Booster Separation with Aero?

[M3Man03]

Now with all the focus on Aero since the v1.0 update, I'd like to know if anyone has any better ideas on how to separate external booster stages since sticking sepratrons out in the open causing a ton of drag.

Also with the added aero, any tendency for the booster stages to come in towards the center tank is even more affected now.

Why hasn't anyone come up with booster nose cones or aero dynamic separation motors yet? Or have they and I just haven't heard about it?

[Brotoro]

I thought Squad fixed the tendency of the boosters to nose inward on separation.

I certainly know that when I tried an old ship (which had sepatrons placed to counter the nose-in effect) in 1.0 those boosters came off violently flipping nose-out (because of the action of the sepatrons).

- - - Updated - - -

They added new nose cones that are angled. Normally people would put those on the side booster with the point on the inward side (to look like a Proton rocket)... but if you put them on with the nose pointing outward, is the new aero clever enough to push the nose of the booster outward upon separation? (like you see on the British Thunderbird missile.)

[LordFerret]

Stock Bug Fix Modules (Claw), updated for 1.0

[micr0wave]

You could try to put a parachute on the lower outer side of the booster and activate decoupler and chute at the same time.

[FlipNascar]

I ran into a similar problem with one particular design. Turns out I had the boosters too high up... Try offsetting them down a bit. Didn't matter what I did to the darn things (clipped elevons into the nose angled away yadda yadda)... Scoot 'em down a bit and take off all the things you put to help move them away. If that doesn't fix it, then add more pointy flappy things...

[NathanKell]

LordFerret: as the link says, the decoupler fix is obsolete.

Just because the bug re: decouplers was fixed, however, doesn't mean that boosters won't get pushed back into the craft by aerodynamic forces. Brotoro has an excellent solution, but you can also place the booster further 'down' the decoupler, so the mounting point is above the booster's CoM. Then the decoupling force will provide a torque moment.

[LordFerret]

LordFerret: as the link says, the decoupler fix is obsolete.

Just because the bug re: decouplers was fixed, however, doesn't mean that boosters won't get pushed back into the craft by aerodynamic forces. Brotoro has an excellent solution, but you can also place the booster further 'down' the decoupler, so the mounting point is above the booster's CoM. Then the decoupling force will provide a torque moment.

Sorry about that, my bad.

[Blu_C]

You can also try adding control surfaces angled away from the main craft (be sure to disable them in the VAB though!). That way when they are released the aerodynamic forces catch the control surfaces and peel the boosters away.

[cybersol]

In 1.0 decouplers seem to work as intended now in the sense that decoupler force is applied exactly in the radial direction. Of course my 0.9 designs don't work, because then I often had to lower the decoupler relative to the CoM to prevent the off axis forces from spinning the stack into my engines. Even in 1.0, my stacks often still hit the rocket at first! For some frustrating reason stacks always seem to sit offset on the radial decoupler by default, but I can fix it if I carefully center the booster using offset mode. After doing that, and aligning the CoM of the booster to the radial decoupler center, it all works wonderfully.