0.23 MUNSHINE LIFTERS -5-165 tons to orbit, including low-tech Career Mode versions!

[AbhChallenger]

And just imagine the number of struts we'll be able to get rid of

From what I've seen on YouTube so far, a simple two-stage SLS stack without boosters should be able to lift 40-60 tons to LKO. And that'll only be a dozen parts or so including fins and launch clamps. Build that out Munshine-style and payloads of several hundred tons should be no problem.

One of the reasons I can't wait to use Munshine after the ARM patch. To be frank I eventually gave up on trying to use KSPs poor strut placement system on the larger of the Munshines and just installed KJR.

Question tho. Considering constructing the basic SLS design will be simple afterwards. Will you keep the current line of Munshine lifters intact? The reason I ask this is because many of the lifters just look "cool" and using SLS style for everything wont be as fun.

[Wayfare]

And, one last question: will the higher end Munshine's be phased out into the new size parts, so they look less like, a bunch of fuel tanks strapped together? They already look nice but a nice SLS/Saturn style rocket would look really slick!

Considering constructing the basic SLS design will be simple afterwards. Will you keep the current line of Munshine lifters intact? The reason I ask this is because many of the lifters just look "cool" and using SLS style for everything wont be as fun.

That's a really good question. The fundamental design principle of the Munshine lifters has always been simplicity. We aim to create lifters that are light on parts and high on utility, shunning complicated staging in favor of putting your payloads into orbit with reliability and economy. This focus on function results in what I consider some very pleasing aesthetics, but those are secondary to the core strength of the Munshine family.

0.23.5's improved joint rigidity will allow us to lighten our designs even more, especially where vertical "stitching" is concerned. However, owing to our design principles, the SLS parts may well make a lot of our 50-tons and up designs obsolete. If a 3.75m two-stage SLS rocket can push 50+ tons to LKO at under twenty parts, that would blow an upgraded 60-ish part Munshine V out of the water by an amazing margin. So my current estimation is that no, we won't keep the current line intact. The lighter Skipper-based designs maybe, though the 2.5m SLS parts may render them obsolete as well.

Of course there's one increasingly important area of the game where the current Munshines could remain relevant: Career Mode. Assuming that the SLS parts will be quite high up the tech tree, the "Low-Tech" variants of the Munshines will still be very viable designs. Looking forward to 0.24 I'm hoping Munshine lifters will prove to be remarkably cheap too. And finally, there doesn't seem to be anything in the pipeline that will actually break 0.23 craft so if you just want to keep using Munshines for their dashing good looks, there's nothing to stop you

[Wayfare]

Oh, and are there any areas I could help out with Munshine? Like designing a rocket to fill in any gaps? I know there's one being worked on between Munshine IV and Munshine V, but anything else would be cool.

Not right now to be honest. With 0.23.5 around the corner this is not a good time to be investing in new designs. Once that hits though, as hinted at above, we'll probably have a lot of design work to do at Wayfare AE&KA and I'd be happy with any help I can get. Test pilots in particular!

Edited March 31, 2014 by Wayfare

[AbhChallenger]

How about a "Munshine Classic" With the current hi tech designs but just the excess struts removed? I don't even mind them being given a different name if you want to prevent confusion with the new SLS style Munshines.

If the issue is time to do those I can understand. However, if the team is bored perhaps?

[BigD145]

I see no reason not to keep the current line intact depending on where the new parts are in the tech tree.

[DaRocketCat]

From what I get Moonshine lifters are supposed to get the job done with no nonsense and the least amount of parts.

Therefore I'd see no point (in sandbox) in using anything that doesn't have 3.75m parts since they provide more lift for less parts.

[Giggleplex777]

0.23.5 released. M-X development will start ASAP.

[Woopert]

0.23.5 released. M-X development will start ASAP.

Yes!

Can't wait to see how "ridiculous" it looks!

[Wayfare]

I'll just flail about aimlessly until Kerbal Engineer gets updated. Might smack into some 'roids in the mean time

Happy 0.23.5 day everyone!

[ndiver]

Same opinion, we can probably do similar weight to orbit with less parts and totally renew the Munshine family.

In reality we can probably do 3 class of Munshine :

- some new ones using FL-T800 for probes. Possibly using jet engine for the atmospheric zone (it does not requires lot of parts for great efficiency)

- the ones using the Jumbo-64 as intermediate

- the heavies with the new parts

Edited April 2, 2014 by ndiver

[Giggleplex777]

Same opinion, we can probably do similar weight to orbit with less parts and totally renew the Munshine family.

In reality we can probably do 3 class of Munshine :

- some new ones using FL-T800 for probes. Possibly using jet engine for the atmospheric zone (it does not requires lot of parts for great efficiency)

- the ones using the Jumbo-64 as intermediate

- the heavies with the new parts

I think we should a do complete overhaul of the standard Munshines with the new parts, as well as some some of the unnecessary struts from the low-tech models.

