The Rhino

[Sovek]

In my HEAVILY modded game, its the only engine I have with that kind of thrust in the 3.75m area, everything is either less (upwards of only 1200kn of thrust) or MUCH larger (like 5K kn). With the Real Fuels config, when used with LH2/LOX configuration, it has a VERY high isp of 441, thats the best that I could find, while still providing 1880kn of thrust.

The standard RP-1/LOX provides similar numbers to stock. So yes, if/when I get to building things that big, I might use it as a sustainer stage for finalizing orbit, or breaking orbit... we'll see.

[GoSlash27]

28 minutes ago, bewing said:

Wow, you guys are nuts -- when it takes so much less than that to launch 4 40-ton payloads. Yeah, a Poodle is always much better than a Rhino if you aren't trying to blast a hole through the vacuum. It takes a little longer, but you get there with more fuel in the end.

 

 

Well...

FWIW I personally follow your philosophy. I'm all about getting my payloads into orbit cheaply and easily, and I don't require that much payload capacity to get things done.

That said, I'm not here to disparage anyone else who likes jumbo lifters and it's not my intention to hamper that.

I have decided that I will not recommend a re- tasking of the engine, other than to perhaps reduce it's price tag a bit to make it more economical to use.

 Thanks everyone!

-Slashy

[Temstar]

I use it a lot for upper stages,and yes as an upper stage engine it can lift a lot of payload:


But it's not exclusively for 229 ton payload, I also use it as an upper stage for a 45 ton to LKO rocket where the Rhino stage does most of the work (2200m/s delta-v) after been lifted up by an all solid first stage:



45 ton is a fairly common payload size, even in career. I would note that Rhino is pretty expensive though so in both examples above the upper stage are designed for recovery after payload release.
 

[AlphaMensae]

I just love the Rhino!  I have used it for its intended purpose as an upper stage for big payloads, but now I downsize it with Tweakscale (the 1.25m version has a mass of .577 and 128.3 kN thrust )and use it on all my large rover-landers and supersized non-LV-N landers.  Like this:

Then I unintentionally made a SSTO lander rocket using one standard Rhino and a Kerbodyne 14400 tank, which I use as a crewsupply shuttle to service orbiting ships:

A larger 7-Kerbal version with more supply capacity needed some SRBs, of course I used Space Y SRBs (it's so ridiculously overpowered).

 

50 minutes ago, regex said:

Why would I do in four launches what I can do in one?  Just to prove I can space-assemble or something?  Been there, done that, bored to tears of it.

I feel the same way, I'm not interested in building a Scott Manley-esque floppy monstrosity, I'm building my IP ships around a single huge LF tank and launching it fully-assembled and fueled into orbit.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Laguna

[Snark]

3 hours ago, Snark said:

Personally, I like the tank butts.  I think of it as a feature, not a problem.  "It looks terrible if you put it on something smaller than 3.75m", as far as I'm concerned, is correct, because you're not supposed to.  For me, large-radius engines don't belong on small-radius tanks; it's a design constraint that I find interesting and worthwhile.  (I recognize that my opinion is probably in the extreme minority here.)

 

36 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

That was a bad example. How about if I want to cluster two Rhinos ( is it Mammoth or Rhino? ) to the bottom of a 3.75m tank? Or five to the bottom of a 5m tank? ( No 5m tanks in stock, but the concept is the same. ) It looks absolutely terrible.

Yes, and I would respond with "in my world, clustering two Rhinos on the bottom of a 3.75m tank is wrong, I shouldn't be allowed to do it, and if I find myself wanting to do that then it means I have failed as an engineer because I can't design a rocket ship that works within the constraints of KSP."  Ditto five on the bottom of a 5m tank.  It's not just that it looks terrible, it's also not possible because the engine's not surface-attachable and needs a node, unless I play games with a cubic octagonal strut and exploit it.  And in any case, five 3.75m things don't fit on a 5m thing.  If I try to stick a sofa on the back of a motorcycle, it'll look awful, too.

Note:  I'm not trying to say that your perspective as wrong, or that I'm "right."  Simply that it's important to recognize that it's just that, your perspective.  My original point was that "there's a legitimate player viewpoint that tank butts are good," since it bugs me when people simply state "X is wrong" rather than "I don't like X."

47 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

And I guarantee you someone at sometime needed those large engines on the bottom of a 2.5m tank and had to put an ugly adapter piece to make it work.

Same deal, from my perspective.  If I'm working on a 2.5m stack, and I can't make it work with 2.5m engines, then I've failed as a rocket engineer.  I go back to the drawing board and take the trouble to design a rocket that works within the constraints of the game.

