Repeating ship designs

[LordKael]

So, I know everybody likes to use the subassembly feature, and repeat their lifters and tugs and such. But what I am curious about is how far other people take this, and whether they have entire ship designs that they repeat for multiple missions. 

For example, I have an "Asgard Class" shuttle that can reach orbit from Duna, Kerbin, and any moon in either system (I haven't tried it elsewhere). I have 4 copies of it, each named "KSS ______" with the blank being a Norse God's name. I have the same deal with rovers on Duna, named after Greek heroes, and probes named after mythological winds/hurricanes (because I ran out of winds).

Does anybody else do this?

[klgraham1013]

The first thing I do in a new save is design a fleet of 3-5 rockets.  They get used for pretty much all my launches.

My naming conventions are nearly always based around Greek myth.

Edited December 27, 2015 by klgraham1013

[Mitchz95]

I design a line of multi-mission ships in every save. My current flagship is the Allegiance-class (represented by the K.S.V. Allegiance and K.S.V. Penumbra) although it's being phased out in favor the smaller, more efficient Endeavour-class. The Penumbra is being converted into a Duna colony ship; the Allegiance will probably be scrapped and disassembled on-orbit once its current mission is done.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Mitchz95

[cantab]

In my current save I'm using program names, and then numbers for the mission in that program. Sometimes the designs are the same, sometimes they change.

For example, I might design the Manhattan 1 and send it to the Mun, then send an identical craft to Minmus. In flight the second craft will be renamed Manhattan 2 but I won't save it as that in the VAB. Then I might make some tweaks and save the new design in the VAB named Manhattan 3 and send that somewhere, Ike for example.

The scheme is changing a bit with my cuirrent space shuttle development though, because a shuttle is in-universe meant to be the same craft going on mission after mission. But then I am still at the point where I'm crashing the airframes loads.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

57 minutes ago, cantab said:

In my current save I'm using program names, and then numbers for the mission in that program. Sometimes the designs are the same, sometimes they change.

For example, I might design the Manhattan 1 and send it to the Mun, then send an identical craft to Minmus. In flight the second craft will be renamed Manhattan 2 but I won't save it as that in the VAB. Then I might make some tweaks and save the new design in the VAB named Manhattan 3 and send that somewhere, Ike for example.

The scheme is changing a bit with my cuirrent space shuttle development though, because a shuttle is in-universe meant to be the same craft going on mission after mission. But then I am still at the point where I'm crashing the airframes loads.

At some point in the near future I hope KSP adds a nicely designed UI feature allowing for in-game assigning and tracking of mission numbers, program series, etc.

[AbacusWizard]

For duplicates I often use the same name followed by Greek letters, such as "Orbital Skiff Alpha," "Orbital Skiff Beta," etc.

 

For permanent orbital stations I alter the name based on the location: "Mun Orbital Command," "Minmus Orbital Command," etc.

 

For "workhorse" designs I don't bother with separate names but often append a parenthetical describing its current task: several Phoenix III - class atomic tugs might be "P3 (spaceplane to Laythe)," "P3 (base to Duna)," and "P3 (returning from Eve)," for instance.

[Francois424]

Well, investing time into debugging (to perfection) certain ships is worth keeping them in the end.  Barring a mod becoming not supported anymore, or a major change in the game, the design will be functional for quite some time.

I have a launcher that uses 15 orange tanks in asparagus staging which I have debugged for like, 10 hours total (many iteration before I was satisfied), and to this day it is my most reliable launcher for Medium to slightly heavy payloads.  Even with the newer white jumbo tanks and the new 1.0.x atmosphere, I still have not managed to exceed it's performance in that regard.  These ones I name... that Launcher is adequately named the "Hercules".

I also have my newest replica of Scott's Feather which I have tested extensively for the last 6-7 hours.  Just yesterday I came to the conclusion that it is fully functional and ready to go.  I'll most likely keep it but it's not stock and heavily dependent on mods.  I had good rover design in the past but the game keeps changing and the rules too (infinite science spam -- then need a lab -- then only need scientist -- then you have ISRU) so it's harder for them to remain relevant for more than a game version or 3.   But a Mün lander is a Mün lander and Tylo lander is a Tylo lander, some of the design never changes once you get them right.

After 10 or so iterations of an un-modded mothership I *still* have not hit the jackpot... they are either too big(laggy) or too slow (not enough THR/Weight) or lack significant Delta-V (ie: 7500+), or then again too fragile/wobbly.

