"Pico" SSTO Lifter. A.K.A. The R 48-7S needs a nerf.

[astropapi1]

Hey guys. Inspired by Giggleplex777's Pico Space Program, and by the insane and OP efficency and power of the new Rockomax 48-7S, I decided to build the smallest SSTO lifter, that could meet these conditions:

1) Must be able to carry it's payload to a stable orbit.

2) Must be able to deorbit itself after being used.

3) Must be stock ( plus mechjeb for standard ascent profiles and Engineer Redux for info).

4) Must take up a considerable payload.

5) Must look cool.

After 5 generations, and a couple of minutes years of development, the engineers at Golden Aerospikeâ„¢ came up with the "Corsair 4B" lifter.

Here it sits, in it's ~2.5 tons of glory (plus a dummy payload of about .2 tons).

MJ decided to screw up my ascent and let me in a 70x80 orbit. At least we have some "units" of fuel left. That'll give 146 m/s Dv. See what I mean?

Payload delivered to a stable orbit! Here you can see a small solar panel stuck between the two engines. I put it there because I didn't want to lose another the rocket.

We de-orbit with our fumes. ♫ I'm burning through the sky Yeah! Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mister Fahrenheit! ♫

IRL, the rocket would burn up, but this is the Kerbal Space Program, right? The least I can give you is an explosion, and this one was quite epic for such a small rocket:

Conclussion: I lifted a 0.2 ton satellite into orbit with a 3~4 meter rocket, and still had enough fuel to crash it in an epic manner.

The engine is way too efficent and powerful. At least the "Ant" engine could be made more efficent, because now this engine overpasses it in every single way.

Thanks for your attention, Fly safe!

Edited August 24, 2013 by astropapi1

[Cupcake...]

Nice work! Gotta love those little engines, I've been using them like they're going out of fashion...

Cupcake...

[astropapi1]

Nice work! Gotta love those little engines, I've been using them like they're going out of fashion...

Cupcake...

Thanks!

Actually, the "Corsair" program (which I plan on expanding) started when I decided to build a dumb -AKA no payload- rocket SSTO, and then was like "lolwut?" I got it in the first try!

As much as I love using them in Mun-ascent stages and... SSTO lifters, I think they're very OP and should be nerfed.

[astropapi1]

*Bump.

Ahem... I don't bite, guys.

Anybody gonna comment?

[CosmicScientist]

That's pretty great, a bit moreso if you could slap a parachute on it and successfully land it for reuse or at least recycling. Why is the Rockomax 48-7S such an overpowered amazing feat of engineering? It seems quite reasonable compared to what it's meant to be a stacking-based version of.

[Giggleplex777]

I think its performance is actually pretty on par with the LV-909. I don't think it's overpowered at all.

[Levelord]

They have been a godsend for me. I've even used them for my Duna ascent vehicle to send small payloads up to orbit. It's ridiculous.

[astropapi1]

That's pretty great, a bit moreso if you could slap a parachute on it and successfully land it for reuse or at least recycling. Why is the Rockomax 48-7S such an overpowered amazing feat of engineering? It seems quite reasonable compared to what it's meant to be a stacking-based version of.

1)There are two problems with chutes:

-They're heavy, and that would reduce the payload capacity.

-Even with the big parachute, I'd probably need an extra bit of fuel for the landing and at least three little legs. That would also reduce the payload capacity.

I might get around doing a re-usable rocket, with a docking port on top.

2) I've always thought the radial orange engine was a bit too powerful, and the Ant's only advantage over it was that it was stackable.

Now, this new engine is better in almost everything, except weight. The only reason to use it is for extra Dv on interplanetary missions that carries many probes.

They have been a godsend for me. I've even used them for my Duna ascent vehicle to send small payloads up to orbit. It's ridiculous.

Amazing piece of engineering you've got there, eh?

Looks like a mini-constellation lander.

[Giggleplex777]

They have been a godsend for me. I've even used them for my Duna ascent vehicle to send small payloads up to orbit. It's ridiculous.

I did something like that a while ago with ant engines:

The launcher looked like this:

The plan was to dock the interplanetary stage to the little sample capsule and then fly home (you can see the parachute between the skycrane and IP stage).

Edited August 24, 2013 by Giggleplex777

[Tankbuster32]

Very nice job giggleplex (as always). The first thing i did with these small wonders was to make an SSTO with one turbojet, 10 intakes and 2 48-7s. The thing was lightning fast!

[Maxthrust]

Where is the craft file or was this just a complaint?

[astropapi1]

Where is the craft file or was this just a complaint?

It isn't a complaint, I'm just saying it should be made a bit less efficent.

The rocket isn't difficult to replicate, as long as you have Editor Extensions, which enables you to toggle radial attachment of parts. I used it for the Oscar-B tanks and the two orange engines. It reduces part count, it works with the stock parts, and the rocket works perfectly fine. Everybody's happy in the end.

