Bigger lander engine under powered?

[crekit]

First of all, loving .16! Except!

New engines. New lander engine first;

It weighs almost twice as much as our old engines, and puts out less than 75% of the thrust. It\'s useless. The radial engines on the other hand are way overpowered. considering the nozzle is the same size as the small lander engine, and they put out 4* the thrust. 2 of them put out more thrust than the big lander engine, while weighing less and being easier to fit.

Also the new engines have identical names/descriptions to some of the old engines.

And I want to be able to rotate my Kerbals during EVA. Without having to press C and have him randomly re-orient.

Don\'t get me wrong, loving it still!

[ddavis425]

Just so you know, you can rotate a kerbal by dragging your camera while moving. I also think the thrust on the big lander engine is a bit low.

[crekit]

No I mean like, not like that. Like make him upside down or sideways.

But like yeah, radials should have some disadvantages efficiency or thrust wise, considering all their advantages placing wise.

[_Aramchek_]

I think their disadvantage is the eat fuel very quickly.

[crekit]

Not really, their specific impulse isn\'t that low is it? they seemed just as efficient as any other engine.

[ddavis425]

No I mean like, not like that. Like make him upside down or sideways.

While you have the jetpack on, hold down your left mouse button and you can do rotations and flips.

Protip: Turn off the jetpack right after doing this so your kerbal can\'t reorientate, and will spin in circles for a while

[crekit]

Cool I didn\'t know that! But when you move you go straight back to your original position so that doesn\'t really help. I have to admnit it\'s not all bad; it\'s super easy to maneuver around in space. It\'s just kinda limiting that you can\'t re-orient yourself.

[vexx32]

You can. Use the RMB to change the camera, have your EVAPack activated, and as soon as you tell him to move, he\'ll face wherever the camera is pointing.

They automatically choose their orientation based on camera and environment. It\'s quite ingenious.

[UmbralRaptor]

Not really, their specific impulse isn\'t that low is it? they seemed just as efficient as any other engine.

280 s at 1 atm, 330 s in vacuum. Depending on what engines you were using, it might not be that obvious (10-40% difference), but the various size-1 engines do have better Isps.

I do agree on the names and painfully low TWRs of the revised LV-909 engines, though.

[boolybooly]

Does the config file tally with in game parameters? ( Cant get to the game right now... )

// --- editor parameters ---

cost = 600

category = 0

subcategory = 0

title = LV-909 Liquid Fuel Engine

manufacturer = Jebediah Kerman\'s Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co.

description = The 909 model was initially received with some skepticism by spacecraft engineers, as it defied the long-standing convention that 'More Power!' is always better. Despite this, the 909 series has found its place in the spacecraft construction world, being particularly useful as a final stage and landing engine.

// attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision

attachRules = 1,0,1,0,0

// --- standard part parameters ---

mass = 4

dragModelType = default

maximum_drag = 0.2

minimum_drag = 0.2

angularDrag = 2

crashTolerance = 7

breakingForce = 200

breakingTorque = 200

maxTemp = 3600

// --- liquid engine parameters ---

maxThrust = 135

minThrust = 0

heatProduction = 300

Isp = 270

vacIsp = 390

thrustVectoringCapable = True

gimbalRange = 2.5

I have also been scratching my head about this engine, its one redeeming feature is that it is fairly cheap.

According to the part config file VacISP is 390 which is also pretty good, though I dont remember it looking that good in game. But it is second only to the smaller 1m version and its much cheaper to use one of those than it is to use 7 of the smaller variant for equivalent thrust.

Cost 1x 3m = 600

Cost 7x 1m = 7x 750 = 5250 !!

EDIT I think the big question is whether being twice the weight of the LV-T30 means that the efficiency savings of a 390 as opposed to a 370 VacISP are really worth it... maybe you could do better with a T30 as you will need big lander legs anyway.

[Spoot Knight]

I guess it\'s underpowered if you\'re trying to do a powered landing in Kerbin, but it\'s insanely efficient for landing on the Mun.

I had it on constant burn starting at 5Km from the surface and made a nice, soft landing while using a mere 5% of the tank\'s fuel.

[Awaras]

Is it just me or is the small lander engine less powerful than before?

[Spoot Knight]

20 thrust now compared to 50 then, yes it is.

[boolybooly]

An aerospike would likely be more effective as it has the same VacIsp but is a quarter of the weight and a higher max thrust. However in the campaign the aerospike will probably be an advanced part which will require quite a bit of research to unlock.

[thorfinn]

New engines. New lander engine first;

It weighs almost twice as much as our old engines, and puts out less than 75% of the thrust. It\'s useless.

It works very well in lunar gravity. It\'s next to useless as an upper stage engine in a Kerbin launch, though, that\'s right. The same is true for the 1m small engine.

There is a gap to be filled between first stage engines and 'deep space' maneuvering engines. Instead of just making new models with inbetween stats, I\'d like a way to use 1m engines in groups under 2m tanks.

[Vostok]

You can. Use the RMB to change the camera, have your EVAPack activated, and as soon as you tell him to move, he\'ll face wherever the camera is pointing.

They automatically choose their orientation based on camera and environment. It\'s quite ingenious.

It would have made more sense to me to only auto-correct the direction faced, not the orientation, and then binding rotation to Q and E, since if you want your kerbal \'upside down\' whilst moving about, the game puts him the right way up, and undoes what you may have been trying to achieve. But I love the EVA controls, apart from this. Very intuitive.

[Endeavour]

The aerospike currently has no downsides in my mind. It is the best engine for almost every situation.

[UmbralRaptor]

The aerospike\'s lack of thrust vectoring can cause control issues with larger rockets. Then again, between the LV-T45, Mk 55, SAS, Winglets, RCS, and air-breathing engines, there are options.

I\'m confused as to why the size 2 LV-T30 has such a poor 1 atm Isp, though. I would have expected it be one of the better ones, though the poor vacuum Isp makes sense. The high thrust, okayish TWR, and thrust vectoring makes it otherwise a reasonable choice for a first stage. (Ignoring the potential performance gains of strap-on SRBs and jet engines)

...though the more I think about it, the harder time I\'m having seeing a role for the size 2 LV-909. The size 1 might be worthwhile on a small Mun/Minmus/future low gravity body lander, where the shorter, lower mass, and higher Isp is more important than thrust. (The thrust vectoring being a toy) But the size 2...? Compared with the aerospike, it has higher mass, the same same Isp, and lower thrust. TVC might be of some use, but is quite small, and a lander using it is likely small enough to be maneuvered by the pod\'s reaction wheels.

[crekit]

Place the first vectoring engine we get (forget the name) instead of the new big lander engine. It fits fine, weights less than half and puts out far more thrust. And vectors the same amount. And has the same efficiency. And lander legs still go farther so it doesn\'t conflict with landings.

The new lander engine is just under-powered and too heavy.

AND all that stuff about re-orienting eva\'s doesn\'t work.

[_Aramchek_]

This thread demonstrates one of the things I like the most about this game, I find the aerospike engines completely useless for any of my builds and the new lander engine works wonderfully.

Everyone has their own different ways of building craft and achieving success in the game.