Did 1. 0 nerf SRB's too much?

[MacroNova]

They also bumped up the separatron heat the main fuel tank explodes when the separatron fires, IRL Im pretty sure a small soild rocket Is not enough to make a massive fuel tank explode. It made me redesign my lifters

I ran into this, so I've been putting my sepratrons near the top of the SRBs and angled about 60 degrees down from horizontal. No exploding issues.

[zarakon]

I ran into this, so I've been putting my sepratrons near the top of the SRBs and angled about 60 degrees down from horizontal. No exploding issues.

I lower the fuel in my sepratrons to minimum. They still kick enough to do their job, they won't fire long enough to roast anything, and they're slightly lighter.

[MacroNova]

Ah, good point. I do that too but forgot to mention it.

[Bill Phil]

To me they're fine, but a solid upper stage or two is lacking... Not to mention 0.625 meter SRBs.

[Hotblack Desiato]

yes, I do not like how they got nerfed too.

how about this: give them 50% more fuel (because they lost 30%, that would bring them to pre 1.0 states), raise their thrust and give them the same ISP and thrust on ASL and in vac.

this way, they become nice first stages, on kerbin and on eve, adding a nice challenge of getting the lander with SRBs to eve, land them safely, and launch back to orbit.

because currently SRBs are worthless on eve.

[inigma]

A month ago I came back to KSP after a long hiatus -- the last time I played was before science was introduced. I must say Squad has done amazing things since then. In 0.90, one thing I enjoyed was how career mode made you make all kinds of interesting rockets with new constraints. I quickly grew to admire SRBs in a way that was never true before. They had a good chunk of dV on the cheap, and were just tweakable enough in thrust and solid fuel to let you make the rest of the rocket as recoverable as possible. This kept launch costs down, which seemed like a really good thing since that is also SRBs role in real life. However, in 1.0 the trusty BACC seems severely nerfed to me, such that there is little reason to use it over LFO.

Checking the BACCs new stats, its mass actually dropped 1.9kg (24%) while its solid fuel load dropped 30% and its atmo ISP is way down 28%. While all engines went down in ISP, the LV-T30 for example only droped 12.5% atmo ISP. Despite all those size and efficiency nerfs, its costs in 1.0 increased 50%. Further comparing it to an similar weight LFO stack the BACC is longer with a higher drag value, generates no electric charge, and is not throttable. All in all, I don't think it fill its cheap booster role anymore compared to 0.90.

In some ways this will be good, as the one true way to build a rocket will again be thin LFO vegetable style.

Cheers,

CyberSoul

Nah, not really mate. Gotta know how to fit em together to make this stock beauty:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

That said, it would be nice if squad actually make scalable mk3 boosters and extensions in a future release to cut down on the dozens of parts it takes to make one of these babies.

[cybersol]

I think they nerfed too many things about them:

- Much lower ISP. While the liquid engines got hit by around 15%, the solid boosters lost around 30%.

- Worse mass fraction (more dead weight per unit of fuel)

- Less fuel and less thrust on the RT-10 and BACC

- More expensive

The changes total out to about a 40% loss in the delta-V that you can get out of a solid stage, while the prices have increased.

I think this is a great explanation of all the little things that add up to make them much more limited now.

[zarakon]

Here's a challenge to see if anyone can prove that solids are still worth using:

1. Build an all-liquid rocket of any size which can bring a payload to orbit without any blatant inefficiencies.

2. Build a similar rocket which can lift the same payload with the same delta-V but cheaper by utilizing solid boosters or a solid stage.

[Wanderfound]

Here's a challenge to see if anyone can prove that solids are still worth using:

1. Build an all-liquid rocket of any size which can bring a payload to orbit without any blatant inefficiencies.

2. Build a similar rocket which can lift the same payload with the same delta-V but cheaper by utilizing solid boosters or a solid stage.

Counter-challenge: build an SRBless orbit-capable rocket with nothing beyond the first tier of tech nodes (i.e. the two immediately above the start node) and no building upgrades. SRBs help a lot when the tanks are small and the part count is tight.

[Streetwind]

That doesn't really make the boosters any better, though. It just means that you're forced to use a more expensive yet less performant solution because you haven't invested in building upgrades yet.

It would be great if solids had at least one special niche on an otherwise level playing field. They had that in prior versions, but not anymore.

[zarakon]

Counter-challenge: build an SRBless orbit-capable rocket with nothing beyond the first tier of tech nodes (i.e. the two immediately above the start node) and no building upgrades. SRBs help a lot when the tanks are small and the part count is tight.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

It's even got science!

Now show me your SRB equivalent

[Wanderfound]

http://imgur.com/a/zHO9B

It's even got science!

Now show me your SRB equivalent

Nicely done.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[zarakon]

Can you add materials and goo to it though?

If I'm cloning yours correctly that puts it barely over the limit on both parts and mass, and drops the delta-v to only 3449 (according to KER)

[Wanderfound]

Can you add materials and goo to it though?

If I'm cloning yours correctly that puts it barely over the limit on both parts and mass, and drops the delta-v to only 3449 (according to KER)

It's hard up against the part count as is, although you could probably afford to lose the girders and change the fins to three per set.

