Repeating ship designs

[luizopiloto]

I use subassemblies more for module parts like 3 axis RCS, 360° ilumination, small escape tower, Station parts, RTG module, etc... small things I use on my crafts a lot...

[pandaman]

I keep planning to have 'common' vessels and sub assemblies that I use, but somehow I never quite manage it.  Though I am forming some big plans for 1.1 so I may well use them then.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I wish! I don't think I've ever designed something that, upon reflection and with the wisdom of hindsight, shouldn't have been at least a bit better.

[Elowiny]

I use a launcher I call the "Elowine Launcher". It's some 3.75 meter parts, with a modded engine, a nuclear stage, and the payload. I use it for interplanetary missions (It has more than 14k delta/v). I also have a variant which uses some 5 meter engines, a nuclear stage and a mainsail-powered part to land very heavy payloads like bases and stuff like that.

Since I play a sandbox game, I tend to use rockets waaaaay too strong for simple things, like using the Elowine Launcher with 10k of delta/v to...land on the Mun.

[ImperialistPigDog]

I generally use sub-assemblies for organizing landers rovers and other utility's that i can take along with me on missions.

[Alshain]

My lifters are certainly repeated but my ships are only really repeated on a per-destination basis.  For example a design intended for the Mun may be used several times, just like Apollo was, but Minmus has a different ship line, and most every other planet.

In current versions of the game there is enough disparity between planets that you almost have to.  Even if you consider 'similar' destinations like Eve and Duna (not counting landing of course), thanks to the new way solar power works, you need more panels for orbiting Duna than Eve.  For this reason alone, using a Duna craft to go to Eve or vice versa would be either cost inefficient or just unwise.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Alshain

[Earthslug]

Hi all! My first post here...

Been playing for 1000 hours vanilla or so and decided to increase efficiency on space missions, preparing for fresh carreer start in 1.1

No more 15k dv launchers on a 5t payload for mun mission or a failed manned duna mission, requiring me to launch a 300k credits refuel armada to get them out of there!

 

So I installed KER today + only discovered the advanced parts menu 2 days ago.

Will be using KER + that duplicate menu to build some efficient "generic lower orbit launchers"

Thinking of some low cost 15t / 30t / 60t basic launch rockets.

Guess this menu + KER will aid me there.

 

 

[WuphonsReach]

Note that KER gets TWR values wrong in 1.0.5 (at least, for a lot of modded engines), so you'll want to also use MechJeb's Delta-V Stats window to get accurate TWRs for launch.  But KER has better output for part counts per stage, cost per stage, mass per stage.

I still do a lot of repeating designs, which comes in hand with KCT (Kerbal Construction Time) where I can just queue up half a dozen of a particular design to get built and sit in a warehouse until needed.

[Warzouz]

I don't have too much time to play Kerbal, so I must focus on what I like the most. I like to design rockets, but as I've build several, using various technics, I prefer to focus on interplanetary stages, space stations and landers.

So I use a lot of sub-assemblies.

For launchers, I've 11 sub-assemblies from 15 to 600 tons payload (Cygnus recoverable SSTO rockets)

For space stations, I've standard space station (Salamander exploration space station) but most of my last Career game was to design this  space station (which is simple but efficient for my play style)

I also use pre designed landers (even they are overbuilt for several bodies such as Minmus, Pol or Gilly). It's easy to fly a ship you're used to and which was tested many times. You don't end somewhere finding you forgot some science equipment or a ladder ...

The only thing I don't reuse are interplanetary stages. They are easy do design and are usually very specific for the destination you want to go and for your target payload. As it's only a fuel tank with some engines (and sometime additional reaction wheels), it's very quickly designed when you know the dV you need. TWR is less important than for landers or lifters.

 

So yes, I use a lot of sub-assemblies (launchers, satellites, landers, return vehicles, space stations), and reload old designs to adapt them to my a mission.

[KerbMav]

Satellites/probes - or entire Mun/Minmus missions - may be reused completely depending on total availabe dV, sometimes a launcher fits the needs for more than one launch, e.g. while building a space station (usually prebuilt in the VAB, then streamlined, broken up with adding of docking ports into workable parts, streamlined again to reduce part count) - but most of the time I build a new launcher every time, not least because I like building rockets.

Edited January 5, 2016 by KerbMav

[el_coyoto]

I really love building, testing and tweaking lifters, so (strangely) most of my sub assemblies are very specific payloads (scanning probes typically). I rarely "sub assemble" science probes for example, because I also love building them and are often mission/tech tree specific. But once I have iterated enough to have a nice (very important criteria lol) and efficient modular probe platform, I usually save it as a sub assembly.

For naming, I usually go with a "class" name usually inspired by IRL space programs (like "Moho" for Mercury, "Twin" for Gemini, "Orient" for "Vostok", greek stuff or silly puns) plus a "mark" numbering scheme for each iteration. I like it, it reminds me of Spitfires and stuff on the Battle of England I read when I was young...

And once it's in orbit, the craft gets a "real" name (in Soviet fashion).
So my ships names usually look like this : Orient mk3 "Muninator" or Moho mk2 "For Science!".

I've just finished the Iain Banks "Culture" cycle, and might be tempted to give even sillier names to my ships in the future though...  

[WuphonsReach]

I tend to be belt-and-suspenders when it comes to craft names, and since I repeat a lot of designs, keeping things unique so that KSP contracts aren't confusing is important.  Hence everything gets a very short name for the ship type, followed by some sort of serial number.  Currently going with:

TCRV-3320 'Name' (mission)

(3320 is the launch date, 320th day of the 3rd year.)

[Torgo]

I have a set stable of 4 lifters saved as subassemblies... as long as my payload/capsule weight fits in one of their ranges I'll pop one of those underneath. 

For names, it's just function and sequence... so Mun Lander XII, CommSat III (a,b,c & d as they are 4 copies of the same unit), and Testus VI for those lucrative 'test this out on the pad' contracts.