Is there a reason to build small ?

[magnemoe]

One obious reason to build small probes is that you can launch a lots of them. Say sending 8 probe rovers to Jool to land on the poles of Laythe, Vall, Tylo and Bop.

Note that building light weight increases the part count. lots of small struts, drop tanks even asparagus.

Yes that mission was a secondary launch to the Jool explorer mission who was not small even if it used plenty of small parts. Objective was landing and sample return from all of Jool's moons,

Mostly successful, the Laythe lander and the Jool atmospheric probe did not separate. The large rover was used as an probe until it was used manned in the followup mission. the sample return module was used as an splashdown probe.

[Deadweasel]

I'm kind of starting to get on this small thing bandwagon, though I do still build massive ships to carry them. I just carry MORE of them now.

My first awesome rover was this big bad boy:

But later I wanted something more compact, that didn't require an entire cargo bay and an elaborate system to mount and deploy it. So I create this little guy:

Interestingly, the little Kurb Burner is more fun to drive at that size. It's a bit like comparing this...

...to this

[Skorpychan]

Launching it is the issue.

I'm currently running small, <2ton probes out to planets to garner science. The landers are basically science gear with a small engine and fuel tank attached, and some chutes. The orbital probes are little ion affairs, but don't seem to have much delta-v of their own.

I can pack three probes onto a transfer stage that's basically a -32 tank with a nuclear engine on the bottom, with some batteries, solar panels, a probe core, and some torque wheels.

My heavy lift design doesn't WORK after the latest update, and basically just explodes around 10-15k as a booster tears itself loose. I'm unsure on what's wrong with it, so any big missions are shelved until I can figure out WTF is wrong with it.

Or until I figure out docking.

[Giggleplex777]

Launching it is the issue.

I'm currently running small, <2ton probes out to planets to garner science. The landers are basically science gear with a small engine and fuel tank attached, and some chutes. The orbital probes are little ion affairs, but don't seem to have much delta-v of their own.

I can pack three probes onto a transfer stage that's basically a -32 tank with a nuclear engine on the bottom, with some batteries, solar panels, a probe core, and some torque wheels.

My heavy lift design doesn't WORK after the latest update, and basically just explodes around 10-15k as a booster tears itself loose. I'm unsure on what's wrong with it, so any big missions are shelved until I can figure out WTF is wrong with it.

Or until I figure out docking.

What do you need to lift?

Try the Munshine Family: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/49226-EXPANDED-Munshine-Launcher-Family-10-100-tons-to-orbit%21?

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Launching it is the issue.

I'm currently running small, <2ton probes out to planets to garner science. The landers are basically science gear with a small engine and fuel tank attached, and some chutes. The orbital probes are little ion affairs, but don't seem to have much delta-v of their own.

I can pack three probes onto a transfer stage that's basically a -32 tank with a nuclear engine on the bottom, with some batteries, solar panels, a probe core, and some torque wheels.

My heavy lift design doesn't WORK after the latest update, and basically just explodes around 10-15k as a booster tears itself loose. I'm unsure on what's wrong with it, so any big missions are shelved until I can figure out WTF is wrong with it.

Or until I figure out docking.

For your own enjoyment of the game I'd suggest learning orbital rendezvous + docking

[Geschosskopf]

I'm with those who think that small = efficient. Apart from those who see large ships as an art form, I think the main reason a lot of people build huge monstrosities is because of KSP's amazing lack of even basic in-game instrumentation so they overbuild everything because they have no idea when they've got enough already. But when you really get down to it, there are very few things in the game that require even a 30-ton mission payload, and even those don't require more than a 50-ton transfer tug to go anywhere in the system.

One of the main advantages of building small that I haven't noticed anybody mention so far is the flexibility and redundancy you get that way. Building small ships for complex missions means you usually have a flotilla, each member of which has a specific role in the overall plan. But you'll find that many of these will be able to do multiple jobs. Thus, if something bad happens to one of them, you can still do that job with another. OTOH, if you put all your eggs in the 1 big ship basket, a single failure can doom the entire project. Another advantage of multiple small ships is that the expedition will probably have multiple options for self-rescue without having to wait on something coming from Kerbin years later. And by juggling the various components around, you're often able to improvise the ability to do something that wasn't part of the original plan and you only thought of it once you were there. Or maybe your return vehicle is low on fuel, but you've got all these other ships in the system that can stay there so you can suck the fuel out of them.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I'm with those who think that small = efficient. Apart from those who see large ships as an art form, I think the main reason a lot of people build huge monstrosities is because of KSP's amazing lack of even basic in-game instrumentation so they overbuild everything because they have no idea when they've got enough already. But when you really get down to it, there are very few things in the game that require even a 30-ton mission payload, and even those don't require more than a 50-ton transfer tug to go anywhere in the system.

One of the main advantages of building small that I haven't noticed anybody mention so far is the flexibility and redundancy you get that way. Building small ships for complex missions means you usually have a flotilla, each member of which has a specific role in the overall plan. But you'll find that many of these will be able to do multiple jobs. Thus, if something bad happens to one of them, you can still do that job with another. OTOH, if you put all your eggs in the 1 big ship basket, a single failure can doom the entire project. Another advantage of multiple small ships is that the expedition will probably have multiple options for self-rescue without having to wait on something coming from Kerbin years later. And by juggling the various components around, you're often able to improvise the ability to do something that wasn't part of the original plan and you only thought of it once you were there. Or maybe your return vehicle is low on fuel, but you've got all these other ships in the system that can stay there so you can suck the fuel out of them.

