New booster per mission or re-use previous designs? What do you do?

[Sovek]

So in my latest career I'm playing with a more realistic way of re-using boosters, Right now my boosters as follows

 

SL-5 series Boosters. Designed to put small payloads about 1-1.5t into orbit. The lighter the better. The following missions were launched on this booster

• Pidgeon A-D Omni-directional short range satellites for constant communications with mission control on unmanned launch
• Falcon 1, 2 (Failure) 3,
• Total of 7 launches.

Next up is the R-5M Booster. It saw 3 launches, Namely the first of the Moho flights (first kerbal in orbit) and Falcons 4,(F) 5, the first probe around the Mun.

 

Next up was the more popular R-6 Booster, a variation of the R-5M, it removed the solids and clustered engines for a single KW Wildcat V and stabilizing fins.

Its launches include

• Moho 2,3
• Vulture Docking Target
• Super Pidgeon, Long Range Communication Satellite.
• Total 4 launches (To date)

But the rising star in my space program and the "Do anything booster" is my aptly named R-7 Booster. The B variant uses stabilizing fins on the Solids and the C variant moves the fins on to the fuselage itself. Capable of lifting upwards of 11t into orbit.

Right now its successful launches include

• Munar 1-4 Two Kerbal pods capable of reaching Mun (FRT) or Minmus (O)
• Falcon 6, first probe to breach Kerbins SoI
• Planned launches include putting up station parts and sending Kerbals to the station.
• Further more ambitious plans include multiple launches for single missions to land a single kerbal on the surface of the Mun.

So in total I've had 18 missions off of 4 main Boosters with slight variations.

So do you do what I do and use some all-purpose boosters or make one specific for that mission. I've had to stop that practice as when dealing with things on a larger scale where 5.6km/s of dV is required just to reach orbit.... and add in procedural parts + Real Fuels, things get complicated when designing boosters.

[Xavven]

I tailor the lifter to the payload every time. That said, certain combinations of fuel tanks and engines come up all the time. For example, when I start getting into the larger payloads, there is almost always a stage consisting of a skipper with one orange tank attached to it (plus or minus a little bit, depending on the situation). This is because for a certain weight, some engines tend to have the best TWR and Isp for a launch sequence.

 

That said, the biggest reason I customize a lifter every time is that, were I to have a standard 10 ton lifter and a 15 ton lifter, I'd be wasting money when I need to lift exactly 12.5 tons to orbit. Of course, in real life, building a custom rocket has extreme costs with development, testing, and manufacture. This is a big reason we have standard lifters in real life. In KSP, that aspect doesn't exist -- the prototype costs just as little as the 100th mass-produced rocket.

[Dman979]

When I'm playing RO, I generally make a lifter for each of a few mass categories, and then tailor them a bit from there. For instance, if I have a bit of extra TWR, but less ∆V than I need, I might add some fuel by lengthening the stage a bit. That way, I don't have to design a new rocket for each payload, but I'm not strictly confined by what I have available.

It's kind of a bad practice for me, though. I need to practice my math skills, and engineering within constraints, so I should probably start using standard boosters and tailoring the fuel load for each one, more like RL.

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

I generally custom-build each launcher, but tend to fall into patterns. If it's a 1.25m stack, I'd have a couple SRBs, a Swivel main stage, and a Terrier upper stage. 2.5m, two skipper boosters feeding into a mainsail core, with a skipper upper stage and possibly Terrier transfer stage.

However, I do reuse saved ships for things like rescue missions, at least until they become obsolete 

[Temstar]

I say about 75% of the time I use an established booster, so my subassemblies are mostly launch vehicles. There's often some fine tuning involved to better fit the LV to the payload - eg making SRB from twin symmetry to triple symmetry so the LV can carry a slightly bigger payload than what its rated for. The other 25% of the time I design custom launch vehicles for unique payloads. If the custom launch vehicle has particularly satisfying performance then it gets added to the subassembly list.