[CosmicScientist]

I've always thought the radial orange engine was a bit too powerful, and the Ant's only advantage over it was that it was stackable.

Now, this new engine is better in almost everything, except weight. The only reason to use it is for extra Dv on interplanetary missions that carries many probes.

Whilst, yes, that seemed to be how they wanted it done, hopefully in future patches to the current rockets, it'll be done similar to the larger, white radial engines compared to the smaller radial orange ones as to the mainsail to the skipper, you get more thrust, just worse efficiency. So yeah I guess they are a bit too good for how the rest of Kerbal engineering works, the ant appears just barely better than RCS for landing with.

I haven't really tried to use the orange rockomax, stacked or radial to land on anything as small as Minmus or smaller before and with the small payloads I associate the smaller rockets with, the ant ones always provide me with more than enough to land and return on. It might eventually boil down to the campaign where cost comes before engineering when it comes down to landing on the smaller of the moons, as neither ant comes with a gimball so perhaps intended for use with small, low-cost probe landers and rovers on fairly low gravity bodies without atmospheres?

[astropapi1]

Whilst, yes, that seemed to be how they wanted it done, hopefully in future patches to the current rockets, it'll be done similar to the larger, white radial engines compared to the smaller radial orange ones as to the mainsail to the skipper, you get more thrust, just worse efficiency. So yeah I guess they are a bit too good for how the rest of Kerbal engineering works, the ant appears just barely better than RCS for landing with.

I haven't really tried to use the orange rockomax, stacked or radial to land on anything as small as Minmus or smaller before and with the small payloads I associate the smaller rockets with, the ant ones always provide me with more than enough to land and return on. It might eventually boil down to the campaign where cost comes before engineering when it comes down to landing on the smaller of the moons, as neither ant comes with a gimball so perhaps intended for use with small, low-cost probe landers and rovers on fairly low gravity bodies without atmospheres?

Yeah, the LV-1 (or "Ant", as we call it for it's description) will probably become the engine of preference for cheap landers on small bodies like Mun or Minmus.

Only the future will tell.

[Giggleplex777]

It isn't a complaint, I'm just saying it should be made a bit less efficent.

The rocket isn't difficult to replicate, as long as you have Editor Extensions, which enables you to toggle radial attachment of parts. I used it for the Oscar-B tanks and the two orange engines. It reduces part count, it works with the stock parts, and the rocket works perfectly fine. Everybody's happy in the end.

Nerfing the 48-7S will probably upset many people (including me) who rely on its efficiency over the other small engines.

C'mon, I've been waiting for this engine to be stock ever since Claira was added to the team.

[astropapi1]

Nerfing the 48-7S will probably upset many people (including me) who rely on its efficiency over the other small engines.

C'mon, I've been waiting for this engine to be stock ever since Claira was added to the team.

I know.

I use a crap-ton of mods, and have always loved KSPX, but now that this engine is stock, when you compare it to other engines it doesn't seem balanced.

I'd also be a little upset if it was nerfed, but I think it's the best thing to do from the balance PoV.

Alternatively, they could make it very expensive and "high-tech", so that we have to get far into the tech tree to unlock it.

[tavert]

It's a bit imbalanced as none of the other small engines have comparable specific impulse (with the exception of the difficult-to-use and extremely low thrust ion engine). As you can see here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/45155-Mass-optimal-engine-type-vs-delta-V-payload-and-min-TWR

the 48-7S has essentially made the LV-909 all but obsolete. Things would be more balanced if the 48-7S had the same mass and specific impulse as the radial version, or maybe a little less thrust, or for career-mode purposes a high cost or late availability.

[yutixfiddle]

Nerf?

This isn't league of legends haha

[Giggleplex777]

It's a bit imbalanced as none of the other small engines have comparable specific impulse (with the exception of the difficult-to-use and extremely low thrust ion engine). As you can see here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/45155-Mass-optimal-engine-type-vs-delta-V-payload-and-min-TWR

the 48-7S has essentially made the LV-909 all but obsolete. Things would be more balanced if the 48-7S had the same mass and specific impulse as the radial version, or maybe a little less thrust, or for career-mode purposes a high cost or late availability.

Higher cost and late availability. It's powered by a staged combustion cycle after all. (whereas the 24-77 probably uses a gas generator).

[astropapi1]

Higher cost and late availability. It's powered by a staged combustion cycle after all. (whereas the 24-77 probably uses a gas generator).

Yeah, the stack version should have more power than the radial one, but both should be made a little less powerful, for balance's sake.

[Giggleplex777]

Since it uses a staged combustion cycle, it should be heavier. I think its mass should be increased to 0.15 tons.