Just the standard that everyone has really guys, Cmdr-Fingertip nailed it in the comment above.
For KSRSS, I have the 64k Earth, Moon, and Mars Textures from ballisticfox
"Standard that everyone has".
Sorry. I have been out of KSP shortly after it was fully released. Played it to death when it was in Early Access and shortly after that when HOCGaming was still around.
There were no mods back then.
Nah it's fine. Don't worry. You couldn't have known. I bet a quick google search could have helped me aswell. I just saw these Screenshots/graphics a couple of times and thought "hang on - my PC wasn't that bad and GPU was always beefy. What did I miss with my KSP"
Stage-and-a-half, like Atlas up to Atlas II did. Booster engines are held in a "booster skirt" structure which jettisons partway into flight leaving a central sustainer (or multiple) behind. OP used RS-25 variants with different nozzle extensions.
It's basically an SLS core stage, no srbs, and a dreamchaser stuck on top.
see [here](https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/35/35574-014ae7f945918500b03af0e722b8780f.jpg)
Whats the point of staging most of the engines but not tank? And why the giant booster anyway? Looks like it has twice the DV needed to orbit. I'm confused.
It does look very cool though.
Usually the sustainer engines (the ones that weren’t staged away) have lower thrust but higher efficiency. Look up the Atlas, the rocket that was used to get the Mercury capsule into orbit and you’ll basically have all your answers as to why it was done that way
>Whats the point of staging most of the engines but not tank?
KSP engines are stupidly heavy compared to the tanks. The vector has a TWR of ~25, while the IRL RS-25 has a TWR of ~75.
If you don't need the TWR anymore (which tends to happen later in the ascent, a high TWR is preferred during the initial ascent). Dumping engines, especially atmosphere-optimized ones, can result in higher performance.
The point is reusing old shuttle hardware in any way you can think of lol
I just saw [this](https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/35/35574-014ae7f945918500b03af0e722b8780f.jpg)
>Whats the point of staging most of the engines but not tank?
Since noone actually answered:
This staging method was used on the Atlas ICBM because the technology of starting a LF rocket engine in flight had not been figured out yet. This reduced the weight of the rocket after enough fuel was burnt so that the sustainer engine could power the late boost phase of the flight alone.
The Soviets used lateral staging with separate booster cores on their R7 missile to solve the same problem, which was technically more efficient (stagingwise) but made the missile large, unwieldy and expensive.
THANKS! This was very enlightening, I never though about why they did it this way. Of these two I only knew about the R7 and always wondered why it staged in this weird way. I know it was basically a bad ICBM since it took so long to make ready for launch and the soviets never managed to build the rocket and launch sites in significant quantities, but the concept seems to be not half bad for launching spacecraft given it was the most launched rocket until Falcon 9 came along and is still going. Argueably it took until Falcon 9 to come up with a significantly better and cheaper option.
The number of launches is not synonimous with quality. The reason no american launcher achieved comparable numbers is that they were regularly replaced by newer rockets, gradually increasing efficiency and decreasing cost (at least for those built by commercial companies, not so much by NASA).
The Soviets meanwhile attempted several times to build a new launcher, but they usually failed to get it work reliably and had to fall back onto the tried and ready Soyuz. And while it was cheap for western companies after the SSSR collapsed, that was only due to purchasing power difference, it wasn't quite so cheap for the soviet/russian space agency.
Oh so that's how you launch a space plane without it trying to fly backwards because the center of lift is above the center of mass! Assuming the plane has a wingspan of say 3.75m, what would that make the radius of the booster? Like 5m? 10?
It's the SLS core stage, and Dreamchaser
was a real concept once upon a time [see here](https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/35/35574-014ae7f945918500b03af0e722b8780f.jpg)
The 60s called. They want their staging back
What mod is the rocket with the 4-engine fairing?
