What is most important for you when making ships

[Werwolf]

Mine are usually purpose built, with several designs. They always seem to follow a generic theme centered around the Saturn V, though

[tttyto]

-BIG. i like to build 4 x crewtank + any pods. so it count as 23 persons craft!!

-make launcher so easy and stable as possible

-i always like to focus on the landings, i make it good as possible to make EVA-surface fun, like as barbie with her pink house/caravan/pony for a little girls.

[TheDarkStar]

I usually try for a minimum, even though my computer can handle 500 part ships. My current ship that gets to Eve numbers only 22 parts, and I don't think I can dop much more. I am currently working on making the smallest thing I can go to Duna and back.

[4 IN 1]

I usually start by a standard simple lower stage design(usually a 7 tanks column design with paired drop tanks to maximizes efficiency) that I know are capable to put as much payload into orbit, then I rebuild the upper stage to fit the mission profile,. Finally I scale down the lower stage so that it won't become overpowered.

[spikeyhat09]

Make it big with as many SRB's as functionally possible.

[Budgie]

I have to say aesthetics are really important to me. In all honesty, stock rockets are pretty ugly beasts (I know, heresy!). So i try to use a lot of payload fairings, shroud decouplers, and other things to make my rockets look realistic with a distinctly Kerbal flare in the end. Other than that, im a big fan of KW SRB's. Most often, Ill use one of those in my designs, knowing one can lift anything I stick on top.

[tk5800thesecond]

I like to use the one launcher for a variety of payloads, so I recreated the R7 and have used it to recreate almost all of the soviet and russian missions that used the R7

[kahlzun]

To hear the lamentation of their women!

Actually, reliability and fuel efficiency. I've recently started replacing SRBs with Jet Engine pods. Slightly less thrust & weight, and -much- longer burns (SRBs last until about 3000m or so, Turbojet can get up to ~15000m)

[SteevyT]

I build the payload, then build a rocket to get it where I want it to go. I guess I go for being overkill just to make sure it works.

[Fendleton]

I go for reliability, then performance. Aesthetics are important, but not as important as getting it into the air past the RAM bug in 0.17, and then getting the payload into orbit. I've got some rather nice designs in the pipeline for an interplanetary craft right now that have gone from 175 to 140 parts...and I'm fairly sure I can get them to 130 or so and still be both fun, non-explosive, and able to perform as required. I don't like the uber-efficient minimalism designs, but optimising larger craft seems to have solved a lot of glitch issues.

[LongHairedHuman]

I usually try to make my re-entry the most interesting part of the mission. Parachutes are boring.

I sometimes use them as decouplers in atmospheric stages. The awesome factor will rise significantly.

[grawl]

First the parachute(s) !

Then I build the whole lander/probe, then the launcher around it.

I try to make them as simple and reliable as possible, because my laptop is not powerfull and will lag as soon as there are too many stuts and/or motors (these 2 usually go together).

I avoid boosters at all costs ! They make the game lag even more (I know I'm missing something here guys, I know... )

I make an 'apsaragus' (?) desing. All the motors fire together, but only the fuel tanks from the next stage to be decoupled are consuming fuel.

Decoupling stuff can be accomplished in an even-more awesome way as well with the new little boosters. It can be quite hairy though.

Edited October 11, 2012 by grawl

[bsalis]

Most important thing for me is that it actually does what you built it to do.

Other than that, being pleasant to fly is important. Reasonable efficiency as well as not blowing up are as well.

[ash73]

Function over form for me, I just want it to be as efficient and easy to fly as possible. I tend to use an evolutionary approach, but every so often I start again from scratch and create something more radical. Haven't done that for a while though as the current design can get me anywhere (and back). I created separate designs for various tasks; satellite launchers, explorers and rescue ships.

[Richy teh space man]

The main thing I ask myself when making a ship is what exactly am I trying to accomplish and what is the minimum I need to achieve this. I try to work around the principle of this would be a nice addition but my ship doesn't need this, so with that in mind function over form is an important factor for me.

[SNapple]

I sometimes use them as decouplers in atmospheric stages. The awesome factor will rise significantly.

I've been meaning to do that for a while now.

[Thunderbird]

For me, i usually pick one of the standardized landers i have ready, modify it slightly for the given task (if i have to rebuild it ill make a new standard model). Efficiency is very important as i build huge ships, as are aesthetics in a way because i like building non-typical scifi designs with lots of doodahs pointing out from all around them, but most important factor is RAW POWER.

My ships are generally overpowered for a given task, have redundancy reserves, some are even designed to be self-sufficient... it is not exactly rare for me to pick a spot to fly to and decide to go somewhere else entirely mid-way there.

So yeah, big, fat, flying skyscrapers with imposing engine pylons, gondolas, packs of engines stacked on each other, with a decorative cannon/laser here and there...

If its possible to do, i like to create lots of needless and complex fairing/shroud structures that change a ship from a sleek design to a militaristic technomaniacs dream with the press of a button, but fairings are SIMPLY NOT BIG ENOUGH for most of my designs.

[FeedbackGuy]

i focus on fuel and engine power and a little about weight and looks. I also add a payload(Lander, Satelite, Atermis Necklace Defense Satelite and Ect.) And i always put a parachute(they are boring but can make your trip succesfull

[0jam3290]

Large lifting stage with a ton of boosters and an efficient orbiter with the right amount of fuel for the mission.

[szpw]

I build the lander\orbiter or whatever the main thing is, then attach this massive launcher to the bottom. I use the same launcher for everything. It's 4 large tanks tall, and has 3 4 tank stacks radially attached.

[Cthulufaic]

I underestimate how powerful the large SRBs are, thus giving me plenty of fuel and dV after those stages.

[benjiful9000]

[closed]

Edited July 4, 2021 by benjiful9000
Cleaning house

[Tim_Barrett]

Always make it kick-ass. Always.

[lordpie]

I spend most of my time developing a payload which tends to be different satellites and landers. I can make rockets easily for the laucnher using KW 0.5. I have different launchers for different things, my remote tech launcher for extra kerba communications is so powerful that the boosters just by themselves shoot me out of the atmosphere in less than two minutes, so for shuttles I use a typical shuttle design, communications follows the same format, but when I use kethane the launcher is different. This is useful because if you name a file something that you did not want it to be by accident, it helps you quickly rename it without taking the payload off and looking at the cargo. Good looks are nice, but they are not a focus of mine. Perfect orbits and soft landings are what I aim to do.

[TheDarkStar]

With the new planets, I spend a lot of time with the return ship. I usually spend a while trying to build something that will work, and is also small and holds together well. My current records have only about one or two dozen parts. For the full round-trip, I have a medium-sized interplanetary stage (usually 3 or 6 NERVAs with lots of fuel) and a large lifting stage. The lifting stage usually takes a while to make, since it easily explodes, is torn apart, has staging issues, or just fails to even get to space.