Probe size heat shields

[lukeoftheaura]

Hi,

Do you think squad should add probe-size heat shields?

discuss below!

Edited April 30, 2015 by kerbingamer376

[PatPL]

And remove stock phisics significance for heat shields too +

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

While it would be good, if you intend to have a probe enter an atmosphere you can just put the probe on top of a 1.25 heatshield and a fairing over it, like the Mars rovers and the Huygens lander. In my opinion, those kind of tiny capsule shapes look really good.

[PatPL]

I remember shelters for probes entering duna made on inflantable heat shields. Inflammable beast.

[klgraham1013]

Maybe. I always found I was using 1.25m shield with DRE because I always had a part or two protruding beyond 0.625m.

[fireball]

Will this ever happen?

[nikokespprfan]

The addition of a 0.625 m heat shield gets my vote. A heat shield is a very important part on a craft. and thus having an extra size is a good idea.

[Speeding Mullet]

I don't think the game is missing smaller heat-shields, the probe cores fit fairly snugly into the 1.25m heat shield once you put ancillaries on it.

What the game may be missing is a micro sized fairing bases.  The small fairing base looks absolutely gigantic set against the 1.25m heatshield, it could do with being thinned out, and a 0.625m size fairing introduced.

SM

[Guest]

The new inflatable one or 1.1 likely solves this.  It's meant for smaller stuff.

[cantab]

Maybe.

I don't hugely see the point. For a stable re-entry you want something of a conical shape, with a wide heat shield and the rest tapering back behind that. I've done this a lot with probes behind the 1.25 and 2.5 m shields, but what could taper behind a .625m shield? It's already the smallest size!

On the other hand, adding the small shields wouldn't hurt really.

[fireball]

3 hours ago, CliftonM said:

The new inflatable one or 1.1 likely solves this.  It's meant for smaller stuff.

 There is an inflatable one? I did not see it yet. The only reason was my little contract probe was smaller than the 1.25m heat shield.

Speaking of which, I have a problem: on my craft, I disabled staging on the part to be tested, so that it would not accidentally go off in flight (and ruin the chance to do the contract). It turns out you cannot re-enable this in game, so I escaped the Kerbin system to discover the part would not activate or test (the part is supposed to be in the staging queue, but the method is to 'Run Test'--strange, I know). Doing some research got me to the SFS file with the parts in it; do you know which line(s) will restore the part?

Edited December 30, 2015 by fireball
Incomplete!

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, fireball said:

 There is an inflatable one? I did not see it yet. The only reason was my little contract probe was smaller than the 1.25m heat shield.

Speaking of which, I have a problem: on my craft, I disabled staging on the part to be tested, so that it would not accidentally go off in flight (and ruin the chance to do the contract). It turns out you cannot re-enable this in game, so I escaped the Kerbin system to discover the part would not activate or test (the part is supposed to be in the staging queue, but the method is to 'Run Test'--strange, I know). Doing some research got me to the SFS file with the parts in it; do you know which line(s) will restore the part?

Search for the vessel, and then search for the part in the vessel.  It should have a flag with stagingEnabled, or something like that.

EDIT:

It should be under this:

ToggleStaging
{
	active = True
	guiActive = False
	guiActiveUncommand = False
	guiIcon = Disable Staging
	guiName = Disable Staging
	category = Disable Staging
	guiActiveUnfocused = False
	unfocusedRange = 2
	externalToEVAOnly = True
}

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Guest

[pandaman]

Not a high priority, but it certainly wouldn't hurt, and I guess it's quite easy to implement, so why not.

[DMSP]

I would also put it far down on the priority list, but if you're doing a make believe Sample Return Mission a mini probe capsule could use one.

I don't see much other use, but it would be cool!

[John FX]

I would have voted for procedural/tweakable heatshields but there was no option.

Myself I also like the combo of proc fairings and proc parts to allow me to make things that look like little bullets flying backwards into the atmosphere that then break up and drop a tiny lander with just enough battery power for the mission.

Cute and functional.

[fireball]

11 hours ago, CliftonM said:

Search for the vessel, and then search for the part in the vessel.  It should have a flag with stagingEnabled, or something like that.

EDIT:

It should be under this:

ToggleStaging
{
	active = True
	guiActive = False
	guiActiveUncommand = False
	guiIcon = Disable Staging
	guiName = Disable Staging
	category = Disable Staging
	guiActiveUnfocused = False
	unfocusedRange = 2
	externalToEVAOnly = True
}

 

Yes, but which one? Now that you suggest it is only in that section, I will try guiActive to True.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, fireball said:

Yes, but which one? Now that you suggest it is only in that section, I will try guiActive to True.

I believe you would have active to false, therefore you'd need to change that to true.

[fireball]

3 hours ago, CliftonM said:

I believe you would have active to false, therefore you'd need to change that to true.

Ok, well, the one I tried did not work (the part and shield disappeared again), so I put a probe on the launch pad and copied the decoupler part from that. That worked!

[Hcube]

I don't think so because any antennas or science parts side attached wouldn't be protected, making such a shield completely useless. Also it would be impossible to make a blunt shape with it since there aren't any smaller parts to put behind, so it would most likely be unstable and unusable.

Really looks like lengthened loading time to me

Edited December 31, 2015 by Hcube

[rocketbuilder]

It's a good idea - just put the science parts on the top and it would be stable on reentry (according to what larger sizes "say").

[MKI]

A shield this size would protect the probe. But it wont protect the landing gear, or any other extremities that make the probe core wider, thus having a shield this small isn't practical.

It would be pretty much useless to me in most cases. When the cargo is generally wider than the core, having a shield JUST protecting the core wont help a lander. 

[Rath]

I like this because my 'sample return pallet'would be a lot smaller. (Probe, drouge parachute for main, a bunch of sensors. 

[John FX]

I just thought what would make probe sized heatshields more functional.

probe sized service bays. Just enough room for a couple of science experiments.

[Francois424]

On ‎2015‎-‎12‎-‎29 at 6:59 PM, CliftonM said:

The new inflatable one or 1.1 likely solves this.  It's meant for smaller stuff.

I was under the impression that the new Inflatable heatShield was 2.5m base that inflates to 10m wide ?
At least from the devnotes in question, that is what it sounded like.

The idea is not bad per say, but I personally use a 1,25 heatshield for them, it makes decent all the safer.

[Andem]

IRL, Heatshields should be wider than the payload so that any hangoff (RCS ports, etc.) will be completely protected... It would be fun to mess around with them, I don't really care.