KSP Challenge - Launching Rocket Using Weakest Engines
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Since the 1.0.1 release the linear RCS thruster has become the worst thruster in the game. So, in a fit of 'What If?' I tried to build a stock rocket which would launch a payload to orbit using this utterly terrible system.
Hullo it's Scott Manley here and today we're making a round trip across the solar system using only a docking port and an octagonal strut.
what would you need the docking port for? o.O
pcmaster888 do not question Scott Manley
pcmaster888
dat is some kerboscience beyond mortal understanding, just accept it works.
...perhaps
Chuck Norris approves
Oh there were the guy who used the Kerbal physics bug with ladders to go to space and visit the Kerbal moon in a vid back in the days - no I don't remember who, but I'm certain there's still a non propulsion solution. I get back with a reply if I find it. ;)
You pretty much launched it off the top of a mountain; nothing wrong with that.
Cody'sLab
0_0
you're watching Scott Manley?
+Cody'sLab someone suggested building a launch rover and driving up a mountain.
+Cody'sLab BTW congratulations on 1million subs :)
Heheh, we both know that's how you did things on Eve before they fixed the aero. Land on or drive up a mountain. Much easier than sea level.
I have to imagine the Scott Manley 1mil sub special will be something like launching a gigantic play button made out of cubic octagonal struts into orbit around the mun.... hard mode: as an SSTO
"I just extended launch clamps until my spaceship started in latythes atmosphere. thats no cheating."
"IT WAS PAINFUL IN SO MANY WAYS" KSP in a nutshell
Suggestion which others probably already made: build a big solar-powered crawler, stick the rocket on top of that, and just drive to higher ground. Mostly Kraken-proof, and only slightly more time-consuming.
Hey Scott: What happens to the Kerbal Space Center and launch pad when the first few stages fall right back on the complex?
I'm so glad I subscribed to you... you Crazy Scottish Rocket Scientist You!
Surely you could go into orbit with far less if you start high enough. I'm thinking launch clamps that reach whatever height is required for kerbalstationary orbit.
In the atmosphere, the LV-1 ant has less thrust!
Challenge: Ion-engine SSTO with hypercondensator? :D ( = config tweaked battery )
A bit late to the party, I think it’s been done by now :)
Idea: go into the .COM (or whatever) files of the items and change the thrust, weight and fuel consumption values.
Do more challenges!
I love how Scott is successful without ridiculous clickbait
BTG02 because Scott is 40-43 with two kids, and a job in Apple. He doesn't want ridiculous titles like "WORLD'S TALLEST LAUNCH CLAMPS" (Kuebelkoops in a nutshell)
No, it'd be "WORLDS TALLEST LAUNCH CLAMP'S?!!"
I can picture the title... "4000M LAUNCH CLAMPS!!!!!! NO MODS? WILL IT WORK? #WEAKROCKETCHALLENGE #YOLOSWEG"
Launch Clamp Assembly Techs Hate Him! Click Here To Find Out Why!
I coiuld just imagine in caps, "OMG 400m Space Elevator assisted RCS rocket!!!" lol.
Me: Fail at every attempt to get something into orbit.
Scott Manley: Brings an Spacestation into orbit with the fuel of a gas lighter.
MrBrakerTV same I just can't do it
MrBrakerTV haha gold
MrBrakerTV yep
Wow. Who are you? A 1 minute old with a brain problem? It didn't take me long at all to figure out how to orbit hot damn.
Jarod W
"Minute year"
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think about whether or not they should.
Shut up, Dr. Malcolm.
Rocket science finds a way.
An early scene in Jurassic Park.
“Must go faster! Must go faster!!”
How to get on orbit using air balloons as a thruster?
Step 1. Build a launch clamp to the geostationary height
technically a launch clamp is always geostationary because is it anchored to the ground
@@defne499 oof
@@defne499 oof
Tahir Durgun oof
@@defne499 oof
Docking Hard Mode: Dock using only Solid Rocket boosters (No RCS! No LF+OX!)
