0.625 srb

[RoverDude]

Well now.

Do you believe I am actually going to click that suggestion link after you call a part I worked on 'Garbage'?

[Giggleplex777]

Well now.

Do you believe I am actually going to click that suggestion link after you call a part I worked on 'Garbage'?

Sorry, I meant that its stats are rubbish. It's practically useless outside of the first flight.

[Francesco]

I say keep the RT-5, and yes add a 0.625m SRB in 1.01.

300s vacuum ISP is too high though.

On a second thought, aren't all the new solids' ISP's a bit too low, in general?

[Giggleplex777]

I say keep the RT-5, and yes add a 0.625m SRB in 1.01.

300s vacuum ISP is too high though.

That was pre-nerf. I'm thinking 290s with the new stats. The PAM-D has an Isp of 292s.

[Bill Phil]

I like having a shorter 1.25 meter SRB, but I would also like to have a 0.625 meter SRB modeled after the GEM series of SRBs.

Plus, the RT-5 looks like an upper stage. I honestly thought in the preview videos that it was a remodeled LV-909! Because that's what it looks like!

Why is there a torus on the bottom?

Check this out:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115238-Solid-Rockets

[zekes]

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.

http://i.imgur.com/e8nwy7u.png

I agree... if i want a 1.25m SRB I'll go with a half-fuelled RT-10. Long and thin please!

And longer .625 tanks too, I'm so done with those stupid oscars being wobbly on a long thin rocket.

[r_rolo1]

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).

Well, I can agree with that on face value ( also , it beats with what Scott Manley said in one of his videos ), but let's face it:

a) it does not mean that there is not a need for atleast one 0.625m SRB

It is only like that because the first flight in the main devs mind, for #reasons, has to have a kerbal showing the bottom right of the screen, thus needing a 1,25m booster to put below the MK1 capsule. If there wasn't that need, a 0.625m (SRB or not ) rocket would be the natural candidate for first launch ...

That said, in the constrictions the devs put themselves on, the RT-5 is not that bad ... in pushing the first capsule out. After that, it is probably the worst SRB by stats ( it is clearly worse than it's bigger brother atleast ) ...

Edited April 28, 2015 by r_rolo1

[Bill Phil]

Well, I can agree with that on face level ( also , it beats with what Scott Manley said in one of his videos ), but let's face it:

a) it does not mean that there is not a need for atleast one 0.625m SRB

It is only like that because the first flight in the main devs mind, for #reasons, has to have a kerbal showing the bottom right of the screen, thus needing a 1,25m booster to put below the MK1 capsule. If there wasn't that need, a 0.625m (SRB or not ) rocket would be the natural candidate for first launch ...

That said, in the constrictions the devs put themselves on, the RT-5 is not that bad ... in pushing the first capsule out. After that, it is probably the worst SRB by stats ( it is clearly worse than it's bigger brother atleast ) ...

It's good for just a bit of extra thrust. And when you sequence them properly you can increase payload substantially.

[r_rolo1]

It's good for just a bit of extra thrust. And when you sequence them properly you can increase payload substantially.

Well, I didn't said it didn't had it's uses niche. I just said it was the worst SRB by stats AFAIK

[Giggleplex777]

Well, it's been one week and I haven't gotten a reply from HarvesteR yet. sigh.

[THX1138]

I was actually hoping for a bigger SRB so I was even more disappointed by the flea! What the hell am I meant to do with that thing?

[JumpsterG]

I have the sudden urge to start a career mode, pretend there is only 1 RT-5 in my inventory and include it on every mission as though it were a crew member (must recover!). "Pet Flea Mode" could be very amusing.

[Hcube]

Well, it's been one week and I haven't gotten a reply from HarvesteR yet. sigh.

No offense but... no wonder you got no response. Even though you have great ideas you are way too agressive in your post. Just look at the discussion between you and Roverdude. Your message has some very good points wich i completely agree with, but too many "I think" "it should be so" "this is wrong" etc.

But yeah i would like a .625m strap-on SRB much like the GEMs. It would be possible to recreate very realistic Atlas V designs with those.

I personnaly used the flea only once. It just uses memory if you ask me. The fact that it was added in the game knowing that it would be used only for the first launch is what makes this SRB almost pointless to almost every player.

[r4pt0r]

No offense but... no wonder you got no response. Even though you have great ideas you are way too agressive in your post. Just look at the discussion between you and Roverdude. Your message has some very good points wich i completely agree with, but too many "I think" "it should be so" "this is wrong" etc.

But yeah i would like a .625m strap-on SRB much like the GEMs. It would be possible to recreate very realistic Atlas V designs with those.

I personnaly used the flea only once. It just uses memory if you ask me. The fact that it was added in the game knowing that it would be used only for the first launch is what makes this SRB almost pointless to almost every player.

He has been trying for 2 years though.

[panzer1b]

I agree, i wanted the flea to be a .6m SRB, but no, im still stuck with 8 sepatron clusters to push my kinetic weapons, they work fine, but part counts are annoying right now, especially when a single unguided missile that i use is on average 4-6 parts minimum, the part count and lag stacks up really quickly when you happen to have 50 of the things sitting on the forward hardpoints.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I like the RT-5 a lot, but I would also like a 0.625m SRB a lot. I think I'd like the 0.625m SRB even more than the RT-5, in fact.