Differentiating Separators and Decouplers; Other Changes

[Starwhip]

How about if decouplers continued to work as they currently do, but separators could individually separate a side?

In the staging menu, the separator would continue its current behavior, but in action groups, you would see "separate top" and "separate bottom".

This behavior would be even better if decouplers and separators generated their own fairings based on their size and distance to the top fuel tank or capsule or whatever, rather than using the engine's fairing model.

[waterlubber]

I would definitely go with this. I usually used docking ports for such shenanigans, but this is a simple change.

[KrazyKrl]

I would recommend the opposite for decouplers and separators.

Decouplers are larger, more massive, and more costly afaik. Having a simple "Jettison" command (only available when decoupled) added to a decouplers would be a welcome addition.

As for the fairings, I think that decouplers and separators should be able to make "interstage" farings only. Where the fairing cannot expand to a larger diameter(smaller is fine, capped at initial diameter), the decouplers/separator fairing also should only be able to be terminated by attaching to another part.

Once again: Closing an interstage or fairing base fairing around a part should act like a strut between the endpoints of the fairing. Get on this Squad.

[Murph]

I'm not sure I really see the point of it. Once you've detached the thing on one side of a separator, the separator no longer serves a useful purpose. Separating both sides at once gets rid of it and you can move on with something more interesting. What major advantage does it give to keep it around with nothing on one side? Right now the feeling this suggestion is giving me is that it is a solution desperately seeking a problem. Possibly some practical examples where it would make a significant worthwhile difference?

- - - Updated - - -

Once again: Closing an interstage or fairing base fairing around a part should act like a strut between the endpoints of the fairing. Get on this Squad.

The CEO of StrutCo was seen handing an envelope stuffed full of cash to Squad, to ensure that business didn't suffer with the introduction of fairings. Their preferred stack joint supplier, Bend-o-Maticâ„¢ also voiced concern about the fairings seeming a bit too rigid and making their stack joints seem a bit crap.

[KrazyKrl]

I'm not sure I really see the point of it. Once you've detached the thing on one side of a separator, the separator no longer serves a useful purpose. Separating both sides at once gets rid of it and you can move on with something more interesting. What major advantage does it give to keep it around with nothing on one side? Right now the feeling this suggestion is giving me is that it is a solution desperately seeking a problem. Possibly some practical examples where it would make a significant worthwhile difference?

You can already jettison engines... so...

Stack separators should always be more efficient than decouplers, but at a cost of only being able to separate itself from both ends when activated. Now, saying that decouplers should be able to have an integrated fairing base; and the stack separators not having an integrated fairing base, would also work.

[Starwhip]

I'm not sure I really see the point on it. Once you've detached the thing on one side of a separator, the separator no longer serves a useful purpose. Separating both sides at once gets rid of it and you can move on with something more interesting. What major advantage does it give to keep it around with nothing on one side? Right now the feeling this suggestion is giving me is that it is a solution desperately seeking a problem. Possibly some practical examples where it would make a significant worthwhile difference?

Interstage fairings a la Saturn V.

A use for their thin profile. ATM they look much better than decouplers, and could be quite nicely used as smaller decouplers with this mechanic.

Drag reduction of various bits. Keeping the top section would keep the bottom of the rocket a cylinder instead of an engine if you wanted too.

Aesthetics weirdness.

[Murph]

Interstage fairings a la Saturn V.

A use for their thin profile. ATM they look much better than decouplers, and could be quite nicely used as smaller decouplers with this mechanic.

Drag reduction of various bits. Keeping the top section would keep the bottom of the rocket a cylinder instead of an engine if you wanted too.

Aesthetics weirdness.

Hmm, I'm still quite sceptical, and it's still feeling like a solution desperately seeking a problem.

Interstage: fairings can do this (poss with a bug if you don't jettison the fairing, not sure if they fixed that yet)

Smaller decouplers: you can already do this, they can be readily used today instead of decouplers for all purposes I can think of

Drag: Not convinced, separator is more when you want to use both A & B afterwards, rather than discard A and keep B. This rather suggests it's in space, e.g. a single rocket delivering multiple probes, or something like that. Also, questionable drag saving on the tail, probably worse drag on the nose, and carrying weight around that could have been discarded.

Aesthetics: possibly, but not feeling a compelling argument from that point.

It's not that I'm strongly against it, it just doesn't have that "yeah, that would be cool" feeling, more a "why bother" feeling. If it's giving me that feeling, there's at least some chance it will give Squad that feeling.

[KrazyKrl]

Hmm, I'm still quite sceptical, and it's still feeling like a solution desperately seeking a problem.

I disagree, removing the engine autofairings, and moving them all to the new fairing system would be a step forward.

Interstage: fairings can do this (poss with a bug if you don't jettison the fairing, not sure if they fixed that yet)

The dedicated fairing base part should stay as it is, able to make both "cargo" faring/nosecones; and able to make larger-than-its-diameter fairings.

