chris24 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 help me out! i cant really see the usefulness of the solid engines. the liquid engines seem to outpeform them big time. ive done a bunch of tests. single booster compared to single liquid engine with fuel. liquid wins. multiple solids versus multiple liquids, liquid wins...i thought maybe it was a mass issue, but even setups that are equal mass for mass the liquids outpeformed solids (by a longshot!) firing engines simultanously or all one at a time didnt seem to help the solids. best setup seemed to be a single liquid engine with a few fuel tanks. what am i missing?can someone show me a specific example of a setup with solid boosters where, if you take them out and replace them with liquid fuel and engines the craft is actually worse? i dont see how that could be. the only thing i can see better about solids is a lower cost, which afaik, doesnt mean anything yet. i know the general idea is that solids are supposed to be better for initial stage to get off the ground, but in practice (at least for me) that doesnt seem to be the case. solid boosters feel like an 80\'s camaro, and liquid engines feel like a high tech F1 race car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypocee Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You understand the situation perfectly. Liquids are supposed to be better. If you haven\'t already you might want to learn about 'specific impulse', which is what they have a lot more of.A. Cost will eventually matter.B. The advantages SRBs have are higher max thrust and insane thrust-to-weight ratio. An SRB can lift more weight second-to-second than a liquid engine. This makes them great for adding that extra initial lift to a liquid rocket that couldn\'t otherwise lift off. By the time they burn out, the liquid engines have also burned off some fuel, lightening the ship enough to continue on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris24 Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 i still dont get it. 'This makes them great for adding that extra initial lift to a liquid rocket that couldn\'t otherwise lift off.'..but why add solids to get such a craft off the ground if you can just add liquids, which are clearly better? and probably need less of them to boot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping111 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 i still dont get it. 'This makes them great for adding that extra initial lift to a liquid rocket that couldn\'t otherwise lift off.'..but why add solids to get such a craft off the ground if you can just add liquids, which are clearly better? and probably need less of them to boot!That means SRB\'s aren\'t useful for rockets, just for getting them off the ground. A kickstart, if you will.Take the Space Shuttle z'l. It couldn\'t take off without the two SRB\'s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UmbralRaptor Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Within the context of stock parts, solids are lighter and have a better thrust to weight ratio, making for better drag racers. That said, I run nearly pure liquid fuel engines for anything orbital. The insane Isp of stock liquid engines (~25% greater than the SSME!) is part of this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris24 Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 That means SRB\'s aren\'t useful for rockets, just for getting them off the ground. A kickstart, if you will.Take the Space Shuttle z'l. It couldn\'t take off without the two SRB\'s.but if srb\'s are a good kickstart, wouldnt liquids be a better kickstart? i just ran a couple quick tests, and it seems to me, SRB\'s are not even better than liquids dollar for dollar. i dont know that space shuttle...is it something i can download, or see the specs and rebuild it in KSP?i can see SRB\'s being useful if you only need one or two to get off the ground...it might be cheaper than going liquid, and if you dont have to spend the money, then dont, i guess. this seems like a very situational purpose though, and for 3 SRB\'s it seems 1 liquid engine and a tank would be far better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping111 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 but if srb\'s are a good kickstart, wouldnt liquids be a better kickstart? i just ran a couple quick tests, and it seems to me, SRB\'s are not even better than liquids dollar for dollar. i dont know that space shuttle...is it something i can download, or see the specs and rebuild it in KSP?i can see SRB\'s being useful if you only need one or two to get off the ground...it might be cheaper than going liquid, and if you dont have to spend the money, then dont, i guess. this seems like a very situational purpose though, and for 3 SRB\'s it seems 1 liquid engine and a tank would be far better.I\'m talking the real Shuttle. Sure, use liquid all the way, but it\'s not as realistic.If you try Nova\'s Silisko Edition, you will find yourself in need of the SRB\'s because of the added weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris24 Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 Within the context of stock parts, solids are lighter and have a better thrust to weight ratio, making for better drag racers. That said, I run nearly pure liquid fuel engines for anything orbital. The insane Isp of stock liquid engines (~25% greater than the SSME!) is part of this...ok, i was thinking i could sink my teeth into the drag racing thing...but nope again. i tried anywhere from 1 to 3 srb\'s against a single liquid and a fuel cell. best result for solids was 3 solids firing at once...which came out to about a tie, within a second (hard to measure exactly. didnt seem that amazing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris24 Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 I\'m talking the real Shuttle. Sure, use liquid all the way, but it\'s not as realistic.If you try Nova\'s Silisko Edition, you will find yourself in need of the SRB\'s because of the added weight.ahh. ok. i was just talking about the stock parts in the game. i guess they are just unrealistic/unbalanced/broken? thats an answer that makes sense to me. ill check out nova\'s...is that the most realistic parts out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping111 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 ahh. ok. i was just talking about the stock parts in the game. i guess they are just unrealistic/unbalanced/broken? thats an answer that makes sense to me. ill check out nova\'s...is that the most realistic parts out there? Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ntmoore19 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Solids are better for quick bursts of speed. They\'re cheaper too, IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cepheus Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Solids have a better thrust-to-weight ratio. If you\'ve ever noticed, while liquids get the job done, solids have fantastic acceleration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 There\'s a reason the drag racer designs are basically, now, about finding the correct way to stage ten jillion solid boosters. Prior to .13, they were also the only boosters you could attack skin-to-skin or to radial decouplers, which made them very handy for building outrigger liquid stacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Biscuit Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Solids don\'t build acceleration after they reach their thrust, so they are good to give the initial kick, so that you get out of the atmosphere to be able to use liquid fuel, that accelerates constantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypocee Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I\'m not saying that\'s not so, but it shouldn\'t be so - either in real life, where solids lose mass and therefore gain acceleration just like liquids, or in the game - I remember in the first couple public releases there was a hilarious bug where SRBs got the wrong polarity and added mass as they burned, which implies that now it\'s fixed they lose mass and are intended to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteevyT Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I\'m not saying that\'s not so, but it shouldn\'t be so - either in real life, where solids lose mass and therefore gain acceleration just like liquids, or in the game - I remember in the first couple public releases there was a hilarious bug where SRBs got the wrong polarity and added mass as they burned, which implies that now it\'s fixed they lose mass and are intended to do so.While that was an entertaining bug, it is fixed so they lose mass now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cepheus Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I can just imagine the problems if that popped up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts