU, is great.

The game just needs to add stock electric atmospheric propulsion to fully realize the potential of these.

Radiators: I use them mostly for looks/RP, but I think I'll have use for them for Moho expeditions and sundivers.

Inline docking ports: I see the use for them, I never used them. I don't have problems docking, but I always dock with nose/tail mounted docking ports (ie, essentially inline, but that gets confusing with this part name), haven't tried docking with what are essentially radial docking ports (placed inline, but they atachment is basically radial).

I use minimal RCS during docking, I imagine I'd use a lot more docking like this.

It could be fun and make me pay more attention to RCS systems... I just have never gotten around to it.

[Vegetal]

I don't use the 3 kerbal command pod. There, I said it. It's just TOO heavy.

[cantab]

On probe cores, I on the other hand don't use the OKTO2 for probes. I use it for automated control of larger ships, but for a small probe OKTO2+Reaction Wheel is just way too much torque, an OKTO or HECS handles better and saves a part too. The one probe core I *don't* use is the 2.5m RGU. It's half a ton and a potential weak point in my stack. If I want to control something big I'll mount a small probe core on it, usually via a radially-attached small nosecone.

On the LV-T30 Reliant, it does have its advantages. It's a noticeably higher TWR than the Swivel, and a bit more absolute thrust than the aerospike. I've done things like run a mixture of Reliants and Swivels in a cluster so I get extra thrust without having no gimbal. The Reliant would also be a good choice for a liquid booster, though I tend to use solids anyway.

On decouplers, you remind me that I *rarely* use the TT70, the one with the strutwork. I just prefer my boosters flush to the core. The one time recently I did use the TT70 was to hold the upper wing of a biplane, it looked a bit nicer than using a girder; of course it was never meant to decouple in that application.

[Guest]

I like this thread, here's my patented "omnibus reply and rambling post". Look at my professional bulleted list:

• LV-1 "Ant" LF Engine
  

Personally I had never used this engine until recently when running my Apollo Program. I use it to power my Munar Subsatellite. I think it's important to have micro-sized parts for those who want to build tiny little probes.

• Not-Rockomax Micronode
  

I've been playing KSP for years and I have never used this part. Not once, ever.

• Large drogue chutes
  

Drogue chutes do have a purpose, but it's a very highly specialized one. To be honest, you'd probably only need it if you're about to lithobrake into the top of a mountain and you need a chute you can deploy at high speed. It offers a small safety factor, by braking you down to a speed you can deploy your main chutes safely.

• The Skipper Engine
  

The very "averageness" of this engine is what keeps it being useful for me. I used it as a 1st Stage engine until I got the mainsail, used it as a 2nd Stage engine thereafter, and still occasionally use it as a 1st Stage engine (perhaps with a few Reliants) on lightweight rockets.

• Mark-55 Thud
  

I hadn't used this since I first got KSP, but now the Isp has been increased slightly, I'll probably use them to land my new Munar Base. I do use the smaller radial engines almost exclusively.

• Probodobodyne OKTO
  

For me, it's OKTO or nothing, OKTO consumes the least amount of ElecticCharge of any of the other probe cores. If you need the additional flight controls of a better probe, just add the Fly-By-Wire system to your probe, and turn it on and off as needed.

• LV-T45 “Swivelâ€Â
  

If you're using engine clusters, use a pair of Swivels with your cluster of Reliants to add some thrust vector control. See my S-1b Rocket for an example.

• Launch Escape System
  

I've mounted this on several command pods, but it doesn't seem powerful enough to pull a pod away from the stack, especially if the pod has a heat shield attached. I think either the thrust needs to be boosted, or the amount of solid fuel should be increased.

• CH-J3 Fly-By-Wire Avionics Hub
  

OKTO + Fly-By-Wire = The best probe core ever made! Know about it!

• Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS Port
  

I agree, thruster blocks are just better for everything. I understand the reason why to include the part in the game, but I don't think I'll ever use it for anything useful.

• Hydraulic Detachment Manifold
  

I use this to separate very large liquid fuel boosters, no other reason.

