200 kerbal-tons to LKO: worth it?

[BrightBritches]

Well unfortunately my current design wants to become a flying pancake and crush itself at random points during flight, never making it to space :'( will mess around with it a little more but a new concept is in the works! 200 tons of kerbal dreams WILL go to space! (Eventually)

Edited June 15, 2013 by BrightBritches

[SDIR]

"I really hope they do nerf ram intakes and asparagus"

At the moment it takes over 2300 tons to get 370 tons into orbit. I'd love to dock a mega-station together in orbit out of smaller launchers, but unfortunately my mere quad-core machine squeals and complains if I get more than a few station parts within 2.5km of each other. Not sure if that's because of the parts count or because of it being multiple command pods, but in any case, the 350-370 ton Jool Rover escape/cruise stage runs at least acceptably well for me on this machine. I don't want to have to buy a whole new computer just to dock the same weight of stuff together out of multiple parts.

Anyway, asparagus staging is more efficient than serial staging. Reducing engine power would just make asparagus staging more attractive. That or make struts weak to the point of pointlessness, in which case people will just add MOAR STRUTS anyway. That and the amount of intakes to jets needed to get anything like a spaceplane is already a bit ridiculous. I don't think they need nerfing at all.

While it is much easier to use asparagas staging, it is not currently possible. In fact, boosters crossfeeding into a main core has only recently been implemented (on Falcon 9 heavy). There would be too many pumps and valves and it too unrealistic. However it is extremely useful.

[koshelenkovv]

While it is much easier to use asparagas staging, it is not currently possible. In fact, boosters crossfeeding into a main core has only recently been implemented (on Falcon 9 heavy). There would be too many pumps and valves and it too unrealistic. However it is extremely useful.

It is not useful with expendable stages, beasuse it's simplier to make big core and small solid or liquid fuelled boosters without any crossfeeding and obtain same result.

The main reason to use crossfeeding is that then all stages will be the same and with stage reusal one stage can fly as Falcon 9 then in Falcon Heavy, then in other Falcon Heavy then as Falcon 9 again, etc. It makes launches cheaper - instead of separately developing, manufacturing, testing singly and together several custom stages, which can be used in only one rocket type, there is one universal stage core. Just pick desired numbers of spare stages, slap them into a rocket and launch.

[Fel]

I really hope they do nerf ram intakes and asparagus, it makes the game too easy. IMO one should be forced to make better use of docking, as it is you can do the grand tour with about 3 ships

INTAKES ARE NOT BROKEN! (Well, yes... they do have some problems)

It is the turbo-jet engine that is broken as hell, it specifically is designed to get upto 2400 m/s in that final leg to allow the spaceplane possibility.

I mean, look at this

	velocityCurve
	{
		key = 0 0.5 0 0
		key = 1000 1 0 0
		key = 2000 0.5 0 0
		key = 2400 0 0 0
	}

compared to the jet-engine, which gets more inefficent as it goes up, the Turbo-Jet becomes insanely efficient (let alone the whole "Use practically no LiquidFuel for the same thrust as a rocket engine")

[DisarmingBaton5]

What the hell are you going to launch?!

Seats. Lots of seats.

[DaveofDefeat]

Dude im still trying to beat my 400 tons into orbit. Trust me there is nothing better than seeing a ridiculously large payload floating above kerbin its awesome.

[ecat]

400t sounded like a fun challange but that was two days ago... If only I knew then what I know now.

11 Jumbos, my best attempt

not forgetting the launch vehicle of course

...and the abridged flight video. Looks like I'm the limit of the tri-coupler @ around 00:30 - Need moar struts

Craft file for anyone insane enough to want to try it (Only 1992 parts, Guarantee void if flown above 100m), only mod in use is MechJeb

http://www.i2net.me.uk/files/Games/KerbalSP/Ships/8x Gothic Mk II bug c (Custer).craft

Flight Instructions

Set MechJeb Ascent Guidance as shown. It's a good idea to click the Stage icon in the bottom left after changing MechJeb numbers or staging (space) may appear not to work.

Press space.

Wait for jet thrust to reach 106kN

Press space.

Wait a really, really long time.

About 34km press space to decouple the bottom of the payload

As soon as velocity starts to decrease

Press space.

Wait for frame to reach a safe distance, about 350m is generally good.

Press space.

... I tried to keep it simple:wink:

[Pigbear]

Why does everyone use jet engines? Rocket engines require less parts.

Jet engines require too many intakes, rockets require no intakes, what makes jet engines superior?

[Klajan]

If you have an 400t payload nearly every connections will break. I am still working on my 400t launcher to convert it into an 550t one. Will probably not be stock though. The stock struts are just not strong enough.

[nimper]

Why does everyone use jet engines? Rocket engines require less parts.

Jet engines require too many intakes, rockets require no intakes, what makes jet engines superior?

Jets have better atmospheric efficiency and they're lighter than rockets so it cuts down on total mass on the pad. The drawback is, as you said, the high part count.

[DaveofDefeat]

If you have an 400t payload nearly every connections will break. I am still working on my 400t launcher to convert it into an 550t one. Will probably not be stock though. The stock struts are just not strong enough.

3,000 parts and counting baby.

