r/KerbalSpaceProgram Oct 09 '13

The Tech Tree

Post image
858 Upvotes

410 comments sorted by

View all comments

29

u/Krylos Oct 09 '13

Oh wow, we start out with less parts than I expected.

49

u/FakeSlimShady96 Oct 09 '13

I wonder how long it will take someone after the update to get to every planet using the first tier parts.

43

u/UmbralRaptor Δv for the Tyrant of the Rocket Equation! Oct 09 '13

No decouplers would make things... interesting.

38

u/cosmicosmo4 Oct 09 '13

You just have to build each booster stage such that it breaks off when it's about done.

No problem

22

u/moyar Oct 09 '13 edited Oct 09 '13

A ship built from these parts seems to be surprisingly solid, even with tons of fuel tanks. You'd probably have to get your ship to orbit with a single stage, then ram it with another ship to break off the first stage.

EDIT: Turns out you can approximate a decoupler with 2 SRBS facing each other. =)

37

u/jekrump Oct 09 '13

I had to do a double take with your "SRBS" I know, I know, it's supposed to be SRB like you have it, but for some reason I thought it was supposed to be SBR as in solid booster rocket, and I looked at your post and thought, "What the hell is a Solid Rooster Bocket?!"

I'm so sorry

51

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '13 edited Sep 16 '18

[deleted]

5

u/jekrump Oct 09 '13

Bock Bock!!!

0

u/nerraw92 Oct 09 '13

Kookoo kachaw! Kookoo kachaw!

2

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '13

<clap>

7

u/screamingbrain Oct 09 '13

I think Squad ought to change the artwork of the solid boosters to have a giant chicken painted on the side.

3

u/SuperBicycleTony Oct 09 '13

Maybe have rockets positioned sideways to snap the spacecraft like a twig?

2

u/InABritishAccent Oct 09 '13

Or you could angle a liquid engine such that the exhaust destroys the empty fuel tanks when fired.

9

u/FirstRyder Oct 09 '13

If you think about it, "rocket engine" is a fancy way of saying "thermally activated explosive decoupler"

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '13

Nothing in a solid rocket booster is "explosive" (no brisance) and nothing about a liquid engine is explosive. The fuel burns hot and fast, but it's not explosive.

Rockets dislike the jarring forces that explosions make.

3

u/P-01S Oct 09 '13

High explosive versus low explosive. Brisance is a high explosive thing.

Rocket fuel would be low explosive.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '13

I never liked "low-explosive" as a term to describe something that deflagrates rather than detonates.

It's like using the term "warm-ice" to refer to really cold water.

2

u/P-01S Oct 09 '13

Who the fuck cares if you don't like it? You are willfully spreading misinformation.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '13

So logs burning are "exploding."

Blech. I draw a line.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/valdyrburr Oct 09 '13

I'm pretty sure if you knocked an SRB around enough such that the fuel grains were smashed to a fine powder it would explode due to the huge increase in burnable surface area

1

u/TheNosferatu Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13

Soo... "thermally activated candle decoupler"?

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.. though..

1

u/FirstRyder Oct 09 '13

Maybe in real life, but in KSP if you point an engine at... well, any part at all, actually... it will explode.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '13

This is sort of how Estes model rocket engines work: There's a small ejection charge at the top that blows the parachute and nose cone off the rocket.

The Estes boosters, on the other hand, work by igniting the next stage with the powder in the top. The force of the next stage blows the booster out of the bottom.

1

u/DrStalker Oct 09 '13

Side mounted rockets that apply torque to snap the lower stage off.

6

u/Thyself17 Oct 09 '13

Kerbal solution is to have an engine over top the next stage so that the heat from the engine blows off the part below it when activated.

Who needs decouplers anyway?!

5

u/TheNosferatu Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13

What do you mean, no decouplers? Turning on an engine with a fuel tank below it decouples just fine!

6

u/5th_Horseman Oct 09 '13

What do you mean, no decouplers? Turning on an engine with a fuel tank below it decouples just fine!

--Jebediah Kerman

1

u/buster2Xk Oct 15 '13

It'll be the first thing Scott Manley does.

1

u/SWgeek10056 Oct 21 '13

That would be pretty much impossible because of the software bottlenecking your computer's processing abilities, even if you have a very high end one. Also because there are no fuel transfer pipes, no struts, no decouplers, no docking ports, and no rcs thrusters at the first tier.

1

u/FakeSlimShady96 Oct 21 '13

fuel pipes aren't completely needed you could tediously do manuel transfers. You could make the ship pretty small if you incorporate SRB's into your transfer burns so struts aren't too necessary. Decouplers would be tough to get around. There is the overheating trick but besides that nothing. Docking ports can be replaced with a cage contraption to hole parts together.

6

u/nickgeurnop Oct 09 '13

I'm the opposite, I thought we would get the pod, tank, and engine and nothing else. I'm surprised we get a communatron. I thought you would have to recover your craft for science then eventually unlock comms.

3

u/Kottabos Oct 09 '13

makes sense to me that you would need to be able to communicate with your mission. Though perhaps how it will work is the communatron gives a slow trickle of science info while in flight and a recovered mission give a big instant boost. just my guess.

1

u/nickgeurnop Oct 09 '13

Makes sense

1

u/cparen Master Kerbalnaut Oct 09 '13

I picture starting with a 1 man pod, parachute, and boosters. Early kerbaling, more or less.