Is there a reason to build small ?

[Louella]

Hello

Something I feel, is that there doesn't seem to be much reason to build small things.

Like, if I wanted to build a space probe to fly past Duna, then I'd have the probe core and the antenna, a girder segment to stick some solar panels on, the batteries, the instruments, and then a small fuel tank and small engine.

Launch it into space with first stage to get out of atmosphere, second to set course towards Duna, and the probe's own engine for any course corrections, to maximise mission time over Duna.

But, looking at the various craft other people have flown, it seems like it's easier to build a colossal deep space probe, with all sorts of extra doodadery on it. Multiple science modules, huge batteries, all that sort of thing.

Like, in my thread about mun rovers, my rover seemed to be a lot smaller than the other things people had built.

e.g. for rovers, does anyone even use the smallest wheels ?

[sal_vager]

I build small, at first it was because my PC couldn't handle the monsters that others were building, though I did try a few myself.

But mainly I build small because I like efficiency, and a smaller lighter craft is still very capable, more so then a monster rocket that wastes fuel just to lift fuel.

You can get to Duna and back on a craft not much bigger then a basic Mun rocket, you don't even need mainsails or LV-N's or dozens of LV-T30's

Other planets too, you just don't need all those jumbo-64's you see people use, and for me a small craft is more fun as well, far more responsive and it's more fun to fly when your craft might run out of fuel

[FellipeC]

The only reason I try to keep as smaller is possible is my PC CPU/GPU power.

[LtHeckard]

I build rovers with the smallest wheels quite often, I daresay that I use them more often than the larger rover wheels.

[Guest]

Don't think of it as building small. Think of it as building efficiently. A booster, or spacecraft for that matter, only needs to be as big as it needs to be. If you're launching an unmanned probe to Minmus, you don't really need to send a massive probe atop a gigantic lift platform. Scale things for the job at hand.

Then build the biggest bloody thing you can and see where you can take it.

[niel kerstrong]

people build large because it's a sandbox game and they can. when career mode is finished and we have money/budgets people will probably start building smaller and more efficiently.

[wolfedg]

I try to build as realistically as possible. That usually means smaller more efficient rockets. I have done the whole strap 30 srbs onto several orange tank thing and it just makes things more complicated to both design and fly.

[katateochi]

As Jack Wolfe says, building small is about building for efficiency and you can do a lot done and get very far on just small things. It's also quite a good challenge to try and make things as efficient as possible. When they add a budget there will be a real need for building small things. The other reason to make small things is game performance.

I think the reason you see a lot of really big constructions here is that most of us just love to build massive, horrifically over complicated things that put aesthetics and awesome way before efficiency (I know I do). But that's not true of everyone, there are some people who really focus on small efficient design and those are just as cool, just different.

Building big is awesome but can get frustrating sometimes when the lag sets in and you can't manage to add that extra massive wing to your already gigantonormous station just because the lag is too much. At that point I stop and just launch something small to relax.

[jwenting]

as I'm not very good at building big, I try to get as much punch out of small stuff...

[LaydeeDem]

It adds an extra challenge and is normally better looking aesthetically.

[astropapi1]

Eve orbiter/lander mission with a 1.8 payload. Lifter is rated for ~2t.

Payload in orbit.

Trans Eve Injection.

Bye, Kerbin!

(I forgot to take pictures of aerocapture.)

Lander descending on parachute.

The orbiter is also a spent stage, for mass saving.

I like limiting the weight of my probes because it gives me a cool sense of reward.

[Scotius]

I'm tired of RL spacecraft being small, light and efficient . In KSP i build big. Big, huge motherships carrying a lot of fuel, blasting towards other planets on pillars of nuclear fire. And they are sufficiently overengineered to be prepared for anything - that includes batteries, solar panels, RTGs, lights, SAS modules, docking ports etc. Guess i've read too much Sci-fi classics

[FITorion]

At the moment? In Sandbox or unlocked tech tree Career?

Looks? Challenge?

Early in Career you wouldn't have the parts to build big... And latter on when Money and such get added then that will limit size...

But for now... the only reason to do anything is the reason you make for yourself.

[davefp]

I love building small. Tiny craft have an elegance about them that large ships lose. Not to say that I never build 100 tonne payloads, but those are rare.

Everyone has their own style of building, and the fact that so many different kinds of ships are viable is a great testament to the flexibility of the game.

[Mr. Entropy]

I don't like building any bigger than I absolutely need to for whatever mission I'm working on. Partially because I don't exactly have the best CPU in my PC, and also because I don't like wasting resources if I can help it.

[Odo]

Building small is a test of efficiency, and is also WAY easier on your FPS. As for the rover question, I ALWAYS use the smallest wheel. The big ones are too big :3

[sewerbird]

Building small is also quite amenable to stable rockets: the standard asparagus monstrosities need lots of strutting, but most of the time with smaller craft you can get away with no strutting at all. Less wobbly = more spacey!

[Spatzimaus]

I can think of four good reasons to build small craft, in the absence of an economy:

1> For long-range probes and mapping satellites (assuming you use mapping mods), you want to use ion engines as they're ridiculously efficient. But their thrust is so low that if you make anything other than a tiny craft, your burn times will be too ridiculously long to manage.

2> SSTO Spaceplanes have an effective size limitation. For instance, if you're using two jet engines, you can't make your craft heavier than about 25-30 tons or else it won't make it to orbit. Cutting even a little bit of weight off a spaceplane makes it much better, so you have to learn to design efficiently.

3> Refueling. Let's say you send a giant fuel bunker out to someplace like Jool. If you send a big ship out there it'll only be able to refuel a couple times before the bunker is empty. But if you use small ships, you can do dozens of refueling without a problem.

4> Stability. No matter how good you strut things, joined parts can't be as rigid as a single part. This especially comes up with things like space stations and rovers; I've been building a giant 400-ton rover for Mun (mobile Kethane refinery), and it just can't handle sharp turns or hills. Something flexes a bit too much, and then it all explodes.

It's fun building big, but it's HARD building small.

[SkyRender]

Small craft have the huge advantage of not needing a lot of fuel. For repeat surface visits, a tiny craft that can refuel in orbit beats a huge craft any day.

[SRV Ron]

Mini landers mean much less boosters needed to get them to their destinations. Once Career Mode implements a budget, small is going to be the way to go for cost efficiency.

An early design;

A later design.

Launch vehicle based upon NASA's Minotaur moon rocket;

Simple Mun orbiter;

A tiny asparagus interplanetary orbiter.

In orbit ready to send to Eve or Duna.

Small is challenging with missions to do.

For Career Mode, this is my probe of choice.

And the launcher that sent it there;

[Giggleplex777]

Building small makes it feel like you're building model rockets.

Pico Saturn V:

Full size (by sgt_flyer):

and Mulbin:

The Pico Saturn V is only 1/2 as tall as the full sized S-1C!

Edited November 9, 2013 by Giggleplex777

[Torham234]

@Astropapi1: how did you post pictures of MY Eve mission?? Are you spying on me?

[Giggleplex777]

As for small rovers...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Torham234]

Now THAT is a compact rover! And all the way to Duna non the less! Good work.

[boolybooly]

I have been playing a self imposed pen and paper economy sim which I wrote up in mission reports. It adds revenue for science, refuel cost, range dependant recovery cost and reusability,which obliged me to work within a very tight budget and balance cost with reward.

This for example was a shoreline mission. The science gain was fairly limited but it could make a profit by keeping refuel and recovery costs down and the vehicle was launched as it landed, completely reusable and due to the limits of build costs and fuel economy, it was built as the smallest Kerballed craft which could complete the mission.