[lobe]

Standardize everything. All my launchers scale up by doubling from 10 tons (10, 20, 40, etc). If I need a little more fuel I include that in payload to make it more efficent. Usually I tend to overload boosters by at most 5 tons for this reason as well. I even have set satellite buses, service modules, lander bases, and stages for those rockets that I have standardized.

[Sovek]

13 hours ago, lobe said:

Standardize everything. All my launchers scale up by doubling from 10 tons (10, 20, 40, etc). If I need a little more fuel I include that in payload to make it more efficent. Usually I tend to overload boosters by at most 5 tons for this reason as well. I even have set satellite buses, service modules, lander bases, and stages for those rockets that I have standardized.

any chance for some pics of this operation?

[Hannu2]

I think that kerbals have modular building philosophy, because that is one of the basic ideas of the game, and make new stages. Of course I have long developed basic solutions and results are often very similar. There may be one fuel tank or couple of SRBs more or less, depending on payload.

[jonrd463]

I have several classes of boosters saved as subassemblies, i.e. 5 ton, 10 ton, 20 ton, etc., but like others, I tweak to meet the payload needs. This is a bit of a carryover from playing my Realism Overhaul install. I find even in the stock game, I'm more mindful of waste and limitations and try to keep things from being too Whackjobian. That's not to say I don't go buck wild from time to time.

Edited February 4, 2016 by jonrd463

[JoeNapalm]

 

I  sometimes do a lot of testing and tweaking, so I will often reuse all or some of a good design.

I also sometimes just throw something together and see what happens.

Whatever is fun at the moment.

 

-Jn-

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by JoeNapalm

[nosirrbro]

When I was less experienced (And when subassemblies weren't stock) I would custom make every single booster, but as I progressed and became able to make a very efficient booster stage along with longing for a more realistic space program without having to use so many mods my computer explodes, and as of late have been using predesigned boosters almost exclusively.

[lobe]

During this save I have yet to come up with an acceptable landing base ( I might just make a reusable skycrane and be done with it). If it smaller than 2.5 meter I just use the second smallest 1.25 tank, 4 regular landing struts and a Terrier engine. That does the trick for most probes and one-time single Kerbal landings.

[Dfthu]

I used the same rocket to launch my space station but with little variations like adding SRBs or lengthening a stage.

[Red Iron Crown]

Quote

New booster per mission or re-use previous designs?

Yes.

Seriously, for a while I kept a bunch of preconfigured rockets as subassemblies for reuse, but it turns out making the rocket is a big part of KSP's fun for me. So now I make a new one for each payload (though they are often very similar).

[qromodynmc]

Same rocket in career/ different (mostly sstos) vehicles in sandbox mode.

[Klawd]

My subassembly tab is full of reusable lifters rated by payload mass and if i don't have the right one i'll build it and add it to the list. They're generally pig-ugly and covered in aerobrakes and a good proportion of the time things explode off them during re-entry, but I like the fun of trying to save a bit of cash from each launch. If I get one down fully intact within a few klicks from KSC i've got my hands in the air.

[Guest]

Really depends.  In my RP-0 campaign I have a procedural R-7 (Vostok) lifter that has put some, what, twelve payloads into orbit?  I love it, thinking about making a more modern Soyuz-2 lifter for my sandbox save and seeing how much I can get done with it.

In stock/vanilla, I build a lifter for every payload because I don't have to twiddle with fuel tank sizes or worry about fairings or ullage or things like that; they just slap together.

Edited February 5, 2016 by regex

[Tfin]

Playing Career, I'm still unlocking better-suited parts every few missions, so I do a couple tourist contracts, launch a satellite for the communications network, fly halfway around the planet for a survey, and then make better craft to do those next time around. I noticed my 14,000-fund 4-tourist rocket with very risky landing has turned into a safe 2-tourist rocket at triple the price, so... back to the VAB, and now take-off is risky, landing is safe, and it costs 18,000 for 4 passengers.