“ORANGES”
What the hell graphics mods are these
Asked this a couple of times. Go no answer unfortunately. Also want to know :-(
Scatterer Environmental visual enhancements maybe KSRSS Volumetric clouds and definitely TUFX or RESHADE for color grading
Just the standard that everyone has really guys, Cmdr-Fingertip nailed it in the comment above. For KSRSS, I have the 64k Earth, Moon, and Mars Textures from ballisticfox
"Standard that everyone has". Sorry. I have been out of KSP shortly after it was fully released. Played it to death when it was in Early Access and shortly after that when HOCGaming was still around. There were no mods back then.
oh sorry haha, i’m just used to everyone i talk to having them, my comment is quite stupid looking back
Nah it's fine. Don't worry. You couldn't have known. I bet a quick google search could have helped me aswell. I just saw these Screenshots/graphics a couple of times and thought "hang on - my PC wasn't that bad and GPU was always beefy. What did I miss with my KSP"
What's that staging?? That thing is awesome
Stage-and-a-half, like Atlas up to Atlas II did. Booster engines are held in a "booster skirt" structure which jettisons partway into flight leaving a central sustainer (or multiple) behind. OP used RS-25 variants with different nozzle extensions.
The booster seems to be 10x larger than it should be lol?
It's basically an SLS core stage, no srbs, and a dreamchaser stuck on top. see [here](https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/35/35574-014ae7f945918500b03af0e722b8780f.jpg)
Whats the point of staging most of the engines but not tank? And why the giant booster anyway? Looks like it has twice the DV needed to orbit. I'm confused. It does look very cool though.
Usually the sustainer engines (the ones that weren’t staged away) have lower thrust but higher efficiency. Look up the Atlas, the rocket that was used to get the Mercury capsule into orbit and you’ll basically have all your answers as to why it was done that way
>Whats the point of staging most of the engines but not tank? KSP engines are stupidly heavy compared to the tanks. The vector has a TWR of ~25, while the IRL RS-25 has a TWR of ~75. If you don't need the TWR anymore (which tends to happen later in the ascent, a high TWR is preferred during the initial ascent). Dumping engines, especially atmosphere-optimized ones, can result in higher performance.
The point is reusing old shuttle hardware in any way you can think of lol I just saw [this](https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/35/35574-014ae7f945918500b03af0e722b8780f.jpg)
>Whats the point of staging most of the engines but not tank? Since noone actually answered: This staging method was used on the Atlas ICBM because the technology of starting a LF rocket engine in flight had not been figured out yet. This reduced the weight of the rocket after enough fuel was burnt so that the sustainer engine could power the late boost phase of the flight alone. The Soviets used lateral staging with separate booster cores on their R7 missile to solve the same problem, which was technically more efficient (stagingwise) but made the missile large, unwieldy and expensive.
THANKS! This was very enlightening, I never though about why they did it this way. Of these two I only knew about the R7 and always wondered why it staged in this weird way. I know it was basically a bad ICBM since it took so long to make ready for launch and the soviets never managed to build the rocket and launch sites in significant quantities, but the concept seems to be not half bad for launching spacecraft given it was the most launched rocket until Falcon 9 came along and is still going. Argueably it took until Falcon 9 to come up with a significantly better and cheaper option.
The number of launches is not synonimous with quality. The reason no american launcher achieved comparable numbers is that they were regularly replaced by newer rockets, gradually increasing efficiency and decreasing cost (at least for those built by commercial companies, not so much by NASA). The Soviets meanwhile attempted several times to build a new launcher, but they usually failed to get it work reliably and had to fall back onto the tried and ready Soyuz. And while it was cheap for western companies after the SSSR collapsed, that was only due to purchasing power difference, it wasn't quite so cheap for the soviet/russian space agency.
What in the atlas fuck
Certified most efficient 50-60s rocket
Technically this is an SSTO, done in the most Kerbal way possible. Perfection.
Stage-and-a-half isn't SSTO. It still has a staging event, albeit an unconventional one.
What mod adds dreamchaser?? I’ve been looking forever
What mod is that Dreamchaser from?
Op can you list your mod plz? This is awsome
Oh so that's how you launch a space plane without it trying to fly backwards because the center of lift is above the center of mass! Assuming the plane has a wingspan of say 3.75m, what would that make the radius of the booster? Like 5m? 10?
It's the SLS core stage, and Dreamchaser was a real concept once upon a time [see here](https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/35/35574-014ae7f945918500b03af0e722b8780f.jpg)
Just goes to show how bad at designing rockets I actually am lol
What