Parts I Never Use

[Alshain]

Myself I have yet to use MK2 or MK3 parts. I am also considering removing all the wings from my install to unclutter the aero tab.

Really, with the amount there are, wings should have their own tab.

It's the other way 'round. Wings belong in the aero tab, everything else needs a better place. Cargo bays, service bays, and fairings should be in a payload group. Radiators and Heat shields should be in a heat management group (I mean, I know heat technically comes from aerodynamics, but really that is the worst place they could be on the GUI). Air intakes should have their own group too. That just leaves wings and nose cones in aerodynamics. EDIT: Oh and Parachutes and Airbrakes should be in a speed management group.

[Empiro]

I also like the skipper -- a skipper plus SRB boosters works great as a first stage engine, and goes a long way into getting yourself up into orbit.

The parts I almost never use are many of the structural parts -- the I-Beams, panels, etc. They just don't look or feel right to use.

[AbacusWizard]

I recently built a spaceplane around the Skipper--eight turbojet engines to get up to high speed and altitude, then one Skipper to reach orbit. It carries four passengers and is my first successful SSTO since before 1.0's new aerodynamics came out.

[NecroBones]

It's funny, I always thought of the Skipper as a stepping-stone. That is, it was just something to use until unlocking the Mainsail. And then its thrust got reduced (it was 800 when I started with KSP). But then I found myself using it for things like translunar injection.

There are definitely some parts I've never used, but they're all in the structural category. I'm glad they're there, though, since I have yet to build some large structures that might require them, and I see people putting them to good use in screenshots posted to the forum.

[Beowolf]

:: shrug :: Revert's an option for a reason. If you choose not to use it, it's up to you; for my part, I play for enjoyment, and I wouldn't enjoy that constraint.

We all play for enjoyment, silly! We simply enjoy different things.

Even when I'm testing a new launcher, and updating a spreadsheet with records of 20 minutely-different test flights, I'm playing for enjoyment. Really.

[Goddess Bhavani]

I never use the stock 0.625m tanks.

I prefer to just tweakscale full sized tanks because they end up being longer and require less part count (1) to make a long missile or rocket like object.

[Teilnehmer]

When I don’t want to build from stock parts only, I use procedural tanks.

[More Boosters]

I'm flabbergasted by the mentions of Skipper and Swivel here; I almost always use them over their closest counterparts, namely Mainsail and Reliant. Swivel's higher ISP and gimbal make it far superior to the Reliant to the point I never use the latter (especially early in the game the gimbal is more important with no control surface or proper SAS/RCS) as soon as I unlock Swivel. Skipper on the other hand seems to be very, very adequate for most of my payloads though it may have something to do with the fact that I usually use those large SRBs from SpaceY, maybe with a LFB KR 1x2 Twin Boar if I need the extra punch, so Skipper usually fires as a middle stage at around 20-25km anyway. There's no reason you can't replace the inefficient Mainsail with Kickbacks and just stick with a Skipper though.

But I guess that's why we have a lot of parts, the parts that some people consider useless can be another's staple; I can't remember the last time I launched something without a Skipper on it. Heh.

[waterlubber]

I love slippers. Use one with a half sized jumbo for a first stage, with my insertion stage being swivel and FL-800 (long 1.25m)

[Pax Kerbana]

The poodle has easily become my favorite engine in 1.04, especially because I'm doing a nuke free game at the moment. The skipper is very useful but the trick is to stage it correctly.

Ahh the Twin-Boar! A great little booster but far too early in the tech tree if you ask me.

The node might have a use but I honestly don't know what for. I use it sometimes just because I feel bad for it, being the much maligned little brother. I wouldn't get rid if it tho because I like knowing its sitting on the bench, ready to go. Wait... Just has a thought... Will need to try something...

[Kuansenhama]

But I guess that's why we have a lot of parts, the parts that some people consider useless can be another's staple; I can't remember the last time I launched something without a Skipper on it. Heh.

Skippers are just the best.

Well I know I never use the 2.5M lander can since it weighs so much more than two MK1 lander cans.

I tend not to use reliant engines since no gimball and low efficiency.

Once I'm done with the first few launches in career/science, I never use RT-5s or RT-10s.

I tend not to use the I-beams or the structural panels, though I do occasionally.

The pointless one dimensional RCS port.

Structural pylon.

[cantab]

The pointless one dimensional RCS port.

I put that to use on my latest Mun lander. The front and back of the 1-Kerbal lander can have the door and window so ports couldn't go there. The 45 degree sides have the solars and anyway the stock RCS ports are inefficient placed at 45-degree angles. So on the left and right sides I put a quad and two linear ports each to get full RCS translation.

Though frankly if I had a five-way port I wouldn't have needed to do that.

[PB666]

Going through the process of building another splaceplane, I got to thinking, "Which one of these parts do I never use, and why?" Some of these parts I have literally never used once, and others I used, only to decide I would never use them again. Now, we all play the game differently (that's part of what makes it such a great game), so I may be off-base here, so I'd like other people's opinions.

