Strategies for LV-N setup in 1.0.4

[technion]

Hi,

I always played with a fairly standard "command module" in earlier versions. A Mk1-2 module, with an X200-32 tank and radially mounted LV-n engines. It was always a "get home from anywhere" strategy that worked well.

I just completed a mission using a Poodle under a X200-32 and I'm trying to determine how this could go better. Using my old strategy and just draining oxidizer, the dv doesn't get where I want it. You can put a mk2 or mk3 liquid fuel fuselage in there but for some reason the adapters that make it fit the circular command module are filled with oxidiser. Again, I can drain it, but then you're hauling that dry mass.

I could also base everything in a mk3 cockpit, but I don't see an easy to fit separator and heat shield to deal with my return.

How is everyone else approaching this?

[Branjoman]

I think the best option here is using the Mk2 or Mk3 LF tanks, just without the pesky adaptor. It doesn't look too pretty, but it gets the job done. If you REALLY want it to look appealing to the eye, just use the adaptor anyway.

[maltesh]

By using Modular Fuel Tanks to convert standard tanks to all-liquid-fuel, and Kerbpaint to give them a red color scheme so I know which tanks are LF-only in play.

[Red Iron Crown]

I share your pain, a 2.5m LF tank is fairly desperately needed. I've been using the spaceplane tanks for LV-Ns, using the radial attachment point and the offset tool it can be made fairly aesthetically pleasing, if a bit bigger than 2.5m. See this 4-engine nuclear tug, for example:

[technion]

I think the best option here is using the Mk2 or Mk3 LF tanks, just without the pesky adaptor. It doesn't look too pretty, but it gets the job done. If you REALLY want it to look appealing to the eye, just use the adaptor anyway.

Thanks. I'm not too worried about the aesthetics, but wouldn't that be a terrible thing to try and launch, drag-wise?

I share your pain, a 2.5m LF tank is fairly desperately needed. I've been using the spaceplane tanks for LV-Ns, using the radial attachment point and the offset tool it can be made fairly aesthetically pleasing, if a bit bigger than 2.5m. See this 4-engine nuclear tug, for example:

I'm going to have to experiment with how that was done.. it looks pretty good.

[xebx]

You'll have a lot more deltaV using LFO aspargus + Ion combo, compared to these high deltaV setups, nuke is very bad : low twr, horrible payload fraction, overheat, etc

[technion]

You'll have a lot more deltaV using LFO aspargus + Ion combo, compared to these high deltaV setups, nuke is very bad : low twr, horrible payload fraction, overheat, etc

I've done more than my share of ion engines. There's no way in heck I'm pushing a planetary lander in a transport power by ions, unless it's going to Gilly or Pol.

[moogoob]

You'll have a lot more deltaV using LFO aspargus + Ion combo, compared to these high deltaV setups, nuke is very bad : low twr, horrible payload fraction, overheat, etc

No matter how bad the TWR of a nuke-powered vehicle is, it's worlds beyond an ion-powered one.

I tried it once. Took a Nastybird 3, added twin ion engines (both for symmetry and so I could call it Nastybird TIE) and a big Xenon tank and took it for a spin. Let's just say that something simple like getting to the Mun was a three-pass sort of maneuver. Capturing at the Mun was a two-pass thing. Never again.

[xebx]

No matter how bad the TWR of a nuke-powered vehicle is, it's worlds beyond an ion-powered one.

I tried it once. Took a Nastybird 3, added twin ion engines (both for symmetry and so I could call it Nastybird TIE) and a big Xenon tank and took it for a spin. Let's just say that something simple like getting to the Mun was a three-pass sort of maneuver. Capturing at the Mun was a two-pass thing. Never again.

Mun ? i'm speaking about interplanetary high deltaV 10000 m/s at least up to 35000 m/s (stock), and my Ion stage have max burn duration 1h30.

If you don't need high deltaV/fast travel time, LFO are enough (KSP should have 450 ISP LFO engine like the real stuff, we are in 21 century not 1950 and 350 ISP) and with good twr you gain a lot Oberth effect. (not with nuke)

Mun ... lol it's 850 m/s deltaV, are you serious ? you need a 4 part rocket to go to the mun.

We just need time warp for low acceleration (1-4 m/s2) constant thrust engines, and for heavy stuff a bigger Ion engine, real ones can have 30000 ISP, nuke are totally out.

Oh and try aerobraking with nuke in real life, just tell me when, i'll be ready for the big firework !! lol

And gigantor solar should have 2400° max temp, it's easy to protect, KSP is so unrealistic@warp drives and antigrav.

Thanks for the fun !

Edited September 19, 2015 by xebx