You can be sure I'll keep the design once I get it right

[WuphonsReach]

I design based on payload size and destination, generally ending up with:

• Kerbin SOI light payloads like science instruments and communications relays that all get to orbit with about 1500 m/s of dV left.  It's all the same rocket, but with different payloads.
• Heavier Kerbin SOI payloads like station re-supply (USI life suport mod)
• Some sort of 2-kerbal manned rocket capable of getting anywhere in Kerbin's SOI (and back), often used for rescue contracts since it's cheap to launch.
• 4-6 kerbal version, also for anywhere in Kerbin's SOI, used more for ferrying crew to/from stations.
• Inter-planetary light payload rocket (science, comms), 8-10k dV and small.
• Kerbin SOI robotic landers (to unlock biomes for SCANSat), then scaled up for inter-planetary.

For unique vessel identification, I use a serial number of Y#D### based on the launch date.

Most of my rocket designs get used over and over and over through the career, unless I have unlocked better engines / capacities and decide to move up to the next size rocket stack.  Since I use KCT (Kerbal Construction Time) and Stage Recovery, I also want to re-use booster designs as much as possible since it shortens the build time for a vessel.

[Commander Zoom]

Very much so, yes.

My recently-concluded program (see signature link) followed a Hindu naming convention, after Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama ("The Ramans do everything in threes").  Notable workhorses and oft-used designs:

• the Rama CSM itself, used for the first Mun landings and then refined down (much like in Eyes Turned Skyward) to an orbital taxi between Kerbin and the stations in orbit around it and its moons;
• the Ganesh tanker, an orange Jumbo 64 with a large monoprop tank under it and a probe brain and battery ring on top, with docking ports at both ends;
• the Bug series vacc-only shuttle/tug/landers, which went through several iterations and tweaks between the first Mun Bug and the Jool Bug.  Each of these got an additional, personal name like the STS - e.g., Arjuna, Hanuman, Discovery, etc.

I also used Temstar's old Zenith rocket family for all of my kerbaled launches, and a booster of my own design (Comet) for satellites and probes.

[FancyMouse]

Contrast to my ID, my ship names aren't fancy at all. They just remind me what those ships are designed for. As dull as: Payload_Base_Mining, Tug_Base_Minmus, etc.

Subassembly live the launch stages, categorized by their lifting abilities - they stick to payload craft files and I can just launch from there. Sort of modular.

Good thing? I can merge payloads and stick another subassembly to give me an immediate batch launch rocket. Convenient for me.

[Randazzo]

21 hours ago, LordKael said:

So, I know everybody likes to use the subassembly feature, and repeat their lifters and tugs and such. But what I am curious about is how far other people take this, and whether they have entire ship designs that they repeat for multiple missions. 

For example, I have an "Asgard Class" shuttle that can reach orbit from Duna, Kerbin, and any moon in either system (I haven't tried it elsewhere). I have 4 copies of it, each named "KSS ______" with the blank being a Norse God's name. I have the same deal with rovers on Duna, named after Greek heroes, and probes named after mythological winds/hurricanes (because I ran out of winds).

Does anybody else do this?

I find it's more efficient to design the ship for the mission, but I'm not going for reusable craft (right now, anyway). So I end up building space tubes of varying length and girth, depending where I'm headed.

[Jetski]

This is embarrassing but most of my ships are called Untitled Space Craft, and I build each one from scratch. I use similar techniques (asparagus staging, a 4-tank nuclear rocket design for landers, scilabs/fuel depots for orbital ops) but seldom can be bothered with subassemblies.  Been playing since before there was science  I used to use subs, but now I just slap stuff together.  KER with its dv display makes it a lot easier, less exhaustive testing of designs - you know it's going to make orbit or not.

[Dfthu]

I used the same rocket to launch all of my parts to my space station. Sometimes I add a couple SRBS to help me.

[nohelmet]

The subassembly feature is too far from what it could be, it physically pains me to use it. I have a few rockets saved that I'll tweak for the mission, but I design from scratch a fair bit.

[Red Iron Crown]

I once made a bunch of lifter rocket subassemblies, but I found it stripped the game of much of the fun for me as I love building/designing. So now I use a custom rocket for almost everything.

I do keep a standard plane and rocket that I've been using to test changes to the aero model since 1.0.

[Wolfos31]

I use sub-assemblies for lifters but it took me a while to take to the system. I used to design each rocket from the nose down even after the released sub-assemblies but is my current career save I've found it's generally cheaper to strip a lifter down to it's barest essentials over a couple of iterations and then save it as a sub with payload to LKO rating. I currently have 5 ton, 15 ton, and 30 ton lifters. I'll probably need to push up to a 45 ton lifter soon as I'm starting to get higher up in the tech tree. 