There's a guy that went to the Mun and returned with ONLY srb's. including landing, *and* a low-mun-orbit rendevous and docking. Yes, *only* srb's. Will update post if i locate the video
(And no, im not talking about the good old easy day, as per Scott's youtube tXU67_cE3ss )
holy shit that is pretty damn impressive!
yes. jeb would approve!
haha on ya Jeb
there is also Hazardish going to laythe and back with SRB's and no parachutes ... /watch?v=aKa5T0EZRxY
stupid nasa just bring the launchpad higher for more efficiency :/
Walker Maher Ikr should just launch from mount everest
Isn’t that the basic concept for space elevators?
Mountains are not stable, they vulnerable to landslides and it also add a lot of cost to make a tall concrete structure and have a rocket on top of it. One more problem, rockets are not light, it'll be hard to transport it
Ælectronics you must be a stupid nasa scientist
@@noscope1244 Just building rocket on Mountain! What can possibly go wrong!
Who else instinctively pointed their cursors at the screen to check the apoapsis?
Juin Yi Ng how u know
So true
100th like
Holy shit i just realized that console version of KSP is unmoddable :O Poor guys!
edit- dont get me wrong its still pretty fun game and i got around 500 hours in stock but the other 1000 hours are modded gameplay.
species yeah, I don't have a laptop so I play on console. It's still fun without mods, but I do feel a little left out, but it's ok
Yea definetly, you can still have hours upon hours of fun just with stock.
species Not only is it unmoddable, but it's buggier than an ant hill and stuck on an outdated version. I also suffer from the lack of a good PC, but it's better than no KSP right?
I often quit the game for a few days when my saves get deleted after they accumulate too much memory, but I keep coming back because I love it to death. I pray the dev team takes some time to fix the console version.
I don't like mods. And consoles.
I made it about 6 months (no idea on actual gameplay time) before I started getting mods. I think I found out that my buddy played and he suggested MechJeb. I have since had a love/hate relationship with MJ.
Is it possible to make an electrical plane that uses the ion engines and produces enough thrust to fly?
It's been a while since I've played the game, so something might have changed, but you used to be able to, so I'd assume you still can.
Ianwubby only if you start from a mountain top
In the old days, not so much these days.
If you search for "odyssey by bill, book 14 bradley whistance" you can find someone who did it in v1.13 using stock parts but he pushed the limits by starting from a mountain top.
Yeah but it is rather tedious, doesn't fly to well and overall is just a bad idea.
"I want this to be accessible to everyone, especially those players on the consoles." - Says someone barely getting a frame per second on PC.
Yeah... That's not happening.
You should have watched more than 1/3 of the video, then you wouldn't look stupid.
"Stock hardware"
*Proceeds to use 4 km high launch clamps
Bugs are glitches are stock :D
You can get that in stock KSP. Scott showed you how!
Timothy McLean It's also a mod
"No cheating!"
Invigorate Many mods include rockets. Are all rockets non-stock?
So... when's the SSTO version?
Bruh
Even for Scott Manley that’s impossible
@@josephdavison4189 never doubt scot
LOL my PC blue screened whilst watching the laggy launch, very immersive Scott.
"those players on the consoles." MFW i learned KSP was on the consoles. Who the fuck are THOSE people?
That would include me.
Don't say "MFW" if you don't know what it means
'y'sure that one doesn't know it? "My Face When I learned a thing" => "You should've seen my face when I learned a thing" seems a reasonable use case, I'd say.
We can't see his face so saying "MFW" is redundant, gtfo normie.
Face visibility doesn't matter, as the sentence can be construed as both "Look upon my face when" and "You should've seen my face". It's a mite flexible like that.
Heheh, normie. I'm from the internet, kid. Also, I'm not sure "redundant" means what you think it does.
So which is the weakest engine that can get you into space without 3km tall launch towers?
+Lcra arcl this can work without launch towers you just need to run the sim for days.
I'll give you a bad rats trading card on Steam if you try it
The spark (it's awesome)
@Evi1M4chine how much ram? I already have 16 gigs of it!
So I have to ask, why dont we launch rockets from higher altitudes?
sitrilko Transporting costs probably.
sitrilko
Because you'd have to get the rocket to the higher altitude, and support it there somehow. It's an awesome concept, but not very feasible.
