[0.19.1] Zenith rocket family

[elkar]

Actually it started to work for me. havent tried 26 ton with mk IX yet, but so far it looks OK. I'll mention your "company" then

[Wyseman76]

@temstar thank you for these rockets they have helped me greatly, not only in lifting my creations into orbit but in understanding good rocket designs helping me improve my own.

[Jamesinatr]

Wow, these lag, I feel sorry for laptop users if my gaming pc is like this! I found that adding launch struts was nessecary. Anyway, nice rockets, I can never build a heavy lift one myself, and my landers never get launched . Anyway, please update title to [0.20] cause they worked fine for me, and of course, now you can add a new manned module easily and remove the existing one. Thanks for the post! This should be stickied.

[Temstar]

I'm actually working on them at the moment and will release a new set soon. Some big improvements inbound like Zenith V, VII and IX trading in some engines for Skipper, resulting in a pretty big part count decrease at a slight cost in payload fraction. I've also managed to finally solve the subassembly saver/loader issue so the new set will get you perfect strut and fuel line every time.

Once they're all ready I'll start a new thread for them.

[DerekL1963]

Looking forward to it... the IX is my go-to launch for a lot of things.

[GusTurbo]

Hey Temstar, what do you think about this cluster design?

[Temstar]

I think the Skipper is very well balanced and Skipper+3/4/6 LV-T30 clusters are pretty good. However I'm of the opinion that for the core stage of an asparagus the traditional LV-T45 + LV-T30 clusters are still a bit better - more part count for a bit better Isp. Since the core stage burns for a very long time the higher Isp is more important. However I think Skipper is an excellent choice for boosters around the core in cutting part count since the boosters burn for a shorter time so Isp is less important. Where as saving say 6-9 parts by replacing three LV-Txx engines with an Skipper gets magnified by symmetry and results in significant part count saving while getting you roughly the same performance.

Here for example is the new Zenith IX I'm working on:

So still the same nine engine core cluster, but the boosters each have three engines replaced by a Skipper for a significant lower part count. Payload fraction is about 0.4% lower than the original but it's mostly to be blamed on the new tail sections I added for the two LV-T30 on each booster and not the Skipper. I did try clustering with Radial Attachment Point and the performance is excellent but the jarring look around the engines was bothering me too much.

[elkar]

I have to say I'm using Mk IX all the time for getting payloads into orbit around kerbin and it's amazing how simple but also sturdy and reliable design (after few minor adjustments) it is.

So far I had problem only once but that was due to the nature of payload being too wide, otherwise I've done like 30-35+ launches with cargos up to 35 tons and it was rather good.

PS: heavier nova lifter is ubalanced at last stage RCS and port orientation + 3 tanks design doesnt work that well.

[Temstar]

PS: heavier nova lifter is ubalanced at last stage RCS and port orientation + 3 tanks design doesnt work that well.

Huh? You're not trying to dock with the Nova core stage still attached to the payload are you? Why would you need translate in a booster rocket?

[DerekL1963]

I think the Skipper is very well balanced and Skipper+3/4/6 LV-T30 clusters are pretty good. However I'm of the opinion that for the core stage of an asparagus the traditional LV-T45 + LV-T30 clusters are still a bit better - more part count for a bit better Isp. Since the core stage burns for a very long time the higher Isp is more important. However I think Skipper is an excellent choice for boosters around the core in cutting part count since the boosters burn for a shorter time so Isp is less important. Where as saving say 6-9 parts by replacing three LV-Txx engines with an Skipper gets magnified by symmetry and results in significant part count saving while getting you roughly the same performance.

Not just a reduction in parts count, but a reduction in *animated* parts. Can't wait to see how it drives.

[Execute13]

These rockets are awesome. Really good job, Temstar.

Just a neat suggestion: You can fit eight Skippers - or any rocket, really - into the space of one by using the Radial Attachment Points. Because the points' model extends backwards into whatever you're attaching it to, the part is allowed to clip. This lets you place a single point under a fuel tank, attach an engine, pick up the port, and increase the symmetry before placing it again. As for aesthetics, if you place them right it looks like a single engine, just with a few more cooling systems. I use this on my rockets a lot to fit, say, 32 LV-T rockets on a singe 2.5m tank.

[TheWanderer]

, if you place them right it looks like a single engine, just with a few more cooling systems. I use this on my rockets a lot to fit, say, 32 LV-T rockets on a singe 2.5m tank.

and that is a pretty good example of taking item clipping and what used to just be intake spam to a whole new level. seriously just a get a over the top modded super engine and stop trying to kid yourself that you are not missing the point

[Execute13]

and that is a pretty good example of taking item clipping and what used to just be intake spam to a whole new level. seriously just a get a over the top modded super engine and stop trying to kid yourself that you are not missing the point

I see where you're coming from, but I think that, by sharing all the disadvantages of other clustered designs, this type of engine usage is okay. Certain types of clipping are already used in the Zenith designs -- just take a close look at the Nova's core cluster -- and I don't think that this is much more extravagant. Tight clusters still consume a lot of fuel, are both mass-heavy and part-heavy, and have very high gimballing which can make a rocket unstable. Using Skippers (or worse, mainsails) in a tight cluster will produce an amount of thrust that a lot of rockets can't handle. Clipping engines together mainly helps the rocket look good, as is already shown by a lot of popular designs, and I don't think tight clusters go against that.

On another note; Temstar, how exactly do you go about attaching those tail-point engines on the core of your rockets? I can never seem to get them to attach the same way you do. Also, why have you attached fuel lines to and strutted together those engines?