And again:  I'm not being judgmental about anyone else.  Everyone makes up their own personal rules in KSP, and they're all equally valid.  I'm just pointing out that for players like me, that's a feature, not a bug.

39 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

There shouldnt be a "supposed to" and "not supposed to" in this game that defeats the whole purpose of KSP.

Nonsense.  Clearly this is a game that's full of "supposed to" and "not supposed to."  How about if we just give every engine 10 times the Isp and quadruple the thrust.  That would be easier, right?  Or get rid of fuel requirements altogether, and make it so that rockets can just fly forever?  Or eliminate reentry heat?  Think of all the posts we've seen from newbies in the Gameplay Questions forum, when they're having trouble building a ship that can land on the Mun and return.  Wouldn't making the game easier in that regard make it much better for them?  That way they could build anything they want, and it would go to the Mun.  They wouldn't have all these pesky "engineering constraints" or "physics" getting in the way, forcing them to build a rocket that works within the constraints of the system.    Allowing all of that sort of thing would make building rockets easier and we could build all kinds of fun, kooky contraptions, yes?

And yet:  I don't think you'd find a lot of KSP players who would like that idea.  A major part of the draw of KSP, for many many players, is the fact that it's challenging.

"KSP is supposed to be pretty hard."

That's certainly a huge part of it for me.  I have to build a ship within the constraints of rocket physics.  That's hard.  Because it's hard, it gives me a really nice sense of accomplishment when I pull off a difficult mission.  If I could just slap whatever I want together and use it to fly any mission I want, then I would very quickly become bored with the game and lose interest, instead of still being hopelessly addicted to it after nearly two years of playing.

The question, of course, is "just how hard is the right amount?"  That's a tricky question, and no matter where you set the bar, you're going to make people unhappy, because different people have different expectations.  Look at two of the most popular KSP mods of all time, FAR and Kerbal Joint Reinforcement.  The former makes the game a lot harder.  The latter makes it a lot easier.  Those are clearly targeting two different groups of players.  Some like it easier, some like it harder.  Personally, I would never use KJR because for me it would be a game-ruining cheat.  But then, neither do I use FAR, because that would make the game harder enough that I wouldn't enjoy it as much.

And also, it's not just a question of liking it "harder" or "easier."  KSP players differ in other ways, too-- in the basic philosophy of "what is this game, anyway?"  Is it a puzzle?  Or is it a story?

The "puzzle" people (I'm one, in case it's not obvious) like the game because it's a hard challenge and defeating hard challenges is fun.  Constraints on what you can build make the game better, from the viewpoint of a puzzle-player, as long as the constraints make some sort of physical sense.  This is because it adds more design-time challenge.  It's all about "can I accomplish the given goal within the challenging constraints put on me."  These are the kinds of folks who tend to like FAR, or RemoteTech, or TAC Life Support.

The "story" people like the game because it lets them fly a frickin' rocket ship!  It's like being able to star in your own personal space adventure movie.  These folks are more likely to care about how things look, and about narrative.  They're telling a story with the game.  They have a picture in their head of the story they want to tell, and any time the game prevents them from being able to tell the story they want to, it's an irritating letdown.  Building constraints are therefore bad, from the standpoint of a story-player, because constraints get in the way of the story.  It's like telling an author which adjectives he's not allowed to use.  These are the kinds of folks who tend to like Kerbal Joint Reinforcement.

The beauty of KSP is that it can cater to all kinds of folks:  beginners and experts, puzzle-solvers and storytellers.  Every player is different, and it's not an either-or thing (I'd describe myself as about 85% puzzle-solver and 15% storyteller).  I'm astounded at how well Squad was able to pull it off, and to keep building and growing the game while maintaining that success.

And an important ingredient of keeping the game as great as it is, is to be mindful of the wide range of player perspectives out there.

When I expressed my fondness of tank butts for KSP engines, I tried to make it very clear that I'm just "casting my vote".  You'll note that I didn't say that "I'm right" or "this is the right way to be"-- simply that "I like it that way."  The fact that certain pieces fit on other pieces in certain ways is really important to people like me.

I guess all I'm trying to say is:  I respect others' viewpoints-- just as I'd expect others to respect mine.   

[maccollo]

34 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

I have decided that I will not recommend a re- tasking of the engine, other than to perhaps reduce it's price tag a bit to make it more economical to use.

The launcher in the video I posted can get 1 ton to orbit for something like 800 funds. It seems to be right inline with the skipper when used in the same role.

