Launching a 44t payload

[Spricigo]

10 minutes ago, Anonymous49 said:

a few thumpers usually bring me over 100km. A command pod with a thumper goes over 100km

Given the fact that you keep changing the subject to anything but the big station mentioned in the OP, I'll assume that you are not interested in it anymore. 

Good luck with what you are trying to accomplish, I'm under the impression that you will need it.

 

[paul_c]

1 hour ago, Anonymous49 said:

cannot shut down, like i they burn up their fuel when my apogee is something like 150km. 

u know what u said was asparagus staging, which was my original idea

 

53 minutes ago, Anonymous49 said:

a few thumpers usually bring me over 100km. A command pod with a thumper goes over 100km

 

32 minutes ago, Anonymous49 said:

i always use my traditional way it usually go beyond sometimes though

Don't worry about how high or what Ap a particular thing does. It appears as if you're designing your rocket by adding a random number of [insert part here] until it looks good, then wondering why it doesn't fly. 

Suborbital: You point the thing directly up, don't care about horizontal speed and a deltaV of 1300m/s (with TWR 2.53 at start) will get you into space.

Orbital: The only altitude you need to worry about is 70km. Get the Ap over 70km then KEEP IT THE SAME by burning TOWARDS THE HORIZON to raise the Pe to over 70km too. Orbital NEEDS a LOT of horizontal speed (about 2300m/s). Orbital is all about getting enough horizontal speed to remain in orbit. In fact what people do is start vertically then gradually tip over and over to horizontal in a smooth turn - the GRAVITY TURN.

I would suggest the path you've taken so far - of designing a randomly-specified rocket, then multiple attempts at flying it, a lot of crashes, then installing MechJob to try and launch it - is ultimately limiting, for the amount of enjoyment you will gain from KSP. Go back to the basics. Stick to the tried-and-tested advice we see many times here - design a simple understandable rocket, based on the 2 important performance numbers which define how it will fly - deltaV and TWR.

At the risk of repeating myself.....

First stage: 1000m/s, TWR ~1.3-1.5
Second stage: 2000m/s, TWR 1.2
Third stage: 1000-1500m/s TWR 0.5

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, Hotel26 said:

Then lately I stole an idea from a recent suggestion by Corona688 -- an idea that turned out to be a Great Idea -- and produced a brilliant little 20t$$ lifter, based on Stage 1 SRBs.  What an eye opener?!

One can say that SRB are for one thing and one thing only, but heck they are good  at that thing!!

[paul_c]

Sorry wrong thread!

Edited February 10, 2021 by paul_c

[swjr-swis]

3 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Maybe the only people stupider than me are those trying to help me??

Oi... I resemble that remark.

Much too harsh on yourself here; not at all what I see when we cross paths on tinker projects. So you don't take anyone's word for it and need to *see* it first. That's just good sense.

 

2 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Good luck with what you are trying to accomplish, I'm under the impression that you will need it.

To be honest, after quietly monitoring this thread for a few days now, and despite all the good advice given about the rocket, I'm surprised no one has yet put the finger on the real sore spot yet.

Docking a 44t and long thin module.... with 0.625m Jr (*) docking ports?? This project is dead in the water even IF that payload ever gets to orbit. That station will shake itself to bits the minute it docks.

(*: you'll notice from the very sparingly offered details that none of the other bigger docking ports are available)

[Hotel26]

7 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Oi... I resemble that remark.

Ashamed to admit it, but I was, of course, speaking in highly metaphorical terms.    The only literally truthful part of what I wrote was the bit about SRBs.  First use on Feb 4th, this year, after 6 years playing.  And the 'slow learner' part.

[Guest]

Funnily enough I did (for me) an unusually heavy launch yesterday – about 40 tons payload. This was the first time I used the fancy new heavy SRBs introduced in the More Boosters! update.

Man they're fun. They have the same guilty appeal as a big-block V8. Big, heavy, loud, and face-meltingly powerful. After they flamed out, the rest of the launch felt like an afterthough.

