What's your building style?

[MedwedianPresident]

Come and tell others what your main rules for creating spacecraft are!

I, personally, never use asparagus staging or other unaerodynamic-looking techniques, except some times when I have a Mun lander. I try to use nosecones and other cosmetic parts to make my rocket or spaceplane look as realistic as possible. Sometimes I am inspired by an actual spacecraft design to build a similar thing (Currently I am doing a Dyna-Soar Replica). When it comes to mods, I have LOTS. If I didn't install Active Texture Management, I would have murdered my computer.

What do YOU do when it comes to such things?

[Geschosskopf]

I used to have this huge mod fetish but lately I've kicked the habit. I mean, I love mods for the added capabilities they give you, and just for the variety of rocket parts. Then I'd go build huge fleets of ships with complex, interrelated missions, investing scads of time in the game, and BOOM! It would all get wiped out by the supernova of a game update. The problem with updates when you're using lots of mods is that usually all the mods have to be updated to be compatible with the new version of the game, and with each other in the new version. Sometimes mods just don't get updated at all so you're screwed there. And sometimes the modsmiths introduce major changes to their mods to coincide with the new update, which are incompatible with ships using the old version of the mod. You can't keep using the old version of the mod because it won't work in the new version of the game, or won't work with other mods that were updated, or something. So basically, heavy dependence on mods is poison while the game itself is still in major development.

As a result, I've gone back to doing things almost all stock. I only have 2 major mods I use anymore: Kethane and KAS. Without Kethane, there's a real limit to what you can do in space and KAS allows much more versatility with Kethane, so I consider both these mods as essential parts of the game. Fortunately, both mods are maintained by the same guy, Majiir, who is very prompt in updating them for the new game version, so I feel pretty safe in using them. Otherwise, I just use mods that add instrumentation or other interface enhancements, such as Kerbal Alarm Clock, RCS Build Aid, Navyfish's Docking Indicator, Kerbal Engineer, MJ, and now the toolbar for them all. None of these will break your save so you can do without them for a while if updates are delayed or never happen.

The bottom line is that now I have neither fairings nor massive 3.75m and 5m rocket parts. So I'm doing the usual stock thing of ugly, lumpy asparagus blobs of orange tanks. And no more big wings from B9 or Pwings, so my airplanes are covered with mosaics of little stock wing parts. I'm not proud of this--I used the fairings and big rocket parts to avoid doing this--but at present it's pretty much essential to surviving game updates.

[Comrade Jenkens]

Varies. Sometimes I like replicating real world rockets while at other times I go for a heavy Sci-Fi feel.

[Pecan]

Trying to make things as efficient as possible - which means I almost always use asparagus. Sometimes though even my aesthetics are offended by how ugly the 'best' design is so I will compromise. One set of radial asparagus stages, with nosecones if you like, doesn't look any worse than boosters and I rarely go as far as a complete second ring of asparagus stages so they're not, usually, that bad. My biggest restraint is not using clipping at all if I can help it, even when allowed in the stock editor. Sometimes I will use procedural fairings but on a payload with an ugly asparagus launch it usually looks out of place. There are also times when I build rockets that 'look' right, but usually only as examples of how other staging techniques work. Mods are good I think but I usually stick with the information/management (KER, KAC, etc.) and a few other non-part ones. I have just installed KAS & Infernal Robotics for the parts and ScanSat for the interest. Oh - and thanks to Real Life all my craft have to have navigation lights (aviation lights mod). Not desperately interested in (space)planes but trying to make a single set of launch and transfer vehicles, probes, stations, bases and rovers (or surface hoppers) that will work well together.

[ArmchairGravy]

The only mod I use is Kerbal Engineer. I generally use Skippers in 2-deep onion stages with 3, 4, or 6 rockets per layer depending on what size payload and destination. I only break out the Mainsails if it's really heavy or going really far away, and then I'll go with asparagus staging. I'm not interested in building realistic ships at this point so much as building ships that work. I fluctuate between building massively over-engineered and efficient as possible. I am now messing with combining the highly efficient payloads with the massively over-engineered boosters, and it is awesome!

[Boris_T_Roach]

Building style

Construt the first idea that comes into my head, then launch it and see what happens

If it falls apart....add more bracing, if it fails to make it to orbit.... add more engines.

If it gets too heavy to depart the launch pad, throw in some large SRBs and hope.

Then get drunk and return to the VAB

Boris

[LethalDose]

I have the basic following rules:

• No asparagus staging
  
• No exposed surfaces perpendicular to the vector of travel in the atmosphere (basically, nose cones of fairings on everything).
  