Smaller decouplers: you can already do this, they can be readily used today instead of decouplers for all purposes I can think of

Smaller decouplers are less rigid, and much lighter; you can offset this with some strutting, but strutting should be added if needed; not as a workaround to using an odd sized part.

Drag: Not convinced, separator is more when you want to use both A & B afterwards, rather than discard A and keep B. This rather suggests it's in space, e.g. a single rocket delivering multiple probes, or something like that. Also, questionable drag saving on the tail, probably worse drag on the nose, and carrying weight around that could have been discarded.

The separator should be for simpler, and lighter, rockets; or niche uses like it's already intended use. Aero falls to the shape of the fairing enclosing the parts; and the reduced mass would increase deltaV on subsequent stages significantly(dependant on mass).

Aesthetics: possibly, but not feeling a compelling argument from that point.

Form follows function; the outside look (and aerodynamic smoothness), improves performance by a nonzero amount.

It's not that I'm strongly against it, it just doesn't have that "yeah, that would be cool" feeling, more a "why bother" feeling. If it's giving me that feeling, there's at least some chance it will give Squad that feeling.

In my opinion, the stack separator and decouplers should use the new fairing system; and completely replace the old autofairings for engines. Both should be able to make a cheaper version of a cargo bay, for aero occlusion. The stack separator should be cheaper, and create its own uneditable autofairing to the next comparable sized part; if none found within a few hops of its attachment point, it should fallback to a smaller size cone interstage.

The decoupler editable autofairings would be distinct from the fairing bases, due to the fact that they are only meant to enclose interstage parts. Fairing bases should be more of a "enclose oversized parts in an aero shield" part (which can also functionally be an interstage.)

[pincushionman]

I'm all for the interstage fairing change. It seems obvious. Not so convinced about the separate directions thing - if you need to jettison just what is "below" on the stack, shouldn't you have the decoupler turned the other way? When would it even make sense to separate one side of a stack-separator-connected stack without ditching the whole separator?

Edited May 25, 2015 by pincushionman

[Superfluous J]

I frequently want a stack separator to separate a ship into two workable ships. However, I don't want to leave the separator as debris so I instead use 2 decouplers. That way, I can separate the two ships but keep the "poor man's stack separator" connected to one of the ships until it's on a collision trajectory with a planet or moon. Then I decouple the other decoupler so it'll crash.

If this could be done with stack separators, I'd be all for it.

And unless it's changed since 0.90 (I'm not in the game now) then stack separators are more expensive AND more massive than a single decoupler of the same size, so I don't think decouplers should have this ability instead.

[Starwhip]

I'm not sure if separators are more massive than decouplers, though it seems counterintuitive. Look at the Rockomax Brand Decoupler and the 2.5 meter stack separator, and tell me which one should weigh more.

[Superfluous J]

I'm not sure if separators are more massive than decouplers, though it seems counterintuitive. Look at the Rockomax Brand Decoupler and the 2.5 meter stack separator, and tell me which one should weigh more.

They do more. They should be more massive and cost more (as they do). Physical size means little. Compare a titanium golf club with the cardboard box that contained it.

And even considering that, the 2.5 meter decoupler is ridiculously large. I was hoping it would be cut down to about 1/4 of its vertical size in 1.0.

[Windspren]

What I don't get is that decouples are larger than separators. Separators have to detach from both sides; shouldn't they be larger???

[Murph]

What I don't get is that decouples are larger than separators. Separators have to detach from both sides; shouldn't they be larger???

Size, function, and mass are not necessarily related (although each can influence the others). An argument could possibly be made that decouplers need to be larger to physically separate the fixed attachment point from the explosive decoupling (I admit I made that up, but it is a possible justification). That said, I'm not convinced by the difference in weight, as separating both sides can still be as simple as blowing a single set of bolts (i.e. I'm not convinced there is a good case for separators to be larger or heavier).

[Sky_walker]

In the staging menu, the separator would continue its current behavior, but in action groups, you would see "separate top" and "separate bottom".

That's a nice suggestion that should be relatively easy to implement and give some quick help to the issue raised. I like it

And even considering that, the 2.5 meter decoupler is ridiculously large. I was hoping it would be cut down to about 1/4 of its vertical size in 1.0.

This. Size of the decouplers and separators should be re-thought and follow some logical, consistent pattern.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I'd like to have two decouplers for each stack width, one thin and weak with barely any ejection force, and the other thick and powerful which sends your stuff flying apart. Then it'd be nice if there were stack separators with this new functionality in which you can decouple it from one side, and then the other side later. It'd be nice to have a second type of stack separator that would be composed entirely of a dissolvable adhesive, which when triggered would destroy itself, gently severing both sides with no ejection force and leaving no debris.