[0.90.0] Lopac Lifter Family 10-520 ton V0.11: Low Partcount Lifters

[mhoram]

A lifter family consisting of as few parts as possible.

V0.11 2015-01-29 for KSP V0.90.0

Download on Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/i1lsls10rjnx9zk/_0aPvkoS-b

Download on Curseforge: http://kerbal.curseforge.com/shareables/220294-lopac-lifter-family

Goodies:

• 75 km target orbit
  
• Payloads capacities of 10, 20, 40, 80, 120, 180, 240, 320 400 and 520 ton
  
• Very forgiving on non-optimal ascent profiles because of large fuel supply
  
• Enough fuel to deorbit final propellant stage for a debris free orbit
  
• MechJeb compatible (75 km, 10km, 75km, 0°, 40%)
  

The reason for designing this new lifter family is that my Tangent Lifter Family does not scale well beyond 180 ton payloads because it uses a lot of parts. So I intended to create lifters of much higher payload capacities but this is not possible within the Tangent series.

And with the arrival of 0.23.5 it is the ideal time to build new lifters.

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 400]

[tr][td]Name[/td][td]Payload 75km[/TD][TD]Parts[/TD][TD]Stages[/TD][TD]Cost[/TD][/tr]

[tr][td]Lopac 01[/TD][TD]10[/TD][TD]10[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]45,050[/TD][/tr]

[tr][td]Lopac 02[/TD][TD]20[/TD][TD]15[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]107,234[/TD][/tr]

[tr][td]Lopac 04[/TD][TD]40[/TD][TD]22[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]171,938[/TD][/tr]

[tr][td]Lopac 08[/TD][TD]80[/TD][TD]37[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]194,282[/TD][/tr]

[tr][td]Lopac 12[/td][td]120[/td][td]57[/td][td]3[/td][TD]341,870[/TD][/tr]

[tr][td]Lopac 18[/td][td]180[/td][td]60[/td][td]3[/td][TD]397,590[/TD][/tr]

[tr][td]Lopac 24[/td][td]240[/td][td]77[/td][td]4[/td][TD]545,238[/TD][/tr]

[tr][td]Lopac 32[/td][td]320[/td][td]96[/td][td]5[/td][TD]708,640[/TD][/tr]

[tr][td]Lopac 40[/td][td]400[/td][td]127[/td][td]6[/td][TD]903,188[/TD][/tr]

[tr][td]Lopac 52[/td][td]520[/td][td]163[/td][td]7[/td][TD]1,147,582[/TD][/tr]

[/TABLE]

Changelog

V0.1: Initial Version

V0.2: Added Lopac 12, 18 and 24

V0.3: Update to 0.23.5, got rid of Launchprad problems, reduced partcount

V0.4: Added Lopac 32 and 40

V0.5: Added Lopac 52

V0.6: Removed non-stock parts (thanks to galimare)

V0.7: Reduced partcount in Lopac 52

V0.8: Staging Bugfix in Lopac 52

V0.9: Added subassemblies, minor tweaks

V0.10: Overhaul for KSP 0.24.2, improved design, added Flag

V0.11: Compatibility fix for KSP 0.90.0

Edited February 2, 2015 by mhoram
Update to V0.90.0

[mhoram]

Added more lifters that expand the payload capacity to 240 ton.

Designing these is much less complicated and much faster than designing my Tangent Rockets.

[Wayfare]

Color me impressed! For some reason I think the thing I like best about these lifters is their almost 1:1 parts-to-ton ratio. Do they sit on the pad well without launch clamps though?

[mhoram]

Color me impressed! For some reason I think the thing I like best about these lifters is their almost 1:1 parts-to-ton ratio. Do they sit on the pad well without launch clamps though?

The 01 and 02 have problems (I even had problems taking the pictures) but all others can stand on the launchpad indefinitely.

[mhoram]

I was able to extend the series to include 320 and 400 ton lifters. Using the new engines and tanks makes it quite easy.

The heavy lifters (180 ton+) work with a 2.5:1 ratio of payload mass : lifter parts and come with a payload fraction of 17%.

[Alpheratz]

Very nice launchers, this will reduce lagg considerabley!

[galimare]

What add do you use? because KSp say me than a few componant are incompatible...