[Motokid600]

... How the heck did you get all that from "engines shouldn't have fixed sizes." ?

Been looking for that phrase since my op. Lol, its a little better then tank butts. Engines should have switchable fixed sizes so that when you do only want to use one you enable it.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Motokid600

[GoSlash27]

22 minutes ago, maccollo said:

The launcher in the video I posted can get 1 ton to orbit for something like 800 funds. It seems to be right inline with the skipper when used in the same role.

Thanks for the info. I haven't actually checked the upper stage numbers yet, but any time you can use Kickbacks for the first stage, it should work out somewhere in that neighborhood.

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

After running the numbers, here's what I end up with:

The Rhino needs to sell for $15,000 instead of $25,000. That seems like a big deal at first glance, but it's actually tiny in comparison to the upper stage cost at top-end and an even tinier difference in full- up vehicle cost.

Like $110,000 vs. $120,000 for an all- out 150t stack; about $13/ tonne difference. This would reduce the price hit in the 50t payload range, encouraging it's use. Penalty for switching from a Skipper to a Rhino would be $10,000 instead of $20,000, which is roughly $200/tonne payload difference.

What do you think?

Best,

-Slashy

[KerikBalm]

I use them to launch big payloads.... nothing wrong with 100 tons to orbit. I ssto more than that.

I use them on orbital tugs... if I need to eject a large payload out of the kerbin system (like a fuel depot to duna or jool, or a ship to moho for instance), I use a Rhino-Nuke tug (rhino and nukes to eject, mostly the rhino, then detach payload, and retroburn with nukes to stay in the system and aerobrake back down to LKO or a Mun intercept for refueling)

Here is one such tug (well it pushes, but its fine) being delivered to orbit

And the vessel it will dock with to create (I have some pics of the vessel again after the KR-2L booster is detached, but haven't uploaded.

 

I use them on vacuum fuel tankers for ISRU. to lift large amounts of fuel at once, and to make the ISRU equipment mass a small percent of the craft. On demand fuel depot launcher from Mun basically:

 

Lastly, before we got the vector I used it as a space shuttle main engine:

 

Its one of my favorite engines... how dare you call it useless!

 

 

Edited January 18, 2016 by KerikBalm

[Porkjet]

It's role is more or less that of a "Sustainer" engine, typically used after booster seperation during coast to apoapsis. Since kerbins amtosphere is pretty high compared to it's size, and generally much smaller than earth, this coasting phase is a much steeper and quicker climb than it would be on earth, so sustainers in KSP need pretty high thrust, that's why it's such a monster.

[Raptor9]

The Rhino in its current form has been the backbone of my SLS-inspired, heavy-lifting Titan rocket family.  I'm honestly perfectly satisfied with it.

[Tourist]

On 1/17/2016 at 11:22 AM, Snark said:

(lots of snipping)

....  Everyone makes up their own personal rules in KSP, and they're all equally valid....

....  Clearly this is a game that's full of "supposed to" and "not supposed to." ....

"KSP is supposed to be pretty hard."

That's certainly a huge part of it for me.  I have to build a ship within the constraints of rocket physics....

The question, of course, is "just how hard is the right amount?"  That's a tricky question, and no matter where you set the bar, you're going to make people unhappy, because different people have different expectations.....

And also, it's not just a question of liking it "harder" or "easier."  KSP players differ in other ways, too-- in the basic philosophy of "what is this game, anyway?"  Is it a puzzle?  Or is it a story?

The "puzzle" people (I'm one, in case it's not obvious) like the game because it's a hard challenge and defeating hard challenges is fun.  Constraints on what you can build make the game better,........

The beauty of KSP is that it can cater to all kinds of folks:  beginners and experts, puzzle-solvers and storytellers

.........

I guess all I'm trying to say is:  I respect others' viewpoints-- just as I'd expect others to respect mine.   

Can't agree more.

KSP is often described is being lego-like.... but, at least to the way I play, that is not true. For me its closer to Mecchano. Lego the only limitation is how many bits you have, and your imagination. A simple blue block can be a warp engine and take me anywhere in the universe with no limits save those I have imagined. On the other hand if I want to build a train in Mecchano that works, I need to work with the bits which can do that, and I need to follow rules about how to put them together to make it work.

Much like Snark, I think it is good that not every part can be used in any way possible. For instance, I used to like how the Aerospike couldn't be stacked. Because, although it now gives me alot of freedom about how I use it, It means I no longer have to engineer around the fact that it could not be stacked... an element of challenge has been removed... not a major one, and from a realism perspective, I could not see why it could not be stacked... so ultimately I'm fine with it.

