The Vector: Your thoughts

[Temstar]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

You can stack up to 7 Vectors under the Kerbodyne tank and make a booster with excellent lifting capacity, but you're going to pay through the nose to do it. 
The Vector is just plain not economically feasible as a disposable stage; It's only really useful in designs where the engine comes home intact.

But that's trivial to design though, it's very simple to have a 2.5m or 3.75m stack decoupler at the bottom of your rocket with crossfeed enabled, then mount some number of Vector under this decoupler so that once the rocket has been deorbited you separate the engines from the rest of the stack and return all the engines in a bundle (in other words, the ULA Vulcan school of reusability) to Kerbin. Vector is even particularly suited for this purpose since it has high impact tolerance and so doesn't require landing legs.

 

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

If you have an engine with adequate thrust for a job and replace it with another engine with twice the weight and 4 times the thrust, you have put yourself at a disadvantage even though the second engine has twice the t/w ratio.

But that's never going to be the case. We don't have a lack of choice if you want an engine or combination of engines to provide 1/4 of the thrust of a Vector. Instead if you have a Vector sized or Mammoth sized launch vehicle job then those two engines are going to be the best, because have the best TWR in the game and pretty good Isp to boot.

Again, if you find a Vector is providing four times too much thrust, it means you've just discovered an opportunity to build a rocket four times bigger.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 Because a shuttle that looks like a shuttle and lifts shuttle- like payloads from Kerbin doesn't *need* any more than a cluster of Skippers (and reasonable SRBs) to do the job.

So ... we're limited to using the Vector purely as an STS replica engine?  Just thrust limit the damn thing or cram in more payload, the rest of us have craft to build.

Quote

 And I don't sneeze at 5 tonnes in orbit in career, *especially* early career. That's a huge amount if you use it efficiently.

Edited January 14, 2016 by regex

[Ehco Corrallo]

I would agree that the vector is OP, but considering it's on the farthest end of the research tree and costs a small fortune, I don't mind the balancing. As it's been said before a number of times in this thread: it's a very specialized engine. I don't build shuttles or asymmetric lifters, so I haven't actually used it very much.

On another note: has anyone noticed how quickly the KSP community can take a thread about the vector and turn it into a discussion about engine progression, all while they do large numbers of math to almost agree with one another, all while using terms like ISP and T/W. I don't mind, I just think it's...really endearing honestly. 

11 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

If we had proper SRBs the Vector wouldn't need to be so madly powerful. 

Yeah... Bigger SRBs... 2.5m perhaps... Horrible ISP, insane TWR... Just like the vector...

*sighs*

There's always .cfg editing!

Edited January 14, 2016 by Ehco Corrallo
Made post more optimistic.

[Frozen_Heart]

5 minutes ago, Ehco Corrallo said:

Yeah... Bigger SRBs... 2.5m perhaps... Horrible ISP, insane TWR... Just like the vector...

*sighs*

There's always .cfg editing!

Technically 1.875m SRBs would suit the shuttle best. That isn't a stock part size though. :/ Would also fit Falcon 9 and Soyuz extremely well.

[kmMango]

Perhaps downrate the Vector to ~720 kN ASL, but with the same TWR and ISP, and uprate the Skipper to current Vector thrust? Also, uprate the Rhino by 20% and make the Kickback 2.5m, and double its thrust.

[GoSlash27]

9 minutes ago, Temstar said:

But that's trivial to design though, it's very simple to have a 2.5m or 3.75m stack decoupler at the bottom of your rocket with crossfeed enabled, then mount some number of Vector under this decoupler so that once the rocket has been deorbited you separate the engines from the rest of the stack and return all the engines in a bundle (in other words, the ULA Vulcan school of reusability) to Kerbin. Vector is even particularly suited for this purpose since it has high impact tolerance and so doesn't require landing legs.

Point #1, it's not "trivial". Especially not in career. The cost of the stage is your bet that nothing goes wrong on reentry. If you've done this as much as I have, you know that there's a *lot* that can go wrong.

Point #2, all of the big engines have high impact tolerance, so that's not an advantage.

12 minutes ago, Temstar said:

But that's never going to be the case. We don't have a lack of choice if you want an engine or combination of engines to provide 1/4 of the thrust of a Vector. Instead if you have a Vector sized or Mammoth sized launch vehicle job then those two engines are going to be the best, because have the best TWR in the game and pretty good Isp to boot.

The Twin Boar is actually superior to both in it's payload range, both in pad mass and economy. If you start clustering engines, it becomes even more dominant. The Twin Boar blows the doors off the competition.

16 minutes ago, Temstar said:

Again, if you find a Vector is providing four times too much thrust, it means you've just discovered an opportunity to build a rocket four times bigger.