[mhoram]

What add do you use? because KSp say me than a few componant are incompatible...

Welcome to the forum!

You are right. In V0.5 I forgot to remove the MechJeb module from Lopac 02 and 04. All other ships however are strictly stock only for KSP 0.23.5.

Will remove them and update the archive.

[Giggleplex777]

Darn it! You built a 500+ ton lifter with less than 200 parts before I could.

[ScottyDoesKnow]

Darn it! You built a 500+ ton lifter with less than 200 parts before I could.

You need to aim higher (or lower!) This one here is 242 parts, minus cosmetic parts (36), de-orbit parts (10), and launch clamps (24) that's 172. And I just redesigned it to be 223 parts (-36, -9, -24) for 154. Maybe aim for 4x part efficiency, 600t under 150 parts. Though mine probably has worse payload percentage since I used a really basic design with no solid boosters.

[mhoram]

@ScottyDoesKnow

150 parts for 500 ton is perfectly doable. I just brought the partcount of my 520 Ton lifter down to 161 and still have 6 thrustplates and 13 adapters to spare. Most likely i can also take away a few of the 12 SAS modules, but I still want the lifter to be able to handle huge payloads that don't have their own SAS modules.

And by the way the changes improved the payload fraction for a 75km orbit to 17.97% with about 130dV to spare. It's the second day of the update and I think that I will enjoy the KR-2L engine very much (replacement for the aerospikes).

[ScottyDoesKnow]

@ScottyDoesKnow

150 parts for 500 ton is perfectly doable. I just brought the partcount of my 520 Ton lifter down to 161 and still have 6 thrustplates and 13 adapters to spare. Most likely i can also take away a few of the 12 SAS modules, but I still want the lifter to be able to handle huge payloads that don't have their own SAS modules.

And by the way the changes improved the payload fraction for a 75km orbit to 17.97% with about 130dV to spare. It's the second day of the update and I think that I will enjoy the KR-2L engine very much (replacement for the aerospikes).

Ya I think I'm pretty much happy with my heavy lifter now, I have it doing 600t at 200 parts. If I don't count struts to the payload (6), or the launch clamps (24), removed the ability to deorbit (9 parts, should be 6 but I liked the even 200 parts), and removed the cosmetic nose cones/adapters (36) it ends up being 124 parts for 600t. One downside is no reaction wheels so I throttle the engine slightly to prepare for circularization, and of course it couldn't deorbit itself and would look ugly. It's also only doing a 15.3% payload fraction.

I'll look into the KR-2L engine again though. I had them as the center 7 engines at first because the big ones wouldn't fit, but I've since spaced it out and replaced them. It may be more efficient to swap those back.

[HeadHunter67]

This thread is relevant to my interests. I can't wait to try them out!

[mhoram]

Ya I think I'm pretty much happy with my heavy lifter now, I have it doing 600t at 200 parts.

I'll look into the KR-2L engine again though. I had them as the center 7 engines at first because the big ones wouldn't fit, but I've since spaced it out and replaced them. It may be more efficient to swap those back.

Good job on this very partefficient design. Two quick questions: are the launch clamps essential for takeoff and would this lifter be able to handle payloads that don't contain SAS-modules?

The KR-2L is very efficient in vacuum so this will be my choice of engine as final engine before LV-N. They also provide more gimbal than the big ones which I find quite important in the late stages to reduce the necessity for SAS-modules.

This thread is relevant to my interests. I can't wait to try them out!

Cool. If you encounter any problems, please don't hesitate to report them.

By the way I added subassemblies in the latest update.

[ScottyDoesKnow]

Good job on this very partefficient design. Two quick questions: are the launch clamps essential for takeoff and would this lifter be able to handle payloads that don't contain SAS-modules?

The KR-2L is very efficient in vacuum so this will be my choice of engine as final engine before LV-N. They also provide more gimbal than the big ones which I find quite important in the late stages to reduce the necessity for SAS-modules.

Just tried it and I think I'll keep the launch clamps off, actually. It's got 18 of the largest engines at the same height so with the joint reinforcement it's completely sturdy. It can work without any SAS but it's a bit unwieldy; it has 100 RCS but only 6 ports on the payload decoupler (so right in the middle of the whole ship, pretty much the worst place). But you can always throttle up the engine on low to change heading, and the RCS will stop you from drifting off that heading. I also got 640t to orbit with it just barely, so that breaks 5t per part (if I removed the 'unnecessary' parts) and 16% payload fraction.

