Aesthetics or Pancakes?

[Ravenchant]

I've done that before. The effect is prety cool just be careful how you angle the sepratrons. Unless you go for a strait off the top launch of the cones they will probably spiral away. I actualy ended up with a configuration once where it looped off and came right back around and smashed into my rocket Now I just spin my ship on its central axis and undock the things to let inertia fling them away.

One solution is to put a pair of sepratrons on as if it had double symmetry, only you put them on one by one. Then use the tweakables to reduce the amount of fuel in one by a slight amount. End effect: the nosecone shoots straight off, then sideways because one motor fires longer.

As for designs, six outer stacks is as far as I'm willing to go. Like that

[The Destroyer]

I usually don't use it because I forget about the technique, and end up massive looking rockets. But I use fairings, mmm sleek aerodynamics...

As it's been stated: It's YOUR game, there is NO RULES, so build however you like. Sure, it might not look realistic, but do you have FUN?

[federally]

I installed FAR so my preferred aesthetics are also the most effective.

[merendel]

One solution is to put a pair of sepratrons on as if it had double symmetry, only you put them on one by one. Then use the tweakables to reduce the amount of fuel in one by a slight amount. End effect: the nosecone shoots straight off, then sideways because one motor fires longer.

Thats a good idea. Although slightly reducing the thrust on the side you want the thing to go would at least make it arch the direction wanted. My attempt actualy involved much trial and error to figure out where the COM was and place 2 horizontaly near it to eject strait sideways. Hilarity ensued. That and watching nosecones pulling midair donuts was quite a site. The ones that were way off COM were actualy the least dangerous as they normaly just spiraled off. I think the bomerang nosecone was probably my closest to dead on the COM I'd managed but obviously not quite there yet.

[Kasuha]

Speaking about aesthetics, Whackjob's creations are work of art. Real rockets look dull compared to them.

[Amaroq]

I'm runing FAR so I prety much dont have a choice.

Ninja'd, by a day and then some, but that's exactly what I was going to say.

[AlternNocturn]

I've recently begun building aerodynamic, aesthetically pleasing rockets, which is why I finally installed FAR after many months of being wary of it.

[TechnicalK3rbal]

I always use FAR and thus don't really have a choice.

[Moar Boosters]

Personally I like flying skyscrapers.

[MedwedianPresident]

They...are...epic...

Anyways; asparagus staging i think is allowed if it is restricted to techniques user IRL (for example, for a Delta-IV style launcher you might make the fuel from the outer stacks go into the main stack.).

[Vallius]

I always include nosecones. I like my rockets to look flyable--even if it adds a ton to my overpowered boosters.

[Caelib]

I use aesthetics when possible, but always function over form.

[wolfedg]

Generally I stick to what looks like might be made IRL. I do use asparagus staging in some cases, but almost always in a very aerodynamic way. As far as pancake rockets, I don't build them unless I'm building one of my classic firework show rockets or I'm starving and haven't eaten in months. Last time I did that the kerbals spent months cleaning the butter and syrup out of the fuel storage tanks.

[sporkafife]

I... I may have missed the memo, but what is pancake staging? This term seems to have come out of nowhere for me lol.

[Superfluous J]

I... I may have missed the memo, but what is pancake staging? This term seems to have come out of nowhere for me lol.

Pancake isn't a staging method, it's how people describe rockets that are overly wide to look. Taken to its extreme, if you had hundreds of asparagus stages your rocket would look more like a pancake than a Saturn 5.

[NecroBones]

As others have said, the KSP physics/aerodynamics encourage you to build wider, not taller. I'm trying really hard to get back to more vertical staging, and using nose-cones, but it's hard when KSP makes it easier to get things into orbit by building a pancake.

[Othuyeg]

I like making snowflakes.

[MrZayas1]

Well i definitely like both, so i use both. I tend to make my rockets look very aerodynamic, but I use a small amount of asparagus staging. Like 4x symmetry, or 6x symmetry. So yeah, they are normally good looking and very efficient, and I have tried to get away from mechjeb so i cant see my delta v! I enjoy experimenting with rockets and mechjeb has helped me learn what is good and what isn't! Gotta love ksp

[Jarin]

I will consider not building x6 asparagus pancakes in the next version when joints are more reinforced. I hate vertical-stitch strutting.

[[email protected]]

I use Far and Deadly reentry (among other hardmode mods) so I can't build giant pancakes. I have to actually make conscious design decisions and build within the limitations of launch capacity, which in turn means I am making decisions in favor of more efficiency. Stock launches are pretty boring, theres no challenge, and you can launch literally anything into space with enough struts and boosters. Which I don't really think qualifies as efficient.

[PDCWolf]

If not trolling, why does anyone think asparagus = ugly?