 Like the old lady in the commercial said "That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works". Especially not when playing career. The objective is to build the cheapest and lightest booster for a given mission, not to build the biggest booster you can and then try to find payload to make it worth launching. Looking at it from that perspective, the Vector is a horrible engine. It's not cost- effective or mass- efficient in *any* role. There is nothing it is capable of doing that can't be done lighter and/ or cheaper using something else.

Best,

-Slashy

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Like the old lady in the commercial said "That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works". Especially not when playing career. The objective is to build the cheapest and lightest booster for a given mission

That's not, in any way, how I've ever played career mode.  When you boil it down to that you might as well have pre-fab SPEESPLAINS that everyone uses.

Might as well remove half the engines in that case, there's really no use for more than a few parts.

Edited January 15, 2016 by regex

[GoSlash27]

42 minutes ago, regex said:

So ... we're limited to using the Vector purely as an STS replica engine?  Just thrust limit the damn thing or cram in more payload, the rest of us have craft to build.

Umm... That is specifically what it was created to do. It is overpowered and overweight for that job. If you want to use it for other roles, nuthin' wrong with that. *But* it should at least be good at it's intended job. As it stands now, the Skipper is a better SSME than the Vector. That isn't cricket.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited January 15, 2016 by GoSlash27

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Sorry to butt in here.  I think the right way to play Career mode is the way that's fun for you.  It changes between players, so there really is no right way, or a right set of parts for everyone.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Umm... That is specifically what it was created to do. It is overpowered and overweight for that job.

Nonsense.  Build a bigger shuttle.

[GoSlash27]

6 minutes ago, regex said:

That's not, in any way, how I've ever played career mode.  When you boil it down to that you might as well have pre-fab SPEESPLAINS that everyone uses.

Might as well remove half the engines in that case, there's really no use for more than a few parts.

 The idea of rebalancing would be that all of the parts are useful (including SPEESPLAINS). Your concept of rebalancing seems to be "moar boosters" (which I'm not opposed to), but my idea is to try to level the field so that none of the parts are rendered obsolete.

Best,

-Slashy

[Temstar]

10 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 Like the old lady in the commercial said "That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works". Especially not when playing career. The objective is to build the cheapest and lightest booster for a given mission, not to build the biggest booster you can and then try to find payload to make it worth launching. Looking at it from that perspective, the Vector is a horrible engine. It's not cost- effective or mass- efficient in *any* role. There is nothing it is capable of doing that can't be done lighter and/ or cheaper using something else.

There's no reason why a booster has to follow a payload, and similarly there's no reason why you couldn't design a family of launch vehicles specifically targeting low cost for career mode for a wide range of different payload size. In fact that's what's done in real life - rockets are designed for a payload class, not for individual payloads.

As for specific implementation of Vector based launch vehicle consider this:

Nine Vectors in three winged boosters, lifting about 100 tons to LKO. Once payload is released the boosters can then make a deorbit burn and glide back to KSC. Cost per ton to orbit under $600,

I don't actually use this launcher in my career game, because as it turned out Vector's bigger brother the Mammoth, with even higher TWR makes for an ever better engine for reusable launch vehicle on account of lower engine dry mass to orbit:

[GoSlash27]

15 minutes ago, regex said:

Nonsense.  Build a bigger shuttle.

Can't do that with the stock parts. Or at least not one that maintains the proportions of a shuttle.

 

Temstar,

 How do you simultaneously recover 3 separate aircraft in a stock game?

Edited January 15, 2016 by GoSlash27

[Temstar]

They reach orbit in a single stage and then split up into individual crafts and return one by one, including the engine-less ET.

[GoSlash27]

22 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Sorry to butt in here.  I think the right way to play Career mode is the way that's fun for you.  It changes between players, so there really is no right way, or a right set of parts for everyone.

Mad Rocket Scientist,

 I understand the sentiment, but I have respectfully disagree. Career mode has specific objectives, and thus ways to win or lose.

The "right" way to beat career mode is to complete your objectives without going broke, and there are *definitely* "right ways" and "wrong ways" to go about this.

I agree with your sentiment in sandbox and science mode, tho'.

Best,

-Slashy

 

[GoSlash27]

7 minutes ago, Temstar said:

They reach orbit in a single stage and then split up into individual crafts and return one by one, including the engine-less ET.

Pretty ingenious, actually.

 So each launch requires 4 reentry flights, and all of them have to go perfectly in order to recoup the full cost? What's the cost per tonne if one of the return flights doesn't make it? How much time would it require for the player to accomplish that, and what is their time worth?

 I ask this because SSTO spaceplanes are *far* cheaper per tonne and require only a single flight, and fully disposable launchers are competitive and require zero recovery effort.

Best,

-Slashy

[swjr-swis]

4 hours ago, NathanKell said:

Realism isn't "everything I don't like"

I understand you of all people would feel a sting at the use of that word, NathanKell, and I love your work, man, but... those are not my words. And not my point either.

