Better than asparagus staging?

[PDCWolf]

KSP rockets have lower ISP than their real world counter parts?!? Where the crap do you get that idea? Based on the densities and mixture ratios of the generic "Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer" in game it's pretty safe to say we are talking about RP-1 and LOX on real rockets these have ISP's of around 270 in atmosphere and 310 in vacuum. In game though: 320 in atmosphere and 370 in vacuum (for the LV-T30 and T45) a nearly 20% bonus.

http://history.nasa.gov/conghand/propelnt.htm

http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm

On the subject of air breathing engines, is it so unreasonable to assume that the KSP "turbojet" is actually a "ramjet" which according to Wiki "work most efficiently at supersonic speeds around Mach 3. This type of engine can operate up to speeds of Mach 6." Oh wait KSP turbojet max power at 1000m/s approx Mach 2.94 and stops working at 2400m/s approx Mach 7. Stop whining it's not over powered it's just mislabeled and simplified for the sake of a game. Check facts before spewing incorrect information in an attempt to justify your unreasonable position.

Let's take the RS-68 for example. Which we could call our mainsail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68

ISP of 410s.

Ariane 5's Vulcain engine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcain

ISP of 431s

Then we obviously have old rocket engines that have been in service since forever like the soyuz engines or the saturn engines that go around the 300 mark. The shuttle engines (1981) go up to 452s in vacuum and 363s on sea level.

This will get cleared up when we finally get different fuels and we can know for sure if we are talking about RP1 or liquid hydrogen. Now, if you want to make assumptions. RP-1 / LOX burns in a red flame. Our flames are blue. But hey, we are just making assumptions here.

I assume the bit about taking turbojets for ramjets is not directed to me -even though you only quoted me- because I never took turbojets for ramjets.

[PPR]

While jets do have a significant advantage in terms of ISP, within the context of the game they have some important disadvantages:

1) Limited thrust. You have to compensate for this by using many jet engines, increasing the part count, complexity, and chance that something will go wrong. Which would you rather have 1 Mainsail or 10 Turbojets?

2) Poor reaction time. It takes a while to increase/decrease thrust, which limits your ability to maneuver.

3) Stalls at high altitude. While you can predict the stall with a little practice it does impact your ability to maneuver.

4) Limited area of operation. Since jets will only work within the atmosphere, you can really only use them when launching/landing. In the totality of space, there aren't many places you can use jets, and you can't use them for very long.

5) Mediocre thrust-to-weight ratio.

On the whole, I might consider using jet engines for a small payload, but for larger payload there are better options.

[numerobis]

The TWR is actually very good when you take into account the fuel consumption. A T30 or a turbojet will each get a roughly 10t spacecraft nearly to orbit (<100 m/s off). The T30 will be launch with about 8t of fuel and be empty, so you have almost no payload. The turbojet will launch with 1t and have lots left over, so you have about 8t of payload.

[qeveren]

It was kinda fun. But I am going to stick to my original lifter. This is too much of a Rube Goldberg device.

I love the continuous trail of falling engines it leaves behind it.