A core with two radial boosters and nosecones is ok? If you add fuel-lines so the boosters keep the central core fuelled does it stop being ok? (Onion)

A core with four radials is ok? Still ok if they feed the central core? Why not if the first pair to be staged feed the next (which feed the core)? (Onion -> Asparagus)

I THINK pancake specifically means a single core with as much as possible radials lacking nosecones and (the actual pancake part) a small rockomax tank on the bottom so that engines don't overheat. That's what I believe is the actual definition of pancake.

Anyways, aesthetics>all. Kinda like an added difficulty.

[Kasuha]

I think this thread's name is biased and wrong as it mixes two unrelated things. It should be either "aesthetics or function" to give the abstract choice, or "poles or pancakes" for the practical choice.

[Jouni]

I think we should distinguish between game physics and unintended consequences of their implementation.

For example, the fact that you can have nice and stable orbits around Laythe is part of game physics, because the developers intended it to be that way. With realistic n-body physics, Jool's gravity would mess with the orbits heavily. On the other hand, strange things happen when moving between the spheres of influence of Jool and Laythe. Those are also consequences of the computationally efficient and easy to understand way gravity is implemented in the game, but because the developers probably didn't intend for such things to happen, it's better to think them as bugs or glitches instead of game physics.

For another example, consider the Kraken Drive. It certainly works in the game, but it's obviously exploiting a bug in the game.

When it comes to aerodynamics, we should also consider developer intent. Did the developers intend that the shape of a thing should not affect drag? If so, then pancake-styled extreme asparagus staging is the natural way to build efficient rockets, given the game physics. Or is the current aerodynamic model just a placeholder, until the developers have time to implement something more reasonable? If so, then the efficiency of pancakes is just an unintended consequence of the way things are currently implemented.

[LethalDose]

I think this thread's name is biased and wrong as it mixes two unrelated things. It should be either "aesthetics or function" to give the abstract choice, or "poles or pancakes" for the practical choice.

The two issues are not unrelated. In fact, they're often in direct conflict, and that's the point of the thread.

No one here has once tried to argue that "poles" are more effective than "pancakes" at load lifting orbital loads, so there's really very little debate about the "practical" choice. Onion/Asparagus staging will win almost every time, and I don't think anyone has even tried to debate that.

Again, that's not the point.

The point is where different players balance effectiveness (what you refer to as "practical") with credulity (you refer to this as "aesthetics or function"). Yes, in stock you can build a 1 km wide booster stage, but it would never fly IRL. The two concepts are in conflict: I can do it in the game, vs there's no way it could ever work realistically (realistically = "not in the game". I want to be sure there's no confusion given your previous definition of "realistic").

If you think there needs to be two new threads, go ahead and create two new threads.

And I think Jouni put it very well:

I think we should distinguish between game physics and unintended consequences of their implementation.

For example, the fact that you can have nice and stable orbits around Laythe is part of game physics, because the developers intended it to be that way. With realistic n-body physics, Jool's gravity would mess with the orbits heavily. On the other hand, strange things happen when moving between the spheres of influence of Jool and Laythe. Those are also consequences of the computationally efficient and easy to understand way gravity is implemented in the game, but because the developers probably didn't intend for such things to happen, it's better to think them as bugs or glitches instead of game physics.

For another example, consider the Kraken Drive. It certainly works in the game, but it's obviously exploiting a bug in the game.

When it comes to aerodynamics, we should also consider developer intent. Did the developers intend that the shape of a thing should not affect drag? If so, then pancake-styled extreme asparagus staging is the natural way to build efficient rockets, given the game physics. Or is the current aerodynamic model just a placeholder, until the developers have time to implement something more reasonable? If so, then the efficiency of pancakes is just an unintended consequence of the way things are currently implemented.

I think trying to interpret "Developer intent" is really, really difficult. Especially from SQUAD. I'm going to stop now before I get into more trouble.

I can't speak to the OP's intent, but it seems clear to me that Jouni's on the right track. I think another way of describing this thread would be a discussion of how "exploity" big, broad rockets feel to different players.

Again, it feels like exploiting the game to some players because the two concepts are not unrelated.

Lets see how this gets edited by the mods.

[Superfluous J]

When it comes to aerodynamics, we should also consider developer intent. Did the developers intend that the shape of a thing should not affect drag? If so, then pancake-styled extreme asparagus staging is the natural way to build efficient rockets, given the game physics. Or is the current aerodynamic model just a placeholder, until the developers have time to implement something more reasonable? If so, then the efficiency of pancakes is just an unintended consequence of the way things are currently implemented.

So we should intentionally not only build rockets that don't take advantage of the weird aerodynamics, but are less efficient because they try to take advantage of aerodynamics that aren't there?

I won't do that. I may one day install FAR, or (better yet) one day they may fix aerodynamics to work in a logical way. Until one of those things happens, I'll build rockets that work, not rockets that should work but don't.