The vector can already be dialed down as things are right now. It's right there, available to everyone, you have the choice, you have the power. You want it limited to some type of proportionality that you wish to impose on your game, well, max the thrust at your choice of number under a 100% then before you launch, or limit the gimbal. Voilá, all the real you ever wanted right at your fingertips, and all you had to do is choose to use it that way. What a fantastic concept, a game that allows choice.

But apparently that's not good enough, we need a consensus to make absolutely sure no one gets to play with a Vector in any other way than what we feel is 'realistic' or 'fitting' or 'balanced', or any other word for it that won't mess you up that basically means 'whatever *I* happen to feel is the right numbers because reasons'. So let's lobby to remove even the possibility of it being dialed to any other numbers than what we personally feel is right. Cause people can't possibly be playing this game in any way that we can't think of.

I get it when people complain when a part is simply not up to the task, because the game is limiting the use of that part. But complaining about a part being able to do everything you need it to do, and then some? Really? Especially when it's a click away from then being limited to your personal conviction of how it should work? <shrug>

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

18 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Mad Rocket Scientist,

 I understand the sentiment, but I have respectfully disagree. Career mode has specific objectives, and thus ways to win or lose.

The "right" way to beat career mode is to complete your objectives without going broke, and there are *definitely* "right ways" and "wrong ways" to go about this.

I agree with your sentiment in sandbox and science mode, tho'.

Best,

-Slashy

 

True, but if either way is equally (or very nearly equally) good (like the decision between new lifter every flight vs. standard set of lifters) then you might pick the way that is more fun.  I don't really play enough career to know whether the ways in question are equal, though. 

[GoSlash27]

26 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

The vector can already be dialed down as things are right now. It's right there, available to everyone, you have the choice, you have the power. You want it limited to some type of proportionality that you wish to impose on your game, well, max the thrust at your choice of number under a 100% then before you launch, or limit the gimbal.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. There is no point-and-click interface that will limit the engine's mass or price tag.

 The Vector is more engine than is needed for the job it was *specifically created* to do. There is an engine in the game that's perfect for the job, and it's a different engine.

 I've been very adamant that the Vector is not overpowered as a general purpose KSP engine. It fits nicely in the pecking order. But it *is* overpowered in the role of a space shuttle main engine, which is specifically what it was created to be.

 I don't see why we can't or shouldn't have a "Vector" engine, even if it's identical to what we have right now. But we *should* have a "SSME" that is ideally suited to work as a "SSME".

 Moreover, if we have a part imbalance problem (and again... I maintain that the Vector is balanced just fine for general play), the answer is not to say "well, just turn it down". In a properly balanced game, it's already turned down.

Best,

-Slashy

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by GoSlash27

[swjr-swis]

6 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

The Vector is more engine than is needed for the job it was *specifically created* to do. There is an engine in the game that's perfect for the job, and it's a different engine.

 I've been very adamant that the Vector is not overpowered as a general purpose KSP engine. It fits nicely in the pecking order. But it *is* overpowered in the role of a space shuttle main engine, which is specifically what it was created to be.

If it is really that specific a use case, then why wasn't it published as an integrated part of the Mk3 Engine Mount? Why the need to place engine mount, SSMEs, RCS blocks, etc etc separate from each other? Having to use a whole set of loose parts, with all the inherent structural integrity issues the game has, seems very counterproductive for something that apparently was created to be used and placed together in only one very specific way.

I think that while the space shuttle was one use case they had in mind when making it, it was certainly not the only thing they wanted to allow it used for, or they would've integrated the whole assembly.

So what about adding a toggle, like some of the jet engines have now (afterburner on/off or closed cycle on/off), that changes the parameters to be spefically suited to the SSME role for Mk3 space shuttles? In which case the engine has a slightly different mass and price more fitting to the SSME role, but it can only be toggled in the VAB. That would add the special use case that some are asking for, and still leave the Vector's current versatility untouched.

[GoSlash27]

31 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

True, but if either way is equally (or very nearly equally) good (like the decision between new lifter every flight vs. standard set of lifters) then you might pick the way that is more fun.  I don't really play enough career to know whether the ways in question are equal, though. 

Mad Rocket Scientist,

 I have played plenty of career mode both ways, and the difference is fairly marginal. Designing the lifter to the payload is a little more cost- effective, while using a standardized family of lifters reduces the player's time in the VAB. No huge advantage either way. In fact, my careers usually start with specialized designs that wind up evolving into generic lifters.

 What I'm talking about is the design process itself. Regardless of whether you're building a specialized lifter or a standardized one, you want it to be the most cost- effective and lightest design when playing career.

Best,

-Slashy

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

Can't do that with the stock parts. Or at least not one that maintains the proportions of a shuttle.

