Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
How is it compared to asparagus staging?
It's very similar. The difference is that you're drawing fuel from all your boosters at once and then discarding them once they're used up, as apposed to using and discarding them two at a time.
It's going to be a wake up call for all of us when in Career mode and we have to pay for all these parts. Your not going to be able to afford a rocket with 20 engines on it.
Food for thought.
If use with only one layer, it's slightly less efficient than Asparagus, but way easier to realize, and with way less stages oveall, so it's easier not to mess it up too.
Basically, after reaching 8 rockets on the outer layer with Asparagus, you start to have problems adding more.
With With Onion staging, you just put an other layer of 8 (or 16) to form a new layer out, and only need to connect all the fuel lines to the tank they are connected to, and you can do it all in one go with the symetry tool.
Jusst be advised, making such large outer layers oess make the rocket unstable, and you will need a lot of struts and other structural parts in order to make it somewhar stable.
I personally wouldn't use such method for less than 100 tons payload, and only o it if your computer can handle the high part counts. The only time I had to do it, it reached a wooping 2500 parts, 1700 of those being the launcher.
Yeah, I might have gone a bit overkill that time, and my computer tanke pretty hard, so I'm not doing it again.
Then again, I always called that method "hive" instead (concentric hexagons, but close enough), so I might have misunderstood the Onion one.
http://imageshack.us/a/img41/1078/munlifter.png
This design's capable of getting a kerbal to the Mun and back with fuel to spare thanks to onion.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=163374861
That's a bit strange. My experience is the oposite. As larger out I go or better as more I equalize the weight over a larger area as less struts I need.
In general for my heay my elements are in some sort of grid be it radial or regular in x and y are connected with 1 radial coupler and 2 struts.
radial coupler on top and the first strut below it at the other end of the element.
the other strutt on top also but at the side 90 degree to the radial decoupler.
Howver you have to be able to distribute your payload weight over this area too and that's a bit the tricky part. My payloads are mostly a flat area thing too anyway so it can be well done.
I was able to get my probe launched with some tricky throttle control and extra RCS but I'll probably switch to onion staging to save myself the stress in the future. Besides, having to down-throttle may have wasted the extra efficiency from Asparagus anyway..