0.625 srb

[Frozen_Heart]

When I heard that Squad was adding a smaller SRB I was pretty excited. However upon seeing what we got I'm very disappointed. Rather than a nice looking 0.625 SRB that would work very well on 1.25m craft, we've got this ridiculous "Trash can" that's just as wide as it is tall.

I'd much rather we got a long and narrow small SRB similar to that used on the Atlas rockets.

[r4pt0r]

Can you link me to a picture of this 'trash can'? I've read about the disappointment about it in a few threads, but I can never find a pic of it.

Edit: oh, that was you in the other thread I saw lol. still, I cant find it anywhere.

[Frozen_Heart]

Can you link me to a picture of this 'trash can'? I've read about the disappointment about it in a few threads, but I can never find a pic of it.

Edit: oh, that was you in the other thread I saw lol. still, I cant find it anywhere.

56:28 is where he puts it on.

[r4pt0r]

Here it is, for those who have not seen it or are too lazy to click the YT link posted above. Its a shoddy screenshot, but clear enough.

I think its....alright, but agree that a .625 SRB would be preferred.

Edited April 26, 2015 by r4pt0r

[Yukon0009]

Why not just rescale it to 0.625 cm scale?

[gmiddlemass]

Agreed, a tall thin 0.625 booster would look a little better than the short fat one that we have now.

You could always just adjust the fuel load/thrust of the RT-10 booster to get the same results as the new RT-5, a tall thin booster would have more flexibility of use I think.

[Frozen_Heart]

You could always just adjust the fuel load/thrust of the RT-10 booster to get the same results as the new RT-5, a tall thin booster would have more flexibility of use I think.

That's what I've been doing for a long time. However they just look ugly and way too wide to be put radially on 1.25m rockets. Probe sized ones would look a lot nicer.

[klgraham1013]

I agree. Was expecting something similar to the 0.625 SRB from KW.

[scy]

Just use the procedural rockets mod.

[klgraham1013]

Just use the procedural rockets mod.

This is a suggestion for the stock game.

Can we get a sub-forum for mod recommendations, please. This is a Suggestions sub-forum for the stock game.

[Xavven]

No. I prefer stock.

We do need a 0.625 meter solid rocket booster as well, but the RT-5 is specifically for your first launch and other early launches. In that right I think it's already a failure. Winter Owl shows the thing beating like 6 world records and it peaks at 11 g of acceleration. For comparison, the Mercury and Vostok programs peaked at 6 g during launch. I hope they tune that thing down a bit. Artistically, it looks boring.

[Kegereneku]

Woah, I got to say I'm also disappointed by this SRB.

I would be interested to know the logic which made them build such flea when everybody now SRB that fit on planes would have been be greatly appreciated.

[Frozen_Heart]

Just use the procedural rockets mod.

Just pointing out mods is not helpful. Yes we know they exist.

This is a suggestion for something to be added to the stock game.

[Giggleplex777]

I've already sent HaresteR a detailed PM concerning the atrocious RT-5 and how a 0.625m SRB should replace it. Hopefully I'll get a reply.

[Panzerbeard]

Personally I like the new SRB, but I do agree that a .625m version would be a welcome addition.

[GusTurbo]

I've already sent HaresteR a detailed PM concerning the atrocious RT-5 and how a 0.625m SRB should replace it. Hopefully I'll get a reply.

I hope you get a response.

The reason this silly thing exists is because of the folly of having to start manned. They probably thought a .625 booster would look stupid launching a 1.25m pod, so they made this almost single-use part. If the first launches were unmanned, then we could start with .625m parts, then move onto manned launches at 1.25m. This is the consequence of bad design in career mode.

- - - Updated - - -

I suppose if I were being a little more charitable, I could argue they were going for a solid upper stage, like the Orion 38, seen here:

(Of course, they obviously did not intend that, based on its position in the tech tree)

[Giggleplex777]

I hope you get a response.

The reason this silly thing exists is because of the folly of having to start manned. They probably thought a .625 booster would look stupid launching a 1.25m pod, so they made this almost single-use part. If the first launches were unmanned, then we could start with .625m parts, then move onto manned launches at 1.25m. This is the consequence of bad design in career mode.

- - - Updated - - -

I suppose if I were being a little more charitable, I could argue they were going for a solid upper stage, like the Orion 38, seen here:

http://i.imgur.com/g8eTHDc.jpg

(Of course, they obviously did not intend that, based on its position in the tech tree)

Ah, great minds think alike. Here's a portion of what I sent to Harv:

After finding out that the FT-5 "Flea" was a short 1.25m SRB, I was extremely disappointed. It was another low-performance, low-tech SRB. It had terrible stats as it was meant to be the most basic rocket motor. The problem with this is that it will probably only be used once, as the engines in the next tech node would be superior in every to it, kind of like wooden tools in Minecraft. I think this would be a terrible waste, especially with all the effort in creating the part.

I see the FT-5 as an "orbital kick motor", like the Payload Assist Module, due to its low profile and nozzle size. As such, the stats of the engine should be changed to that of a vacuum solid rocket motor and should be moved to the node the LV-909 is (and the LV-909 to different node). The stats of the RT-5 should be as follows:

Mass: 2.0t (full), 0.25t (dry)

Max thrust: 100kN

Specific Impluse: 150s (sea-level) - 300s (vacuum)

Cost: 500

This would make it a low-cost alternative to the LV-909. It would cheaper and more powerful than the LV-909, but the inability to change the throttle and relative inefficiency would make it less attractive in some missions. Even then, it would be much more useful than it is currently. I envision players using it as a cheap, compact and simple second stage for small probe missions where the RT-5 would send the probe and a liquid-fueled upper stage to fine tune the orbit.

