Worst engine in KSP

[Corona688]

It's a pain to use twin ants, though.  That's the "corners" mentioned.  Delta V does not a design make, it has to be practical to actually make it too.  I've got designs that sacrifice 50% DV to have a heatshield and they do the job quite well.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Corona688

[Sharpy]

I still use reliant in side boosters of cheap launchers of small payloads, usually paired with kickbacks, and swivel in the center.

It's still a crap engine.

[Armisael]

I can't deny that it's a little more work than just slapping on radial engines but it's hardly the end of the world...

You're right than dv isn't everything (though it is rather important - I'd look long and hard at the cost of a braking burn in your example), but I don't see any reason that design isn't practical. It even looks good!

Edited August 28, 2016 by Armisael

[TheGuyNamedAlan]

to be honest with you, the spider is indeed a pretty crappy engine.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

On 8/25/2016 at 2:08 PM, W. Kerman said:

Do they get you to space? 

Yes! I have several craft that can go suborbital on jet only!

[TheGuyNamedAlan]

1 hour ago, Sharpy said:

I still use reliant in side boosters of cheap launchers of small payloads, usually paired with kickbacks, and swivel in the center.

It's still a crap engine.

i never use reliant cause no gimbal, no spaceflight. my rule of thumb for some what reason. :DD

[Sharpy]

16 minutes ago, TheGuyNamedAlan said:

i never use reliant cause no gimbal, no spaceflight. my rule of thumb for some what reason. :DD

One engine with gimbal per stage is a must, unless you have really strong reaction wheels or other means of attitude control. So, Reliant alone is absolute crap, but it can play second fiddle to some gimbaled engine.

[TheGuyNamedAlan]

9 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

One engine with gimbal per stage is a must, unless you have really strong reaction wheels or other means of attitude control. So, Reliant alone is absolute crap, but it can play second fiddle to some gimbaled engine.

i like using swivel engine cause it has almost the same thrust in vacuum as the reliant and a bonus gimbal so why use reliant??

[Sharpy]

3 hours ago, TheGuyNamedAlan said:

i like using swivel engine cause it has almost the same thrust in vacuum as the reliant and a bonus gimbal so why use reliant??

Better thrust and atmospheric performance. Plus not sticking LF fuel tank on top of SRB is a waste, and Swivel ain't gonna guzzle up all that fuel alone!

[TheEpicSquared]

I have never, not once, used the twin boar engine. It's not bad though, I think the worst engine is the Spider. Why not use the ant instead? Or the spark? Or ions?

Edited August 28, 2016 by TheEpicSquared

[Red Iron Crown]

14 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Reducing its ISP, or reducing its thrust, would have been reasonable, but not both.

All the chemical engines got their Isp reduced in that update, it's about as efficient as it was before in comparison to them. Personally I think it's in a good place now, useful in some scenarios while not crowding out just about everything else.

[Bogen]

9 hours ago, TheGuyNamedAlan said:

i like using swivel engine cause it has almost the same thrust in vacuum as the reliant and a bonus gimbal so why use reliant??

You use the Reliant on LFOX boosters for larger vehicles. (Asparagus design or not). On the core you have a Mainsail or Mammoth, so you have enough attitude control. Thrust in vacuum is void because you'll ditch them long before you get to space.

 

3 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said:

I have never, not once, used the twin boar engine

The Twin-Boar is like a Mainsail+orange tank, except it has 33% more thrust and weighs only 0.5 ton more. It's pretty neat.

 

 

As for worst engine, I agree on the Spider. It's very hard to imagine a scenario where the Spider is the optimal choice. Twitch and Thud have some of the same issues, but being able to radially attach engines is occasionally useful for larger crafts. (Although I'm sure that there are designs with structural parts and in-line engines that do the job better even in those cases.)

[TheEpicSquared]

11 minutes ago, Bogen said:

The Twin-Boar is like a Mainsail+orange tank, except it has 33% more thrust and weighs only 0.5 ton more. It's pretty neat.

Yeah it's a good engine choice, I'm definitely not saying it's the worst. It's just that I haven't grown to it, since I've never used it (also I'm big on aesthetics, and for me the twin boar doesn't look spectacularly good, especially not with other tanks on top of it).