This is a lot less of a problem with normal rocket engines, which lose less efficiency while in atmosphere or may even gain some depending on their type. I would guess getting so much materiel up a mountain is harder than just packing another 500kg of fuel and oxidizer
sitrilko i think also it may be to do with wanting to launch near the equator? just a guess.
sitrilko It's because the height gained would be so little compared to what the rocket needs to get to orbit. It's not worth it when you also factor in transportation.
"But it works in KSP!"
4000 parts lag?
*Laughs in OpenCl million parts soft body physics ship*
Frederic Nieto BeamNG.drive on weak pc's in a nutshell
ideed
What game can you do that in?
Loebane BeamNG.drive is a soft body physics simulator. It costs 23€ on steam, and in the 1st of April will be the version 0.9 out
I made a game called sinking simulator, which can easily run 500k particle ships on a decent graphics card, or even millions if you got a crazy good one.
4:27 "It almost certainly does not." I was on the edge of my seat for a good second there.
if you used the part welder mod, and you can extend the launch clamps that far, perhaps it's possible to build a space elevator?
iliketrains0pwned *ground based space station*
new challenge: for this you may use all cheats and mods. build a space elevator to geostationery height
The game physics can't handle it
rubikfan1 I believe he already tried that
rubikfan1 I guy already tried it the video is on TH-cam
Well technically I already explained why it wouldn't work.
With mods it's relatively simple. Just put a craft in geostat orbit containing a module that has some code borrowed from extraplanetary launchpads that can spawn ships. A button at the space centre lets you load a ship from a craft file similarly to the launchpad/runway. And when you press launch, the mod switches to the vessel in geostat orbit posing as a space elevator and loads the ship on a platform. A small station keeping script constantly makes sure that while the "elevator" is technically a ship, it is constantly repositioned to act more like an elevator.
If you allow mods without restriction. Anything becomes possible. It's like having God on your side personally altering physics to suit your needs.
Challenge:go to all planets (moons if you want to) no refuel and in first person mode only, using weakest engines, cheating not allowed.
No sort of cheating allowed.
:3
In real time (no time warp)
LUL
without maneuver nodes
For normal people? yes. For Scott? he does that during lunchtime.
and Matt Lowne is already on the task
hey wait, isn't the ion drive the weakest?
Probably meant the weakest engine that could take off on its own. ion engine doesn't have nearly enough thrust to push its own weight off the pad.
It's possible to make a plane with ion engines that can take off
Or maybe he meant the engine with the lowest specific impulse. Ion drives still have a specific impulse of around 700 if I remember correctly. EDIT: They have a specific impulse of around 700 at sea level, but have one of 3200 in vacuum.
Barely, and it's gotta be from a height. I was involved in that little investigation. Ions have just barely too little thrust to get even a tube bristling with basic fins (the highest lift:mass ratio part) off the ground. The drag proves to be a real buttock.
I don't think you can after the physics change. That relied on how the wings worked in the old physics to get off the ground.
Well, you know what they say. Quantity over quality.
Except when it nearly crashes the simulator.
So, how close is this to real-world physics*? Or, is this just an exploit of the game's programming?
*This is just a topic for discussion. I'm not going, "Holy shit! You can do this in real life?" lol
Not even close to real-world physics. Stacking engines on top of each other is not feasible in the real world. Rockets generate thrust by using Newton's third law of motion and expelling tons of gas. If those gas particles hit a part of the rocket (another engine) then it will slow the rocket.
Think about someone using a fan to blow on the sail of his boat. That person wont be travelling very far, nor will he go very fast. He's better off forgetting about the sail and turning the fan around to push propel his boat.
Krazy_Tom Biggest obstacle would be orbital velocity. In KSP orbital velocity is about 3400m/s but irl about 8000. Twice the dv means a payload fraction nearly 9times more (e^2).
In terms of using monopropellant, a lot of missiles used to use it (now use solid) but had dedicated engines rather than millions of thrusters.
Realism overhaul and "Things KSP doesn't teach" is a good starting point for any game/reality debate, the principles can apply to most issues
Real-world physics wouldn't have my fundamental problem of the simulation slowing to a crawl when you use too many parts.
Scott Manley. if it did slow our sim speed.....how would we know?
DrewLSsix That's not how real life works bud
"Sensible spacecraft" If you say so, Scott.
