increase ISP of LV-1 and LV-1R

[thereaverofdarkness]

The low ISP compared to the low TWR of these engines makes them a really lousy engine for just about everything. You can fit a Rockomax 24-77 almost anywhere you can fit an LV-1R, and the 24-77 has slightly better ISP and way better TWR. It's also a lot more powerful, so you get more total thrust out of the same amount of surface attachment space.

The LV-1 is so weak that it won't push most tiny probes much better than an ion engine will, and since the ion engine has way better ISP, it's almost unconditionally a better choice.

I guess you could use them for fine control if the Rockomax 24-77 is too powerful at minimum thrust--though while it's a theoretical possibility, I've never actually encountered this problem even on small craft. When the craft gets too small for 24-77s, it's usually a cinch to just put more fuel tanks on.

So I really can't find any use for the LV-1 or LV-1R except for laughs, though it's not even good at that because it's so weak you can't really push anything around with it. It might be funny if it exploded a lot, or sent your craft in funny directions...if it could even lift the craft in the first place.

---------

My suggestion is to increase the ISP of the LV-1 and LV1-R to 560 in vacuum. This would place these engines squarely between the LV-909 and the LV-N in terms of TWR and ISP. It would make for an engine that helps close the gap between NERVAs and regular rockets, and it would also allow players to build moderately efficient ships in a smaller size, without having to resort to ion engines. But most of all, it would make the LV-1 and LV-1R actually useful.

Here's how I figured 560 ISP:

The proportional median point between two numbers can be found by dividing the larger by the smaller, finding the square root of your result, and multiplying that by the smaller original number. For instance, the proportional median between 5 and 20 is 10: 20/5=4, sqrt of 4=2, 2x5=10. So I used this formula on the approximate TWR of the LV-N and LV-909 on Kerbin (2.67 and 10, respectively), which gives a proportional median of ~5.16 (about 5). This is already very close to the TWR of the LV-1 and LV-1R, so I nabbed the proportional median of their ISP as well: 800/390=2.05128(sqrt)=1.43223x390=558.57

[zxczxczbfg]

The Ant really isn't designed for primary propulsion, it's for probe landers and small probe course corrections. It's not supposed to be efficient, it's supposed to be lightweight.

[thereaverofdarkness]

but it's not lightweight. It has 1/3rd of the mass of the 24-77. If I put enough on it to make course corrections in a reasonable amount of time, I end up putting at least 6 on it. I'd be better off with 2 24-77s.

[Turd]

I agree, they make zero sense and I would like to have super tiny engine for micro-probes. At the moment they are worse than useless.

[SunJumper]

I think an isp of 560s is a little bit too high, AFAIK, the maximum Isp for chemical rockets ever flown was 450s (the Space Shuttle main engine). Even boosting the isp to 400s will massively improve performance over the LV909, due to the significant mass savings.

[Paul Kingtiger]

What I'd love to see, and I think we will before 1.0 is a rebalance of all the parts, something which will be a lot easier with tweakables.

You can easily create a database of all the real life engines, and base the weight, ISP and TWR on those numbers.

You're going to get different numbers based on fuel type, technology level and so on. If the game could emulate that using the technology tree you could use the same parts but with different stats to represent technological improvements.

[tetryds]

What I'd love to see, and I think we will before 1.0 is a rebalance of all the parts, something which will be a lot easier with tweakables.

You can easily create a database of all the real life engines, and base the weight, ISP and TWR on those numbers.

You're going to get different numbers based on fuel type, technology level and so on. If the game could emulate that using the technology tree you could use the same parts but with different stats to represent technological improvements.

you know that ksp engines are nerfed if compared to real life ones, right?

[Duxwing]

The LV-1 and LV-R provide tremendous payload fractions when with little fuel pushing light payloads, thereby lessening the payload mass of their orbital tug, which therefore can use less fuel and therefore in turn require a lesser lifter; this cascade of lightening greatly reduces mission mass, complexity, and cost.

-Duxwing

[thereaverofdarkness]

The LV-1 and LV-R provide tremendous payload fractions when with little fuel pushing light payloads, thereby lessening the payload mass of their orbital tug, which therefore can use less fuel and therefore in turn require a lesser lifter; this cascade of lightening greatly reduces mission mass, complexity, and cost.

-Duxwing

But with their terrible TWR, getting a tiny payload fraction with these requires such low thrust that you can literally get the same delta-v with a higher rate of acceleration with LV-Ns instead. Only difference is LV-Ns don't come in a smaller size.

