[Showcase] Non Asparagus Launch Vehicles

[AustralianFries]

I just want to say thanks for almost reaching 20 thousand views. This is by far my most successful thread ever. You guys are amazing! (:

We all know launch vehicles are very important. They are the first part of getting into orbit. I'm getting bored of using the asparagus method for every single design. Plus, the asparagus method isn't very aesthetically pleasing. The topic still goes: Show me your awesome launch vehicles, other than asparagus!!!

Edited June 28, 2013 by AustralianFries

[trippytripp]

I use a more realistic and traditional design with a center stage, with liquid boosters on either side, both with fuel lines leading into the center.

And it also works very well with smaller payloads.

[leax256]

25 kw rocketry biggest tanks conected to the biggest engines all fireing at once. not really asparagas. thay all drop at once. gets anythinginto orbit.

[sal_vager]

I'm using regular old fashioned Apollo style staging these days, it's a different design challenge and there's something satisfying about watching a huge lower section being blasted by the next stage's engines

It's not that much worse than asparagus, plus asparagus smells and tastes bad.

[trippytripp]

It's not that much worse than asparagus, plus asparagus smells and tastes bad.

Agreed, that stuff is nasty.

[legoheli]

Usually I use launch vehicles derived from real world designs, similarly to trippytrip, but I mostly prefer to make things centeres and with nothing dropping off to the side.

My Orion MPCV-inspires Les Betes-class Crew Vehicle is an example of this. An LV-N is covered by the panels. In general, I try to stick to two stages, but I use both engine clustering and regular mainsail first stages.

Here are some other examples:

Amerika-class EELV with a station module atop.

Zeruel-class spacecraft and launcher.

KSS PP-class spacecraft and launcher, the only design I've been using (with minor modifications) since I began playing a year ago.

But if you're going to launch a small capsule or satellite into LKO, all you need for an easy launch is:

Spacecraft

Decoupler

ASAS

FL-T400

LV-909

Decoupler

FL-T800

FL-T800

LV-T45

[Scotius]

Why would we want to replace asparagus (which works just fine) with something less effective? I know, i know - it's a game, and we do many things because they are cool or look incredible. But still - why?

[legoheli]

Asparagus staging is ugly, and doing the same boring launch over and over again with the same boring launch vehicle kills the fun of KSP. Challenge your engineering skills. Challenge your creativity.

[Thiel]

Because they're cool and the look like rockets are supposed to. Aesthetics is a big part of my designs, which is why I tend to avoid the classic asparagus pancake.

[sgt_flyer]

you can use liquid booster assisted takeoffs (like on the soyouz rockets) - basically, in the soyouz concept, the core + liquid boosters fire all at once, but the core has two times more fuel than the boosters. (basically, the boosters help propelling the rocket until the central core has a good enough TWR by burning it's fuel - so it's not asparagus here )

Edited June 14, 2013 by sgt_flyer

[trippytripp]

Because they're cool and the look like rockets are supposed to. Aesthetics is a big part of my designs, which is why I tend to avoid the classic asparagus pancake.

I completely agree with Thiel. The feeling of launching a successful aesthetically pleasing rocket beats that of successfully launching a pancake-shaped hunk of metal and engines.

[Wayfare]

What Sal said:

Dropping stacks is cool.

While asparagus staging is certainly the most fuel-efficient way to launch payloads under KSPs current aerodynamics model, it does introduce a number of problems. It's a bit of a pain to design, especially in sorting out the staging, though once you get the hang of it it's ok. It tends to make rockets roll as stages are dropped which can cause problems on heavier designs especially. It's also more parts intensive (and thus lag-inducing) as it adds a lot of decouplers, plumbing and additional strutting to a lifter.

I tend to build my lifters to be able to put about 50 tons of payload into LKO (a Jumbo fuel tank, large monopropellant tank, plus a small low-orbital maneuver stage with a few tons to spare). The Munshine V you see above does just that, and I'm confident it could go up to 70 with relatively minor modification. It's a bit heavier than my old asparagus lifters but it's also a lot more stable during launch and ascent and it cuts out a lot of parts.

Now, once you go beyond the 60-70 ton payload range there really aren't a lot of alternatives to building your rocket out sideways. And when you're doing that you'll reap the benefits of doing it with asparagus staging. But frankly, if I can't build what I want out of 50-ton parts then I feel I've probably engineered it wrong

[AmpsterMan]

I've never liked asparagus much actually. It felt too gamey. All of my launchers have been serial stages with parallel stage 0 boosters.

[Kerbal01]

25 kw rocketry biggest tanks conected to the biggest engines all fireing at once. not really asparagas. thay all drop at once. gets anythinginto orbit.

25!!! My computer lags so much I have to quit out and restart my comp when only using 4!!

[Karriz]

What part do people use to create those Soyuz-style side rockets? Is it the airplane tail?

[ecat]

Rockets for the atmosphere stage? So primitive. The future is jets!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/35743-200-kerbal-tons-to-LKO-worth-it?p=451799&viewfull=1#post451799

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/35743-200-kerbal-tons-to-LKO-worth-it?p=452199&viewfull=1#post452199

[Kerbal01]

What part do people use to create those Soyuz-style side rockets? Is it the airplane tail?

Yes

(10char)

[AmpsterMan]

My favorite 10 ton launcher so far. No vegetable needed

[leax256]

25!!! My computer lags so much I have to quit out and restart my comp when only using 4!!

well then it seems I'm lucky. got 13.5k units fo liquid fuel into orbit around the mün with this.

[Tommygun]

What part do people use to create those Soyuz-style side rockets? Is it the airplane tail?

Yes it's this part:

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tail_Connector

-For something unconventional, I've tried putting all the engines on top with staged fuel tanks on the bottom.

It is very difficult to fly right in an atmosphere.

[John FX]

I use the CORE Anvil main stage, up to four orange tanks as liquid boosters with up to three core solid boosters on each of those, sometimes with a standard solid booster on the outside of each core solid booster. For staging timing I then put external tanks on the outside feeding the main core stage.

It is quite customisable for different payloads and sort of looks how rockets should although it is on the big side. It will get 100T to orbit easily. I actually don`t know how much it will lift if pushed.

[RocketPilot573]

Dropping stacks is cool.

I completely agree, but unfortunately for me: Rocket - Asparagus =

[DerekL1963]

I use a more realistic and traditional design with a center stage, with liquid boosters on either side, both with fuel lines leading into the center.

And the word for that "more realistic and traditional design" (which is actually neither) is.... <drum roll>... asparagus.

[asae]

And the word for that "more realistic and traditional design" (which is actually neither) is.... <drum roll>... asparagus.

Not quite, look at the heavy variants of some major rockets, such as the Delta IV heavy, it's a center stage, with two essentially center stages strapped to the side, sure there's no fuel lines leading to the center but it still works quite well in reality.

[Werwolf]

I tend to use a tall 2m single stack with SRB assistance on the first stage. I use asparagus a lot on my lander designs, since i like to do a large central tank, with four small tanks in 4x attached by decouplers. drain the outer tanks first, and on ascent decouple the outer tanks much like the apollo design did.