[Bev7787]

I'm obsessed with standardisation. When a satellite contract pops up for a satellite around Kerbin, I use a single srb based design. All manned capsules follow a basic design, especially the Munar ones

[RizzoTheRat]

Generally scratch built for each launch but I do have some pretty basic design features so often a heavier lifter might end up being an identical core to a lighter lifter but with an extra couple of radial tanks and engines.

I've been playing around with spaceplanes a bit recently and if I get a decent design up and running for a Mk3 cargo bay I'll plan to reuse it a fair bit.  I already have one with 5 Mk2 cargo bays that will be standard launcher for my now fairly standardised ScanSat/RemoteTech satelites.

[Madrias]

A bit of a mix of both.  Lot of standardized designs, but some stuff needs custom lifters.

I tend to standardize 2.5m stuff as my general-purpose 'use this for everything' framework, while 1.25m is used for final stages, rovers, and early-game main rockets.  3.75m stuff is heavy lifting or super-boosters for 5m stages that weigh a huge amount.

At the same time, there's always that weird thing that takes just a bit more effort to get off the ground, and uses more fuel, more boosters, or just needs extra reinforcement.

[LordCucumber77]

I'm like the German army in World War 2 & tanksin this situation: I almost always build either from scratch, or (heavily) modify existing models for each launch. I think half my videos are about building rockets and testing them. As I completely suck at math, I generally don't bother calculating Delta V (up until recently I had no idea how, in fact) so scratch building and winging it was key to my (often questionable) success.

[StarStreak2109]

I like to build a standard set of launchers, one for each form factor (i.e. 1.25, 2.5 and 3.75 metres). All these are usually based on the "common core" philosophy. If a given launcher requires more "oumph", then depending on the mission SRBs or LRB are being added. Developping a custom built launcher is to avoided, if possible.

[panzer1b]

Id say 90% of the time my payload needs to have custom designed boosters tailored to its particular geometry, or its a SSTO where i just dont even bother using boosters for that.  Basically 75% of what i launch to orbit is either a capital ship, or a stack of fighters all attached together and decoupled when arriving at destination (usually a carrier or base they are being deployed at).

When it comes to capital ships, basically all use side mounted boosters (which is kinda tough to copy and use on a different capital ship that is different shape, size, weight, ect), as ive found that trying to attach a capital ship atop a rocket (without the so called new fairing strut feature in 1.1) completely unpractical, and it massively increases engineering challenge/part count, 2 things id rather avoid.  Not that i dont want to make challenging designs, but how they get to orbit i just could care less about, for me its more of what they can do once in orbit that matters, and my engineering challenges include weapons design, armor design, and trying to make all that in something that has the TWR/dV to do what i want it to do, never cared about engineering the booster itself.

That said, i do have some generic boosters which i do reuse.  I have one for space/land bases that is basically 4 MK3 bays as the fairing (as you can actually strut teh payload well to that and its rock solid afterwards unlike teh horrendous standard fairings squad added).  That one, provided the payload can even fit into a mk3 bay, is used for every single 2.5m maximum sized station or ground base since it has so much capacity i can launch a station in 1 shot to anywhere thats ~4000 dV away from LKO or closer.  That and i have 1 small scale fighter launcher that can carry ~100t max to LKO, although in a small package.

[Vim Razz]

For stock Kerbin a two-stage lifter to LKO with ~15-20% cargo fraction is reasonably economical and so easy to throw together on the fly that I usually just do that, making a new one each time.  ie:

1. Look at payload mass.  Add that much mass in fuel to the bottom for the orbital insertion stage and pick engines for a TWR slightly over 1.
2. Look at the new total mass.  Add 1.5x that much mass in fuel to the bottom for the lifter stage and pick engines for a TWR around 1.5.
3. Add some boosters if bottom-stage TWR is a bit weak.
4. Go to space.

If I'm running the same mission profile a lot or playing a career game with tight budget constraints then I might take the time to optimize things or pull a more refined design from my existing library, but generally I don't bother.  The fast-and-loose approach doesn't fit quite so well with RSS, though.

 

Nice rockets, btw!

Edited February 5, 2016 by Vim Razz