Kerbal Kiloton Payload

[Driosenth]

I wanted to see how much I could get into a stable 100km orbit. By chaining 91 Mainsail Engines together with fuel lines and discarding the empties I was able to put a massive 1185.04 t payload into orbit. This was made with 1821 parts, Stock + MechJeb. The only other mod that was used was Dynamic warp; it still can get into orbit without it, but getting the timing right on the launch and capturing decent images is difficult.

2.84 Kiloton Update

Statistics

Total number of parts: 1821

Total number of stages of craft: 45

Number of stages used: 38

Initial liquid fuel: 524160

Fuel in orbit: 85419

Burned fuel: 438741

Initial mass: 7191.11 t

Final mass in orbit: 1185.04 t

Afterthought: this does not have any way to recharge the electricity; it's basically dead once the engines are cut. (I could put a small solar panel between the pair sepratons on each of the lower tanks)

Here are the images for this monstrosity.

Before liftoff

We have lifftoff

Two seconds in and we lose our first pair of engines

Those engines are dropping rapidly

A nice shot of the engines burning hot

30 seconds in and 2375 meters up

Almost a minute in and we start on the next hexagon layer

At 1 minute 30 seconds I turn on the RCS as MechJeb begins the Gravity turn

I turn my head for one second and miss the start of the third hexagon layer

3 Minutes in and 45km up

Starting the 4th layer of hexagons

End of initial burn, look at all the discarded engines

The start of the circularizing burn

The final empty cans are dropped. Sadly. these will have a stable orbit of their own.

Finished the circularizing burn and achieving a (near) circular orbit

Final image of the beast

Album Link Here

Edited June 25, 2013 by Driosenth
Grammatical Clarity

[Pipcard]

It's the Crashy McSplodey!

[Werwolf]

Now THAT is a refueller

o_O

[Troberg]

How do you place the stacks with such precision?

Also, how do you keep it from falling apart?

[Driosenth]

How do you place the stacks with such precision?

Also, how do you keep it from falling apart?

Each set of decoupler, engine, and tanks are identical. I made one that was as near to perfect as possible. Once it was I had everything in as close to the correct position, I moved them off to the side, Hit CTRL-Z, placed the one off to the side, then move the decoupler and sepratrons to their correct stage. There are two variations of engine set, one has struts connected to 2 adjacent tanks and the other is connected to 3 tanks.

As for how I kept it from falling apart, MechJeb did most of the steering, I just turned on the RCS before the gravity turn.

The biggest problem was getting it to launch. It cannot support it's own mass for very long, so I have to liftoff the exact moment it finishes loading on the launchpad. This is possible because of how much KSP slows down when it loads this thing. Even then, I've had more failed than successful liftoffs.

I am in the process of making a rocket with one more hexagon larger than this one, just to see if it is possible.

[Francesco]

damn, no lag at all with that thing? what kind of computer are you running??

[Driosenth]

damn, no lag at all with that thing? what kind of computer are you running??

Oh no, this launches with a ton of lag. It took me ~ 25 minutes to get this thing into orbit. The screenshots were taken on a second launch with Dynamic Warp set to 1/4 speed.

As for my system:

I7-920 running at 4.533 GHz

RAM: 9 GB at (3 sticks of 2GB, 3 sticks of 1 GB)

Main video card: nVidia 560ti

Secondary video card: nVidia 9800 GTX+

Edited June 19, 2013 by Driosenth
Grammatical Clarity

[Driosenth]

So I added another hexagon layer and removed the docking port. (I wanted it to be a Big Dumb Rocket)

It might be possible for me to add even another hexagon layer (another 42 mainsails), but it's just not in me anymore because of the amount of time needed to add them in the editor and the time needed to actually launch it.

Album Link Here

Number of Parts: 2521

Initial Mass: 10026.60 t

Final Mass: 1655.50 t

Initial Fuel: 731520 units

Final Fuel: 119853 units

Burned Fuel: 611667 units

Total Number of Stages: 63

Number of Stages Used: 53

Number of Stages Unused: 10

Here it is on liftoff

When it first achieves orbit

In orbit in sunlight

Edited June 19, 2013 by Driosenth

[Pontiac]

.. well now... if you can't get a satellite up with that monster......

[The Jedi Master]

"Disregard physics, achieve orbit."

Jebediah approves!

[Driosenth]

This will be my 3rd and most likely final craft of my super massive refuelers. At this point it would require more than 4GB of memory to add another hexagon, which KSP.exe cannot do.