 

I also use sub-assemblies for my tugs that maneuver every spacecraft to their destinations. The tugs generally fall into four categories: Station Keeper, Kerbin SOI, Light Nuclear, and Heavy Nuclear. The station keeper is RCS only and generally has several docking ports of various sizes on it. I use these to build Space Stations or move Stations into different orbits. I try to keep my stations very clean and not have RCS or reaction wheels on them to minimize part count. Every station I have has at least one station keeper tug either docked to it or in a complimentary orbit where it can reach the station within a few orbits. The Kerbin SOI tug is generally LFO powered and does what it says on the tin. This one is nice because it's cheap and recoverable so it performs the job of deorbiting old stations or spacecraft with restricted materials on them. (I have a personal rule that any nuke part must be soft landed on Kerbin for disposal) Finally my light and heavy nuke tugs will push payloads out to just about any interplanetary destination. Extremely high DV transfers may result in me stacking tugs or developing a one off endurance spacecraft. I'm a fan of reusing spacecraft and building on existing infrastructure. Figuring out how an old rover on Minmus can assist my newly researched mining endeavors adds a lot to the game for me. 

 

This means that all I have to design for about 90% of the contracts I accept or missions I make for myself is the payload. But sometimes I'll still design the entire thing from the nose down simply because I want to. 

[LordKael]

10 minutes ago, Wolfos31 said:

This means that all I have to design for about 90% of the contracts I accept or missions I make for myself is the payload. But sometimes I'll still design the entire thing from the nose down simply because I want to. 

Thats about where I was in my old save, but I just did a clean install of KSP so I am going to try and follow as many rules as possible to make the game realistic without using an RO or RSS type mod.

[M5000]

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 1:08 PM, klgraham1013 said:

The first thing I do in a new save is design a fleet of 3-5 rockets.  They get used for pretty much all my launches.

I do this as well, although with this save I've been creating rockets as there have been holes/need for them, but I used to make them all at the beginning.

I typically name things like this:

-Rockets and lifters are always named after stars. My heaviest rockets are the Betelgeuse series, these are the muscle of the fleet and can support massive payloads, the biggest being the Betelgeuse XXRM. The mid to heavy workhorses for lifting most medium to heavy payloads are the Canopus series, they are typically simple rockets but get the job done. Medium lifters are Vega series, Lights are Pollux, and manned-mission rated lifters (Basically ones outfitted with proper equipment to take care of a failure without damage to payload) are Procyon.

-Rocket-Launched OTVs (non-spaceplanes) are named after sea creatures - The main OTV I use is named Nautilus and it has several variants on a base model.

-Planes are usually birds or other things that fly, spaceplanes can be mythical creatures, flying or non flying, but do not have to be.

-Probes and Satellites are usually some witty acronym, or whatever word sounds cool or something I make up. They're more or less random.

-Stations are usually something-STAR, but this may change as I get more. Right now all I have is KerbSTAR which is Kerbin Station for Testing And Research.

-Rovers are a land-based animal usually, name not necessarily being in English, for example one of my Eve rovers was named Tortuga.

-Landers grab any old deity name

-Bases sort of do the station thing, but also may be like a probe/satellite in that they're just kind of random.

 

[Temstar]

I'm a big advocate of using subassemblies back when you need a mod to do them, now that it's stock I use them all the time. Not only do I reuse launch vehicles via subassembly for different payloads, I even have the launch vehicles themselves built from subassemblies of standard parts:

[monophonic]

I typically load an earlier mission launch and modify to suit. Sometimes this means almost completely rebuilding the payload, other times mating it to a different launcher configuration. This results in using mostly similar launcher configurations, but not exact copies. You know, add a fin there to prevent flipping, remove a tank here to stay under the size restriction, that sort of differences.

[A35K]

I have a whole bunch of lifters that I keep on re-using. From the smallest of around 5t to LKO, to the huge and explody 1000t to LKO. However there is a 'capacity gap' between 50t and around 200t, so I often just take a 200t lifter and 'modify it' (remove boosters) to use it for lighter launches. I haven't really designed any new lifters, because I ran out of ideas for them, and the ones I have work fine.

[M5000]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Temstar said:

[blue-printy picture of gigantic beautiful lifters]

Gorgeous lifters you have there. Have any pics in-game? And did you use a special trick to make that picture or are you just good with Photoshop/GIMP/whatever?

Edit: I see in-game pics. Do you have MORE in-game pics?

Edited December 31, 2015 by M5000

[Temstar]

The blue-print view is created using KVV.

[M5000]

30 minutes ago, Temstar said:

The blue-print view is created using KVV.

Very nice...Will be using that.

[Malich]

I have some repeating designs. For example, every planet I put a station in orbit of gets a 3 person "rescue cutter" for Krbal rescue missions.

Recently though I've started building re-usable interplanetary parts. I have a pair of designs for what I call Transit Modules. They are probe core equipped nuclear drive units with their own power generation and storage sections with a 2.5m docking port on the front end. Each one provides a Delta V of about 8000 empty. This lets me launch small, usage specific modules for mission which can be docked to the front end, transited to the place they are needed, dropped and then the drive module can return. Currently I am waiting on 3 of these returning from Duna so I can refuel and re-equip them to send them to Eve.