I tried the KR-2L but it doesn't work well for my ship. My final stage is a 7 engine cluster and 7 of them is too much.

Edit: Pretty happy now. I half forgot about the struts taking up part counts (which aren't really the launcher). Did a bit more tweaking and got the subassembly down to 160 parts (4:1) including the cosmetic and de-orbiting parts. Still need to steer with the engines though.

Edited April 3, 2014 by ScottyDoesKnow

[Justin Kerbice]

These launchers looks good and are a nice addition or challenge to the Munshine family .

Would you like to create also launchers for a few other target orbits and where it's possible of course ?

Kind of: 10t - 100kms - 500 kms - 1Mms - 5 Mms - even more.

[mhoram]

These launchers looks good and are a nice addition or challenge to the Munshine family .

Would you like to create also launchers for a few other target orbits and where it's possible of course ?

Kind of: 10t - 100kms - 500 kms - 1Mms - 5 Mms - even more.

Thanks!

dV-wise the target altitudes do not differ that much with respect to the dV needed to get the orbit out of the atmosphere, so I suggest that you take another approach: if one launcher is not sufficient to get your payload to the desired altitude, try the next bigger launcher.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Advanced_Rocket_Design#Calculating_transfer_maneuvers can help you with the question "how much additional dV do I need for a higher orbit?"

And if my series is not yet powerful enough, try ScottyDoesKnow's 640ton launcher.

[KvickFlygarn87]

This is AWESOME!It's a shame that it's asparagus though.

[Justin Kerbice]

@mhoram: I've tried some of the launchers past few days and I don't like them that's much, use of many panels increase the critical parts count and it results in unstable rocket which tend to move or rotate unexpectedly, preventing to achieve a proper gravity turn I guess.

And they looks like... "pure KSP" in the way Harvester define it, ie: amateur style rockets. They doesn't look too much to be trusted. As opposite to the Munshines which are really "on another planet".

Struct connectors can be use even on parts which will be separated and they would prevent those parasite movements as the panels on their own are really not enough.

[mhoram]

About the looks: I focus rather on function than design ;-) so I know that the Moonshine lifters will win in that category.

Thanks for the info about the unexpected rotation. I tried to build them with large payloads in mind and tested them as displayed in the OP and here are pictures from a launch with a massive payload and they worked resonably well. If you PM me your ship, I could look into the reason for this behaviour.

[Justin Kerbice]

About the looks: I focus rather on function than design ;-) so I know that the Moonshine lifters will win in that category.

Thanks for the info about the unexpected rotation. I tried to build them with large payloads in mind and tested them as displayed in the OP and here are pictures from a launch with a massive payload and they worked resonably well. If you PM me your ship, I could look into the reason for this behaviour.

here is a pic at least (launcher is Lopac 24)

I haven't keep the craft but I have persistent file if it could help (I can extract the craft from there to retrieve the full payload).

[mhoram]

@Justin Kerbice

The intended Payload mass of the Lopac 24 is 180-240 ton.

Your payload seems to be around 40 ton, so the Lopac 04 should be able to lift it into space.

I did not test the ships with underdimensioned payloads.

It is also known that the new large decoupler TR-38-D has some problems.

[Justin Kerbice]

@Justin Kerbice

The intended Payload mass of the Lopac 24 is 180-240 ton.

Your payload seems to be around 40 ton, so the Lopac 04 should be able to lift it into space.

I did not test the ships with underdimensioned payloads.

It is also known that the new large decoupler TR-38-D has some problems.

(sorry late reply)

I usually prefer to take larger launcher than the most closest to the payload, it allow me to circularize at higher orbit with some margin, and here it was just a test.

[mhoram]

So I gave this Lifterfamily an update for 0.24.2.

Some parts had their configuration changed in the latest update and this made some changes necessary.

Also the TR-38-D is now fully functional and can be used.

Added a logoflag.

And finally in most cases reduced the partcounts of the lifters (Lopac 18 - Lopac 52 need less than 1 part per 3 ton payload).

[DuoDex]

Looking good! Can you explain the meaning of the MechJeb numbers?