Jump to content

Parts I Never Use

RocketBlam

By RocketBlam
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

moogoob

moogoob

Posted
Posted

I use the Ant when I need a light engine, but don't need a GOOD engine. If I need a good engine I use the Spark. The Ant goes onto all my lightest probes and satellites, where it keeps my payload mass nice and under half a ton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 48-7S engine superior to the LV-1 in all aspects?

Better TWR and larger Delta-V? Or did it get balanced?

The 48-7S got hit with a well-earned nerf bat and now offers 270-300 s Isp. The Ant has 80-315 s so awful in atmo but better than the 48-7S in vacuum, while the Spider (the radial ant) is a shade worse across the board at 260-390 s. So if you can deal with the TWR you get the Ant is the better option.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegrade

Renegrade

Posted
Posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 48-7S engine superior to the LV-1 in all aspects?

Better TWR and larger Delta-V? Or did it get balanced?

Ant now has better isp, and has always had a superior dry mass. Even when it had inferior isp, it was still better than the 48-7S in very low-mass applications.

An ant final stage probe is a very low cost and very good "explore <body x>" contract completer. Just needs a thermometer and the basic antenna and a power source, and it can complete the whole contract. I usually send manned to interesting places, but boring places get one of these probes just to clear the contract off the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Archgeek

Archgeek

Posted
Posted
I haven't really delved into Action Groups yet; I usually just depend on the staging sequence. I should look into that.

The last time I tried a decoupler with the LES, I ended up with a "tube" remnant from the decoupler blocking my docking port :huh: At that point, I gave up fiddling with it, reasoning that anything I'd abort for I'd likely revert instead anyway... though perhaps the inverted orientation would prevent that specific result. I'll give it a go.

Indeed it will, since the decoupler will stick with the part on the side that was initialy its bottom. What I do is tell the abort action to cut all the lifter engines and decouple the return stage from everything else. Then I just stage off the LES with the upside-down decoupler, and to save possible insanity from complex staging, hit the action group I assigned the return stage chutes to. Very similar to how RIC does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RocketBlam

RocketBlam

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's funny to me that people don't like the Skipper. I use that engine all the time. It has good thrust at sea level, pretty good ISP for a 1st or 2nd stage (or whatever stage), thrust vectoring... it's probably my favorite engine.

I also use the Poodle, although not nearly as often. It has excellent ISP in space. I think it's the best ISP you can get in a non-nuclear, non-ion engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jouni

Jouni

Posted
Posted
- The Skipper engine. Its size, TWR, and efficiency are all too "average" and can be beaten either by a small cluster of Size 1 engines or a single Mainsail.

The Skipper is the most useful rocket engine in the game. Its Isp and TWR are both superior to the 1.25 m engines, and its lightweight enough that you can use it not only as a first stage/booster engine, but also as an upper stage/vacuum engine.

On the other hand, the Mainsail is rather pointless. The Twin-Boar has much higher TWR and almost as high Isp, and it's also cheaper than a Mainsail with an orange tank. You unlock both engines at the same time, so there are rarely any reasons to use the Mainsail instead of the Twin-Boar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RocketBlam

RocketBlam

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The Skipper is the most useful rocket engine in the game. Its Isp and TWR are both superior to the 1.25 m engines, and its lightweight enough that you can use it not only as a first stage/booster engine, but also as an upper stage/vacuum engine.

On the other hand, the Mainsail is rather pointless. The Twin-Boar has much higher TWR and almost as high Isp, and it's also cheaper than a Mainsail with an orange tank. You unlock both engines at the same time, so there are rarely any reasons to use the Mainsail instead of the Twin-Boar.

I use the mainsail if I need that much thrust in a first stage (or very rarely, a 2nd stage). The choice between that and the Twin Boar always boils down to whether I need more thrust than the Mainsail can give me. But maybe I just haven't really thought about it, you make a good argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superfluous J

Superfluous J

Posted
Posted (edited)

I use Skippers all the time. Frequently I use 2 instead of 1 Mainsail, as I frequently need more than a Skipper but less than a Mainsail to get to orbit. Sure they weigh a bit more for the thrust*, but they're enough cheaper that they offset the cost of fuel.

Since the rebalancing I don't think there's any "bad" or "great" engine, just a bunch of options that work better or worse than others depending on the situation.

As it should be.