How I've missed your KSP videos and your delightful accent and phrasing, Scott! I may have been elsewhere for a time, but I love that you're still at it! Cheers!
What's next? Launching with landers?
Did you duct tape a giant bolt to your "H" key to keep your RCS pushing forward?
LUMPY SKIN -CONDTION- *FEATURE*
The "hallelujah" wasn't so much because of the successful orbit, as it was not having to go another round of trials, lol.
Rename this video
“Scott Manley proceeds to make the N-1 using Monopropellant thrusters”
6:57 Yay! Scott cares about consoles! Finally someone who acknowledges us without hating us!
I love consoles, well I love Sony & Nintendo, but I can never forgive Microsoft for their predatory business tactics in the 90's
Scott Manley Yeah, of course YOU would say that XD
Just kidding, obviously. But since I am not as informed as I would like about the gaming business in the 90s, what exactly do you refer to with the term "predatory tactics"? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.
Best known example is the browser wars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
I won't do that to myself, my Xbone crashes at least once an hour (and it's only a few months old), I can't imagine the problems I'd have trying to launch some of my ships on a console. Plus my computer is much more powerful than my Xbox.
You say that like they stopped doing that since then. Doesn't anybody remember the X-Bone's original terms of usage? Their recent purchase of the Mono platform (this could impact the future of KSP and other Unity-based projects)? The "telemetry" scams and back-patches for Win7 through 10?
Anyhow, I'd say that the EEE tactic and "Windows Tax" stuff was a lot worse than the web browser silliness. Including IE* is very important for Windows: To this day, it remains the best browser to download another browser with.
(* = Counting Edge as IE for the sake of simplicity. It's actually slightly better at downloading other browsers than true IE)
"including those who play on console", aww, thx, someone finally remembered those players
When you need a rocket to bring the astronauts to the rocket!
"Nearly infinite thrust" - Scott Manley 2017
I'm going to rephrase this statement a little bit: "A little bit more thrust and we have got infinite thrust" :D
Is it possible to make something like stanford torus AROUND planet? Will this hoola hoop be messed with the gravity? should it be built like many sections at the same time or it won't land on top of the planet if constructed sequentially?
It would be unstable to start with.
Space Elevator version 1.0
Could you exploit this launchpad height bug to recreate Archimedes cannon without mods or cheats? if so, please give it a go!!!
Yesterday i was near the Kennedy space centre and i found a sheet of metal in the ocean whilst diving, and i pick it up and realised it was a part of a rocket. Its now on display in my room.
Cool.
Random Pearson That's awesome dude.
Pic?
You just told the FEDS where to find their missing hardware.
Actually this made me seriously wonder why Kennedy spaceport is at sea level. Surely they could have gotten a good performance boost launching from somewhere like Wyoming?
Well wyoming wouldnt be an option since its not on the east coast. You really want to launch from the east coast if possible, because you're launching to the east so you're not fighting against the earths rotation. And you don't want to be dropping your boosters on some poort town or city (China has had this problem but for them citizens are a secondary problem at best, which is why they don't mind dropping toxic fuel tanks near villages.) And going back to the earths rotation, you also want to be as close as possible to the equator, because that way you'll already be spinning at a pretty significant velocity. The actual gain from altitude is much smaller than the one from launching near the equator. So yes, if you had a mountain on the east coast near the equator, that would be the perfect launch site, but sadly the united states does not have such a location. Also you have the added complication of getting the rocket on the mountain in the first place, since constructing it there would be a major inconvencience.
Sorry for my english by the way
I guess in real life it does not work quiet like that... :D
Anton Markov IRL you could launch from a higher altitude, though.
Without a doubt, but i wonder why they don't.
Anton Markov safety, cost and logistics, mainly. Building a space center on the shore is very convenient - sea is useful for shipping and dropping used or malfunctioning stages, plus more stable weather and usually easier access to high-capacity transport infrastructure. It's too much of a hassle to launch from the mountains to justify a couple of kilometers higher start.
aNemetZzZ most likely yes, the negatives are more than the positives. After all there are smart people at nasa.
i'm guessing no matter what kind KSP developer do.. and any Mod that help... This game Will lag, Spike or even Crash ... if we make something that have to many parts.. i doubt even the highest gaming rig cannot even handle this .... it's a shame =[
People still use consoles? Perhaps they should upgrade to a puter.