• Structural Pylon
  

With this recent emphasis on new aircraft parts, I understand the use of the "Strutural" part, it's the "Decoupler" part that confuses me. Why would I want to detach perfectly good engines?

• Poodle
  

The Poodle is the most efficient engine that still generates electricity. That might not mean much to some, but it means a lot to me.

• Radiators
  

I was excited to see the radiators, but it seems I don't need them for anything either. I'm just using them for decoration really.

• The 1.25m fairing base
  

I've never found a situation where the added weight of a small fairing wasn't recovered by increasing aerodynamic efficiency. If the probe or object is small enough to fit into a 1.25 meter fairing, you probably don't need one in the first place.

• Fuel cells
  

I've learned to love these during my current Apollo Program, but yeah, solar panels are just better aside from when there's no sun.

Alright, those are the comments I wanted to make about what seems to be the most common parts in the thread.

Now, If I had to add a part of my own to this list, it would be this:

O-10 "Puff" MonoPropellant Fuel Engine

These things have the WORST Vacuum I_sp of any engine in the game. They're literally throwing your fuel into space unburned, because they're powered by MonoPropellant, which has lower density than LFO, which means you can't pack as much fuel into the same space.

I suppose if you're trying to save mass rather than space you could use MonoProp, but the horrible fuel efficiency of these engines make them worthless aside from using them as more powerful RCS Thrusters.

[cantab]

The Poodle is the most efficient engine that still generates electricity. That might not mean much to some, but it means a lot to me.

Doesn't the LV-N generate electricity?

[legoclone09]

Nope, it doesn't cantab. That was removed in 1.0.

[Warzouz]

Nope, it doesn't cantab. That was removed in 1.0.

It think it does. They removed the gimbal in 1.0.

[Starhawk]

It think it does. They removed the gimbal in 1.0.

That is correct. The Nerva does generate electricity.

Happy landings!

[RocketBlam]

It's the most efficient non-ion, non-nuke engine though. I only use it rarely, but I do use it.

[Guest]

Doesn't the LV-N generate electricity?

Yes it does, but if you're not going interplanetary, the Poodle is where it's at. I use it as a transfer engine on almost all of my 2.5 meter rockets.

[Yuming]

Ever since they removed reaction wheels from the smaller probe cores I haven't touched them. It's a shame, I used to build space programs around those things.

[RocketBlam]

The small probe cores still have reaction wheels... I think they all do, don't they? The HECS and the OKTO do.

[Superfluous J]

The RoveMate (yes it's a probe core), QBE, OKTO2, and Stayputnik have no reaction wheels. The Stayputnik also has no SAS.

[totos_totidis]

I dont use the i beam. Why did they even add that thing when you can use the modular girder segment.

[strigon]

I don't use an awful lot of the structural section, for starters. The beams, and most of the girders, I find to be particularly useless.

I love the toroidal fuel tank; I've found some great designs that make wonderful use of it, but I never seem to use it myself, which makes me sad.

I also rarely use the super large wings; the Big delta wings in particular I don't think I've ever used.

And finally, most of the probe cores; I use the Stayputnik for maybe one mission, move on to the Hex, and then I only ever use the really tiny one.

[Sharpy]

OKTO2 + small reaction wheel is a setup with more control authority, features and efficiency than most probe cores. And weighs less.

[The Aziz]

*goes to wiki*

Lemme list some.

-QBE, because I dunno why I should use it when I have HECS or OCTO

-Launch escape system, because.. Just no.

-Vernor engine, normal RCS are enough.

-All separators. Decouplers are fine, and when I want to reconnect decoupled part, I just use docking ports

Yup, that'd be it, can't think of anything else.

[Warzouz]

OKTO2 + small reaction wheel is a setup with more control authority, features and efficiency than most probe cores. And weighs less.

But the small reaction wheel provides too much torque for small probes.

[Superfluous J]

But the small reaction wheel provides too much torque for small probes.

He didn't say he was using it on a small probe. Perhaps he was using it on something that required a bit more torque than the other probe cores had.

