parts [1.12.x] Sounding Rockets! Start small. Dream big!

[Zeenobit]

Option 3: Pack fewer things in the truss or use two trusses

1 x Payload Truss (0.35m)

2 x Mini Battery Pack

1 x Avionics Package

1 x Materials Study Mini-Lab

Splash Landing @ ~7 m/s. Everything destroyed. All of it.

[goldenpsp]

I would have to echo the sentiment. I just tried again. I used a truss and made it the root. My engine fell off properly (yay).

I went light in my opinion. 1 battery, 1 avionics, 2 experiments. 2 vertically on each side of the truss for balance.

Came down at ~7m/s and both items at the bottom of the truss exploded. Lost one experiment and the battery.

I also tried the larger sounding rocket after unlocking it. Parachute seems a little glitchy. I was falling straight down

Edited April 28, 2015 by goldenpsp

[Zeenobit]

As a quick fix until RoverDude officially looks at this issue, I made a tiny patch which would set the crash tolerance of all the Sounding Rocket parts to 8.0 m/s.

@PART[SR_*]:Final
{
    @crashTolerance = 8
}

Just put that into a *.cfg file and stuff it somewhere (You need ModuleManager for this).

[futrtrubl]

The mod stays relevent after the start. The experiments get thrown on almost any craft going out for science. And that mini aerospike! oh my, that is my go to for almost any small to medium unmanned craft.

[Vahal]

Yup, same glitch here and speed that doesn't want to slow below 6m/s.

[RoverDude]

I think I would drop this mod.

Why, you ask?

Because its author decided to go "pseudo-hardcore" way.

I'm not against difficulty - it's cool. You have to learn how to overcome things. But "pseudo-hardcore" (note the quote marks) is different. It's basically "this is hard because we want it to be hard no matter what". It's like "we give you one life and if you fail, you start again, and there is no saves or checkpoints".

If you make something that has a nicely defined learning curve - it's fun. KSP goes that way.

If you intentionally break some unwritten laws (like "do not make start parts that has crash tolerance LESS than your start chute can mitigate") - this is NOT fun.

Goodbye, Sounding Rockets. It was a nice experience.

*waves goodbye*

- - - Updated - - -

Actually... that last post was mean. But still.

These things are meant to be stupidly delicate. they will break.

Don't dunk them in the water. Don't overstuff them. Expect that experiments will break.

These are start-node things (heck, I give you *sticks* to use for aiming!), and soon enough you get extra parachutes to make larger loads.

Also pro-tip: Put your science in a truss above your control/power payload (i.e. use two trusses). That way worst case the bottom one can lithobreak.

Edited April 29, 2015 by RoverDude

[SyberSmoke]

*waves goodbye*

- - - Updated - - -

Actually... that last post was mean. But still.

These things are meant to be stupidly delicate. they will break.

Don't dunk them in the water. Don't overstuff them. Expect that experiments will break.

These are start-node things, and soon enough you get extra parachutes to make larger loads.

I understand that, I think we all do. The rub though is that there are experiment entries for over and on the ocean. That is 17-20 science early on. Given we can make a couple shots early and we land in the planes, the water, or the coast.

So with that we are missing out on 1/3 rd of the potencial science. Plus there is also the inclination to launch things over the ocean to. So that is why I suggested what I did. Because landing an experiment on the ocean, doing the science...it makes sense. So it would be nice if there were a mechanism (one or two tiers in) that offered a way to land our experiments in the water with out them exploding. I could really see a garbage bag, some duct tape, and a CO2 cartridge being employed as a float.

That said...good mod and keep it up.

[Zeenobit]

*waves goodbye*

- - - Updated - - -

Actually... that last post was mean. But still.

These things are meant to be stupidly delicate. they will break.

Don't dunk them in the water. Don't overstuff them. Expect that experiments will break.

These are start-node things (heck, I give you *sticks* to use for aiming!), and soon enough you get extra parachutes to make larger loads.

Also pro-tip: Put your science in a truss above your control/power payload (i.e. use two trusses). That way worst case the bottom one can lithobreak.

That's all fine. The "flimsy" nature of Sounding Rockets is what make them really fun to play with. Especially the Aiming Sticksâ„¢. But having it so that the bare minimum of 1 science experiment + a couple of batteries and a control box would explode on contact is just frustrating. And having a second truss to cushion the landing is not a solution; it sounds like a workaround for a flawed design. If every sounding rocket needs two trusses just to survive, well...then it's just kinda lame. Both functionally and aesthetically.

I even tried adding an extra parachute to make the landing softer, and it still drops like a brick and explodes.

An alternative solution to keep the intended challenge there might be to have a new inline airbag that can be deployed to soften the landing. That, or maybe adjust the parachute to provide more drag and a softer touchdown.