[Francois424]

The "Spider" is the worst... even on small probes. (Why not use the Twitch instead ?  Or Ions?)

The "Puff" isn't so great either.  Bad ISP combined with having lots of RCS tanks to make a huge tank (unless you have fuel tweak mod(s) ).  But at least it's useful as atmo-retro burner with a pod's onboard RCS fuel.
Better to line up some verners instead Imho, if you don't mind holding the "H" key for a while.

But then again I'm not much into tiny crafts.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Francois424

[foamyesque]

8 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

All the chemical engines got their Isp reduced in that update, it's about as efficient as it was before in comparison to them. Personally I think it's in a good place now, useful in some scenarios while not crowding out just about everything else.

 

I'd like something to fill the gap for a 50-100kN launch engine. The Spark could in principle do it with clustering via small nose cones, but that's really kludgey.

[Corona688]

17 hours ago, TheGuyNamedAlan said:

i like using swivel engine cause it has almost the same thrust in vacuum as the reliant and a bonus gimbal so why use reliant??

The reliant costs less, weighs less, and has more thrust than the swivel.  For heavy lifting in atmosphere when you've already got a big vectored engine, the reliant is better than the thud and the swivel.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Corona688

[Corona688]

Why use the spider instead of the twitch?  Weight.  The less weight on your craft, the better the dry mass ratio, which at the lower end can give some pretty extreme results:

On 8/26/2016 at 5:02 PM, Sharpy said:

Ant is mighty with tiny probes. I was sceptical at first too, then I strapped one to the smallest MK1 tank, saw the delta-V in KER and was sold. Seriously, that's what I mean overengineered: engine for miniature Eve landers, for deorbiting. Capable of performing the deorbiting burn of... 4000m/s.

 

 

[Red Iron Crown]

42 minutes ago, foamyesque said:

I'd like something to fill the gap for a 50-100kN launch engine. The Spark could in principle do it with clustering via small nose cones, but that's really kludgey.

Preaching to the choir. An inline version of the Thud would fit the bill, IMO.

[TheGuyNamedAlan]

11 hours ago, Bogen said:

You use the Reliant on LFOX boosters for larger vehicles. (Asparagus design or not). On the core you have a Mainsail or Mammoth, so you have enough attitude control. Thrust in vacuum is void because you'll ditch them long before you get to space.

i hardly ever build large stuff

 

3 hours ago, Corona688 said:

The reliant costs less, weighs less, and has more thrust than the swivel.  For heavy lifting in atmosphere when you've already got a big vectored engine, the reliant is better than the thud and the swivel.

i dont do much heavy lifting cause my computer lags when it gets too big

[Corona688]

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Preaching to the choir. An inline version of the Thud would fit the bill, IMO.

What would they call it, the Klonk?

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

9 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

What would they call it, the Klonk?

No, the Clunk. Here's an idea for performance specs for this engine (which I want NOW!)

115KN thrust vacuum, 100 ASL Kerbin

300 ISP vac

60% mass of Reliant

1.75 deg thrust vectoring

[Norcalplanner]

3 hours ago, foamyesque said:

 

I'd like something to fill the gap for a 50-100kN launch engine. The Spark could in principle do it with clustering via small nose cones, but that's really kludgey.

I'd like a 2.5m orbital engine in the 100-120kN zone.  Because sometimes a Terrier is too small, and a Poodle is too large.  Maybe an Irish Terrier instead of a Yorkie.  

[Red Iron Crown]

1 minute ago, Norcalplanner said:

I'd like a 2.5m orbital engine in the 100-120kN zone.  Because sometimes a Terrier is too small, and a Poodle is too large.  Maybe an Irish Terrier instead of a Yorkie.  

Two Terriers?

[Norcalplanner]

Just now, Red Iron Crown said:

Two Terriers?

Something like that.  I'm not a big dog expert, so anything in size between a smallish terrier breed and a standard poodle would work fine for me as a name.

[Corona688]

2 minutes ago, Norcalplanner said:

I'd like a 2.5m orbital engine in the 100-120kN zone.  Because sometimes a Terrier is too small, and a Poodle is too large.  Maybe an Irish Terrier instead of a Yorkie.  

The Swivel is pretty close.  It's not as efficient as the terrier, but an ISP of 320 is nothing to sneeze at either.