A visual criticism of the Shuttle engine

[spikeyhat09]

Im not trying to hark on squad or anything but I do feel an obligation to point out things that appear to be issues. at least with the hope that they receive a second look.

Edited November 11, 2015 by spikeyhat09

[*Aqua*]

So... what's the problem?

[spikeyhat09]

So... what's the problem?

Squad has said they dont want to do warp drives

[Reactordrone]

And how was that a warp drive?

[spikeyhat09]

And how was that a warp drive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

[Reactordrone]

So...what's the problem?

[spikeyhat09]

So...what's the problem?

all other rocket motors are obsolete

edit: it makes many other main rocket engines obsolete

Edited November 11, 2015 by spikeyhat09

[ferram4]

Simple: he was able to surface attach multiple engines to the bottom (without needing the cubic octag most engines need for surface attach) and didn't need to clip anything (like on engines with large tankbutts). The obvious proposed solution is to increase the diameter of the model unnecessarily in ways that people don't care about, and people will simply ignore it as they always did once part clipping gets involved. Clipping of tankbutts never stopped anyone from clustering engines before, it only really stopped when the clipping involved the nozzles, which would be incredibly stupid.

Ultimately, people are distracted more by looks than by stats. Note that OP doesn't mention the mass of the Vectors, nor their TWR (which is the same as the Mainsail). OP doesn't consider the engine's cost. OP uses the thinnest rocket he can manage to display this to make it look as tall and ridiculous as possible. Hell, it's even in the title, "A visual criticism."

The engine is somewhat better than the existing engines, but it is not overpowered to the extent that people claim or that it is trying to be portrayed as. They just can't get around the idea of an engine that doesn't have a massive tankbutt on it.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

all other rocket motors are obsolete

...no?

[Sanic]

all other rocket motors are obsolete

Yep, you can cluster them without a coupler.

OP, yet not OP.

[spikeyhat09]

Simple: he was able to surface attach multiple engines to the bottom (without needing the cubic octag most engines need for surface attach) and didn't need to clip anything (like on engines with large tankbutts). The obvious proposed solution is to increase the diameter of the model unnecessarily in ways that people don't care about, and people will simply ignore it as they always did once part clipping gets involved. Clipping of tankbutts never stopped anyone from clustering engines before, it only really stopped when the clipping involved the nozzles, which would be incredibly stupid.

Ultimately, people are distracted more by looks than by stats. Note that OP doesn't mention the mass of the Vectors, nor their TWR (which is the same as the Mainsail). OP doesn't consider the engine's cost. OP uses the thinnest rocket he can manage to display this to make it look as tall and ridiculous as possible. Hell, it's even in the title, "A visual criticism."

The engine is somewhat better than the existing engines, but it is not overpowered to the extent that people claim or that it is trying to be portrayed as. They just can't get around the idea of an engine that doesn't have a massive tankbutt on it.

valid points. as a sandbox player, i often overlook factors that influence that mode of gameplay. with this in mind, and acknowledging a certain level of reductio ad absurdum in my OP, i still maintain that this particular part might be a little too good. you are correct about the TWR - it is the same as the mainsail. however, especially for 1.25m parts, gimballed rockets come with a hit to TWR. this particular part not only has vastly more gimbal range than any other main rocket engine, but also has very good TWR, like the mainsail. This, combined with markedly above average efficiency at both sea level and in vacuum, and the increased versatility that comes with smaller sized parts, all contribute to this engine being, in my opinion, at least a tier above any other primary rocket engine.

not to mention that clustering mainsails in the same manner kills your aerodynamics

Edited November 11, 2015 by spikeyhat09

[ferram4]

...All of the 2.5m parts have gimbals on them, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that there's a good comparison to added weight for them there. As for the rest of the stuff, keep in mind that this engine is a non-clustered version of the 4x KS-25 Mammoth cluster... which has a stupidly high TWR and is ultimately a better engine to bring along for most heavy-lift situations.

And as for aerodynamics, they're so much weaker than they were prior to 1.0 that there's no reason to even consider them during a launch. The dV losses to drag are going to stay around 100 m/s at most.

