Is there a reason to build small ?

[3_bit]

Take my advice: no matter what you build with, don't get engineer's syndrome (trying to squeeze in every possible feature, one at a time) like I do. I personally prefer smaller because it's not only easier to SSTO, cheaper for challenges, but is also darn cool when it comes to statistics. For example, when in LKO, my Laythe station (which I heavily miscalculated my dV on: it was 4 times my estimate ) had some 8,000 m/s dV whilst weighing a mere ~7 tons. How'd I do it? It was made out of xenon tanks. For example, a line of Xenon tanks with a command chair, probe core, solar panel, and some wheels counted as a rover. I actually packed a rover, 2 orbital satellites with their own ion drives, as well as 2 landers, to do it. Basically the orbital sats would detach off the sides, leaving the 2 landers and a rover. The landers were unmanned, and one of them had the ion drive that would perform the deorbit burn. They would then proceed to detach and land at separate areas. I never actually launched the thing past LKO and a small test of landing back on Kerbin, as using that 8000 m/s dV would have taken some 3 days IRL without time warp. That's my story of cheating my way into making the smallest and yet most versatile Laythe ship, that looked pretty cool while it was at it.

Small ships are always more efficient.

EDIT: this is my 404th post! Celebratory edit not found.

[Superfluous J]

Small ships are always more efficient.

That is an extremely general statement.

5 small ships one with a goo container, one with a science bay, and 3 more with 3 different experiments in them is *NOT* more efficient than one larger ship with all 5 experiments, unless you grossly over-engineer it.

[KerbMav]

Building small is actually easy - as long as I am not trying to build a lander, here I always go a bit crazy and then need a bigger rocket.

I started out big, especially before career mode. Everything was massive, heavy, could hardly turn, therefore packed loads of RCS - and I usually ended up with half empty fuel tanks or even an unused third/fourth stage.

Recently I started to try more and more to just build what I need and they fly better - also because I am getting a better grasp on gravity turns at last.

Though this will most probably come to an end when I start building space stations again ... "So many launches? And every module comes with two more parts for docking ... "

...which will then create a demand for banks to be implemented (so they can be robbed) or weapons to become part of stock (because war is profitable). No way in heck am I abandoning my fleet!

/totally tongue-in-cheek here

Show me the way to your showroom!

[WafflesToo]

Actual in-game reasons? I can't think of many. Out-of-game? I can think of a few.

Pride is a big one, or rather 'fun' if you enjoy sqeezing as much as you can out of as little material ad possible (like I do )

System specs could be another. My 7 year old dinosaur starts wheezing if I throw much more than 250 parts at it. )

And one last one, if you are depending on a limited resource like kethane it's good not to wipe out an entire deposite just delivering the mining equipment

[astropapi1]

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

Dayum! Great minds think alike, I guess.

Edited December 18, 2013 by astropapi1

[technion]

Sometimes.. because it works.

My Gilly lander is tiny and had no issues making the trip from low Eve orbit and back again. If I tried to create a larger system, I have a feeling I would have strapped it with T45's and loaded it up with so much junk it couldn't make the trip.