[RoverDude]

I've been playing with these in career, and have (once) had a payload go crunch... and that was probably because I had max physwarp on.

FYI - you can do a few interior launches and get more than enough science to unlock the pack chute at which point, you can easily do large payloads with lots of extra chutes.

(Edit)

That being said, I will take a look once 1.0.1 is in, and see about tweaking the chutes up a hair.

[SyberSmoke]

I even tried adding an extra parachute to make the landing softer, and it still drops like a brick and explodes.

I found this to, and it wobbles like mad. With the new Aero model it seems like one chute was not working and was flailing around to find some air. Would the first chute put the second into a shadow of some kind so it looses effectiveness?

I do not know enough about the system it's self to make a judgement, but it was clear that there was little difference with two chutes for me compared to one.

[basic.syntax]

I've written way back in this thread, that this - or a limited version of this idea, would go great with the new "tier 0" and the beginning career node. Because "tier 0" was delayed again, the idea seems possible again. The new RT-5 was a step in this direction.

I'm guessing it might not happen, if arguments against it involve marketing & branding: Squad may really want new players to see Kerbal characters involved, from the first rocket. (Counter to that: they are always visible... wandering around the VAB, trying to be useful.)

[RoverDude]

Here's my philosophy on this and why I actually understand why manned (kerballed?) is first.

This is less a simulation, and more a story where the Kerbals - these awesome, incredibly brave, and endlessly optimistic little dudes are the focal point. They are the protagonists in the story, and the player is the hero, spooling out the narrative. And in that scenario, starting without them is just.. weird. It's Kerbal Space Program, and I think the thing to remember is that it's all about the Kerbals, and there just happens to be some rocket parts lying around.

[Laminator]

Just discovered this marvellous mod yesterday and played around with it since then. It´s absolutely spot on. Soo much fun with that few parts is absolutely epic!

That said, I don´t get it why people have trouble with the parachutes. The small one (Nosecone) is ok for 2 experiments and control/energy on the mounting girder. Touchdown velocity is 7.1 m/s, so most of the time at maximum the control box exploded, experiments (as stated above mounted above control/energy) stayed ok.

Btw, I deploy the chute near peak altitude for lower atmosphere rockets (approx 20-22k alt), maybe that helps to give the payload time to stabilize on the chute...

Thx alot for this exceptional mod RoverDude!

[Zeenobit]

Here's my philosophy on this and why I actually understand why manned (kerballed?) is first.

This is less a simulation, and more a story where the Kerbals - these awesome, incredibly brave, and endlessly optimistic little dudes are the focal point. They are the protagonists in the story, and the player is the hero, spooling out the narrative. And in that scenario, starting without them is just.. weird. It's Kerbal Space Program, and I think the thing to remember is that it's all about the Kerbals, and there just happens to be some rocket parts lying around.

I simply justified it by observing the complete and thorough disregard for safety in Kerbal engineering. Why bother designing an intelligent probe when you can strap a questionably willing and ultimately disposable Kerbal to a rocket and go to space?!

Sounding Rockets never stops me from strapping Kerbals to boosters. It's just a nice variety between unmanned and manned missions.

[basic.syntax]

...This is less a simulation, and more a story where the Kerbals - these awesome, incredibly brave, and endlessly optimistic little dudes are the focal point...

Awesome - Thanks! I'm OK with this.

The experienced player in me wants more gameplay, more parts... but the new player remembers first starting out in 23.5, and being overwhelmed by the "what does this thing do?" huge parts count. I intentionally went Career because I knew it would channel my KSP education, a few parts at a time.

[SyberSmoke]

Here's my philosophy on this and why I actually understand why manned (kerballed?) is first.

This is less a simulation, and more a story where the Kerbals - these awesome, incredibly brave, and endlessly optimistic little dudes are the focal point. They are the protagonists in the story, and the player is the hero, spooling out the narrative. And in that scenario, starting without them is just.. weird. It's Kerbal Space Program, and I think the thing to remember is that it's all about the Kerbals, and there just happens to be some rocket parts lying around.

I do agree also, the Kerbals are the main character of the story. Reading that made me think about he Kerbals. I could just see a late tier platform that has to be manned by a Kerbal for launching Sounding Rockets But he allows you to adjust the orientation and has a big red button to press.

[basic.syntax]

...I could just see a late tier platform that has to be manned by a Kerbal for launching Sounding Rockets But he allows you to adjust the orientation and has a big red button to press.

Perhaps you mean early tier / just starting out? I also thought this, but, I thought it unlikely to happen by the time "tier 0" would be ready; it would need a new UI and animation rigging work, to put Kerbal characters in the driver's seat in a polished, believable way.