That being said, I like (the) big tank butts and I cannot lie. I think they look better, but if the benefit is that engines, particularly the poodle are shorter then, on balance, I'm for it. (I find the poodle is really awkward size wise vis a vis the available landing legs.)

So, finally to be on topic. I use the Rhino for the final push into LKO... I think its good for that purpose especially for the big stuff. I also use them for the outward bound interplanetary transfer stage for the big stuff, I know they are not as efficient as the nukes, true, but heck sometimes I just don't want to spend fifteen minutes watching the nukes do their thing.   

[NecroBones]

On 1/17/2016 at 7:08 PM, Laguna said:

A larger 7-Kerbal version with more supply capacity needed some SRBs, of course I used Space Y SRBs (it's so ridiculously overpowered).

 

 

Heheh, I think it's awesome that people sometimes think those SRBs are overpowered. (I'm not poking fun at you, just commenting on the fact that I see this mentioned fairly frequently)

Rather, I see it as the stock ones being underpowered (at least the larger ones)----  and yet, the SpaceY SRBs are based entirely on the Kickback. Same dry/loaded mass ratios, roughly the same propellant capacity per volume (ignoring the tapered nose on the 1.875m models), and same ISPs. What varies is the TWR. Since you can tune thrust downward in the VAB, but not upward, the thrust numbers are set proportionately a bit higher (at the cost of burn duration, since the ISP is the same), giving you more choice (more-so in the short variants than the longer ones though). So they're pretty stock-balanced and yet considerably more powerful at the same time.

 

 

[AlphaMensae]

NecroBones, I didn't mean the SRBs were overpowered, it's the ship itself with those SRBs (and they are the smallest ones) on it.   

I always forget about turning down the thrust in SRBs...eh, it's more fun to launch this thing full-blast.

 

[NecroBones]

1 hour ago, Laguna said:

NecroBones, I didn't mean the SRBs were overpowered, it's the ship itself with those SRBs (and they are the smallest ones) on it.   

I always forget about turning down the thrust in SRBs...eh, it's more fun to launch this thing full-blast.

 

lol, no worries, I see it said often enough that I guess my brain just zeroes in on it now.

 

[Alshain]

Slashy, I think your attention is in the wrong place.  We need bigger, well balanced SRB's, plain and simple. It would solve so many issues, this one included.

[Wild Cobra]

On 1/16/2016 at 10:45 AM, GoSlash27 said:

 For me, the KR-2L Rhino is a useless engine with it's current stats. I understand that it is supposed to be a "failed design", but it is "failed" to the point that it serves no purpose that I can find.
 According to my numbers, it would be optimal as an upper stage for payloads in the 120-300t range, but lifting that much mass in one go is a serious hardship for the booster stage. You would need somewhere between 4 Twin Boars and 5 Mammoths to lift such a large stack.
 And besides... How often do we find a need to lift such a massive payload in one go, especially in career?

 I would like to propose a rebalance to make the Rhino more useful, *but* before I do that I'd like to hear from the rest of you first.
 Do you use the Rhino? What are you using it for? If you would keep it as- is, why? If you would change it, what would you like to use it for?

 

 Thanks,
-Slashy

I like the Rhino the way it is. Modifying it would break many of my designs. Make a new one, don't modify it.

 

Mammoths burn finished, decoupling:

 

 

Rhinos taking over:

 

 

Just need a few SRBs to help:

 

[LiquidAir]

I have used the Rhino once in career mode: sending a mining/science station to Pol. The ship was over 2000t (and 425 parts) on the pad and the payload travelling to Jool was over 200t in LKO powered by a single Rhino. The craft on the pad cost about 930k of which I recovered 350k when I landed the lifter (6 Mammoths). The conceit for my career is to place a permanent fueling station with a fleet of reusable craft in the Joolian system to support a variety of missions and land on all the moons without having to wait for a transfer window from Kerbin. As I see it, big bases like this are the reward at the end of career when you have filled out the tech tree and money is no longer a limiting factor.

The station is still in flight; I'll add more screenshots when I expand the solar array around Pol.

 

[Hannu2]

I use Rhino in second stages to put payloads of 100 t or more to orbit. I prefer large launchers and packed payloads over laborious and boring orbital assembly or flotillas of many smaller ships which needs tens of maneuvers and hours of time to achieve target. I use Rhino in career after I have unlocked all tech I want and begin to make large explorations to more distant planets. I think that Rhino's performance is well balanced.

http://i.imgur.com/wlOZvKg.jpg