So i am going to make one general response because it is clear based upon what you have selected that you prefer some types of builds but not others, that if you want to master the game you need to start dreaming about other types of constructions.

So for example.

The micronode. In my prototypical space telescope, analogous to the Webb telescope, this part was essential, it was also essential in building the prototype space factory. To use the micronode you have to master the turn funtions in the vab, the is only on valid attach node and 5 valid attach 2 nodes, so you have to turn the attach to node to some node starter, such as radial starter or the cubic octo strut and then you can attach i-beams to the node and once you do that it builds like crazy. Some practical applications, you can stretch the XL girdersegment out and use solar panel addon to make light weight panels that hog about half the number of clock cycles that the gigantor panels do.

The Monopropellant tanks were used in the my grand kerbol system rounds craft that was Xenon driven

The inline space plane docking port was also part, Since the core only had docking ports for fuel i needed a part that could get crew to the 100 crew starship. One a nacell arn it was the part that rooted the nacell and directly fed crew into sp2 crew used as the arm or linker to the craft core. The inline clampotron actually i never use, not because its a bad design, but because i had trouble linking it. I have used it to play around but i basically have a station lander design that i have settled on and i am more about increasing efficient utility, e.g. maximum science per unit time, that creating steam punk space craft.

The other things you mention, all used.

And don't worry that you don't have an idea right now that uses the part, as you explore around you may find places or applications where it might be important, for example a refueling station on a small satellite.

[Samniss Arandeen]

- 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.

Skipper's useful in Career mode when you don't have the Mainsail unlocked yet. Just cluster some Reliants around it.

- Those lousy white radial engines. The idea of radial engine attachment is great, but the implementation is inferior to simply using a nose cone and a regular engine in pretty much every way.

Concur. The Thud (that big white one) is totally useless.

The pointless one dimensional RCS port.

You mean the one that's been a staple of every single RCS I've ever had success with? The one that allows me to use four of them and four of the RCS thruster quads to get full six-axis control? Yeah, "pointless" indeed.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Samniss Arandeen

[PB666]

Skipper's useful in Career mode when you don't have the Mainsail unlocked yet. Just cluster some Reliants around it.

Concur. The Thud (that big white one) is totally useless.

The skipper is my kauch engine before mainsail, and is my second stage engine after. i generally keep the skippers initial TWR at 1g, same as mainsail, i use booster with fuelinned aerotanks on top to get the mainsails vertical momentum, then i can toss the boosters and allow thrust and dargvto balance until about 250 m/s and generally im above 20k when i fire skipper, can often find some fairings or a nose cone to toss of and its pretty much orbit with leftover for transfer out. Even if i have to go size3, i am still going to skipper my second stage, the only tine i wont do this is if i have enough dV to reach around 90% of orbit dV required, and then i will go with a poodle.

The main usage was for refueling the satellite celestial science lander.

As for side mounted, yeah, not often, but sometimes you have a launch system with a payload and you just dont want to go one size up on the launch, generally 4 of these, will do.

The little side mounted sat engines i use on my command chair lander.

[moogoob]

Sometimes on my space shuttles I use nothing but the place-anywhere RCS ports. Two forward, two backward, two up, two down, two right and two left give you full functionality. Sure, it's 12 parts, but works just fine for me in odd-shaped applications (like space planes/shuttles) where the 4-way ones are either impractical, imprecise or awkward.

EDIT: Plus they look nice. Where on the Nastybird 2 would I place the 4-way ports and not have them thrusting into a wing or something?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited September 10, 2015 by moogoob

[NecroBones]

I love slippers. Use one with a half sized jumbo for a first stage

Yeah, I have big feet too.

[Superfluous J]

I just had an idea. Take all the parts mentioned in this thread, and ONLY the parts mentioned in this thread, and see what you can make with them.

[Red Iron Crown]

I just had an idea. Take all the parts mentioned in this thread, and ONLY the parts mentioned in this thread, and see what you can make with them.

Great idea, should be a challenge. The Rejected Rocketry Recycling Regime?

[jondugger123]

I haven't solved the mysteries of the Launch Escape System yet. I'd like to use it, but I haven't been able to figure out how to A) use it when needed or to effectively jettison it when I no longer need it.

Unless you're playing on hard mode or have disabled reverting/respawning, it's useless. If you disable those and wish to not kill your Kerbals upon catastrophic failure, it comes in handy. You have to set it up via Action Groups. Hitting 'backspace' on your keyboard initializes whatever abort sequence you have set up via Action Groups. I typically add a decoupler under my command module and heat shield, so I set it up to decouple as the escape tower fires up and all I'm left with is my module floating down as my rocket flies around and makes cool patterns in the sky.

[Samniss Arandeen]

Sometimes on my space shuttles I use nothing but the place-anywhere RCS ports. Two forward, two backward, two up, two down, two right and two left give you full functionality. Sure, it's 12 parts, but works just fine for me in odd-shaped applications (like space planes/shuttles) where the 4-way ones are either impractical, imprecise or awkward.