Amyway, great designs, looking forward to using them more often.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Execute13

[TheWanderer]

I am sorry but I dont think you can compare clipping to allow small overlapping of modules to the clipping of 32 engines onto exactly the same point

[lobsterbark]

Why did you include the test payload in the file? Its really anoying.

[Oddbin]

Why did you include the test payload in the file? Its really anoying.

I find it quite handy. You can just remove the payload and save it as a subassembly or remove it and save it as a normal craft file. Then go and remove the original from the craft file if you are easily confused.

[Execute13]

I am sorry but I don't think you can compare clipping to allow small overlapping of modules to the clipping of 32 engines onto exactly the same point

Why? I am honestly interested in how utilizing engine clustering to make efficient but heavy rockets is different in this case from standard clipping uses.

I remember stating that I used it to attach 32 LV-T engines onto a single 2.5m fuel tank, not at the exact same spot. That was mostly the extreme end of the spectrum. I didn't say it was pretty. Besides, just a cluster like that uses 64 parts by itself, so again, it has the same disadvantages as normal clustering.

If I was going to make a large, tight LV-T cluster for a big rocket, it would be more like this. 24 engines (8 gimballing) on one tank; 56 parts, 48 without the good-looking tail connectors.

[TheWanderer]

Why? I am honestly interested in how utilizing engine clustering to make efficient but heavy rockets is different in this case from standard clipping uses.

I remember stating that I used it to attach 32 LV-T engines onto a single 2.5m fuel tank, not at the exact same spot. That was mostly the extreme end of the spectrum. I didn't say it was pretty. Besides, just a cluster like that uses 64 parts by itself, so again, it has the same disadvantages as normal clustering.

If I was going to make a large, tight LV-T cluster for a big rocket, it would be more like this. 24 engines (8 gimballing) on one tank; 56 parts, 48 without the good-looking tail connectors.

well looking at that all i can say is if you feel that that is acceptable to you then good luck and enjoy. for me that amount of over lap is just taking it too far.

[lstill01]

well looking at that all i can say is if you feel that that is acceptable to you then good luck and enjoy. for me that amount of over lap is just taking it too far.

Just a quick question to either Temstar or any of you other experts who know what you're doing: How did you get the 12 engine cluster on the 2.5m fuel tank with stock parts? With the aerodynamic tail section or cubic struts the most I get is 6+1 configuration, not an 8+4 configuration like is seen on the aforementioned Zenith IX central core. Are there other structural elements that are used to space out the aerodynamic tail sections further? Are the radial coupling pieces used? Just curious - it's a great setup.

Thanks for the help!

[allockse]

I'm more interested in keeping this thread on topic versus where it's going. People play the way they want to, right/wrong is highly subjective.

Temstar these are great designs, thanks for sharing. I'm definitely going to try a clustered approach to my lift designs after working with these, they are top-notch.

[Temstar]

Okay this is how you do double clusters:

First you do the inner cluster using the conventional cubic strut method. Remember if the game doesn't allow you to place the four engines in one go you can always place them one by one without symmetry and they will work.

Now then, to set up the outer cluster, grab a tail section and stick it on the side of the rocket.

Put an engine on the button of that tail section.

Grab the tail section and turn on symmetry. You will be able to stick them on as an outer cluster up to 6x symmetry

However if you specifically want to do the 8x outer cluster like Nova it won't let you to do it nicely in one single step due to clipping. So instead...

First you install 4 engines via 4x symmetry

Then make another copy of your tail section + engine (what I do is I take the current set off the rocket to the side and hit ctrl+z) and stick them on as 4x symmetry in the gaps

There you go, 12 engines.

Nova uses an older, less part efficient way of doing this which is obsolete. I'm in the process of converting Nova and Zenith IX to this new method to save part count.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Temstar

[Giggleplex777]

You can just hold alt and click the part you want to copy...

[Execute13]

Okay this is how you do double clusters:

First you do the inner cluster using the conventional cubic strut method. Remember if the game doesn't allow you to place the four engines in one go you can always place them one by one without symmetry and they will work.

Now then, to set up the outer cluster, grab a tail section and stick it on the side of the rocket.

Put an engine on the button of that tail section.

Grab the tail section and turn on symmetry. You will be able to stick them on as an outer cluster up to 6x symmetry

However if you specifically want to do the 8x outer cluster like Nova it won't let you to do it nicely in one single step due to clipping. So instead...

First you install 4 engines via 4x symmetry

Then make another copy of your tail section + engine (what I do is I take the current set off the rocket to the side and hit ctrl+z) and stick them on as 4x symmetry in the gaps

There you go, 12 engines.

Nova uses an older, less part efficient way of doing this which is obsolete. I'm in the process of converting Nova and Zenith IX to this new method to save part count.

Thank you! I was having a lot of trouble for a while trying to make these types of clusters.

Also, one more thing: I found that you can eliminate the need for sepratrons and save on parts by using the hydraulic detachment manifold and two modular girders turned sideways. For me at least this gives a high enough seperation force to get past a big engine cluster, and lets you save two parts per booster; so 12 parts for the Nova. It also eliminates some of the spin and twist issues that sepratons can bring.

Once again, great work. Thanks for the awesome rockets!

Edited June 1, 2013 by Execute13

[sgt_flyer]

for the separatrons, it depends, if you need a lot of strutting to keep your boosters, you will need the separatrons, as they will cancel the decoupler force.

[Execute13]

for the separatrons, it depends, if you need a lot of strutting to keep your boosters, you will need the separatrons, as they will cancel the decoupler force.

Really? I'm not sure that's true. In my experience even heavily strutted boosters do fine with the manifolds.