Do a different rocket for each payload?

[Thorbard]

I have generally built dedicated vehicles for each payload, but as my program has developed in career mode I have been reducing to more and more common stages. Hopefully a standard series of launchers will be available to the Kerbals soon!

[Spatzimaus]

My views on this haven't changed since the thread was originally active. I had a set of 4-5 SSTO rocket boosters of varying sizes, and I'll use whichever is appropriate to the payload's mass, instead of making a custom booster for each payload. That hasn't changed; my current designs are still SSTO rockets, assembled the same basic way, even though they're made using bigger components now.

The big difference is that now, my designs are all recoverable. Plenty of parachutes, girders to land on, et cetera. I launched a 400-ton payload on one of my larger boosters (9 linked 5m stacks), but recovery got me about 80% of the lifter's cost back, so it's definitely worth it in career mode even though the designs themselves are considerably less efficient than an asparagus in terms of payload fraction.

[Holo]

I started playing KSP before subassemblies, and never really got used to the idea of using the same rocket for multiple payloads.

[merendel]

Been a while since I've seen this thread. Still with the advent of funds while my launchers went through a redesign they still have fundamentaly the same approach. A series of prebuilt subassemblies for various weight classes. The main difference is there is less asparigus and disposable stageing is kept to a minimum. Quite a few launchers have solid stages that are discarded but the second stage is designed to get to orbit or at least to get close. the expensive tanks and LFO engiens deorbit and are recovered. If a launcher cant quite make it to orbit it aims for a higher AP to let the orbital stage circularize before the launcher reenters.

[Slam_Jones]

I usually only modify my current launcher when making a new ship. Sometimes I start from scratch, but I find it easier to save the launcher as a sub-assembly, then just slap it on whatever payload I'm sending up. If it fails, then back to the workshop!

[Archgeek]

For me, much what I build is sufficiently experimental (giant ion ships, heavy one-shot-to-eve landers, something I've called "SpiderParty") that it winds up needing a custom lifter. Not that I don't use sub-assemblies--indeed my folder is full things like thrust plate templates, "kerbal inclusion pods" for lawnchair designs, weird modular xenon fuel pods, and no less than three files devoted to the reconstruction of just one of Whackjob's massive tower-lander legs (intended for a heavy EVE lander)--but it seems that using sub-assemblies for complex modules like entire lifters never works right. I lose most of my struts and fuel pipe connections (the items are still there, but in an unconnected state...the Derpatron 4k EX was particularly bad about that) and in some cases the thing ghosts weirdly, and I wind up with duplicate parts clipping completely, causing the kraken to start break-dancing on the pad as soon as physics kicks in. As such, I either build a custom lifter under the payload until KE tells me I've around 4km/s in it, or I use a lifter sub-assembly purely as a guide and replicate it in situ.

[Red Iron Crown]

I am amused that mine was the last post before this thread was resurrected and how much my views have since changed.

Wow, me too. When I originally posted here I had just completed a series of standardized lifters to use as subassemblies and had used them a few times, anticipating using them for most payloads.

Turns out I didn't use them as much as I thought I would. I guess I like building, so it's not a chore for me to make a lifter for each payload. Now the only standardized stuff I use are a tanker and a crew transfer OSTOP, just about everything else is bespoke.

[bitbucket]

I have several lifter sub-assemblies saved and rated according to how much they can lift to orbit. I choose whatever's appropriate for the payload.

[SelectHalfling0]

I can't really answer yes or no. I have 8 different sub assemblies for each type of payload. My payloads are fine tuned to make the most out of every launch (my "super-light" launcher carries 5 tons to LKO: I try to make all satellites 5 tons).

[Mitchz95]

I don't really use rockets except for payloads that won't fit inside (or are too heavy for) my Tylo-class spaceplanes. When they're necessary, I usually build them from scratch.

[Trentendegreth]

depends for me, i have a selection of lifters i re-use, and adjust the fuel accordingly, some projects need specialized launchers though. i find having specific subsets makes the payload design a challenge in some respects as to not build past the capacity of a launcher, several categories of launchers for weight class of payload, for instance a 20tonn will get my Aries launcher, where a 10tonn will probably get my Nimbus launcher. The Nimbus series is made of 1.25m parts, where as the Aries series is 2m, none of my current launchers use asparagus staging, though i do use that from time to time depending.

[micha]

There needs to be a middle-option in the poll. Like a lot of people here I slowly build up a repertoire of launch vehicles rated to different tonnages, and subsequently use them for most launches, only building bespoke launchers for odd payloads.

So yes, I use a selection of different rockets for my launches, but not a custom-built one per launch.

[Titusin]

I've got several size lifters in my bucket thing. Saves time when building a payload being able to just grab the right sized rocket.

[Beowolf]

I have a standard family of boosters for payloads from 10t to something over 400t. I probably end up spending more time building those boosters than I do using them after they're tuned.

[el_coyoto]

I love designing rockets so much that I almost build one for each payload. My kerbals have never heard this "off the shelf" NASA/ESA stuff...

I did design a whole family of lifters a while ago, but I spent much more time tweaking the lifters than going places and I didn't have rockets to build anymore during the rest of the game, which made me kinda sad...

This is why I like Career mode so much : the unlocking of new parts change the engineering constraints and solutions at my disposal, which leads me to re-design better rockets with better parts for a given payload, to unlock more tech and so on...

[Vallius]

Assuming that you're talking about the first 2-3 stages for getting into space, not usually. Most of my sub-assemblies are lifting stages for my spacecraft. I'll modify them over time as I get better technology, but it lets me focus my design time on the payload.