Indeed, modular builds FTW. But even more FTW are GIANT modular builds ;-)

[Seret]

Small vessels are generally easier to control. They use less fuel, which is great if you're using fuel depots. In general I make everything only as big as it needs to be. KISS works, and being able to design minimalist missions will pay off when we get money in career mode.

"A designer has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

[Brotoro]

Building small is cool. I'm so used to messing around with larger ships, that when I DO build something small (usually after a new update, while waiting until I get the bugs worked out of converting my old saves) I'm amazed at how much you can do with a small payload.

[boxman]

It really depends on your definition of small. For me a big craft is something taking up thousands of parts, while a small one is something that takes up hundreds.

The advantage of small crafts for me is the smooth framerate.

But small satellites on the other hand sadly does not have much of a purpose right now. I hope they later add something so that it will be useful to have a satellite orbiting, so that it gathers science over a longer period of time even when not "controlling" the satellite, like how real satellites would be used.

[Geschosskopf]

But small satellites on the other hand sadly does not have much of a purpose right now. I hope they later add something so that it will be useful to have a satellite orbiting, so that it gathers science over a longer period of time even when not "controlling" the satellite, like how real satellites would be used.

Check out dammy's SCANsat mod, which maps terrain, biomes, and artifacts in the background while you do something more interesting.

[TNM]

i build small = efficient. probably because i always took an interest in real space programs and know that you can't go crazy.

i'm still proud that i did my first apollo mun-landing with only 5% fuel left overall (yes, all stages together), STOCK, no dead Kerbals, just doing unmanned missions to get a feeling for fuel.

If i build large i do it in space, meaning i dock crafts together like you would in RL.

BUT, in defense of building large, it was after all the only way to go before docking, so i can see where that philosophy in ksp comes from.

[zombiphylax]

I'm in the small and efficient group. I don't see the point of sending up fuel you don't need. Especially when that will eventually cost money.

[EvilotionCR2]

It can go to Jool.

[Caelib]

My suggestion would be to build small, otherwise you're carrying fuel to carry more fuel. My suggestion would be to install Kerbal Engineer or MechJeb to see the differences in Delta-V between stages on a small probe versus a large one -- I think you'll be quite surprised on just how much energy it takes to move around a heavy payload.

[Traches]

I can think of a pretty good reason:

[Anton P. Nym]

I enjoy the challenges of both building big and building small.

That's the smallest probe I've created the "Popcorn"; so named because they're small and cheap so I can go through them like a bag of popcorn at the movies... so I could practice landings, more than anything else really. Made before the implementation of science in 0.22, so I don't know if the battery would hold up with just the two OXSTAT (one, really, given they're on oppposite faces) for recharging... but a Popcorn can land anywhere either by parachute or by rocket motor.

Naturally, because they're so small I put 8 of them on a truss that I can dock to a mothership...

I manged to stick to the "small is best" mantra with MiniMoho, an ion-motor probe that can get to Moho (certainly a fly-by, I'll find out soon if I can make it an orbiter) for under $20 000 kerbucks. It's a bit power-deprived thanks to how the solar panels are arrayed but not enough to compromise the mission.

The great thing about building small is, as pointed out by Traches' quote of the rocket equation, saving a bit of weight in craft allows you to save weight in fuel, which allows even more weight-saving in fuel and helps make the mission even smaller. It's a virtuous spiral that sometimes leads to running a mission with a couple of FL-800s instead of needing a Rockomax 64.

-- Steve

[Spyritdragon]

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 ?

I love 1m parts, because they have much, much, much less tendency to wobble apart in any way whatsoever. I barely even have to strut them. Also, if you use 1m or 0.5m probes, you can launch three or four at the same time using tri/quadcouplers which can then each go their own way.

[fatfluffycat]

I can think of a pretty good reason:

wat does dat mean?

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

wat does dat mean?

It's the Delta-V Equation

[Crush]

The larger you build, the more problems do you get with craft stability and simulation performance. But when you found a heavy lifter design which works, there is not much reason to not use it for smaller payloads even when it is total overkill.

I hope that the introduction of a limited budget for career mode will one day encourage more economic designs.

[toomuchbrew]

Think about this... when they add an economy, all those large lifters and transfer stages won't be so appealing when your budget is limited.

[Deadweasel]

Think about this... when they add an economy, all those large lifters and transfer stages won't be so appealing when your budget is limited.

...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

[JazzXP]

I used to be like you and build MASSIVE all the time. Way over engineered. Career mode has helped with that by forcing me to get used to building with smaller tanks and engines. Yes, I have run out of fuel a few times, but hey, I like the challenge! (plus forces me to design a rescue mission)

[OrtwinS]

I like both.

If I go for a 'serious game', I go as small and light as possible. My Duna-probe launch vehicle is smaller and lighter than most peoples first Mun rocket.

The other kind of game I play is: 'NASA with infinite cred', building humongous motherships equipped with 20 probes (mini probes though) that can suck dry any planet of all science (theoretically, since non-Kerbin planets have no biomes yet). Also: large multi-section stations and bases.

When talking about challenge: small is the most challenging, and for me therefore most fun game. But once in a while I want to just mess around.