Another fan of the linear ports here, I see. I prefer to mirror-symmetry two pairs of two four-ways on the sides at the front and rear of the craft, with linears right beside them. Full 6-DOF RCS. But your approach has its merits. Need I mention the linear has more thrust than an individual on the 4-way?

EDIT: Plus they look nice. Where on the Nastybird 2 would I place the 4-way ports and not have them thrusting into a wing or something?

[Awesome craft album]

That's a frackin' cool plane there, good job!

[cantab]

Great idea, should be a challenge. The Rejected Rocketry Recycling Regime?

I think it would run to most of the parts list though

[adsii1970]

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...

[Superfluous J]

I went through the past 10 pages and we actually have a decent spread of parts that you could make an interesting ship of, with one minor problem: Only one fuel tank was mentioned, and that fuel tank is the Oscar (not by name) I think possibly the round-8 was included in there as the person said "The 0.625m fuel tanks." I'm not sure hooking a Skipper to a stack of those is a good idea . Possibly allowing each of the smallest of each radial size fuel tank is a solution?

Also, there are a lot of parts refuted multiple times (the aforementioned Skipper, along with the Swivel and Poodle, have a lot of proponents for example) so I'm leery to include those in the list.

Another problem is there is no way to make a manned vessel. Though that may not be a problem so much as a guarantee these ships won't be death traps. Someone did mention the Mk1 cockpit but considering it has its own very active thread right now, I suspect it's a bit too popular to put on this list. I would propose the Mk2 Lander Can as a viable manned option, even though nobody's said it.

If anybody wants to try, here is "the list" with those parts that I personally feel that the community disagreed too much on removed. I also just ignored replies like "I haven't ever used any of the ______s"

Command:

OKTO

HECS

CH-J3 Fly-By-Wire

rover body

Fuel:

Mk2 Monoprop tanks

Mk3 Monoprop tanks

2.5m Monoprop tank

All stock 0.625m tanks.

Engines:

LV-1 "Ant" engine

Thud

Spider

Place-Anywhere 7 Liner RCS Port

Wheesly

Flea

Hammer

Structural:

Not-Rockomax Micronode

The big node

Docking/separating:

Inline Clamp-o-Tron

Mk2 Clamp-o-Tron

stack separators

Hydraulic Detachment Manifold

Structural Pylon

Stopping:

Large drogue chutes

wheels:

RoveMax 3

Utility:

Launch Escape System

Short Mk3 payload bay

Aerodynamics:

Big-S Spaceplane Tail Fin

Both Canards

"Shuttle tail"

2.5m nosecone

1.25m fairing base

Power/heat:

OX-4W

P-W 2x3

All radiators

Fuel Cells

Edited September 11, 2015 by 5thHorseman

[RocketBlam]

I went through the past 10 pages and we actually have a decent spread of parts that you could make an interesting ship of, with one minor problem: Only one fuel tank was mentioned, and that fuel tank is the Oscar (not by name) I think possibly the round-8 was included in there as the person said "The 0.625m fuel tanks." I'm not sure hooking a Skipper to a stack of those is a good idea . Possibly allowing each of the smallest of each radial size fuel tank is a solution?

Also, there are a lot of parts refuted multiple times (the aforementioned Skipper, along with the Swivel and Poodle, have a lot of proponents for example) so I'm leery to include those in the list.

Another problem is there is no way to make a manned vessel. Though that may not be a problem so much as a guarantee these ships won't be death traps. Someone did mention the Mk1 cockpit but considering it has its own very active thread right now, I suspect it's a bit too popular to put on this list. I would propose the Mk2 Lander Can as a viable manned option, even though nobody's said it.

If anybody wants to try, here is "the list" with those parts that I personally feel that the community disagreed too much on removed. I also just ignored replies like "I haven't ever used any of the ______s"

Command:

OKTO

HECS

CH-J3 Fly-By-Wire

rover body

Fuel:

Mk2 Monoprop tanks

Mk3 Monoprop tanks

2.5m Monoprop tank

All stock 0.625m tanks.

Engines:

LV-1 "Ant" engine

Thud

Spider

Place-Anywhere 7 Liner RCS Port

Wheesly

Flea

Hammer

Structural:

Not-Rockomax Micronode

The big node

Docking/separating:

Inline Clamp-o-Tron

Mk2 Clamp-o-Tron

stack separators

Hydraulic Detachment Manifold

Structural Pylon

Stopping:

Large drogue chutes

wheels:

RoveMax 3

Utility:

Launch Escape System

Short Mk3 payload bay

Aerodynamics:

Big-S Spaceplane Tail Fin

Both Canards

"Shuttle tail"

2.5m nosecone

1.25m fairing base

Power/heat:

OX-4W

P-W 2x3

All radiators

Fuel Cells

I think the only part that has received nearly unanimous agreement of its uselessness is the micronode. Other than that, every part seems to be used by someone, for something. And that's fine with me. This isn't a "we must remove this part!" thread, it was just a thread to see if there was some agreement about less useful parts. And there isn't much.