KSP isn't real life, as evidenced by the fact that this supposed SSME that you're using to create a "replica" doesn't have correct thrust, isp, mass, or use the same fuel, etc... as the actual SSME.  Expecting to be able to build an exact replica of anything real life in KSP, even with the RO suite of mods, is a laughable prospect.  The Vector is not an SSME, not by a log shot, even if it fills a similar role.

Use less Vectors or thrust limit your Vectors to achieve your goals.  There is nothing wrong with the engine.

Edited January 15, 2016 by regex

[Tweeker]

14 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Why would anyone want to cluster Reliants? Any larger form factor engine would outperform them in the same real estate.

Quote

 

 The only reason you're comparing the two engines is the shape. Yeah, a Swivel clicks on to a 1.25m node, but that's all it has in common with 1.25m engines. It has the weight, cost, and thrust of a 2.5m engine and that's what's really important.

Best,
-Slashy

 

That not really what I'm advocating, all I'm try to say is the Vector is far out of line with the rest of the 1.25m engines, Which by it's shape and attachment node it fits with.  If it has the weight, cost, and thrust of a 2.5m engine, then make it a 2.5m engine.  Including it as a single engine because it looks right on the rear of the shuttle creates more problems than it solves. It's a band-aid for the fact that SRBs in the game are not scaled to be "realistic"  compared to the liquid fuel engines.

  Kickback is 1/3 the diameter of the Mammoth, and they are supposed to be part of the SLS analogue But the real word equivalent is about 45% of the diameter   The thrust is a bigger problem, the SRBs on the shuttle provides about 4.75 times the thrust of each main engine, of course all this has been said before.

   If building a "real" shuttle is what your after and you base it on the existing shuttle parts which are about 3.75m you end up needing 5.0 meter Main fuel tank, and SRBs that are about 2.25 meters. I think you could call 2.5m close enough. I'm not really sure about what thrusts would work out, but as a wild guess the SRBs would need to have about 2500 thrust each and the main engines would end up closer to 350 thrust each. 

[Tweeker]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Nonsense.  Build a bigger shuttle.

I agree with the sentiment, but the shuttle parts are fixed in size, so the engine needs to scale to fit the existing, in game shuttle.

[Temstar]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

So each launch requires 4 reentry flights, and all of them have to go perfectly in order to recoup the full cost? What's the cost per tonne if one of the return flights doesn't make it? How much time would it require for the player to accomplish that, and what is their time worth?

They are about as easy to fly as any other SSTO spaceplane. Of course I had to crash many of them in the sandbox to nail down the design, but once the design was perfected recovery is a doozy. If you crash one then obviously your price per ton will grow significantly, just as with any other fully recoverable design.
 

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

I ask this because SSTO spaceplanes are *far* cheaper per tonne and require only a single flight, and fully disposable launchers are competitive and require zero recovery effort.

My SSTO spaceplanes (yes, I have them too for my career for payloads up to 40 tons) generally manage about $200 per ton to orbit, so this type of SSTO reusable launch vehicle costs you about twice per ton to orbit as SSTO spaceplane. However SSTO spaceplane has its own set of problem like CoM shift with payload, cargo hold dimension limitation, slow climb to orbit that takes up much player time and so on. On the other hand my fully disposable design can manage about $1000 per ton, but with the advantage that they are fire and forgot. The SSTO reusable rocket sits in a nice middle ground between these two extremes. It also has the benefit that it's a super versatile design that I can reuse for all sorts of things like this single launch modular space station:



So I think it's pretty clear to say that Vector and Mammoth have uses other than space shuttle clones. And in many cases like my SSTO reusable rocket the high TWR of these engines is a huge advantage because it reduces vehicle dry mass and so increases payload.

Again, I'm not arguing that Vector and Mammoth are overpowered, merely that their high TWR is definitely one of, if not the best strong feature of these two engines. I do think Vector's size is a problem and it concentrates too much thrust in too small of a physical package. No one here for example is complaining that Mammoth is too powerful for its size, your mind justifies the Mammoth because of its huge superstructure above the nozzles make it look like it should be very powerful. Vector is jarring not because of it's performance per say but because it's too much performance for too little engine.

I propose again to increase the size of the Vector, but not by giving it 2.5m tank butt. Instead I say make the engine longer by showing all the turbomachinery above the nozzles, so it's long and skinny not like LV-N. Then modify the three engine mark 3 coupler so that the nodes sit in three recessed holes so that when you attach vectors into these holes the coupler hide the machinery and it still looks like it does now. That way people can still have their shuttle clones that look the part. Yet when you use Vectors on rockets they look sensible next to Mammoth with its huge superstructure. And in the case that people insist on using Vector on the bottom of the rockets and they don't want to see all the engine guts they can still hide it into their fuel tanks with the offset tool.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Temstar