Aesthetics or Pancakes?

[LethalDose]

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.

I don't think anyone here is stating that your currently play-style is incorrect; there's no judgement about what you do, so there's no need to get defensive about your playstyle.

You should play however you want. However, the topic of discussion is not how just you, play, it's about how all players willing to contribute to the thread play. Clearly, other players have styles that differ than yours, and discussion of those other styles and the reasons behind choosing those styles is very different than telling you that your style is wrong.

[Jouni]

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?

It's a non-competitive single player game, so people are obviously free to play it as they want. They should still understand that they may be taking advantage of some unintended features that may not be there one day.

Hacking, in the original hacker sense of the word, roughly means figuring out the rules a system works by, and using them in novel ways to get the system to do things it's not supposed to do. The fun is in the "novel" and "not supposed to" parts. It's certainly fun to build the first absurd example of extreme asparagus staging, and it may be convenient to continue using it as long as it works. On the other hand, it's better not to grow too dependent of it, because one day the bug may get fixed and the exploit may stop working.

[Motokid600]

I see a lock in this threads future.

[Liowen]

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.

I fear having FAR installed right now because I could not build oddities like this:

[DocMoriarty]

Who needs aesthetics when he can build stuff like this?

(core module of my standard space stations)

Edited March 19, 2014 by DocMoriarty

[Jouni]

Who needs aesthetics when he can build stuff like this?

http://www.docmoriarty.com/ksp/gfx/einstein_station_core.jpg

(core module of my standard space stations)

Two Cupola Modules on such a small rocket. I can almost see the rocket trying to turn back and crash on Kerbin.

[DocMoriarty]

Two Cupola Modules on such a small rocket. I can almost see the rocket trying to turn back and crash on Kerbin.

Actually not. "control from here" using the topmost docking port is your friend. I added two cupolas for recreation of my Kerbals since they have to live for years in this thing.

[Jouni]

I mean that you have 9 tonnes of parts with double the normal drag on a rocket that's probably less than 100 tonnes after booster separation. Such rockets are reasonably stable if you point prograde, but as soon as you start to turn, the cupola modules try to get behind the center of mass. When launching payloads with cupola modules, I usually use lifter stages rated for twice as big payloads to avoid problems like that. In your case, it's probably the huge number of reaction wheels that keep the rocket steady.

[DocMoriarty]

I mean that you have 9 tonnes of parts with double the normal drag on a rocket that's probably less than 100 tonnes after booster separation. Such rockets are reasonably stable if you point prograde, but as soon as you start to turn, the cupola modules try to get behind the center of mass. When launching payloads with cupola modules, I usually use lifter stages rated for twice as big payloads to avoid problems like that. In your case, it's probably the huge number of reaction wheels that keep the rocket steady.

It actually helps not to kerbal the thing at launch. So that there are no two pilots in the cupolas which could fight over controlling it. And of course it's a bit overSASed perhaps.

Edit:

Actually to get back on topic aesthetics or pancakes: I'm a minimum-part-count-for-the-purpose-junky, so i rarely add a part for pure aesthetics, and if i do it usually has also something to do with balance or in the case of this space station core simply with adding size to the structure so that docked vehicles have some room.

Edited March 19, 2014 by DocMoriarty

[Gargamel]

Why should asparagus and visually appealing be mutually exclusive. Most of my boosters are asparagus staged, yet I keep them fairly streamlined and tight to the main body.

[Frank_G]

I love pancakes, but when it comes to rockets, they could not be straight forward enough. But i also agree with Gargamel... Asparagus staged rockets could look nice and streamlined as well.

[Pecan]

Just to add to my previous post - I use asparagus because it's efficient. I also tend to restrict it to a single 'ring' around the core, use nosecones and Procedural Fairings - even though the last two actually make the rockets perform worse as I have not installed FAR. In other words - I make efficient-ish ships that look plausible. This is one on the things I'm typing-up at the moment. Neither is set in stone. Earlier ships use stack, radial and parallel staging for comparison and as mission requirements become more demanding. The 'wide and low' lander example looks like a flying mushroom if I wrap it in fairings (named 'Fun Guy' = Fungi; that's the worst gag I'm including, promise) so just gets a nosecone on the side-tanks. Sometimes onion-staging is just simpler to build and the vehicle doesn't need any more, so that's what it gets.

As far as I can see the asparagus objections and counter-arguments are:

1) they haven't done that in real life - KSP doesn't restrict you to re-creating what has been done before

2) They can't do that in real life - the cost/power/mass of KSP components and fuel is different to those on Earth so what is practical is also different

3) It's not aerodynamic - it is no less aerodynamic than anything with side-boosters, if you build it that way (the only difference is fuel-lines, after all)

4) Conservation of angular momentum makes it impossible (all that fuel moving in a spiral around the craft would make it spin uncontrollably in the opposite direction) - a plausible argument against wrapping asparagus stages around the core, still allows any number of aspargus stages wide (onion-stages in a line with symmetry 2). Arguably, reaction wheels are sufficient to counteract the fuel-flow torque (who can tell!).

7) 6-rings wide asparagus is ridiculous - oh yeah, but you're allowed to build ridiculous things if you feel like it

6) It's fiddly to build/I don't like it/I can't do it - no problem. Everyone's allowed to have fun their own way.

[*sigh* I've put three solid evenings into the write-up now and only got through the introduction and most of the prologue (beginner rover, atmosphere plane and sub-orbital rocket). Will start publishing as tutorial once I'm through the first project (Kerbin satellites at different altitudes). Overtime at work coming to an end so I should have more time to spend on the rest from next week]

Edited March 19, 2014 by Pecan

[TimePeriod]

Screw asparagus, I make up my own rockets.

[Hachouma]

I mostly don't use FAR, and SRB pancake is charming in its own way