Craft File

Album of Launch

KSP v20.2

Stock + MechJeb2 parts

Edtools and Subassembly loader were used to make the craft

MechJeb2 was used to fly the damn thing

Dynamic Warp was used to slow down time on a second launch so I could capture images

Statistics

Number Of Parts: 3357

Initial Mass: 13337.04 t

Final Mass: 2219.64 t

Initial Fuel: 973440 units

Final Fuel: 159570 units

Burned Fuel: 813870 units

Initial Number of Mainsail Engines: 169

Final Number of Mainsail Engines: 29

Number Of Orange Tank in Orbit: 58

Game Time Needed To Achieve Orbit: 06:50

Real Time Needed To Achieve Orbit: 43:20

I believe this to be the most massive thing anyone has ever launched into orbit using only Stock + MechJeb. (I would love to be proven wrong)

[Giggleplex777]

What are the specs of your computer?!?

[Sbowyer28]

Dear god, My laptop just jumped off Mount Everest

[Driosenth]

What are the specs of your computer?!?

i7-920 running at 4.533 GHz

RAM: 9 GB DDR3-1333 (3 sticks of 2GB, 3 sticks of 1 GB)

Main video card: nVidia 560ti

Secondary video card: nVidia 9800 GTX+

[kahlzun]

You'd get a lot more to orbit without those wasted caps... at the moment, all they do is add 0.4T/each to your mass, and an extra part tank.

Get rid of those, and you'd reduce your part count by 169, which would possibly be enough for another stage... (whats the TWR at launch of that thing?)

[Driosenth]

You'd get a lot more to orbit without those wasted caps... at the moment, all they do is add 0.4T/each to your mass, and an extra part tank.

Get rid of those, and you'd reduce your part count by 169, which would possibly be enough for another stage... (whats the TWR at launch of that thing?)

TWR at liftoff was 1.94 with a thrust of 253500 kN. The TWR slowly rose from 1.94 to 2.00 from liftoff to orbit.

I realized many things while in the process of making this thing; the nosecones being one of them.

I may redo the entire build with the following changes to get the unnessessary part count down/engine count up

1. Remove the nosecones

2. See if the center strut can be remove

3. Make two alternate versions where the stages have three or six engines fall at a time instead of two

Edited June 21, 2013 by Driosenth
Spelling Error

[Geschosskopf]

Nosecones.....

I agree, the stock ones are junk due to their excessive weight. But if you have FAR, you need nosecones. Fortunately, KW Rocketry includes some what weigh nearly nothing. But OTOH, I'm not sure that massive pancake would fly with FAR anyway.

[ramnrmeul]

Add some NERVAs on to that thing and see if you can take it on a grand tour without refueling!

[SuperWeegee4000]

Looks like a taller Crashy McSplodey that actually flies. Good job.

[Driosenth]

Here is an update on my testing.

With the nose cone gone, I reduce the number of parts by 168, I can put on a few additional stages, but not a full hexagon.

I am still testing on whether or not I can remove the center strut, I sometimes get failures without them, but they don't happen during every launch even with the exact same craft.

After running a series of tests, I can definitely say that dropping two engines at a time is more efficient than three or six at a time. When launching asparagus'd rockets with a hexagon side of less than four, the payload mass will be greater but the fuel will be less. On asparagus'd rockets with hexagon sides of four or more the payload mass and fuel will be greater.

Additional note: I am concerned about the placement the sepratons, their current placement heats up the engines they pass by as the stage they are on falls. While they do not cause these engines to fail, they do heat them to the point where MechJeb reduces power a significant amount for a brief period of time. I am considering testing various different placement options and would welcome any input that would be offered.

[LaydeeDem]

Main video card: nVidia 560ti

Secondary video card: nVidia 9800 GTX+

You use nVidia? How is your computer and everything in the vicinity of it not a molten pool of lava?

[Boffinbox]

[redacted]

Edited June 22, 2013 by Boffinbox
misread entire post. now feel stupid

[Driosenth]

Well I finally did it. An Asparagus'd rocket with hexagon size of 9.

Craft File Here

Album Link Here

First, here is a data table I made showing the relation of hexagon size to mass and fuel at launch, gravity turn (GT), apoapsis (APO), and an 100km circular orbit.

Note 1: All these launches were done with the same ascent profile. Gravity turn at 10km, 45% turn, level out at 95km.

Note 2: Notice how all the ratios all stay similar so matter the hexagon size.

Note 3: A more efficient launch could be done by optimizing the ascent profile. This could be done on a smaller hexagon size and once a optimal profile has been discerned, should scale up to the larger hexagon sizes.

Here is it on the launchpad

Liftoff

Gravity Turn

Reached 100 km APO

100 km Circular Orbit

The orbits of all the launches that were required to make this possible.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Driosenth

[Flixxbeatz]

If only I got a computer as powerful as yours. If only.

[Tw1]

That is kinda magnificent. Have you discovered the hold alt trick for copying ship sections yet?