No, because too many PC Master Racists use those.
James Faulkner II Didn't know you had to be white to be racist.
The site owner referred to the "Master Race" which was supposed to be white.
James Faulkner II It's a joke, man.
"colour" a non merican I see, perhaps these words will help. Trump, American slavery, Brexit, master race-Hitler. Not many brown people involved in power there. The OP was about the master race for fucks sake read behind his thinly disguised lines.
what is your computer like? I had a spacecraft with 2,700 parts and it was hitting 2 fps, its just a mid-grade i-5 with built in graphics card and 8 Gb of ram.
I think the RCS thrusters are especially bad, most of the slowness comes from thousands of log lines complaining about audio.
so it was the audio that was killing your machine.
Man. i5 integrated graphics run KSP at 2 fps with no parts.
Raidzor つ ◕_◕ つ just don't use integrated, ever, buy a 1050 and you will not regret it
rockets-don't-make good-toast A literal toaster. Like, I can make toast with it /s.
i can't resist. 109k from 119k, is 10k, not 20k. ;) will keep watching channel regardless, thanks for the content =)
What kine computer specs he got?
exp10der i3 proccesor, GTX 480, 3kb of ram
I wonder if I can do this with the 6 times rescale I'm playing on, I need about 8000dV to reach orbit. Theres only one way to find out. Yeah I might have use tweakscale.
who the hell would need a linear rcs thruster
jakub rembacz Those crazy engineers in the spaceplane hangar
I use them in all sorts of ways. Adding thrust to rcs for heavy crafts, using them as main engines on tiny probes, sstos and shuttles, or adding rcs on crafts that arent symetrical
Well, this makes my achievement a little less impressive. Even though I launched from the launchpad, and not off a mountain.
Get a better computer.
Michael Spivey he uses 32 bit
Kiimosabe Oh no.
32 bit is the best, 16 is nice too, 64 is shit, runs games too fast
Pyro Paragon A 16 bit System could not use more then 64KB of RAM...
could you try landing from space without wings or a parachute? such as wheels or using just the fins of the rocket to land it.
Give Scott a shaken can of soda, a pack of Mentos and an inner tube & he'll find a way to get that shit into space. :D
Hullo its Scott Manley here and we're gonna restart OTRAG in KSP!
4:49 - That's memory leaks for you.
since you got it to 3k height, you could actually launch it on the moon from earth, and with good enough reactions just land on the moon in spite of speed differences (since the kerbin rotates faster than mun orbits, maybe about 1/4 the way there would provide enough force to fling the ship to the moon reasonably, and with godly optimization would take only one fuel tank!)
I've been watching your videos for a few years now, and somehow I still haven't seen all of your videos.
Totally stock. No tricks. I just built a space elevator!
Try zooming out. I found it really helps with lag
Scott, did you notice that the 3rd (or maybe 4th) stage fell down and hit the vehicle assembly building? Hilarious (in simulation).
insane!! great vid!
Was that the smell of your GPU hitting 200c after launching the beast?
4-way 1080ti in SLI and I7 6950X minimum to play kerbal confirmed.
Now I wonder: what Rocket parts can get me out of the solar system the fastest?
This must be Tony's big brother. Or maybe his maligned uncle with a serous skin condition, who knows?
All you did was launch from a mountain, wonder why they don't do that with real rockets?
Because the logistics of setting up and launching from a elevated and/or remote place are far costlier than just using an engine that is better suited for atmospheric flight.
Sensible Spacecraft? That's now what I'm here for!
A similar KSP challenge I would like you to tackle:
How Slow Can You Go? Try and reach LEO while moving at the slowest average velocity you can.
Challenge: get as many parts as you can (no matter what they are) into orbit and back.
Hard mode: land it somewhere and get back.
Counted are the # of parts that come back.
Is any spacecraft built in Kerbal Space Program really "sensible," though?
Solution: Just launch from space
Scott, how about a plane with a pilot that can take off from the runway and land using the weakest (single) engine possible
The game does calculate exaust occlusion. kurtjmac had problems with when he was tugging his first meteor.