• Command pods for inter-body vessels. Lander cans are only for landers
  
• Interplanetary missions take multiple crew members for redundancy and "mental health"
  
• Interplanetary missions need living space (hitchhiker module) for Kerbals, in addition to "operational" space (Science labs, command modules)
  
• No planned one-way Kerballed missions, ever.
  
• No Kerbal left behind
  
• No physics warp cheats to arrest rotational inertia
  

I tend to build tall rockets with serial staging for the lower stages and parallel staging in the upper stages. I also like to use outboard nacelles that feed into a central engine. I usually sketch out the schematic on paper before building large craft. I've also been trying to build minimalistic vessels to reduce the launch stages.

I recently restarted my 0.23 career game in "Hardmode" with Remotech2, Deadly Re-entry, FAR, TAC life support and KW rocketry fairings (everything else has been removed). So FAR works to "enforce" the need for aerodynamics.

Edited February 11, 2014 by LethalDose

[qromodynmc]

Its not absurd as asparagus design,But not simple as realistic rockets. I use nosecones almost all the time,I care about my rocket's design.

[maccollo]

My rules are fairly simple.

It has to look like a rocket - No flying apartment blocks.

I avoid magical fuel lines unless necessary.

[Biker Joe]

Modular? I like building things in sections and fitting them together using docking ports and stuff like that

[InterCity]

For KESA, anything that is not asparagus and

a) is HUGE

contains 6 or more boosters

c) has at least 9000 delta-v

d) is cool

e) explodes upon liftoff

f) is meant to reach LKO, but actually goes to Jool

g) Combo of any above

[Max Grant]

I started using Anvil rockets because the assembly is more realistic than the kinds of things I have to do to make stock parts work, with big payloads. I do use an asparagus-like staging scheme, but I never exceed four side rockets, and my preferred configuration actually looks just like a Falcon Heavy, usually with smaller rockets to either side which drain into the big rocket, so that I can have all that fuel.

When I design, I do several test flights and I look for various criteria. One thing is, if it's a heavy payload (say a science orbiter with 3-man capsule and nukes) I simply abort the launch if I can't make 200 m/s by 10,000 meters. That is kind of an indicator to me I'm shy on lifting power. So I will add two side rockets (in the Anvil series I use the 2m boosters, otherwise if I'm going Rockomax I just make another 2m stack).

If I'm still dragging at 10,000 meters, I add two more boosters. What I usually do if I'm up to four liquid side-mounted boosters, there is a pair that drains to the center, and if I need two more, those two drain to the "last" two. I make the first pair of boosters bigger, as big as they need to be to get to where I'm going (in this scheme I usually toss them by 5,000 meters). The idea is simply throw away as much weight as I can until I get over the atmosphere. So that second pair (the last to drop off) I sometimes make smaller. I don't do math for this, but I observe which thing gets me further. Once I have a scheme that works for me in the current game I stick with it. I have been using Anvils because struts do not get preserved in the sub-assemblies, and I hate re-strutting a booster. I'd rather build it again from scratch, so the fewer struts I need the better.

Finally, if my booster isn't going around 1000 m/s by 30,000 meters, it's not going to space today. I usually do my gravity turn starting very slowly around 25,000-27,000 meters. If my rocket isn't doing 600 m/s by the time we clear atmosphere, and around 1400 by the time I ditch my final ground-level booster, I start over. So by the time my "top" stage, the last-but-payload rocket fires, I expect to be around 50,000 meters, with my apoapsis above atmosphere. If that isn't happening, I go back and fiddle with more fuel, and more things to throw away sooner.

[Guest]

Now that I've moved over to RSS/FAR/DREC my rockets tend towards aerodynamic/realistic. Sure, I'll still launch some crazy contraptions without fairings, but for the most part it's all pretty sedate.

I usually do my gravity turn starting very slowly around 25,000-27,000 meters.

That's a pretty inefficient launch profile under stock aero. You might want to try starting your turn around 8~10km so you build up more horizontal speed early on.

[chinchilla]

All of my rockets series must meet these three criteria:

1. Realistic (i.e. no nuclear drives, I seldom use ion drives either)

2. Aerodynamic (no asparagus-staged, blocky monstrosities that would never fly in a million years)

3. Efficient (in terms of fuel consumption and how much it would cost to produce)

[costermonger]

As soon as I mastered orbital rendezvous/docking, basically every mission outside LKO has involved a payload/mission vehicle with a whole slew of support launches. Any given mission takes a while using this approach, but it allows me to get a lot of work done where it is I have gone.