[Wayfare]

Just put an orange tank into an 80km orbit with a 12-part launcher, including clamps. This feels like cheating

Early observation: the Kerbodyne KR-2L (single-nozzle 3.75m engine) is an odd beast. It's too powerful for a second-stage engine compared to the KS25x4 cluster, encouraging lighter first stages and heavier second stages. It could make a decent first-stage engine for lighter lifters but its low Isp at sea level really lets it down in that regard. It's like a Poodle on steroids.

[Jouni]

Early observation: the Kerbodyne KR-2L (single-nozzle 3.75m engine) is an odd beast. It's too powerful for a second-stage engine compared to the KS25x4 cluster, encouraging lighter first stages and heavier second stages. It could make a decent first-stage engine for lighter lifters but its low Isp at sea level really lets it down in that regard. It's like a Poodle on steroids.

It's just an improved Mainsail that remains useful in space. The Mainsail is 280/330 s ISP, 1500 kN thrust, and 6 tonnes of mass, while the KR-2L engine is 280/380 s ISP, 2500 kN thrust, and 6.5 tonnes of mass.

You can also use it in ridiculous SSTO rockets. I went to Minmus and back with it.

[Tada]

Yeah, puttin 200 tons into orbit is no longer any challenge

[AbhChallenger]

Yeah, puttin 200 tons into orbit is no longer any challenge

If the "challenge" was due to massive Unity bugs. You won't see me complaining.

I look forward to Version 1 of KSP being a real good challenge. Not because you need to set a thousand hidden struts but because you have to manage cost and have the skill to land or orbit where you need to.

This is a good thing for KSP. More gameplay and less bugs to make things interesting.

[ScottyDoesKnow]

If the "challenge" was due to massive Unity bugs. You won't see me complaining.

I look forward to Version 1 of KSP being a real good challenge. Not because you need to set a thousand hidden struts but because you have to manage cost and have the skill to land or orbit where you need to.

This is a good thing for KSP. More gameplay and less bugs to make things interesting.

I love the new connection strength, but they may have gone a bit overboard. I like that struts are now used more to stop wobble than stop everything falling apart. But at the same time the fact that I can hang my 4000t ship on 6 launch clamps seems a bit much.

[HeadHunter67]

the fact that I can hang my 4000t ship on 6 launch clamps seems a bit much.

The Saturn V was 2,800 tons. How many launch clamps did it have? Probably in the same neighborhood, from what I can tell.

[ScottyDoesKnow]

The Saturn V was 2,800 tons. How many launch clamps did it have? Probably in the same neighborhood, from what I can tell.

Real rockets have the advantage of being able to sit on the ground without sitting on their engines. And while the Saturn V is wider than our largest tanks, the ratio of launch clamp size to tank size is similar. So that would put the Saturn V at max 5 large tanks (being generous) which is 400t in KSP. So imagine something 10+ times the size of Saturn V being hung off the ground on 6 launch clamps the same size as the Saturn V's.

[HeadHunter67]

Real rockets have the advantage of being able to sit on the ground without sitting on their engines.

Care to tell us how that's done? I think you'll find that the rocket is, in fact, suspended from clamps.

[ScottyDoesKnow]

Care to tell us how that's done? I think you'll find that the rocket is, in fact, suspended from clamps.

Is it really? That's impressive. I was just going by images and assumed it was supported at the bottom: http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Apollo%20Saturn%20V.jpg

[Giggleplex777]

The Saturn V was suspended on four clamps at the base of the rocket.

[HeadHunter67]

Yes, Scotty, as Giggleplex said... those are clamps. That was my point.

[ScottyDoesKnow]

Yes, Scotty, as Giggleplex said... those are clamps. That was my point.

Your post was confusing; it's hardly suspended from the clamps it's resting on. Which was what I meant by "sit on the ground without sitting on their engines".

As far as I can tell the launch clamps on the side of the Saturn V are only there to keep it steady, as the weight is supported at the bottom. Obviously this is nothing like hanging 4000t in the air from 6 small launch clamps around the outside.

[Wayfare]

Is it really? That's impressive. I was just going by images and assumed it was supported at the bottom: http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Apollo%20Saturn%20V.jpg

You're sort of right - the Saturn V was more sitting on its clamps than being suspended from them. Suspending (as in "dangling") a rocket of that size would have required some pretty hefty structural reinforcements that would have become dead weight immediately upon lift-off.

[Giggleplex777]

Your post was confusing; it's hardly suspended from the clamps it's resting on. Which was what I meant by "sit on the ground without sitting on their engines".

As far as I can tell the launch clamps on the side of the Saturn V are only there to keep it steady, as the weight is supported at the bottom. Obviously this is nothing like hanging 4000t in the air from 6 small launch clamps around the outside.

This is getting off topic.

The Saturn V sits on four clamps.