Frankly, I agree that its smaller size is a benefit. I wish all stock engines could do away with the tankbutts; the Mainsail could be half as wide, as could the Skipper. The LV-909 should also be able to be fitted in more places. The problem is that you're attacking it from the wrong angle: all engines should be that flexible, not the other way around.

[spikeyhat09]

...All of the 2.5m parts have gimbals on them, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that there's a good comparison to added weight for them there. As for the rest of the stuff, keep in mind that this engine is a non-clustered version of the 4x KS-25 Mammoth cluster... which has a stupidly high TWR and is ultimately a better engine to bring along for most heavy-lift situations.

And as for aerodynamics, they're so much weaker than they were prior to 1.0 that there's no reason to even consider them during a launch. The dV losses to drag are going to stay around 100 m/s at most.

Frankly, I agree that its smaller size is a benefit. I wish all stock engines could do away with the tankbutts; the Mainsail could be half as wide, as could the Skipper. The LV-909 should also be able to be fitted in more places. The problem is that you're attacking it from the wrong angle: all engines should be that flexible, not the other way around.

I apologize, I mean't 1.25m parts. I have edited my comment.

[Guest]

Mods, there are a bunch of these exact same threads. I'd suggest doing something about it. Just a suggestion. Also, this is supposed to be a booster to launch a shuttle to orbit, but I agree that is could be tuned a bit more. I like constructive bug report kind of things, but it seems that when there is a slight issue, everyone starts hating on Squad. You need to take into account that no programmer is perfect. There will always be an error no matter what you do. Just look at the post titled I give up in this very section.

[SpacedCowboy]

Don't quite understand what you are trying to demonstrate here, Yes it's a failed rocket

[spikeyhat09]

Mods, there are a bunch of these exact same threads. I'd suggest doing something about it. Just a suggestion. Also, this is supposed to be a booster to launch a shuttle to orbit, but I agree that is could be tuned a bit more. I like constructive bug report kind of things, but it seems that when there is a slight issue, everyone starts hating on Squad. You need to take into account that no programmer is perfect. There will always be an error no matter what you do. Just look at the post titled I give up in this very section.

it is not my (or hopefully anyone else's) intention to hate on squad. i realized i may have come off in a bad way, which was the reason for the edit on my OP. I simply love this game and want it to become the best it can be.

[GoSlash27]

spikeyhat09,

Ultimately what defines "better" in rocket building is whether it can accelerate a payload to a desired DV at a desired t/w for less mass and/ or less cost.

So far, I'm not seeing the Vector do anything that other engines can't do better.

The Vector is an excellent single stage booster, but it's only viable economically if it's recovered intact. It's simply too expensive to be disposable. SRBs do the disposable booster job cheaper and dedicated upper stage engines like the Poodle or Terrier can do the same job with less mass.

If you're building a recoverable SSTO launcher, the air- breathers are still way better in every respect.

I'm still updating my info and testing, but so far the Vector doesn't look to be all that.

Best,

-Slashy

[Alshain]

It's great for shuttles, but if you don't recover it, it is way too expensive. That is the whole intention.

[RocketPilot573]

Simple: he was able to surface attach multiple engines to the bottom (without needing the cubic octag most engines need for surface attach) and didn't need to clip anything (like on engines with large tankbutts). The obvious proposed solution is to increase the diameter of the model unnecessarily in ways that people don't care about, and people will simply ignore it as they always did once part clipping gets involved. Clipping of tankbutts never stopped anyone from clustering engines before, it only really stopped when the clipping involved the nozzles, which would be incredibly stupid.

Ultimately, people are distracted more by looks than by stats. Note that OP doesn't mention the mass of the Vectors, nor their TWR (which is the same as the Mainsail). OP doesn't consider the engine's cost. OP uses the thinnest rocket he can manage to display this to make it look as tall and ridiculous as possible. Hell, it's even in the title, "A visual criticism."

The engine is somewhat better than the existing engines, but it is not overpowered to the extent that people claim or that it is trying to be portrayed as. They just can't get around the idea of an engine that doesn't have a massive tankbutt on it.

This. Exactly this. It's a 1.25 meter part, I don't see the problem there. Not to mention how in 0.23.5 so many people complained about not having a standalone KS-25x4 Mammoth. Oh wait I just mentioned it.