Last week I started a lander-probe mission to the mun because I had unlocked a few science parts (I use FASA) since my last landing. Built a 6x symmetry science section and attached it to a ~3,300 d/v lander. This was enough to land, hop to at least one other biome, and then safely return to a parking orbit. Because I'd overdesigned my munar transfer stage, I actually came out ahead and managed to hit three biomes before returning to orbit (was tight enough that I wasn't sure it would be very circular, but it worked out pretty well). Fuel tanker #1 was already waiting in orbit, adjusted/burned/waited as appropriate to dock and refuel. Lander went back down for two more biomes. Back up, tanker #1 had enough fuel to set up another rendezvous and supply the lander with enough gas to go down and hit one last biome. Returned to orbit, rendezvous with tanker #2, refill and head home. Performed soft landing not terribly far from KSC.

[theend3r]

1. I only use mods that don't break my saves if removed (except Mechjeb)

2. Always overbuild to be sure I don't get stuck in a middle of nowhere and allow for unplanned detours

3. Provide habitation module if possible

Other than than I cheat by reverting to quicksaves pretty often, especially when trying to get the perfect aerobraking result and my rockets are the most uneconomical things ever created and leave tons of debris in orbit (currently about 200 just in Kerbin's).

Having said all that, lately I've been moving towards more economic designs, mostly SSTOs and I've build even some Laythe class SSTOs and refuelling stations all around the system so the Kerbal version of Greenpeace won't hate me as much now

[problemecium]

I don't asparagus either. I bought the full game right around the same time I watched Scott Manley's "Reusable Space Program" series, and ever since I've had this weird obsession with sustainability. That means a lot of overdesigned single-stage lift rockets with buttloads of parachutes. I also try to have a probe core on everything so if I decouple at the wrong time or forget to add Kerbals I don't have perfectly good ships stranded in orbit or exploding all over Kerbin.

Regarding mod usage, I've tried several but more or less settled on just two small utilities: Navlights (because black silhouettes on a black background are lame) and HyperEdit (just for testing designs).

[Daze]

I try in my every building to keep realism of the craft

No iper-mega-asparagus stage to lift 18371893619ton into orbit...

[Poryy]

1. Asparagus Staging on EVERYTHING!

2. No kerbal left behind.

3. Heat shields on rovers that aerobrake.

4. Never put my class 3 asparagus stage on a small probe.

5. Probes must look realistic

6. Gravity rings on all stations.

[Guest]

I design for the purpose of the mission. No mega-asparagus battleship-lifting monstrosities. If I need to put something really big up, I'll split it into modules and do multiple launches. Discarded stages typically have 2% or less fuel remaining unless pushed to burnout. Crewed modules usually have a fuel reserve safety margin of 5%.

[Spartwo]

Functional.Low part count,simple,elegant,efficient.

[SuperBigD60]

I've been toying with SSTO cargo spaceplanes of various sizes for months, though not so much recently.

This could be because anytime I start to get reentry effects, I start to watch a 1 fps slideshow.

As for launchers, I usually build a new, simple asparagus launcher each new payload as it usually is the quickist way.

Sidenote, asparagus staging isn't all that bad with FAR. just use the long 2m-1m adapter topped with a tail thingy for a rather effective, if heavier, nosecone.

[xrayfishx]

I usually try to keep my designs realistic. However, my designs are overpowered. I mean, I've landed on Eeloo and Laythe with my Duna lander. Also, I like shiny things. My spacecraft are usually covered with the green and red lights from B9. One day I shall figure out how to make blue ones. I fear that day, for after it the resulting part count lag will summon the kraken to feast on even the simplest of vessels.

[SuperBigD60]

I design for the purpose of the mission. No mega-asparagus battleship-lifting monstrosities. If I need to put something really big up, I'll split it into modules and do multiple launches. Discarded stages typically have 2% or less fuel remaining unless pushed to burnout. Crewed modules usually have a fuel reserve safety margin of 5%.

I love putting together a huge ship in orbit. Or at least I love looking at it once its done.

[DisarmingBaton5]

• No asparagus staging
  
• No exposed surfaces perpendicular to the vector of travel in the atmosphere (basically, nose cones of fairings on everything).
  
• Command pods for inter-body vessels. Lander cans are only for landers
  
• Interplanetary missions take multiple crew members for redundancy and "mental health"
  
• Interplanetary missions need living space (hitchhiker module) for Kerbals, in addition to "operational" space (Science labs, command modules)
  
• No planned one-way Kerballed missions, ever.
  
• No Kerbal left behind
  
• No physics warp cheats to arrest rotational inertia
  

This, except for the rotational inertia and no kerbal left behind. If I can save the guy in a reasonable amount of time, I'll do it, but otherwise I must leave a Kerbal to die. As for rotation-stopping, I only do it if I have the torque to do it and am too lazy to sit holding the "D" key for eight minutes.