How do you design your craft to look?

[Mmmmyum]

I want to do a survey type thing, and for that I need some information to plot a graph. Basically what I want is... How do you design your craft to look, and how old are you? This is going to mostly see if there's some sort of correlation between age what you create. Do you create things designed to look like real life rockets, futuristic (still don't know how some people get those things into orbit), battleship type things, spaceplanes, or anything else that I've missed out.

I'm 16 and I mostly make my rockets to look somewhat like modern day non reusable types.

[aeTIos]

I'm 17. I like to build rockets that are at least somewhat realistic. Though at times I do build monstrosities.

[Madrias]

21, though might as well say 22 (will be in December), and I build spaceplanes. Sometimes I make weird things with .cfg bashing and then strap it to a plane and fly it.

[GamerMitch]

I'm 13, and Like to build very controllable and sensible spaceplanes and rockets, unless I want to unleash my anger and make something stupid, like the Buttson Burner.(below)Genenand and Bilvey are the test subjects.

[alacrity]

41 and I don't build planes... well not ones that fly.

Mainly I build srb heavy 3 stagers for most basic flights. (science, and orbital insertions.)

For Kethane and such a build orange tanked nightmares designed to get 35 tonne colony bases into orbit, refueling and then moving on to target planet. I rely on lots of parachutes to get things to the ground.

My mainfun time is spent on rovers. My biggest was over 100 tonnes. (Suffered from wheel failure often and finally had to be abandoned). Speed records are 34 m/s turns on duna, 57 m/s in terrain straight on Mun. (records only count if you manage to hit the mark then stop safely with out rolling).

Currently stuck in early carreer hell having restarted with remote tech to add a little challenge.

Alacrity

[DeepSpaceDutch]

I'm 32 and my rockets are build on the principle of form follows function. So most of them are quite fugly

[tk5800thesecond]

I'm 20 and I used to build rockets exactly like the real world ones. My favorite to build was the soyuz before the mods came out for them. But now in version .22 I am making rockets that work because of the limited parts I have.

[RocketPilot573]

I like building things that look aerodynamic, but I do make insane contraptions every now and then...

[magnemoe]

44 and also an form follow function, prefer to make landers wide for stability. Tend to make complex multi mission ships if I can.

Jool mission to land on all moons and do sample return, rover for laythe and two probes to drop into Jool.

All the added junk make it ugly as sin.

[Godot]

40 and I design my rockets to with 3 goals in mind:

1. Efficiency (meaning that I like to use onion and asparagus setups ... but I also try to look a little bit at the price ... I may well design rockets at later stages of the career that can carry the same payload, but are cheaprer than their predecessors)

2. Modularity (usually ascent stage. transfer stage, landing stage and return stage are modular components (and often also get tested separately from each other for a certain payload, before being certified for use) so that I can combine them independently

3. Reusability (more for RPG purposes .. means among others, that I put parachutes on all stages that get dropped during early ascent, so my Kervbal recovery teams can recover them and reuse their components)

With other words, looks or similarity to RL spacecraft are secondary ... a few of my designs deviate strongly from rocket designs that are in common use ... with not a single central rocket, but multiple rockets on corners of the spacecraft

Edited November 13, 2013 by Godot
Added a summary

[DeepSpaceDutch]

BTW; very positivily surprised KSP is being played by 13 year olds

[Richy teh space man]

I'm 32 and in the function over form category, with my emphasis on having items that I use for one program being able to be reserviced for use in another role. For example, if I send a ship with a load of probes out to Jool, I'll probably fit it with docking ports so that I could re use it as a space station over Laythe or another moon.

If my rockets look good as well, then that's a bonus.

[Epthelyn]

If it works, it works, no matter how badly it does that. If I want to get to Eeloo I'll make a rocket that can, and will, get to Eeloo no matter how inefficient it is; if the goal is to get to Eeloo and the rocket can probably do Eeloo and back then all rules about efficiency are thrown out the window (hence why Eeloo took me over 7k dV on the first (and still only) try ).

In all seriousness though, I try to design rockets to look more or less like real rockets; smaller at the top, larger at the bottom. Obviously KSP throws up a few problems with taller structures so struts and trusses can lead to things looking a little different from the intended design.

Note: Design = Build something, fly it. If it doesn't work, build it better, fly it, repeat. Yes, my method of designing anything is trial and error combined with the MechJeb dV readout (which I don't have in Career because all the mods I have are for 0.21 and therefore have no science definitions but still work in Sandbox).

I'm 19.

[Wallace]

I go for 2 things for my designs: Low part count, and reliability.

I like to make my launchers as simple as possible so there is less to go wrong, too many boosters etc leads to instability and more struts causes a sideshow on my computer, so I keep things as simple as possible. I try to make the ships as neat as possible without too many widgets and radial attachments, I keep them sleek and solid, I like to keep a consistent radius and only go narrow to wide when absolutely necessary.

I like to keep things looking smooth though, I put nose cones on and other such things, and when i make a spaceplane I make it a nice neat shape, no random wings all over, it's always plane shaped.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Wallace

[AmpsterMan]

-21

-Form follows function

-Based on RL vehicles

That should make it easy to quantify

[Tw1]

Mostly, it's based on functionality, unless I have a randomly cool idea, like using communitrons as bristles to make a flying broomstick, or RTGs and I-beams to make that something like throne thing from that game of thrones show.