[G'th]

I also find it funny that he thinks this is a problem when he essentially isn't even launching anything. He has this super large first stage thats all fuel with a payload that doesn't even register as a percentage of the total mass. Lets see some more stages, more engines, and an actual payload and then talk about this engine being an issue.

This isn't really an issue, because even from the point of it being "OP" even in an actual rocket, its still right in line with everything else in the game. You may as well be complaining that you can put 30 SRBs into one stage.

[sardia]

How does the vector engine stack up in sandbox mode? Or is this complaint only relevant in career or science mode?

[mythbusters844]

Im not trying to hark on rocketdyne or anything but I do feel an obligation to point out things that appear to be issues. at least with the hope that they receive a second look.

[Sobriquet]

For clarity's sake, I am NOT the sharpest bulb in the box when it comes to the intricacies of Kerbal's physics. With that being said, is this even a thing, or is someone tilting at windmills?

Not exactly clear what the poster is trying to say. You can put a bunch of engines on a stack?

[spikeyhat09]

I also find it funny that he thinks this is a problem when he essentially isn't even launching anything. He has this super large first stage thats all fuel with a payload that doesn't even register as a percentage of the total mass. Lets see some more stages' date=' more engines, and an actual payload and then talk about this engine being an issue.

This isn't really an issue, because even from the point of it being "OP" even in an actual rocket, its still right in line with everything else in the game. You may as well be complaining that you can put 30 SRBs into one stage.[/quote']

way ahead of you:

http://imgur.com/0idN4Bk.png

http://imgur.com/GsahxPH.png

thats fully fueled to geostationary orbit still with decent reserves left in the launcher. would have been a nightmare to orchestrate before 1.0.5, while i got this station from idea to fruition in about an hour and no failed launches. using maximum oberth effect from LKO, i see no reason why it couldnt have gone straight to Duna with no orbital assembly whatsoever (not going to do any maths on that tho)

-snip-

*tips hat

Edited November 11, 2015 by spikeyhat09

[LaytheDragon]

...All of the 2.5m parts have gimbals on them, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that there's a good comparison to added weight for them there. As for the rest of the stuff, keep in mind that this engine is a non-clustered version of the 4x KS-25 Mammoth cluster... which has a stupidly high TWR and is ultimately a better engine to bring along for most heavy-lift situations.

And as for aerodynamics, they're so much weaker than they were prior to 1.0 that there's no reason to even consider them during a launch. The dV losses to drag are going to stay around 100 m/s at most.

Frankly, I agree that its smaller size is a benefit. I wish all stock engines could do away with the tankbutts; the Mainsail could be half as wide, as could the Skipper. The LV-909 should also be able to be fitted in more places. The problem is that you're attacking it from the wrong angle: all engines should be that flexible, not the other way around.

The Dart (aka aerospike) also can now be attached radially, with the same flexibility as the KS-25 Vector.

And I checked the stats for the KS-25 awhile ago, in addition to it's size in comparison to the Mammoth, and it is essentially 1/4 of the Mammoth. The Vector has exactly 1/4 the thrust and about the same sized nozzle(s) as the Mammoth, 4 Vectors is 1 ton heavier than the Mammoth, and atmospheric efficiency allows the Vector to make up for the extra mass. Not to mention the radial attachments is offset by the fact that the Vector isn't meant for stacks, with the nozzle being bigger than the attachment point, meaning that the Vector is suited for shuttles/huge vtols and very expensive boosters, for when you have the budget for that. The Mammoth is efficient in-atmosphere too, highly priced because of it, and is also suited for expensive boosters, though it leaves more elbow room to add more within a certain budget. It can also be mounted on the backs of shuttles using the Mk3 to 3.75m Adapter. All in all, the Vector isn't any more overpowered than it's larger cousin, the Mammoth.

Edit: Wait, spikeyhat09, where's your fairing? No wonder that would be a nightmare to orchestrate. And if those are clusters of five or six Vectors on those boosters, no wonder it could finally make it to orbit; you just forced it! A fairing would allow that payload to be lifted much more efficiently and much less forcefully (bringing it up more forcefully and fighting drag uses more fuel and requires more engine mass), which would most-likely allow Mammoths to easily take over the lifting job for that rocket.

Edited November 11, 2015 by LaytheDragon