Now, with the RT-5 moved to a higher tech node, what would replace it?

A 0.625m SRB, of course!

The reasoning behind this is that it would be and extremely versatile part that would also make sense in the starter tech node. It would have lower performance than the RT-10 due to its size, but unlike the current RT-5, its size would allow it to used later in the game, such as a super-sized Sepratron for huge rockets or as tiny boosters for small rockets. It would also be easily spammable, allowing players to complete the first few contracts by adding moar boosters.

The proposed stats for the 0.625m booster would be:

Mass: 0.9t (full), 0.1t (dry)

Max thrust: 75kN

Specific impulse: 150s (sea-level) - 200s (vacuum)

Cost: 250

It should be stack and radially attachable. The SRB should look like an enlarged Sepratron as far as the length to diameter ratio goes.

The possibilities for this SRB are endless.

[GusTurbo]

Ah, great minds think alike. Here's a portion of what I sent to Harv:

Not surprisingly, I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestions.

[Motokid600]

... Now I could've sworn I read you start unmanned now in 1.0 awhile back. Or atleast you get the option. Manned first is so ass backwards it's not even funny.

Oh well I guess we have to continue to rely on mods.

[klgraham1013]

snip

I like your ideas.

[Frozen_Heart]

Brilliant ideas Giggleplex! I completely agree with them.

[aleis]

I like the idea of it being skinnier, and while I understand the desire for an engine that you can use first. The next SRB is only an Eva on the launch pad away.

So your not going to use it for much more than a single launch before it gets eclipsed very quickly, if at all. (Launched my first mission with an enginelss pod and scienced past the flea without using one)

Maybe make it. 625 move it up the tech tree a little then move the other SRB back down where it was.

Edited April 28, 2015 by aleis

[JumpsterG]

A 0.625 SRB (or family of them) would be a great addition.

but I also have no problem with having the RT-5 right where it is. I think it makes "newbies first rocket" look pretty nice, actually. It may not be a high utilization part, but I'm sure players will find some use for it, even if only to make some oddball designs or for use in challenges.

[RoverDude]

Hi!

The reason you folks got a smaller 1.25m is actually really simple.

It's the very first engine you get. And it had to fit below that first 1.25m capsule. And we didn't want to just nerf the RT-10, so we added a nifty low profile SRB that was good enough to get you your first launch, but also a nice flat profile that would still have some value later in the game (I use RT-5's quite a bit as upper stage kick motors in my current career save).

[Giggleplex777]

Hi!

The reason you folks got a smaller 1.25m is actually really simple.

It's the very first engine you get. And it had to fit below that first 1.25m capsule. And we didn't want to just nerf the RT-10, so we added a nifty low profile SRB that was good enough to get you your first launch, but also a nice flat profile that would still have some value later in the game (I use RT-5's quite a bit as upper stage kick motors in my current career save).

I think this would work way better though:

After finding out that the FT-5 "Flea" was a short 1.25m SRB, I was extremely disappointed. It was another low-performance, low-tech SRB. It had terrible stats as it was meant to be the most basic rocket motor. The problem with this is that it will probably only be used once, as the engines in the next tech node would be superior in every to it, kind of like wooden tools in Minecraft. I think this would be a terrible waste, especially with all the effort in creating the part.

I see the FT-5 as an "orbital kick motor", like the Payload Assist Module, due to its low profile and nozzle size. As such, the stats of the engine should be changed to that of a vacuum solid rocket motor and should be moved to the node the LV-909 is (and the LV-909 to different node). The stats of the RT-5 should be as follows:

Mass: 2.0t (full), 0.25t (dry)

Max thrust: 100kN

Specific Impluse: 150s (sea-level) - 300s (vacuum)

Cost: 500

This would make it a low-cost alternative to the LV-909. It would cheaper and more powerful than the LV-909, but the inability to change the throttle and relative inefficiency would make it less attractive in some missions. Even then, it would be much more useful than it is currently. I envision players using it as a cheap, compact and simple second stage for small probe missions where the RT-5 would send the probe and a liquid-fueled upper stage to fine tune the orbit.

Now, with the RT-5 moved to a higher tech node, what would replace it?

A 0.625m SRB, of course!

The reasoning behind this is that it would be and extremely versatile part that would also make sense in the starter tech node. It would have lower performance than the RT-10 due to its size, but unlike the current RT-5, its size would allow it to used later in the game, such as a super-sized Sepratron for huge rockets or as tiny boosters for small rockets. It would also be easily spammable, allowing players to complete the first few contracts by adding moar boosters.

The proposed stats for the 0.625m booster would be:

Mass: 0.9t (full), 0.1t (dry)

Max thrust: 75kN

Specific impulse: 150s (sea-level) - 180s (vacuum)

Cost: 200

It should be stack and radially attachable. The SRB should look like an enlarged Sepratron as far as the length to diameter ratio goes.

The possibilities for this SRB are endless.

Seriously, the stats of current RT-5 is GARBAGE.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Giggleplex777