How reliable are your rockets?

[kBob]

Once I figured out struts, they became reliable, I like to put them in to form lots of triangles and while I don't know if ksp actually cares about the specific arrangement they look good that way. My failures are mainly misplacing things in staging. I do test frequently, make sure my lander/top stage is working, make sure my middle stage has enough thrust to launch then add boosters as needed, seems pretty reliable like this and I can make sure my asparagus gets eaten properly I mean my asparagus staging and fuel use are correct...fails at this point are not usually fatal. Also I can see if I'll need to use winglets but now that I've started using the center of mass indicator more I can usually get a pretty balanced design and just use t30's and no winglets and still get a good gravity burn.

Edit: Above should probably go under the "famous last words" thread. My new design seemed to be going so well until I started adding boosters and even though it looks like previous designs it is completely unstable and goes spinning away shortly after launch, those winglets I added go sliding along the ground quite a ways maybe this is a new aspect of the game: how far can you make your winglets slide along the ground?

Edited February 4, 2014 by kBob

[RoboRay]

I've rarely had problems with rockets, other than simply screwing up the staging sequence, after my first couple of weeks of playing. Once you've built enough of them, you know what's going to work and what's not.

[Rainbow-Dashie]

My rockets work. Do they work well? No. Are they efficient? Not in any way. Are they cool looking? Not really. Are they advanced? Nope.

My rockets do the job they were designed for, and thats all I ask of them

[Redrobin]

Iffy at best:

[Sylandro]

Mainly ninety-nine percent or ninety-eight, i rarely have launch failures.

[SpacedCowboy]

ER MER GERD!!! I can envision it now; with the release of .24, A new area added to the K.S.C.--- "Whackjob"s Junkyard"

[Mr. Speed]

I must say I'm having more launch failures lately, as I'm trying to get heavier and weirder shaped stuff into orbit. I usually try to design a new launch vehicle for each different payload, just to see all the different things that are possible. So some are very reliable spacecraft, while others are just giant towers of doom.

[Xacktar]

*snip*

*sniff* It's so beautiful!

[CaptainGiblets]

Pretty reliable, just the pilot isn't so great...

[Pds314]

Rockets: 95%+ Reliable once they work at all.

Spaceplanes: Reliable as long as they can get off the ground.

Exception: my old Stock Duna craft (which was really more of an overall interplanetary, neigh, intersteller vehicle with it's 10 km/s of Delta-V on the final post-orbital stage) would sometimes explode at ~10,000 meters, sending 1400 tonnes of rocket out into the surrounding area. And my current attempt at a giant 77-Kerbal spaceplane, which unintentionally loses an average of 35% of its engines and a few crew members, intakes, wings and fuel lines by the time it gets to orbit. Still, even with 3 deaths or so every flight, you have better odds than the spaceshuttle program, right?

Yes! The new Applied Phlogistics Aerotitan works consistantly and smoothly, never mind the test version that killed Jeb and 76 irrelevant Kerbals several times...

And wow! 1730 Delta-V after reaching orbit in basically a single stage save for 4 BACC boosters.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Pds314

[Redrobin]

*sniff* It's so beautiful!

That's why I build big, I hope for cool failures

[Aragosnat]

Keep trying til it either works or I give up as I can be stubborn.

[Redrobin]

My rockets still aren't very reliable:

Launch clamps be clippin' mah boostahs

[Commissar]

haven't had a catastrophic failure in quite a while, although that's mostly because i use more or less standard methods of construction. however, i have had some more exotic designs fail on me, but really only one was so spectacular... the HL fuselage side tanks were not strutted to the fuselage as they should have been, so they were only attached at the very front of the orbiter, and they had a mind of their own... started catastrophic separations shortly after launch. thankfully, I was prepared, and had an abort system in place, which worked flawlessly, and save all three kerbals on board from almost certain doom.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Commissar

[problemecium]

My ships' most common mode of failure is failing to land themselves on slopes and mountainsides and remain in one piece after my lazy decision to just reenter wherever I happened to be headed.

[djnattyd]

How are we measuring reliability? Because my latest family of launchers will reliably get to 10km and then decide that they have a fear of heights, turn around and plummet back to Kerbin. All of them. Every... single... one...

[SRV Ron]

Yes, this is a planned flight where two probes separate during flight. (57 one part only rocket.)

It took some Kerbal Engineering to balance the single separatron on the larger SRB to get a good separation.

[SRV Ron]

Big NovaPunch designs are less reliable;

And, yet, if properly braced, even bad designs will fly.

Five long tanks and no braces.

Once internally braced, it no longer pitched over.

Edited February 5, 2014 by SRV Ron