Big or small ?

[Triop]

So I see crafts on this forum in all size off shapes (shapes off size )...But what is better, big or small ?

I am kind off a minimalist myself...

Edited March 10, 2016 by Triop

[razark]

First, you must define "better".

[eddiew]

I love seeing tiny craft doing big trips  But it's totally a matter of taste. Some folks love their thousand tonners ^^

Edited March 11, 2016 by eddiew

[Tex]

Every mission has its own needs and everybody that designs rockets has their own preferences for how much deltaV they want left over. "Big or small" is a very loose term, as it all depends on the requirements of what one is trying to do.

Me, I personally go for "big," meaning I like having extra deltaV for emergencies, or just to reassure myself I'm going to make it back. Working on a budget is doable, but math and I don't exactly have a trusting relationship.

[HoloYolo]

Small is such a rare word to see in my ship names. I never usually build small. I started with big rockets, I'll end with big rockets.

[Guest]

The mission defines the parameters of the craft.

[Dman979]

17 minutes ago, regex said:

The mission defines the parameters of the craft.

Just like any mods you might be running, too. Small craft in RSS/RO are large ones in stock game, and if you're using prebuilt launchers (like I sometimes do, from a sub-assembly) you might need to size things down, and get rid of the excess mass.

[Guest]

I am a strong believer in the Moar Boosters theory.

[YTNewneo]

I try to design my rockets and ships according to the mission they should perform.
 make them as small as possible to do the mission safely with a bit of a margin and then add one more tank or booster to account for bad flying, a bug, or something else unexpected.

But sometimes it also is fun to send a 1000 ton craft to the Mun just for fun. 

[KerikBalm]

Small if its a probe.

Big if its a kerballed mission.

They aren't goingto the jool system with just a mk1 lander can.

They also aren't going to the jool system just to plant a few flags, take a few surface sample, and come home...

I want fuel depots(and now often ISRU) to allow them discretionary maneuvers/visits to nearby locations, surface habs, science labs to produce science (keep them busy) during the long transfers/fund the mission, rovers, etc.

If kerbals go, its a colony - except for Eve, Moho and Dres.

Also except for "short" trips like to the Mun/Minmus, or to other moons of Jool... only Laythe gets the colony.

[jonrd463]

7 hours ago, regex said:

The mission defines the parameters of the craft.

This. I always design my craft to spec with a 5-10% delta V margin. Wasn't always that way, but I blame Realism Overhaul, even in my non-RO save. Going overboard now just feels... wrong.

[Madscientist16180]

I'm surprised nobody summarized it that way yet;

It's not the size that count, but how you use it!

Surprisingly fitting as a KSP answer lol.

 

[Invader Jim]

I like to build tiny satellites and probes.  My manned ships are much bigger.

[Scotius]

I'm a minimalist at the start of the career. But when i finally grind enough money and tech, i revert to building big, overengineered and expensive landers and their equally hefty motherships. Why send a tiny rocket out there and count every meter per second of dV, when you can send a mothership with 10 000 m\s dV and explore comfortably?

[Red Iron Crown]

Smaller makes everything easier. Less fuel and mass required to get to orbit and the same destination, fewer structural issues, lower cost, lower part count. All else being equal I go for as small/light as possible while still meeting mission requirements.

[something]

If it's about orobes,I try to make them as small as possible as it saves a lot of funds (in career). Probably even a SSTO launch.

If it is about Kerbals going somewhere I tend to build it ridiculously bigger than needed. Why you ask? Because I can and because that would add to reputation in reality...

[GoSlash27]

Definitely small. I shoot for achieving the mission objectives as cheaply as possible, so my upper stages are light and my lower stages are cheap.

 I do sacrifice mass for safety and crew comfort, though. Long duration missions require proper crew quarters and I like to make my ships reusable.

Best,
-Slashy

[Alshain]

I tend to go cheap as possible, but if the payload is big then the rocket is big.  It also depends on what you call 'big'.  I tend to go to semi-real looking rockets on the launchpad, so I'd rather break up a payload into multiple launches and dock in orbit, than build a behemoth that launches an entire ISS style space station in one go, but that doesn't necessarily mean the rockets are small.

I do however build as minimal as I can for the parameters of my mission.  I typically have two stage rockets with solid boosters as needed and almost never use liquid boosters.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Alshain

[Snark]

I like small where possible.  Probes are tiny.  Not just 'coz it's cheaper, but because it's faster-- if you're ruthless about keeping the mass down, you can get stupidly large amounts of dV out of a small ship, even without high-tech wizardry like ion drives.  For example:  a probe core, couple of Oscar tanks, Ant engine, and a reasonable complement of low-mass paraphernalia (solar panels, small science instruments, antenna, etc.) can get something like 2 km/s of dV in a package that's a lot less than a ton.

When I'm moving resources, on the other hand, I go as big as possible in order to minimize the number of round-trips (i.e. to save my play time).  I'd rather launch one ginormous ship than a dozen little ones, if it's for something mundane and routine like stocking up an orbital fuel depot.  The most common case here is when I'm launching fuel tankers from Kerbin.  (Yes, it's cheaper to mine the stuff on the Mun or Minmus, but it's a lot simpler and faster to just launch the stuff.  In late career, when I have money coming out of my ears, I tend to just launch it.  Quick and simple.)  I just started playing around with SpaceY and am having a ball with it. 

Edited March 12, 2016 by Snark

[AbacusWizard]

I prefer to get the best of both worlds by flying a colossal interplanetary mothership with a small lander in a cargo bay.

[Warzouz]

My KSP moto would be : "Why sending a probe when you can send a space station ?"

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Quote

Big or small ?

I asked my girlfriend but she said I "didn't want to know."

Huh...that's a weird answer.

Oh well, what does she know, she doesn't even play KSP!

[Mjarf]

Welp, my Mun and Minmus lander weighs in at approx. 50 tons and has two stages and is lifted by my Thor 1.5 800 ton lifting stage, so I guess I tend to build my crafts rather large. My future Duna craft will probably use my Thor 2.5 1500 ton lifting stage just to get the modules into 200km orbit for assembly and launch from there. I like big rockets, it makes me giggle to see them burn an obscene amount of fuel and scorch the launch pad.

[OhioBob]

My rockets are as big as they need to be to get the job done, but no bigger.  So it's really not a matter of how big the rocket is, it's a matter of how big the payload is.  I prefer a minimalist approach.  I build my payloads as small as I possibly can with only the minimum equipment needed to carry out the mission goals.  If I've build an efficient payload, then I don't need a very big rocket.  I don't like overdesigning.  I carry a safety margin but I like to keep it as small as possible.  The size of the margin depends on my confidence in the mission and the reliability of my Δv estimates.  I don't like having a lot of unused Δv remaining at the end of a mission, but running short is even worse.

This doesn't mean that I haven't launched some large payloads in the past.  The largest rocket I ever built could lift a payload of around 140 t.  If I need to lift more than that, I tend to prefer multiple launchers with orbital assembly and refueling.  However, whenever I can get by with a smaller payload and launcher, then that's what I try to do.

[panzer1b]

I say a nice mix of both.  That said, im more of a minimalist in terms of part count (even if the capital ship is still quite large at the end), since until U5 (and even that isnt certain to fix the massive lagfest) we cant really make ships with high part count since the game just gets unfun with the sheer lag when i try to bring 4 300 part capital ships into combat range (as in close enough to broadside the enemy).