Yep, but it doesn't do it for the RCS thrusters.
Chandler Gloyd Having watched Kurt for years, I doubt that was the first meteor he's tugged.
An alternative to using hundreds of stock RCS thrusters would be to simply utilize TweakScale. Yes, It's a mod, yes, consoles would be excluded from this, but hey, PC Gaming Master Race, yeah? It's also a partless mod and balances things out nicely - a 200% sized thruster might give you 8 times the thrust, but it also costs and weighs 8 times as much, too. A nice way of keeping down part counts while still getting the performance you desire.
I love KSP, but I am almost giving up.... It is impossible to make stations and cool stuff with so many parts and mods and fps just drops. It gets unplayable. Building bases sucks after putting so much work. Playing with mods that makes the game hard,, like life support, RT, etc, its hard when the game does not move. I wish Squad can optimize the game soon.
Scott. The Chinese are thinking about building a one km twin tower building. Iiiiif a launchpad were to be placed on top...would that in reality make it possible to reach orbit with a higher payload sticking to the same amount of fuel in the CZ-7 Long March than from a ground based launchpad?
Of course the same goes for a Falcon 9 atop say a mountain.
And...why not launch from a mountain and not sea level as now? I can see logistics being problematic...
😁
Ps. Yes the building would probably not be an ideal place to live ☺
Today on the Manley Show, Scott discusses rocket physics while his PC suffers a stroke.
P.S. - This new TH-cam layout sucks major donkey nuts man..
P.P.S - Oh thank god. There's a button in the bottom right on the new layout that lets you go back to the classic layout! It looks like a stick figure walking through a door.
Haha, typical. The first rocket gets to 109,000m. The second gets to 119,000m. Scott claims to have gained 20km of height!
Reminds me of a friend I had at uni doing astrophysics. He once told me that the maths was fine, so long as it was within one order of magnitude :P
I still think it's cheating if you have to outrun the kraken because you used a clipping glitch :P But it makes me wonder... is it possible to build a stock wheeled vehicle capable of reaching one of the peaks of the nearby mountains and then launch from there? With limited mods, you could also build the rocket in situ using KIS/KAS, as long as you bring all of the components along for the ride from KSC.
I'd imagine you could but it wouldn't be easy. to climb the slope you probably need a source of down/in thrust and to constantly stock that up on fuel you'd need to set up mining base stations
If i were doing it i'd just airdrop a launchpad out of the bottom of a cargo plane.
So does this mean you could launch from 70km like Newton's Cannon? That's always something I wanted to do, so if I could get a perfectly circular orbit right from launch I could come back around and skim over the launch clamp.
Hey, Scott, do you accept .craft files to mess about with? I have a launch stage I used to launch several 90+ ton craft fairly reliably, and I think you'd love it. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Scott Manley Hum, if what is needed is just more altitude in the launch site, why not just bring the "rocket" to a high place in the equator ? ( *cough* mountains west of KSC *cough* ). Even if you don't want to use a stock plane to bring it up to a suitably high place, you can always drive it there :D
everyone can launch a huge dense rocket using the weakest thruster........using no grav
What if
The weekest thruster in KSP 2
Is actually the best of KSP 1??
weekest
@@General12th sorry not sorry, I'm not english
I'm led to wonder how much better the LV-1R Spider would fare. A quick glance shows the LV-1 Ant would actually be a lot worse, for the first few stages at least.
interesting. I've just recently built a Minmus miner probe only from RCS since I need those anyway to dock to the orbiting return vessel. Gravity there really is ridiculously low.
It's a weird hack, and I suppose for gameplay is technically an exploit.
The weird thing is you can still use this principle in real life. All you have to do is launch the rocket from a mountain, rather than a launch site near sea level...
Well 'all' is understating how complex that is logistically, but it's still something that's completely doable.
I cant believe that worked........ what a shocking upset!
Kinda want to see you do this again, but launch from a a piggyback plane from much higher in the atmosphere.
Hi I'm scott manley, i can launch a mark 2 capsule to eleoo with an rsc thruster and 200 monopropellent. In the mean time I'm building massive rockets that barely make it to the mun 😂😂😂 nice video bud.