Do you use the launch escape system?

[John FX]

I have now I've made an Apollo-style Mun mission using ARM parts.

This is where I use it. I made a two stage system like the Apollo one and it works quite well.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Godot]

Often enough ... usually my more advanced mannes spaceships (that get me to Mun and beyond) almost always use it ...

my less advanced often use a selfmade LES with a few sepratrons

But only in connection with procedural fairings ... so that I can assemble a capsule with a chute on top, then package everything in fairings and mount the LES on top of the fairings

(which is actually also the way it was done for Apollo)

[Renegrade]

Or in the case of strange computer errors (as from too many parts), piloting errors (improper staging activation, or failing to point the right directions), et cetera. The LES has value, you might not need it on some craft, but it still has value.

Yeah, but here's the thing: the real world LES systems are generally there to pull the capsule away from an exploding rockets. Real, full scale rockets contain enough fuel to have a massive, pad-wrecking explosion like a tiny atom bomb - a escape system has to pull the capsule up and away from this fiery, explody death.

In KSP, on the other hand, the parts aren't actually exploding. They're just vanishing with a loud and flashy effect.

The only thing you'd ever really have to worry about is runaway SRBs, and chances are the LES would be useless against that. Plus, I've never had a runaway SRB ever hit anything, they generally miss the capsule since I usually radially mount them anyhow.

In my own designs, I generally omit the LES (since it's unfriendly to a number of configurations like the aforementioned 16XL parachute, or the Mk1 pod), and just go with parachutes. In almost all disasters, decoupling and then waiting a bit before deploying the parachutes generally results in crew survival.

Unfortunately under no circumstance is the 'abort' button ever adequate enough to handle these emergencies as I most specifically do NOT want to activate the parachutes immediately, LES or no LES.

[magnemoe]

The LES assumes that something might go wrong. There is no reliability component in Stock KSP, so except for player design issues, there is no use for the LES - its just eye candy.

However plenty of stuff who can go wrong, in 0.9 this is mostly booster separation impacts, the old telescoping is less common. This is the setting where an escape tower is important.

Unstable or too weak rockets and you just kill engine and separates.

I rarely use it myself, in 0.9 all of my crew launches after I opened for all the parts is space planes and they have an custom escape system, four seperatrons lift cockpit and passenger compartment forward and up, I use the forward cancard as a wing to generate lift if needed else I just pop parachutes.

Only used system once in 0.9, a out of fuel plane was overshooting the runway and would splash down so I had to use it. i have increased the strength of the passenger compartment so its more in line with the cockpit (it weight the same) however it would not survive an 40 m/s water landing.

[TeeGee]

The LES assumes that something might go wrong. There is no reliability component in Stock KSP, so except for player design issues, there is no use for the LES - its just eye candy.

What this person said.

LES in this game is useless since parts don't fail in stock KSP. If you have an emergency you could 1) Just revert to launch or VAB 2) cut engines and decouple. That's it. LES towers are an aesthetic thing that just adds weight to stock launchers for people who try to create real life replicas in KSP.

[CptRichardson]

Not particularly, no. Given that my capsules are designed to land with their engines, I usually just trigger the final stage seperator, angle towards the VAB and power my way out of unhappy thoughts situations. It works remarkably well.

[RainDreamer]

Unless I am playing on hard mode without save/revert, nah. It cost part count, money, mass for things that can easily be fixed with a simple quick load/revert.

However, I can easily imagine it can be used for other purposes outside of its designs.

[boolybooly]

Even on hard no I have not used the tower because you cant practically use it without the action groups which are late game.

[briansun1]

Sometimes. But never for what it was actually intended for.

[LordFerret]

Used it once. Opted for other alternatives after that.

[worir4]

What if i said, i used it to un-save kerbals....

[BrainiacBlue]

Where we're from, we sent our health and safety guys into orbit

[basic.syntax]

Even on hard no I have not used the tower because you cant practically use it without the action groups which are late game.

Its "meant" to be tied into the Abort group, which is available at all upgrade levels, IIRC. That said, I don't use LES, and re-purpose Abort to control other things. Limiting custom action groups to the final upgrade tier, is kind of harsh. I also re-program Gear for something else, and leave gear down all the time

[Denks]

I use it for manned missions, some unmanned missions, and I test the system before putting Kerbals in craft.

[DerpenWolf]

I like the part but most of my designs don't need it. If we had a extra button that prevented even alt-f12 cheating and I could put it on top of a shielded docking port then I think I would use it more but for now... nope.

[AbacusWizard]

I sometimes use it sideways as an extra-strength Sepratron.

I also once designed a tiny minimalist glider that used a Launch Escape System to yank it forward for high initial velocity, and then once it was airborne, a decoupler and a pair of Sepratrons to remove the LES. That was a fun way to buzz around the Space Center. Once I even made it through the arch at the science building.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Not the stock one, it looks awful and only burns for less than a second, I usually use the one fro KSPX or areojet kerbodyne.

[Sidereus]

I've never used it. If I were playing hard mode and couldn't revert, I probably would. But otherwise, all it does is take up space.

[ddenis]

Always use it for manned rockets, but I use it with RealChute and Sum Dum Heavy Industries.

[LABHOUSE]

Did before when rockets blew up the pad, also use it for wobbly rockets (like ones with the pointed engines).

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

Given "Revert to VAB" it seems unnecessary.

(maybe if I was playing Ironman mode)

[Wallygator]

Or in the case of strange computer errors (as from too many parts), piloting errors (improper staging activation, or failing to point the right directions), et cetera. The LES has value, you might not need it on some craft, but it still has value.

Fair enough, and valid point - but I would like to clarify my perspective to include that IMO the "in game" LES should not be considered a fix for "out game" bugs which still remain to be fixed. ;-)

[Caelib]

It's ok, but it needs a built-in decoupler.

[NecroBones]

Oddly enough, even though I almost never use the LES, I added one to Modular Rocket Systems. But that's part of a set (with a shroud) that is meant to look reminiscent of the Orion/SLS version.

Edited February 10, 2015 by NecroBones

[panzer1b]

Not something i use much.

A single sepatron (which weight a fraction of the LES system), is enough to get a pod well away from almost every rocket. So in terms of part count/useability, sepatrons are better, and they actually allow for the attachment of a parachute ontop of say a 3 man pod. Then, with some minor RCS thrusters on the pod, i can make a self sustaining pod that is usually able to deorbit itsself on most planets, and land with an atmosphere, with the sepatron getting it away from teh main ship. This is lighter, and does the same job that a LES capsule would.

Then again, they do make exceptional kinetic energy weapons. With 100% stock parts, you need to place them in dual symmetry with say a mk1 bicoupler or whatnot keeping the total thrust straight. These things are probably the most lethal and accurate unguided weapons in teh stock game. Its also possible to make a single one fly straight, if you know how to mod the 3d model to remove the one thruster position thats offcentered.

Anyways, while they do do their intended job fairly well, ive found other systems to be lighter, and just as functional. Anyways, ill still use em as primary armarment on some of my heavier frigates.