[SyberSmoke]

Perhaps you mean early tier / just starting out? I also thought this, but, I thought it unlikely to happen by the time "tier 0" would be ready; it would need a new UI and animation rigging work, to put Kerbal characters in the driver's seat in a polished, believable way.

Nope, I meant what I said. Initially we would use the stick then a launch platform could be built on the pad to replace the sticks.

[Drew Kerman]

been meaning to share this, I added the smoke in Paint.NET:

Launch stick is pointing straight up but the rocket is weighted and thrust limited to slowly turn over on its own, like so:

Earlier launches can be found in this gallery. (all done in 0.90)

[pargentum]

(About first part of the rocket): Yes, you are correct. I must say it is rather counterintuitive. I did not play with prerelease, only old release version where nosecone was first part.

Edited April 29, 2015 by pargentum

[razark]

...and there just happens to be some rocket parts lying around.

There are rocket parts laying around. Where did these parts come from?

Obviously, they had already developed the technology and started with launching smaller things before they manage to get something big enough to stuff a Kerbal into.

Just because they aren't in the rocket doesn't mean they aren't in the story.

[Vahal]

I've been playing with these in career, and have (once) had a payload go crunch... and that was probably because I had max physwarp on.

FYI - you can do a few interior launches and get more than enough science to unlock the pack chute at which point, you can easily do large payloads with lots of extra chutes.

(Edit)

That being said, I will take a look once 1.0.1 is in, and see about tweaking the chutes up a hair.

That's what I did, I removed the Sounding Rockets chutes and placed standard MK16 chute wich solved all the problems, made the design a bit special but efficient (lighter, cheaper, more room for stuff and finally more compact due to the removal of all the SR chutes) able to land anywhere I wanted. I even used antenna to make some light landing legs if the core landed on mountains. And with MK16 the descent is stable, the payload doesn't wobble like mad (speed varying from 6.4 to 9.7 event with NINE chutes)

I noticed one thing, the decoupler is quite hard to place. I don't know if it's due to it tiny size but I have to carefullly move it to have a green light to place it.

[futrtrubl]

And with MK16 the descent is stable, the payload doesn't wobble like mad (speed varying from 6.4 to 9.7 event with NINE chutes)

Just so you know, with the new aero the more chutes you add the MORE variability in speed you will get as chutes momentarily drift through each other's air stream shadows.

[AcidEric]

@ Roverdude

Nice new bits

Minor note the fins aren't in the USI manufacturers tab but are in Aero still. do you want an issue raising?

[biohazard15]

*waves goodbye*

- - - Updated - - -

Actually... that last post was mean. But still.

These things are meant to be stupidly delicate. they will break.

Don't dunk them in the water. Don't overstuff them. Expect that experiments will break.

These are start-node things (heck, I give you *sticks* to use for aiming!), and soon enough you get extra parachutes to make larger loads.

Also pro-tip: Put your science in a truss above your control/power payload (i.e. use two trusses). That way worst case the bottom one can lithobreak.

Sorry if my post sounded mean.

I do understand that SR meant to be fragile. The problem is that they're TOO fragile - and KSP's collision model simply does not work well with such low crash tolerances. I did a couple of tests - launch and land at KSC's field. In one launch, payload landed intact. The next launch - the same rocket with the same payload - was fatal. Its survival depends on collision model's current mood - in other words, it's random. Putting the experiments on the top is not a solution - it's simply a way to circumvent the collision model's glitches. Any KSP newbie who doesn't know about such quirks would correctly assume that the truss (with its relatively high crash tolerance) would protect the experiment - no matter where it was placed. This is what I call "pseudo-hardcore" - player's actions has absolutely no effect on the overall outcome. If you're lucky, you'll succeed; if not, you will fail, no matter what. The only thing you can do is use some exploits - in other words, cheat. And if player has to cheat in order to play the game, it indicates that something is wrong with its design.

Now, the water. Many real-life test ranges (Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg comes to mind) are located on shores - in order to fire rockets towards the ocean. It would be obvious for any newcomer to attempt such launch - but he or she wouldn't succeed. It's simply impossible to do that - crash tolerance is absurdly low. Even a simple slope landing can be fatal - you landed it intact, it tipped over and boom, your science goes down the drain. Packing another truss or additional chutes, as it was already stated, is a no-go. It's simply against all logic - if the lightest payload (avionics + experiment + battery) can fit to one truss, why would I use two? And why would I use an extra chute if a single nosecone chute gives me around 6-7 m\s ASL landing speed - which is well below truss' crash tolerance?

There is nothing wrong with sticks (they're awesome, actually!) and overall "hard to use" nature of SR. Hell, this is maybe the only mod that makes you actually learn the ballistics in order to put your payload where you want it. Its only flaw is these ridiculously low crash tolerances - and this is not something that cannot be easily fixed.

Edited April 29, 2015 by biohazard15