Point of Stack Seperators? (also small semi-related question)

[Aeshi]

Is there any real reason to use these things? I admit I've only used them about twice but from what I've seen they're just heavier Decouplers that litter space.

On the note of separating things, is there any way to separate two parts of the rocket without any decoupling force? I've found that the force made by Decouplers alters my Satellite orbits by around a KM depending on which way it's facing when I decouple it.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Aeshi

[Bafver]

You can try using docking ports and simply un-dock the satellite once it is in the correct orbit.

That is how I've done it so far since I like being able to dock to stuff if I need to expand them or similar.

Don't know about the Separators though. Never used them myself.

[drakesdoom]

If you are building a small enough rocket to not need strutting past the separators they give a bigger kick which is useful for clearing spent stages.

[Keenan Smith]

i Regularly ues the Stack Separators Simply becayse they are Lower Profile than the Deouplers and Also When I Launch my Aurora SHSLS (super Heavy Launch System) which uses an Apollo style Lander and CSM Combo (simply for Docking Reasons...) But overall i tend to use the because they look Better and Alot Sleeker

[magnemoe]

Stack Seperators don't leave anything on either mother ship or probe. if you use standard seperators you leave both the seperator and the engine faring if you mounted it at the engine. You also avoid the problem of putting the seperator on the wrong way blocking the landers engine.

[Aeshi]

Well I just decided to create my own part (the Stack Splitter) to get around the "Decouple force messing up orbits" problem, but thanks anyway.

[capi3101]

I've used them in my designs to attach my payload to the booster, though that's only because the game won't let me use the corresponding stack decoupler for some reason. I think it's because the stack separator has a smaller collision mesh.

[toric5]

just attach the two stages with struts, that will cancel all decoupling force

[SunJumper]

I find that the normal decouplers refuse to decouple, so I always use the separators.

[Francesco]

the separators release a lot of energy when activated: try to put a bunch of them under a probe and see how high you can go

also, as Keenan said, they look pretty cool (the 2.5m one, that is)

the problem is, they tend to create space debris: I use them only when I'm sure they won't end up in a stable orbit.

> is there any way to separate two parts of the rocket without any decoupling force?

yes, by using docking ports instead of decouplers/separators: but even then, there is juuuust a little bit of energy released.

but it's ok, you'll only notice this with small probes.

but definitely don't use separators if you're trying to fine-tune a satellite orbit.

[MBobrik]

TR-18D and TR-2C

- pro - they don't stay stuck to one part so if you want to separate for example the rover and the return ascent vehicle, you use the stack separator.

- pro - TR-18D is also smaller

- con - they weight more than the corresponding decoupler

- con - and tend to pollute the orbit when not used carefully.

TR-XL

- pro - it doesn't stay stuck to one part so if you want to separate for example the rover and the return ascent vehicle, you use the stack separator.

- pro - it weights less than the corresponding decoupler

- pro - it is also smaller

- pro - its force is 140 % bigger than its corresponding decoupler, so when you need a powerful kick in your ship's ... ehm... nozzle ...

- con - it tends to pollute the orbit when not used carefully.

Edited May 2, 2013 by MBobrik

[Keenan Smith]

I Also tend To Equip my Stack Separators with Sepratrons On my Aurora CTV (always pointing prograde) which put the Stack Separator and the Stage below On a De-orbital Trajectory or at the Very least a Decaying orbit...

[Keenan Smith]

TR-18D and TR-2C

- pro - they don't stay stuck to one part so if you want to separate for example the rover and the return ascent vehicle, you use the stack separator.

- pro - TR-18D is also smaller

- con - they weight more than the corresponding decoupler

- con - and tend to pollute the orbit when not used carefully.

TR-XL

- pro - it doesn't stay stuck to one part so if you want to separate for example the rover and the return ascent vehicle, you use the stack separator.

- pro - it weights less than the corresponding decoupler

- pro - it is also smaller

- pro - its force is 140 % bigger than its corresponding decoupler, so when you need a powerful kick in your ship's ... ehm... nozzle ...

- con - it tends to pollute the orbit when not used carefully.

+1 Excatly Agreed... Now if only they added Some nice Low Profile Decouplers to the Vanilla Game

[goldenpeach]

If you want to make a decoupler without any decoupling force you can do this:

-edit the .cgf file of a decoupler and change the number after "decouplingforce" to 0.

-remember to change the name of the part in the general parameter(found i at the beginning of the cgf file) or you will find out that you have 2 parts with the exact same properties.

[capi3101]

Stack separators have an annoying tendency to collide with my modules after separation; probably from the way it's placed on my rocket. Necessary evil. So far nothing catastrophic has occurred; usually the separator is destroyed while the module remains intact. Hopefully that trend will continue...