What are Rockomax 48-7S good for? (Picture)

[Ralathon]

What are those thingies on the decouplers around the vessel?

You mean the radiothermal generators? They're a constant low power source but really heavy. It's usually better to go with solar panels (unless you do something crazy, like building a base on the bottom of a polar crater, or going in a solar escape).

Oh and that 48-7S is by far my most used engine, it is borderline overpowered. It is incredibly light for what it does, so it is great as a landing engine. Think about it, the LV-909 weighs 5 times as much but provides less than 2 times the thrust. If you just use this engine the weight you save easily makes up for the lower Isp. It makes sense when you think about payload fractions, save 0.1 ton on the payload and you can often downscale a fuel tank on your launcher.

[Tokay Gris]

You mean the radiothermal generators?

No, the parachutes. But thanks.... currently build a vessel similar like that one....

[toomuchbrew]

I love these engines Just saying

[phunk]

I got Jeb into LKO with just a 48-7S, FL-T400, OCTO2 (for torque), and a seat. Hard to steer, and the batteries and fuel ran out as soon as I got there, but it worked.

[numerobis]

tavert has a much lighter version: just 7 of the FL-100 tanks with an engine under each. In 0.22 you can do it with 6 tanks and just four engines (since the engines have more thrust, you can skip two of the seven engines, which saves you enough fuel on prior stages to skip one tank).

[SRV Ron]

As an experiment, this asparagus design using only NovaPunch small fuel cans and Rocomax 48-7S engines. A bit unstable to fly on the SAS of the probe but made orbit with fuel in the core stage and a full upper stage. With landing legs, the upper stage could land and return from Mun or Minmus.

[Starwhip]

They are amazing as probe final-stage engines. My Joolian probe had one, and it is powerful enough to really change your orbit.

[KerbMav]

Reading this, the really belong far up in the tech tree, I think.

I always wondered by which numerizzardry Squad defined the specs of the engines to make them balanced or the specs to have reasonable/logical ratios between the different engines.

[jotapeh]

If part count isn't an issue, they're probably the most efficient engine for launch from kerbin: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55575-Cheat-Rocket-60

How did you do this? Is this vanilla KSP? I can't seem to attach more than one engine to the bottom of any fuel can.

[blizzy78]

How did you do this? Is this vanilla KSP? I can't seem to attach more than one engine to the bottom of any fuel can.

Cubic Octagonal Struts

[magnemoe]

I didn't realize they changed in .22. I never even tried them before as I'd always opt for the 909's. After reading this thread though, I'm going to have to try them out.

The 909 is better for heavy landers, if the cargo is 2 ton or more use the 909, one ton use the 48-7S. The 909 is much heavier but has better ISP and the extra weight don't matter much if your cargo is heavy. The amount of fuel is not very important here surprisingly enough.

[tavert]

The 909 is better for heavy landers, if the cargo is 2 ton or more use the 909, one ton use the 48-7S. The 909 is much heavier but has better ISP and the extra weight don't matter much if your cargo is heavy. The amount of fuel is not very important here surprisingly enough.

There are very, very few situations in which an LV-909 is a better choice than a 48-7S, if part count isn't an issue. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/45155-Mass-optimal-engine-type-vs-delta-V-payload-and-min-TWR

[Octobomb]

I built a 11t Tylo lander with it:

There are 3 down below.

They really are fantastic.