[Korizan]

I see a lot of comparisons stating the SRB's are just not as good as Liquids

Well lets look at this from a different point of view.

Why should SRB's be as good as a liquid core ?

If they should be as good then why in RL do you see so many liquid core rockets and very few solid core rockets.

Most solid core rockets tend to be small.

So I don't believe they have nerfed SRB's to much, it appears they have actually just balanced them correctly.

[Streetwind]

I see a lot of comparisons stating the SRB's are just not as good as Liquids

Well lets look at this from a different point of view.

Why should SRB's be as good as a liquid core ?

If they should be as good then why in RL do you see so many liquid core rockets and very few solid core rockets.

Most solid core rockets tend to be small.

So I don't believe they have nerfed SRB's to much, it appears they have actually just balanced them correctly.

1.) Nobody asks to make them "as good as" liquid fuels. It's about giving them a niche where they excel.

2.) IRL has a good number of pure solid fuel rockets, and almost all liquid fuel rockets contain at least one solid stage or strap-on booster.

3.) IRL, solid rocket boosters are cheap and high thrust. In past versions of KSP, solid rocket boosters were cheap and high thrust. In 1.0, solid rocket boosters cost more than liquid fuel rockets (even though liquids are better) and don't have high thrust anymore.

[hellion13]

Whether they got needed or buffed, I could really care less. With the addition of the cheap tier0 fin, they have became much more user friendly for early game.

The downside I see comes from the weight of later game construction. But like whats been said, that's not really the best use for them anymore. The best use I've found for them comes in the form of cheap and easy satellite launchers.

[illmatic]

Looks like the "MOAR BOOSTERZ" crowd is mad.

[Temeter]

Looks like the "MOAR BOOSTERZ" crowd is mad.

What? "MOAR BOOSTERZ" is more valid than ever!

And btw totally realistic. Just look at the Ariane 5, probably the world leader for commercial satellite launchs: Main and Upper stage are basically 'weak' but highly efficient cryogenic rockets, which work because they are jammed in between to huge SRBs. Launching that thing costs around half as much as an Ariane 4 in relation to weight.

In numbers: Those boosters deliver 14,000kn of thrust, the main stage around 1,000kn. Works, among other things, because the Main Stage only weighs half as much as the booster.

Never underestimate the BOOSTA.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Temeter

[NikkyD]

Elephant in the room ? KSP has way too heavy engines. So the whole SRB thing is not really touching me.

Real boosters have burn profiles, would be nice in KSP. Quick 10 sec max boost for the start, slow drift the first kilometers with increasing force as the atmosphere gets thinner.

But still, using booster over engines is not the real issue. A lot of the balancing sucks tbh.

[zarakon]

I see a lot of comparisons stating the SRB's are just not as good as Liquids

Well lets look at this from a different point of view.

Why should SRB's be as good as a liquid core ?

It's not about them being "as good" or not, it's about them having some advantages to balance out all their disadvantages. Before 1.0 they were cost-effective but would add a lot toward the weight limit, while of course being difficult to control due to lack of throttle and thrust vectoring. They weren't "as good" or better than liquid engines overall, but they did fill a couple of particular roles better.

Now they're still somewhat convenient for filling in gaps between engine sizes, like the big Skipper to Mainsail gap, but instances where you can actually save money in a design by using them are few and only marginal.

[Temeter]

It's not about them being "as good" or not, it's about them having some advantages to balance out all their disadvantages. Before 1.0 they were cost-effective but would add a lot toward the weight limit, while of course being difficult to control due to lack of throttle and thrust vectoring. They weren't "as good" or better than liquid engines overall, but they did fill a couple of particular roles better.

Now they're still somewhat convenient for filling in gaps between engine sizes, like the big Skipper to Mainsail gap, but instances where you can actually save money in a design by using them are few and only marginal.

Not really. Thrust provided by a booster will always be cheaper than rockets if you disregard weight. The midsize-booster isn't exactly great, but still at least slightly better than almost every 2.5m construction at a given T/W ratio. Compared the huge booster is quite a step up and will save you a nice bit of money. I recomment trying to put actual 'booster-stacks' connected via quad-coupler (put a cone atop, reroot the whole thing to one of the SRBs and use as subassembly).

Generally cost and efficiency slightly improves with booster size.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Temeter

[Renegrade]

In numbers: Those boosters deliver 14,000kn of thrust, the main stage around 1,000kn. Works, among other things, because the Main Stage only weighs half as much as the booster.

Jesus.. I was makin' fun of the SSMEs. That's pathetic - 1MN of thrust? The SSMEs are like an angry squirrel.... the Ariane 5's core is like a sedated mouse. Arthritic, sedated mouse..

Anyhow, I'm gonna be dusting off my Horrible Nerf at some point, and reducing cost and boosting thrust on SRBs (and maybe working on fuel values, especially for the BACC or whatever it's name is now).

[zarakon]

The current leader of the cheapest ride to Minmus challenge thread (my entry!) uses no solid engines, except for one sepratron which isn't used for propulsion

[Eric S]

The current leader of the cheapest ride to Minmus challenge thread (my entry!) uses no solid engines, except for one sepratron which isn't used for propulsion

Yes, congrats, though in all fairness, it should be pointed out that the previous leader had two SRB stages and was ahead of several all-liquid entries.