*actually I guess technically they thrust a bit less for the weight. Same diff, really. They do the job. :D

Edited by 5thHorseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RocketBlam

RocketBlam

Posted
  • Author
Posted

-the MicroNode is used to connect I-beams (yes, I-beams, not girders) to each other at right angles. I don't use I-beams, so I also don't use the MicroNode.

(you can't radially attach things to I-beams like you can girders)

This is probably why I've never used it, because the girders are another part I never use. They're far too heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superfluous J

Superfluous J

Posted
Posted (edited)
This is probably why I've never used it, because the girders are another part I never use. They're far too heavy.

Actually, the longest I-beam (200) is a bit longer than and weighs less than the longest girder segment (XL), and while the shorter I-beam (Pocket Edition) weighs more than the shorter girder segment (Modular), it is about as long as the extra weight implies it should be. And the odd-shaped I-Beam (650) is actually quite a bit lighter than the Modular Girder Segment but is almost the same length (Like, 19/20ths or something, just eyeballing it). And it may even have less drag due to being skinnier.

Though the 650 radially attaches weird, that's no big deal now that we can easily gizmo translate stuff around.

Oh, and they're generally cheaper. They do have smaller attach nodes but who doesn't strut the .... out of anything they're sticking onto these things anyway?

Edited by 5thHorseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RocketBlam

RocketBlam

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Actually, the longest I-beam (200) is a bit longer than and weighs less than the longest girder segment (XL), and while the shorter I-beam (Pocket Edition) weighs more than the shorter girder segment (Modular), it is about as long as the extra weight implies it should be. And the odd-shaped I-Beam (650) is actually quite a bit lighter than the Modular Girder Segment but is the same length. And it may even have less drag due to being skinnier.

They must have changed them, they used to be a lot heavier. Since I never use them I guess I never noticed.

- - - Updated - - -

One block and one port provide as much control authority as two blocks in about half the drag and weight. Four blocks and four ports provide a full RCS setup of all translations and rotations. You'd need 8 blocks if you give up the ports.

Um... I don't understand. You can thrust and rotate in all axes with only 4 blocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RizzoTheRat

RizzoTheRat

Posted
Posted

I use Skippers a fair bit. In the early game an orange tank with a single skipper makes a good first stage for decent sized payloads.

I've only used the Thud so far as extra thrust to test mun/minimus landers on Kerbin, they come off for the actual mission.

Tempted to start putting fuel cells on everything as I've lost count of the number of probes that have got several days out in to space before I've realised I forgot to open the solar panels. I've taken to adding a couple of the single flat panel solar panels but you can occasionally end up with them both shaded.

I always use the 6x1 panels, I think they look way better than the 2x3

There's a few other parts I rarely use that I might be having a go with based on comments on this thread though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted
This is probably why I've never used it, because the girders are another part I never use. They're far too heavy.
I use the I-Beams for engine clusters. I-Beam attached to the bottom node of the fuel tank, engines attached radially round it how you like, decoupler on the bottom of the I-Beam to support the stage below, strut it up and add a fairing for strength and streamlining. Great for LV-N clusters since it avoids making engine shrouds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goomblah

Goomblah

Posted
Posted

I personally looove the Ant. I build lots of very small probes and landers, so I find myself using Ants or Ant clusters quite often.

I haven't touched Skippers in a while on my Career save. I used to use them quite a bit, even after unlocking the Mainsail, but the the Rhino and bigger payload masses came along, and not much has been seen of them since.

I use Thuds for landing heavier horizontally oriented but vertically landing craft, particularly mining trucks and mobile base sections. Otherwise, I don't use them at all.

I use mostly 6x1 panels, but I prefer the looks of the 2x3. In some cases the shorter, stubbier 2x3s work better, but generally I use 1x6s.

I use the Mk3 RCS tank for mass storage for space stations or fuel tankers, but nothing else. 300MP is generally the most I ever need to get the job done, and I often find myself wishing for even smaller radial tanks (like 10 units) for smaller ships that don't even need that much.

I use the Mk2 inline docking port fairly often; about half of my SSTOs use it. The other half have a rear-mounted shielded port; I generally use inline ports only if I'm using all the rear nodes for engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Razor235

Razor235

Posted
Posted

I will admit that I have used the flea a second time, as a booster stage for a turbojet powered cruise missile. I had to jury-rig it by attaching it to an I-beam attached to a radial decoupler above the jet. The only problem was that the turbojet would accelerate the damn thing to 1500m/s in the lower atmosphere, vaporizing it in seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...