Jump to content

Why I find Ascents Boring

bsalis

By bsalis
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sandworm

Sandworm

Posted
Posted
That depends on how far you take the asparagus staging. Going massive with 6, 7, 8 stages just to get into orbit... Yeah that is out of touch with reality. There are however real rockets that use asparagus staging in their launches.

NASA was developing one, I forget the name.

It was called Shuttle. Drain the tank, drop the tank, continue without. That's asparagus staging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whackjob

Whackjob

Posted
Posted (edited)

If you never dream big, you're always safe

RnHQaIzl.jpg

If you're always safe, you are never challenged

20mzdhql.jpg

If you're never challenged, you never fail

pHZqRZdl.png

If you never fail, you never learn

dysSdzRl.png

If you never learn, how do you improve?

The stars are there

N4HoaA5l.png

You only have to reach for them

/brought to you by the Whackjob "It made sense to post this like five minutes ago" department

Edited by Whackjob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whackjob

Whackjob

Posted
Posted
I'll skip the lag-fest, thanks. Alternatively, you could buy me a new computer that can handle that many parts so I can experience the game your way...

What OS are you running, anyway? And processor? I have a theory I'm interested in testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Shifty

Mr Shifty

Posted
Posted
It was called Shuttle. Drain the tank, drop the tank, continue without. That's asparagus staging.

Not really. Asparagus staging also involves fuel cross-feeding, which never happened in the Shuttle. Once the ET was dropped, the main engines never fired again. All of the orbital maneuvers (including circularization, rendezvous and docking maneuvering, and de-orbiting) were done with the OMS, which had about 300 m/s of delta-V total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
regex

regex

Posted
Posted
What OS are you running, anyway? And processor? I have a theory I'm interested in testing.

It's a Dell laptop: Win7 64-bit sp1, i3 2350M @ 2.3GHz, 6GB RAM, Radeon 6450M.

I've submitted it to the CPU Performance Database already:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/42877-CPU-Performance-Database?p=555972&viewfull=1#post555972

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whackjob

Whackjob

Posted
Posted
It's a Dell laptop: Win7 64-bit sp1, i3 2350M @ 2.3GHz, 6GB RAM, Radeon 6450M.

I've submitted it to the CPU Performance Database already:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/42877-CPU-Performance-Database?p=555972&viewfull=1#post555972

My processor has only a slightly higher clock speed than you, but it's an older architecture, one of those core 2 duo extreme things. So I should be getting worse performance than you do. I'm thinking there's more factors than just the proc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
regex

regex

Posted
Posted
My processor has only a slightly higher clock speed than you, but it's an older architecture, one of those core 2 duo extreme things. So I should be getting worse performance than you do. I'm thinking there's more factors than just the proc.

Mobile chipset, perhaps. If you want, I can boot up the old Core2 Duo I have and give it a spin with the latest version, when I have a little time (next day or two). I think that one's a 32-bit Win7 or XP (haven't turned it on in months). PM me any particular tests you'd like run; I'm always happy to help with performance testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KevinTMC

KevinTMC

Posted
Posted

Yes, repeated launches of the same stable launch vehicle can get tedious. My preferred solution to this would be to add automation to the base game...but user-created automation.

That is, I as a player should be able to create a launch profile for a particular craft. Either I fly it manually and have the launch recorded, or map out a series of target altitudes and speeds and attitudes by hand, or use something akin to the maneuver node system...somehow, I should be able to come up with a flight plan, and load it for launch. The flight plan could be executed in a fairly manual fashion--via navball indicators, other cues, displays of deviations and residuals, and so forth--or it could be fully automated, or something in between.

What would make me happy about such a setup is that, first, I would have the enjoyment of devising a plan; and second, even if the plan is executed automatically, what I would be watching would be not MechJeb but MechMe.

I would also expect that designing and flying my own launch program (with extra tension involved if it's fully automatic, and therefore out of your hands once you light the candle) would be just as much fun and dramatic as designing and flying my own rocket. The basic idea is the same, is reflective of the core idea of KSP...and would also be truer to life than the current state of manually-controlled launches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sean Mirrsen

Sean Mirrsen

Posted
Posted
It was called Shuttle. Drain the tank, drop the tank, continue without. That's asparagus staging.
Nope, that's just a plain drop tank. A.k.a. an upscale of the things used by prop fighters in WW2. Asparagus staging - technically called "Propellant Crossfeed" IRL - is rather more complicated.

The reason it's not done is not because of aerodynamics - several long tubes fly just as well as one - but because of the inherent complexity of the setup. Apparently it's not as easy as topping up the center tank at the same time as the side ones drain, there are some technical issues to work out. The Falcon Heavy launch vehicle is currently the only one implementing such a setup - and yes, it is indeed nicknamed "Asparagus Staging".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eric S

Eric S

Posted
Posted
IIRC the main reason asparagus isn't used in the real world as it is in KSP is that drag isn't modeled properly in KSP.

Not true. A more realistic drag model would significantly reduce drag for all but the worst rockets. I think the delta-v lost to aerodynamic drag on a Saturn V launch was on the order of 200-250 m/s. I've done quite a bit of launching asparagus rockets using FAR, which does have a more realistic drag model, and the drag loss of a seven-stack asparagus launcher compared to a single stack launcher didn't come close to making the single stack launcher more efficient.

Yes, more realistic drag will have a significant impact on the more... audacious?... asparagus launchers that are wider than they are tall, but that's really not the majority of asparagus launchers.

Tiron has it right, the problem with asparagus staging in real life comes from the fact that asparagus staging is very dependent on fuel pumps, and fuel pumps are one of the most common non-human failures on launch vehicles. Given that asparagus' advantage over single stack launchers would get reduced just by the lower TWR of engines and higher dry weight of fuel tanks, it's just not worth risking a payload on a rocket design that is so dependent on such a weak link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyRender

SkyRender

Posted
Posted

For me, escaping Kerbin is a lot like pulling out of the driveway: it's just the first step in a much longer process, and not really that big a deal. I don't mind that it takes some effort, any more than I mind that pulling out of the driveway requires me to perform a dozen different steps, because it's just the prelude to the rest of what I'm going to be doing. Every journey has its first steps that dictate the way the rest of the journey goes, and I'd hate to skip them just because I'd taken them dozens of times before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ekku Zakku

Ekku Zakku

Posted
Posted

"A journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step", or something like that. As I said before, it's really tedious for me when I have to re-launch a rocket that falls apart every 1,000 meters, and I can imagine it would be tedious for those who launch a high frequency of rockets and dock a lot (those making a station or a base on the Mun with a standard launcher or something). However, as I see a lot of people on this thread, the journey is what makes them alright with the ascent not a tedious process, so it's as if the exploration aspect makes up for it. Rather, not exploring and staying in LKO for a while while launching stuff a lot gets really boring (perhaps that's why Earth's space programs don't get a lot of funding, they're not going anywhere exciting!).

Lesson learned: Keep It Simple, Stupid! (that was directed at myself, not at any of you! I overdesign things for no reason and as such, I've only been to three bodies outside the Kerbin system... I think I know where my enjoyment has gone, thanks guys!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deadweasel

Deadweasel

Posted
Posted
Tedious navball ... what??

This is like being bored of chess because there's too many pieces.

I agree. There are far too many pawns. Ban them all. Kick them out of the stadium and revoke their contracts. No more sponsorship deals either.

Stupid pawns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...