Why must everything separate 'explosively'? ('latches' instead of decouplers)

[ShadowWolf81]

Hey guys at KSP.

Just got a quick question. At some point, are we going to get type of simple 'latch' system we can use to say.... Stuff a small rover under a lander, so that when we land we can then send a kerbal under the ship to 'unlatch' it and let it gently fall down to the ground? Currently it seems like the only way to bring a rover along with you is to mount it to the top of your lander/rocket.. and have it 'launch' off the top, then parachute down again.

As trying to 'decouple' it from below, even with the smallest decoupler, tends to send it slamming into the ground with an earth-shattering force. =T

Are any type of 'latches' in the works for later on down the road?

And im not asking for something that can support 100-tones of weight or anything... just something i can use to secure something with 4-wheels, a battery, and some science stuff, with a seat strapped to its back and maybe a solar panel, to the bottom of a lander so my kerbals can drive around and .. well.. do the science! (without having to have a secondary 'post-landing' launch to get the lander down from off the roof.)

Thanks for any replys!!

CelestianKitiara

[1D-1()T]

An interesting proposition. I think you're right, we are lacking some low/no powered decouplers. Although, if you aren't afraid of mods you could try and use something like KAS (found here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53134-Kerbal-Attachment-System) and winch things down to the ground. This has the added bonus of being re-attachable. Or, a Clampatron Junior might do the trick. I'm pretty sure that they will act as decouplers, so you do not have to dock the rover, just put it on in the VAB, and I don't think they would be powerful.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Edit: Welcome to the forums!

[hermes47]

The other way is to put struts 'over' the decoupler, like from the lander to the rover. Last i checked, this cancels the decoupling force.

[Othuyeg]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

This is the way I do it.

[Laie]

Like Othuyeg, I use docking ports for that. There don't even need to be two of them, you can stick them on like any other part. A single docking port is a decouple-only proposition, of course, but that seems to fit your bill.

[Corw]

The manifold thing (one of the radial decouplers) does not use explosive, if I'm not mistaken?

[SSSPutnik]

Yeah I just use a docking port.

[G'th]

Can you not lower the decoupler force in stock?

[Duke23]

I don't think I've ever broken anything (on a rover at least) by using a decoupler on the bottom but I tend to use docking ports for pretty much the same reason.

[problemecium]

The manifold is quite the opposite - it's the most powerful decoupler. You can check the decouplers' power using the "More info" window in the VAB, where you can see that the manifold is stronger than the rest.

I second the motion to use docking ports.

[thederper121]

Yes, a single docking port can work as a decoupler with very low force. I tend to use it for when I want to launch probes into orbit, because it doesn't fling them away and make my orbit 100 x 110 instead of 100 x 100.

[magnemoe]

Like Othuyeg, I use docking ports for that. There don't even need to be two of them, you can stick them on like any other part. A single docking port is a decouple-only proposition, of course, but that seems to fit your bill.

Yes you can use an docking port for an one time undocking, this can sometimes be practical also as you can dock with it later.

[Felsmak]

There don't even need to be two of them, you can stick them on like any other part. A single docking port is a decouple-only proposition, of course, but that seems to fit your bill.

Sweet! I didn't know you could do that. My probe landers will look a whole lot better now!

[KerbMav]

Can you not lower the decoupler force in stock?

Should be possible - but I have TweakableEverything installed too' date=' so I cannot say for sure.

Strutting the payload negates the decoupler force (for good or bad depending on situation) and docking ports have no [i']push-force at all.

[Umlüx]

if you don't like explosions, then maybe this isn't the right game for you?

docking ports are actually a good idea. i already use them to 'decouple' delicate things like small probes and rovers.

[Padishar]

And wouldn't you just love to be able to add "Decouple port" to the staging list...

[KerbMav]

And wouldn't you just love to be able to add "Decouple port" to the staging list...

No, I would rather not - but I am using Action Groups Extended for things like deploying solar panels or decoupling difficult to reach docking ports.

[Felsmak]

And wouldn't you just love to be able to add "Decouple port" to the staging list...

Action groups?

[Kasuha]

And wouldn't you just love to be able to add "Decouple port" to the staging list...

Only if I could select/tweak which parts do and which parts don't go to staging list.

The whole staging system deserves overhaul.

[katateochi]

yeah as other have said, use docking ports and set them up to an action group to disconnect. This has the added advantage that you can potentially pick the rover back up when you leave (although you have to get the height set up just right)

[vexx32]

Moved to Development Discussion.

[ShadowWolf81]

Moved to Development Discussion.

Honestly wasnt sure just where to put it

[coolitic]

I think we are lacking high-powered decouplers. Though you could use the help of the solid fuel separation things, I prefer we get a decoupler with very high force.

Also, docking ports can be used as decouplers that don't have any force at all.

[ShadowWolf81]

For everyone that suggested the Docking port, thanks for that idea and i'll have to try it in sandbox to see how it works =).

But.. still. Would it hurt if we had an actual 'latch' or 'strap' part added to the game at some point?

[Padishar]

Only if I could select/tweak which parts do and which parts don't go to staging list.

Yes, a simple toggle button in the editor tweakable for ports that controls if it is in the staging should do nicely.

The whole staging system deserves overhaul.

At least one "fairly important person" agrees with this...