[Fearless Son]

Inline Clamp-o-Tron and M2 Clamp-o-Tron

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/2/2d/Inline_Clamp-O-Tron.png/167px-Inline_Clamp-O-Tron.png http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/1/10/Mk2_Clamp-O-Tron.png/190px-Mk2_Clamp-O-Tron.png

Why: Again, these things add unneeded length to a ship. I always just stick a regular Clamp-o-Tron on the side of the ship somewhere. It doesn't add any length.

Solution: I don't know. I can't think of anything that would make these appealing to me.

I use the Mk. 2 Inline Clamp-o-tron frequently, for the reasons people have laid out before. Low-drag docking port, and also has built-in monopropellant tanks. Like you said earlier, the large monopropellant spaceplane tanks are a bit too big with too much weight and monopropellant for spaceplane use, but the Mk. 2 Inline Clamp-o-tron has just the right amount without the drag of radial tanks. I also find it useful to put it near the front of the craft as a "spacer" since it is relatively light, it puts the heavier cockpit a bit forward and shifts the center of mass toward the front. That in turn gives me a better range for placing the wings, without having to fiddle too much with fuel distribution near the front. And since the front usually has the most clearance around it (fewer wings and tails and gear and the like) it seems a logical place to put the docking point anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

But the small reaction wheel provides too much torque for small probes.

It also depends on what you are using it for. For example, I have a small probe I use as a tug for maneuvering other large, uncontrolled pieces into docking ports to form larger craft. The wheel provides way too much torque for the probe alone, which is why I disable it most of the time. But when I have it latched onto another piece that it needs to maneuver, I turn the wheel back on so it can rotate the additional mass effectively.

[mellojoe]

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/f/f1/Micronode.png/190px-Micronode.png

I know that many of you have complained about the micro-node, but I have used it before...

Now before I get spammed about using this little piece, let me explain that I have NEVER launched one into orbit, drove with it across the surface of Kerbin, or even sailed the ocean with it. I merely use it during the construction process as a place to put parts in assembling components that will be duplicated in symmetry mode. Once I complete the assembly process, the component is put into place and the micro-node is discarded...

I want to use this in the same places I use the little Cubic Octagonal Strut. Why can't it just surface attach and still have all those pretty attachment points?

[KerikBalm]

So I take back my comments on the LV-1R... I recently used them on a few of my probes that I wanted to keep single stage, wanted a survey scanner, didn't want to part clip, and wanted to fit them in a Mk2 bay.

Most of my probe's dV came from ion propulsion, but I included an oscar B tank and a pair or trio of LV-1Rs to give it a high initial thrust so I could get a more accurate escape trajectory for the probe without doing a lot of perapsis kicking.

-Though I still think I'd be better off using a spark on one end, and just flipping the craft around and using the ion engine after that if it weren't for the survey scanner which I wanted to have inline with the craft (actually, the way Ion engines work in this game, I could have simply attached this to the end of the ion engine).

[Pax Kerbana]

*goes to wiki*

Lemme list some.

-QBE, because I dunno why I should use it when I have HECS or OCTO

-Launch escape system, because.. Just no.

-Vernor engine, normal RCS are enough.

-All separators. Decouplers are fine, and when I want to reconnect decoupled part, I just use docking ports

Yup, that'd be it, can't think of anything else.

Vernor engines? Really? Those things are awesome. Try lining the back side of a wing with them and then let me know what you think. Also sometimes they are really useful... Especially for craft that you don't want to add mono tanks to or large craft. Maybe you're not building big enough? They're also useful as radially attached "brakes" on landers with weak TWR or suicide burn insurance... I'll set them to the brake group and slow descent at the last minute.

The separators have twice the force and can be used also when launching multiple probes where orientation changes for staging or using free nodes on other parts. Example engine nozzle to engine nozzle or a probe mounted to a station girder end.

[RocketBlam]

Well, I broke down and used an Ant engine. I guess they're OK after all, although I still don't like how separators mount below them with no shroud.

[cantab]

Funnily enough I seem to have come round to the Poodle a bit on my launchers, it does seem to offer more performance than a Swivel, the boost to upper-stage delta-V from its Isp compensating for the reduction in lower-stage performance from its mass. Still not sure when I'll use it on an orbital spacecraft though. Maybe if I build something using 3.75m or Mk3 parts.