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

[HeadHunter67]

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".

It's not resting on the engines, which are clearly the bottom-most part of the spacecraft. The clamps are keeping it from resting on the ground. That's what I mean by "suspended".

It's a pretty tall rocket to just be resting freely on its tail, so you had better believe that the clamps are, in fact, holding it there. So, as I said before, a 2,800 ton rocket is supported by four clamps - what difference, then, does it make that a 4,000 ton rocket is supported by six, no matter where they are placed?

[ScottyDoesKnow]

It's a pretty tall rocket to just be resting freely on its tail, so you had better believe that the clamps are, in fact, holding it there. So, as I said before, a 2,800 ton rocket is supported by four clamps - what difference, then, does it make that a 4,000 ton rocket is supported by six, no matter where they are placed?

Because the clamps holding it up from below are nothing like the ones in KSP. The ones in KSP look like the ones on the side of the Saturn V, and 6 of those holding it up radially would not be very sturdy (since there's more than that on the side of the Saturn V even with the support from below). And that's before taking into account (if the relative visual size of the clamps to the largest tanks can be any indicator) that a 4000t rocket in KSP is about 10x the size of the Saturn V.

Edit: if it helps to visualize it, this is what I thought seemed a bit much.

Edited April 3, 2014 by ScottyDoesKnow

[Wayfare]

It's not resting on the engines, which are clearly the bottom-most part of the spacecraft. The clamps are keeping it from resting on the ground. That's what I mean by "suspended".

It's a pretty tall rocket to just be resting freely on its tail, so you had better believe that the clamps are, in fact, holding it there. So, as I said before, a 2,800 ton rocket is supported by four clamps - what difference, then, does it make that a 4,000 ton rocket is supported by six, no matter where they are placed?

I think the confusion is fairly obvious. If you place launch clamps up higher on a rocket, you're suspending it in the sense that the rocket is dangling from the clamps. This would be untenable in a real-life rocket. The Saturn V sat on its clamps, not its engines. You guys have just been mixing up the words "suspended", "supported" and "sitting".

So let's get back to talking about building rockets for little green men

[ScottyDoesKnow]

I think the confusion is fairly obvious. If you place launch clamps up higher on a rocket, you're suspending it in the sense that the rocket is dangling from the clamps. This would be untenable in a real-life rocket. The Saturn V sat on its clamps, not its engines. You guys have just been mixing up the words "suspended", "supported" and "sitting".

Now that rocket engines don't fall off at the drop of a hat, it might even make sense to change it so the launch clamps don't raise the rocket up and are just there for stability.

Edit: and sorry for hijacking your thread Wayfare

Edited April 3, 2014 by ScottyDoesKnow

[Commander Zoom]

As usual, it's all about vectors.

With clamps like the Saturn V's, the base of the rocket (not the engines, the structure around them) rests on - essentially - supports that project up from the pad. The vector is down through the supports.

KSP's launch clamps attach to the sides; the force is not (directly) down through them, but at a right angle to the attachment point(s). You don't just get pressure, but (considerable) shearing force.

[HeadHunter67]

Fair enough - I don't honestly worry too much about how the game does things. I like to remind myself that they are, after all, little green men who build spacecraft out of junk they find by the side of the road. If they can actually go interplanetary with that, then Hell, anything's possible!

For the record, though, I'm going to try out FASA's launch tower mod. It reminds me of the launches I used to watch as a kid.

[AbhChallenger]

Guys please drag the off topic clamp discussion into it's own topic. People are here for Munshine not clamp talk.

[Wayfare]

Edit: and sorry for hijacking your thread Wayfare

No worries, discussions have a way of springing up like that Might make for a good thread on its own though!

For the record, though, I'm going to try out FASA's launch tower mod. It reminds me of the launches I used to watch as a kid.

Also, this! I installed the FASA launch pad parts a little while ago for my own amusement and they do add a lot of flair to a rocket launch. Bill got his head stuck between the launch tower ramp and the command module. Then Bob tried to wedge him out and fell off and got himself stuck in the second-stage boosters. But once everything was sorted out the launch looked really nice

[Sirrobert]

Ok after downloading and disassambling your lifters (for science, obviously), I noticed something weird.

There is a single 2x3 shielded solar pannel on the 2nd stage of the Munshine VIII LT

I have a feeling that it's not supposed to be there

[Giggleplex777]

Ok after downloading and disassambling your lifters (for science, obviously), I noticed something weird.

There is a single 2x3 shielded solar pannel on the 2nd stage of the Munshine VIII LT

I have a feeling that it's not supposed to be there

That is to provide electricity to the second stage so it can be controlled and deorbited.

[HeadHunter67]

I usually slap a single fixed panel on a stage, or tuck an RTG inside the decoupler so that I can deorbit a stage. I forgot to do so with one of my lifters today (I was using a fairing plate instead of a decoupler) and it made it tricky to maneuver the final stage. I had to deploy the payload's solar panels until the tug could dock with it and bring it to the station. Deorbiting the payload assist module would have been impossible otherwise, once the probe core ran out of juice - so I had to take care of that first and wait to dock the payload.

[Giggleplex777]

Holding development back until 0.24 arrives to account for the stat changes.

[Pondafarr]

As long as I know they are coming, I'm happy. I literally use no other lifters than Munshine.

[Woopert]

What stat changes? Looking forwards to that, I love the Munshine lifters.

[GusTurbo]

The Mainsail is getting an improvement, which will be nice.

[PixelClef]

Eagerly awaiting the Munshine stock LT series for .24!

I've already started to adapt as I progress up the tech tree. Still, my greatest appreciated property of these lifters is the testing and limit documentation. How heavy is my payload? OK, which lifter do I need?

Please accept this request as encouragement, sirs.

[Giggleplex777]

Actually, the way we test the payload capacity is to start with a target payload mass and then try to build a lifter that is just enough to put the payload to orbit. If it doesn't make it to orbit, a new design is used.

The career mode boosters should still be useful due to the much higher cost of the SLS parts and should be able to lift 105% of the original payload capacity thanks to Mainsail and Skipper buffs.

As for new lifters, they will most likely be sandbox replacements for the original family, which will have less parts. Higher capacity lifters are planned for 200t, 250, and 300t payloads.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Giggleplex777

[BigD145]

Lopac's lifters use NASA parts and they're pretty solid. Get right up to 520 ton payloads.

[Ringkeeper]

Lopac's lifters use NASA parts and they're pretty solid. Get right up to 520 ton payloads.

but don't look as good as the Munshine lifters The Munshine are more compact. At least in my opinion.

[Sirrobert]

So I have a question:

What parts are there in the default Munshines that aren't in the LT versions? What further development is needed to use the default ones?

[Pondafarr]

From a glance, the high versions have different nose cones.

If its not too late, I'd love to request a bit of feature creep...Could you include a readme file with the empty mass of the stages, so we can calculate appropriate chute numbers to safely recover the stages to < 6m/s, that would be AWSOME. I'm already adding in probe core modules (probe core, battery, and antenna, and a tiny RCS tank if appropriate) clipped into the SAS modules to assist in recovery, but I keep running into lithobraking issues , even with a metric butt ton of chutes.

[teqqra]

Thanks for keep this update! i use this rockets everyday!

[nfpinto]

really good set of lifters. wish they were updated. Anyway, using it til today

[Stone Blue]

Yes, THANX for these... I've been using these as my go-to lifters from KSP 0.24 to 1.0.4... Theyve worked flawlessly with no tweaks needed.

[mythic_fci]

The necro tho...