[John FX]

If you have an 400t payload nearly every connections will break. I am still working on my 400t launcher to convert it into an 550t one. Will probably not be stock though. The stock struts are just not strong enough.

There are heavier struts in the NovaPunch addon...

[Klajan]

I currently use struts I created. They have a strength of 999999999... with these it works, but yea, I want to beat the challenge to do it in stock, so....

[Krisism]

How can you guys deal with the lag? I have a core i7, ect. fast computer and I start hitting FPS drops around 350-400 parts. A 600 part launch vehicle kills fps down to a few frames per second. 40 minutes for a launch It may even be quicker to do multiple smaller payloads.

The best I had was around 320 ton to orbit with stock parts (except it used b9 aerospace sabre M engines as well). I focused on minimizing parts as much as possible and even that launcher was around 450 parts. The key for me was to use large radial fuel tanks for the initial 1000m, all of which have no engines and can be dropped quickly. Once you drop those tanks you are a lot lighter and they give you some extra dV during the most crucial stage. Also helps reduce parts as they drop away past 2.5km.

Now, I'm using a much more simple setup build with Anvil rockets. 150 parts, and I can easily take 200ton to any moon around kerbin. Lag free ascent Makes me happier than an extra 100ton and lag.

Edit: and quantum struts are awesome for this as well. I readily use them to secure payloads or stabilize early stage rockets, and then you reduce part count on separation (no remaining metal 'knob')

Edited June 20, 2013 by Krisism

[Klajan]

Well, How i deal with the lagg is easy. Mechjeb ascend autopilot and do something else.

Also my 400t launcher had around 1k parts resulting in an 30 min ascend.

[ecat]

Well, How i deal with the lagg is easy. Mechjeb ascend autopilot and do something else.

Sounds about right, and record the flight in case something interesting happens. That said, with flight times now exceeding the 1 hour mark even orbit in absentia is fast growing old.

[0Kev]

While it is much easier to use asparagas staging, it is not currently possible. In fact, boosters crossfeeding into a main core has only recently been implemented (on Falcon 9 heavy). There would be too many pumps and valves and it too unrealistic. However it is extremely useful.

I really hope they do nerf ram intakes and asparagus, it makes the game too easy. IMO one should be forced to make better use of docking, as it is you can do the grand tour with about 3 ships

Fuel-crossfeed in staging shouldn't be nerfed, as it is something that is actually possible in reality. Yes, it's new and not-yet done in reality, only in development for the Falcon Heavy - But in KSP we go way past what's been done in real-life all the time. Like putting "people" and bases on other planets.

Don't take all the Sand out of a SandBox game! The option of unrealistic, wonky creations are part of what makes sandbox games fun.

As for the intakes, there are some situations where they're way out-of-whack.

[0Kev]

What about your video card? I remember reading that struts might tax video cards more than other parts due to how they're drawn. My own system can launch maybe 150 to 200 parts, using a 2.4 Ghz core 2 duo (6 years old or so), and a video card which almost counts as non-existant, a GeForce 8400 GS. I did overclock the video card by about 25 percent and noticed a nice gain, which made it so I can fly the current part-count.

How can you guys deal with the lag? I have a core i7, ect. fast computer and I start hitting FPS drops around 350-400 parts. A 600 part launch vehicle kills fps down to a few frames per second. 40 minutes for a launch It may even be quicker to do multiple smaller payloads.

The best I had was around 320 ton to orbit with stock parts (except it used b9 aerospace sabre M engines as well). I focused on minimizing parts as much as possible and even that launcher was around 450 parts. The key for me was to use large radial fuel tanks for the initial 1000m, all of which have no engines and can be dropped quickly. Once you drop those tanks you are a lot lighter and they give you some extra dV during the most crucial stage. Also helps reduce parts as they drop away past 2.5km.

Now, I'm using a much more simple setup build with Anvil rockets. 150 parts, and I can easily take 200ton to any moon around kerbin. Lag free ascent Makes me happier than an extra 100ton and lag.

Edit: and quantum struts are awesome for this as well. I readily use them to secure payloads or stabilize early stage rockets, and then you reduce part count on separation (no remaining metal 'knob')

[Scoobyod23]

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/stock-37-mainsail-heavy-lifter/ Not sure how much this lifts but if u look around there is a 350t lifter there also. all stock parts. I used the 350t lifter to get my Duna base into orbit

[Krisism]

What about your video card? I remember reading that struts might tax video cards more than other parts due to how they're drawn. My own system can launch maybe 150 to 200 parts, using a 2.4 Ghz core 2 duo (6 years old or so), and a video card which almost counts as non-existant, a GeForce 8400 GS. I did overclock the video card by about 25 percent and noticed a nice gain, which made it so I can fly the current part-count.

I have a Nvidia GeForce GTX 580, which can max out on most recent games with no issues. I readily play games on max - but KSP is another beast It has a lot of optimizations to do still and as it's well known only utilizes one of the many cores we all have. Once they move to a 64 bit platform and utilize multi-threading then speed will pick up a lot with physics, ect. Weirdly enough, I noticed if you lower graphic settings it actually seems to slow performance (I'm guessing the GPU does some processing if higher settings are used).

Anyways, until the multi-threading support and other optimizations, I try and keep my launchers to a minimum part count. I don't use mechjeb either, so a low fps makes launches dangerously hard to control.