17 Comments
- Log in to leave a comment
-
0 怆然涕下
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,458 crowxe
@AnotherFireFox oh my , I always thought those things go with more than initial 2G. Thanks
-
9,660 AnotherFireFox
@crowxe I mean max TWR, not initial TWR. Space Shuttle irl has something like 1.2 initial TWR and has 3 max.
-
8,458 crowxe
@AnotherFireFox but 3G already means 3 TWR which is way higher than most well build SR2 rockets
-
9,660 AnotherFireFox
Physically, higher TWR means higher efficiency to orbit, because of low gravity loss. However this is dV-wise thing, not fuel-efficiency thing. If you define efficiency by fuel consumption efficiency per thrust, Isp is the only scale.
If you wanna put any astronauts onborad, you wouldn't want to accelerate more than 4.0 - early rockets had something like 9G, but modern ones usually have 3G.
-
21.7k AramL
@crowxe I agree 1.10 is way too low but I did this part of the video a long time ago I forgot
-
8,458 crowxe
This needs to go in a new section that I've been asking for, players notes and tips. Good one but the TWR vs. Efficiency is opposite to my finding , a 2.5 TWR was more fuel efficient than a 2 & 1.5 TWR rockets.
Proof : my last craft (3 identical rockets except for TWR and engines mass) running the same vizzy program