[Artophwar]

I use LV-1 on all my small probes because of the weight savings. I know we dont have a proper career mode but playing the Mission controller mod I use these things all the time because the payload is lighter, the launcher is smaller, and therefore the whole mission is cheaper. I can also get 300-400 more dV on my probes with an LV-1 versus a 48-7s because of the weight difference.

I am not saying they are perfect but they are far from useless.

[Traches]

The ant engines work great as a sooper light maneuvering engine for itty bitty space probes. Ion engines are a pain to deal with, and require a bunch of batteries, a bunch of solar panels, and all of a sudden your bitty space probe isn't so itty. The 24-77 has a whole lot of thrust, which can make setting up perfect geosync orbits or fine tuned intercepts tough.

That said, RCS often serves the same purpose just as well...

[Duxwing]

But with their terrible TWR, getting a tiny payload fraction with these requires such low thrust that you can literally get the same delta-v with a higher rate of acceleration with LV-Ns instead. Only difference is LV-Ns don't come in a smaller size.

Move smaller payloads. The LV-1 is an engine "for ants".

-Duxwing

[Kegereneku]

Didn't checked it out, but I think it's a problem if RCS give more Dv for equivalent mass than those ant-engine. There have to be a niche were they are useful (including in the wait of a better engine).

[Anton P. Nym]

I use the "Ant" for satellites and very-lightweight probes, and frankly don't see the need for a change. It's the weight; the higher-Isp engines are all heavier and end up with less delta-V on probes that are just a wee fuel tank and an OCTO/HECKS with a few sensors and batteries hanging off it.

If you're going with a heavier probe, or need a higher TWR, then you should be looking at the Rockomaxes and not at Squad buffing the LV-1s.

-- Steve

[lajoswinkler]

I don't have problems with those engines. In fact, I've used them for tiny landers on Minmus and Gilly. Loads of fun.

[Smidge204]

AFAIK RCS can't be throttled. The LV-1 can provide a bit more thrust than an RSC block, but can be throttled down to ~15-20% of the thrust from an RCS port.

A 24-77 at its lowest thrust still produces more than an LV-1 at maximum thrust.

Basically the LV-1 is the "lightest touch" thruster in the game if you exclude the PB-ION, which is much heavier and requires lots of electricity and special fuel.

Relatively poor Isp and TWR are the tradeoffs you make for the very fine craft control they offer. If there was an option to configure normal engines to respond to RCS controls, I'd use them instead of RCS blocks just so I wouldn't need the special fuel tanks.

=Smidge=

[tetryds]

AFAIK RCS can't be throttled. The LV-1 can provide a bit more thrust than an RSC block, but can be throttled down to ~15-20% of the thrust from an RCS port.

A 24-77 at its lowest thrust still produces more than an LV-1 at maximum thrust.

Basically the LV-1 is the "lightest touch" thruster in the game if you exclude the PB-ION, which is much heavier and requires lots of electricity and special fuel.

Relatively poor Isp and TWR are the tradeoffs you make for the very fine craft control they offer. If there was an option to configure normal engines to respond to RCS controls, I'd use them instead of RCS blocks just so I wouldn't need the special fuel tanks.

=Smidge=

i never did it but its actually a good idea to set them to action groups and use like controlled RCS

sometimes you just need to stop spinning around and having to bring an RCS tank just for that is not worth

[DaMichel]

i never did it but its actually a good idea to set them to action groups and use like controlled RCS

sometimes you just need to stop spinning around and having to bring an RCS tank just for that is not worth

I was thinking the same. They could even be used in addition to the main engine to fine tune intercepts from far away for tiny dv costs. Especially with the help of mods like PreciseNode which i currently use. I might try that on my next ship.

[stupid_chris]

I use the "Ant" for satellites and very-lightweight probes, and frankly don't see the need for a change. It's the weight; the higher-Isp engines are all heavier and end up with less delta-V on probes that are just a wee fuel tank and an OCTO/HECKS with a few sensors and batteries hanging off it.

If you're going with a heavier probe, or need a higher TWR, then you should be looking at the Rockomaxes and not at Squad buffing the LV-1s.

-- Steve

^This

I'm perfectly fine with the Ant having a low ISP. Everything is not ISP to be frank. For a small lander on Pol, Bop, Gilly, or even Minmus, you are far better off with the Ant than a 24-77 or a 48-77. It all depends on how much weight you carry around. Below a certain lander mass, excluding fuel and engines, having an Ant will allow you to carry overall less fuel+engine mass than if you took the same lander mass with a 48-77 or two 24-77. I don't think they need to be buffed at all.

[tetryds]

so basically the ant is of a very specific use and buffing them to explore a wider range of possibilities is not good because it would unbalance the use on its main purpose, making it overpowered

interesting, i agree