[Hotel26]

5 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Man they're fun.

Strangely, this thread may have propelled this forum-kind into a wide-spread exploration of SRB power like never before.  Introducing a whole new generation of SRB-newbies to Brute Force.

I'm betting there is a new SRB challenge announced within 48 hours.

 (OK, OK, shameless plug: Stick Grenade)

Edited February 10, 2021 by Hotel26

[VoidSquid]

9 minutes ago, Hotel26 said:

And the 'slow learner' part.

That I can sign too. Took me almost two years before I felt bold enough to leave the Kerbin system  

[paul_c]

The reason SRBs are recommended is the first part of the launch is really uncomplicated. Its full power, pointy end up flamy end down. If you're doing something different or unusual in the first 1000m/s, fair game!

Having said that I've used liquid for 1st stage plenty of times, for example: 

* My first stage burns longer/does more, eg 1500 or 2000 m/s. It might be because its a "less stages --> more simple" kind of craft
* I don't have radial decouplers yet and I don't want to make it thin and long.
* I don't have the kind of SRB I want unlocked yet (eg there is a big gap in performance from one to another and I want one in the middle).
* I am not bothered with cost

Lack of control or throttling ability, in the initial lift off, are not reasons though.

[Spricigo]

22 minutes ago, Hotel26 said:

OK, OK, shameless plug:

Henlein 

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, Hotel26 said:

(OK, OK, shameless plug: Stick Grenade)

Ironically perhaps, that may be the most fitting solution for this thread too. There's still no clear view of the entire payload, but just inferring from the long thin and light end shown sticking out of the fairing in the one screenshot, it's got to have most of the weight on the other end. A stick grenade, stick end up.

Turn it upside down, put four relatively light boosters with radial decouplers directly around it, shore it up with some strategically placed struts, and I can't imagine it having much difficulty getting to LKO even without a fairing.

Edited February 10, 2021 by swjr-swis
struts

[king of nowhere]

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

To be honest, after quietly monitoring this thread for a few days now, and despite all the good advice given about the rocket, I'm surprised no one has yet put the finger on the real sore spot yet.

Docking a 44t and long thin module.... with 0.625m Jr (*) docking ports?? This project is dead in the water even IF that payload ever gets to orbit. That station will shake itself to bits the minute it docks.

 

I docked a 400 ton eve lander with a 3600 ton orbiter with a small docking port, and it worked.

of course, it required autostrutting. and rcs and major precision and lots of patience for the docking.

so yeah, the OP likely won't make it

[king of nowhere]

5 hours ago, Anonymous49 said:

i always use my traditional way it usually go beyond sometimes though

sorry, but your traditional ways are highly inefficient. 200k for 44 tons to orbit? I don't have a dedicated 44 ton launcher, but my donkey launch vehicle sends 25 tons to orbit for 30k, and it recovers the rocket for 20k recovered. even when i am not trying to save money, i won't spend nowhere near that much. last time i had to send a 50 ton payload to orbit i spent, like, 50k.

the thing is, this is a game where you learn stuff all the time. i never had a standard launcher until after i had hundreds of hours of gameplay, because every time i had to launch something new, i would make a new launcher and it would be better than the previous one. if you stick to your traditional ways, you can never improve.

that said, another thing you can try that i didn't see a suggestion for would be to start the core stage from the beginning, burning at less than 100%. this way, when you detach the boosters, the core stage already lost some fuel, and it will have a better twr.

of course, that would be less efficient, but still better than any alternative if you don't nwant to massively redesign the rocket

Edited February 10, 2021 by king of nowhere

[Anonymous49]

19 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Given the fact that you keep changing the subject to anything but the big station mentioned in the OP, I'll assume that you are not interested in it anymore. 

Good luck with what you are trying to accomplish, I'm under the impression that you will need it.

 

indeed i am rebuilding a better one, but because of a docking port anomaly on the station it could not dock. I tried to send a space shuttle up there to fix it tho, which is why i might say unrelated things

14 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

sorry, but your traditional ways are highly inefficient. 200k for 44 tons to orbit? I don't have a dedicated 44 ton launcher, but my donkey launch vehicle sends 25 tons to orbit for 30k, and it recovers the rocket for 20k recovered. even when i am not trying to save money, i won't spend nowhere near that much. last time i had to send a 50 ton payload to orbit i spent, like, 50k.

the thing is, this is a game where you learn stuff all the time. i never had a standard launcher until after i had hundreds of hours of gameplay, because every time i had to launch something new, i would make a new launcher and it would be better than the previous one. if you stick to your traditional ways, you can never improve.

that said, another thing you can try that i didn't see a suggestion for would be to start the core stage from the beginning, burning at less than 100%. this way, when you detach the boosters, the core stage already lost some fuel, and it will have a better twr.

of course, that would be less efficient, but still better than any alternative if you don't nwant to massively redesign the rocket

becuz it uses asparagus staging, my core stage already burns at sea level at full thrust. My first stage had 23 engines which is why it is expensive. My module itself already costs over 50k

[Anonymous49]

15 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Ironically perhaps, that may be the most fitting solution for this thread too. There's still no clear view of the entire payload, but just inferring from the long thin and light end shown sticking out of the fairing in the one screenshot, it's got to have most of the weight on the other end. A stick grenade, stick end up.

Turn it upside down, put four relatively light boosters with radial decouplers directly around it, shore it up with some strategically placed struts, and I can't imagine it having much difficulty getting to LKO even without a fairing.

not possible to flip it, has a RA-2 antenna on the top

14 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

sorry, but your traditional ways are highly inefficient. 200k for 44 tons to orbit? I don't have a dedicated 44 ton launcher, but my donkey launch vehicle sends 25 tons to orbit for 30k, and it recovers the rocket for 20k recovered. even when i am not trying to save money, i won't spend nowhere near that much. last time i had to send a 50 ton payload to orbit i spent, like, 50k.

the thing is, this is a game where you learn stuff all the time. i never had a standard launcher until after i had hundreds of hours of gameplay, because every time i had to launch something new, i would make a new launcher and it would be better than the previous one. if you stick to your traditional ways, you can never improve.

that said, another thing you can try that i didn't see a suggestion for would be to start the core stage from the beginning, burning at less than 100%. this way, when you detach the boosters, the core stage already lost some fuel, and it will have a better twr.

of course, that would be less efficient, but still better than any alternative if you don't nwant to massively redesign the rocket

my traditional way is just to use LF's unless there's bankruptcy. Usually just use/edit explorer boosters like the first stage (which is a extended and more powerful explorer booster 2) and the boosters (which is extended for the first iteration and uses 3 skipper engines instead of a bobcat explorer booster 1).

[swjr-swis]

3 minutes ago, Anonymous49 said:

not possible to flip it, has a RA-2 antenna on the top

If you only see impossibilities, KSP (or space, or flight, or Life) is not the game for you.

You could simply relocate the one part that appears to make it 'not possible'.  Just a thought.

[Anonymous49]

what do you mean, i do see possiblites, just saying that you cannot put things on top of things like the stayputink and the RA-2

[swjr-swis]

33 minutes ago, Anonymous49 said:

just saying that you cannot put things on top of things like the stayputink and the RA-2

You can, actually, in many ways. If you're willing to learn and apply a trick or two, people could show you.

• The RA-2 can be attached radially to the top, leaving the top attachment node of the part under it free to attach something else.
• You can add a 'magic' top node above a Stayputnik (or RA-2) by placing them on a 1.25m fairing base, and enabling the interstage nodes.
• You can place a 1.25m service bay at the top with the Stayputnik and/or the RA-2 attached to the inner nodes of the bay, and then offset or rotate them
• Or the  much simpler suggestion I made: simply move them to another place in your module. They don't *have* to be at the top.

 

You've been getting a lot of good advice from some people with a proven track record of building (and putting to orbit) amazing things. But you'll start losing their willingness to offer help if you only keep dismissing their suggestions without even trying to apply them.