Often, if there aren't going to be problems with delta V, part count, I'll modify my design to make it cooler looking, but often the need for symmetry and balance makes it aesthetically pleasing anyway. Or maybe it's just I have an eye for design, and adjust for looks unconsciously.

Everything on that plane was designed because it needed to perform a specific task, though I really like this picture.

I'm 20, btw.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Tw1

[Moar Boosters]

31 years old. I like building tall rockets, and realistic looking large spaceplanes with all the uglyness hidden under the wings. Bigger is definitely better.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Moar Boosters

[Guest]

I enjoy reading through blogs like "False Steps" and "Beyond Apollo" in order to find out about designs that were proposed but never built. Alternate ideas for manned lunar landers, Mars expeditions, space stations, and the like. Then I set about trying to make those designs work in KSP. If I find that a design has a fatal flaw, engineering around it becomes the next challenge.

Then there are the "what if" games. Currently I'm working on an Apollo style mission that uses a version of the proposed SLS instead of the Saturn V as a launch vehicle.

If I'm designing from scratch, efficiency is the guiding principle. How do I build the smallest, lightest payload that can still accomplish the task at hand, and what is the most efficient launch vehicle to propel it? Then the fun is seeing if there are novel things it can do beyond the intended design.

I'm old enough to remember watching the Apollo flights, including watching the rockets being stacked in the VAB and attending all but 2 of the launches (manned and unmanned).

Edited November 13, 2013 by Jack Wolfe

[Nimaci]

33yo

3 way asparagus seems to be a common theme for me, so I'd say sci-fi

[Traches]

First priority with any payload I design is weight-- lighter landers => more delta V per kg of fuel => less fuel needed => more manageable rockets. Especially important when playing with KIDS on hard mode.

Next priority is aerodynamics-- FAR will let me know when I mess that up.

After that is part count. Time dilation bothers me.

Finally, I try to make them look like rockets and landers should look; in other words I try to make spacecraft that look like something that could exist in the real world, not just something that abuses the quirks of KSP to put things into orbit that have no business being in orbit. Same for my spaceplanes. I'm 26 btw.

[Sapphire]

I'm 19, and I try to make my stuff futuristic.

http://i.imgur.com/Lr4Vj2Q.png

http://i.imgur.com/XCL4Ee3.png

http://i.imgur.com/XB7jxnz.png

http://i.imgur.com/3ACF3eB.png

I'm not really one for silly stuff because I hate killing Kerbals, and I'm too much of a pacifist to make war machines, so advanced exploration ships it is!

[M5000]

I'm 20.

I design all my base craft (planes, rovers, un-payloaded rockets) to look excellent. I only accept the highest quality mod packs such as KW and B9, and spend more time in the VAB/SPH than anything. A craft isn't considered legitimate until it's been tested countless times and has proven itself to be reliable.

Once a lifter has proven itself reliable, I will attach it to a payload that is to be sent on a mission, and try my best to fit it into the fairings. Sometimes, however, it doesn't fit.

I try to design big, beautiful rockets, and elegant, sleek spaceplanes. However, thus far, I fail at spaceplanes so I've yet to build anything worth flying.

[-RanZ-]

30 and I go for functionality over anything else. I also try to ensure stages are setup so I can always de-orbit and stages that are not on a sub-orbital trajectory. I like building huge ships in orbit and doing a few missions at once like hitting all Jool moons with landers/probes on 1 trip.

[Tobmaster]

I'm 31 and do two completely unrelated things in KSP - make plausible spaceplanes and orbital monstrosities.

Usual Design process for monstrosities

1. Create something neat and fun to go to space
   
2. Strap on fuel tanks and engines/boosters to get it to orbit
   
3. Fail to get to orbit
   
4. ADD MORE BOOSTERS
   
5. Repeat steps 3 & 4
   
6. when fps turns into a slide show, divide payload and dock to single piece in orbit
   

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[RogueMason]

I'm 19. The rockets I use to get things into orbit are generally function over form but I still very much care for the aesthetics of my launch vehicles, so there are nose cones and fins. However, some of the heavier payloads require rockets that are attached around the sides of the payload instead of underneath, as it allows for more thrust and greater stability during the launch.

My ships on the other hand must look good as well as function as intended. Aside from the basic vehicles I've made (Mun and Minmus landers, primarily), my ships are all made to look good (in my eyes, anyway). Probably why I'm considering re-installing B9 and KSP Interstellar. Just to show a few of my designs off:

Pioneer II Spaceplane:

MSV Venturer VNT-050:

A87 Arrow Medium Fighter:

MSV Libra LBR-030-B:

Swiftwind III OTV:

Basically, I'm one of those people who designs current to near-future ships (maybe, say, up to 100 years ahead?), and I have definitely drawn from sci-fi in a lot of my work. However, I do have an Apollo-analogue, and a Mercury-analogue, but everything else is based on modern and near-future space vehicles; the Pioneer Spaceplane is based on Dream Chaser, the Libra on Prometheus (from the film of the same name...), and the Venturer was created with a Copernicus-analogue in mind.

The B9 and Interstellar mods should give me a bit more to work with if I decide to re-install them.