Edited February 11, 2021 by swjr-swis
more tricks

[Anonymous49]

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

You can, actually, in many ways. If you're willing to learn and apply a trick or two, people could show you.

• The RA-2 can be attached radially to the top, leaving the top attachment node of the part under it free to attach something else.
• You can add a 'magic' top node above a Stayputnik (or RA-2) by placing them on a 1.25m fairing base, and enabling the interstage nodes.
• You can place a 1.25m service bay at the top with the Stayputnik and/or the RA-2 attached to the inner nodes of the bay, and then offset or rotate them
• Or the  much simpler suggestion I made: simply move them to another place in your module. They don't *have* to be at the top.

 

You've been getting a lot of good advice from some people with a proven track record of building (and putting to orbit) amazing things. But you'll start losing their willingness to offer help if you only keep dismissing their suggestions without even trying to apply them.

thanks

[king of nowhere]

7 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

You can, actually, in many ways. If you're willing to learn and apply a trick or two, people could show you.

• The RA-2 can be attached radially to the top, leaving the top attachment node of the part under it free to attach something else.
• You can add a 'magic' top node above a Stayputnik (or RA-2) by placing them on a 1.25m fairing base, and enabling the interstage nodes.
• You can place a 1.25m service bay at the top with the Stayputnik and/or the RA-2 attached to the inner nodes of the bay, and then offset or rotate them
• Or the  much simpler suggestion I made: simply move them to another place in your module. They don't *have* to be at the top.

I will add another possibility that's become possible with the last update: put the antenna somewhere else, and then use EVA construction mode to shift it where you want once in orbit.

 

8 hours ago, Anonymous49 said:

 My first stage had 23 engines which is why it is expensive.

but that's the thing that doesn't add. i send 25 tons to orbit with a single twin boar, which is equivalent to 3 skippers. it should take 6 skippers in the first stage for 44 tons. i can understand using 10, but 23 seem way exaggerated for 44 tons to low orbit.

[paul_c]

23 Skippers points to a severe defect in the design, something must be muddled with the staging (ie dropping hundreds of tons of unspent fuel, etc).

Hence, the suggestion to roll back and keep it simple with no more than 3 stages; and learn the basics of deltaV and TWR.

[James M]

On 2/10/2021 at 8:40 AM, Brikoleur said:

Funnily enough I did (for me) an unusually heavy launch yesterday – about 40 tons payload. This was the first time I used the fancy new heavy SRBs introduced in the More Boosters! update.

Man they're fun. They have the same guilty appeal as a big-block V8. Big, heavy, loud, and face-meltingly powerful. After they flamed out, the rest of the launch felt like an afterthough.

Did someone say big-block V8?! Lol as a fan of drifting I related all to well with your post xD

[James M]

20 hours ago, Anonymous49 said:

my traditional way is just to use LF's unless there's bankruptcy. Usually just use/edit explorer boosters like the first stage (which is a extended and more powerful explorer booster 2) and the boosters (which is extended for the first iteration and uses 3 skipper engines instead of a bobcat explorer booster 1).

Sorry I'm jumping on the bandwagon late, but judging by the convo I thought I'd chime in. This^ would be a good habit to break. If you're bound determined to play a career save, nothing will save you more money than abandoning asparagus staging and liquid fuel boosters wherever possible. Both are very efficient yes, but also extremely expensive and unnecessary (except once already in orbit). Where a quad skipper booster set linked through asparagus staging might cost 100k kerbucks, you'd get even more lift power from say 4 Pollux's pricing out at only 24k kerbucks. I didn't see if anyone else mentioned it already but you can also set the thrust limiters on solids to more or less get an asparagus style boost profile where as you ascend you drop boosters. The downsides would be the lack of crossfeed but the upsides would include dropping dead weight and gaining better control authority of your craft as there'd be less overall mass. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by James M

[Anonymous49]

my first booster only costs 6k each, over 2 minutes of burn time, 400kn thrust in vacuum, TWR of over 1.6.