Jump to content

PSA: Engine exhausts are deadly now

MalfunctionM1Ke

By MalfunctionM1Ke
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

r_rolo1

r_rolo1

Posted
Posted
Why anyone would want a lower stage to explode on release is beyond me. Just do what they do IRL and stage your rockets correctly with ullage motors.

Come on people, this isn't rocket science..

Well, it is not that I disagree with you on the ullage motors, but the issue is that apparently engines at separation break stuff if activated , no matter the thrust they are actually producing​. If that is true, this is definitely a bug ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
igor_perusco

igor_perusco

Posted
Posted

this is a huge problem, even the sepratrons toast an orange tank

note that when the shuttle SRBs separate, the retrorockets scorch large and very visible dark patches into the external tank (which the shuttle is using at that time, and still functions)

since lazarus mentioned the proton, that one (alongside several other russian rockets) hotfire their second (and third) stages and in neither does the spent stage below deatomize instantly

this needs a serious nerf, or at least make a few parts immune to it

did anyone verify if engines can wreck an asteroid by the way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
igor_perusco

igor_perusco

Posted
Posted
This is offtopic but is there onboard camera videos from hot staging of Russian rockets? That must be fierce operation.

unfortunately russians don't like to put cameras *inside* interstages (like spacex does) probably for reasons which will become apparent when watching this:

this beautiful video shows you everything you'll ever need to know about russian staging

boosters separation happens around 2:25

second stage separation happens around 3:15

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

I remember when people were griping because this didn't happen in 1.0. Granted, it's more severe than 0.90 but you could pretty much toast bread on a panel under an engine in 1.0.

This is offtopic but is there onboard camera videos from hot staging of Russian rockets? That must be fierce operation.
Hot staging has been a thing since early R-7 variants started taking people into space (E: actually even before that because I'm pretty sure Aerobee was ignited when the SRM was ignited) and it's not a terribly fierce operation because the lower stage is designed to deflect the exhaust. That being said, all of the rockets using hot staging are not designed to be even remotely reusable and it may not be possible to have a fully reusable stage that has been affected by hot staging.

Also, re: the Shuttle SRB separation, I'll pretty much guarantee you that the separation motors aren't pointed directly at the main tank. The scorching is likely because of exhaust expansion at high altitudes and is probably very light.

Edited by regex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
r_rolo1

r_rolo1

Posted
Posted
I remember when people were griping because this didn't happen in 1.0. Granted, it's more severe than 0.90 but you could pretty much toast bread on a panel under an engine in 1.0.

Well, yeah, true ;) And neither the 0.90 or the 1.0 version were doing it right :P

Hot staging has been a thing since early R-7 variants started taking people into space (E: actually even before that because I'm pretty sure Aerobee was ignited when the SRM was ignited) and it's not a terribly fierce operation because the lower stage is designed to deflect the exhaust. That being said, all of the rockets using hot staging are not designed to be even remotely reusable and it may not be possible to have a fully reusable stage that has been affected by hot staging.

Also, re: the Shuttle SRB separation, I'll pretty much guarantee you that the separation motors aren't pointed directly at the main tank. The scorching is likely because of exhaust expansion at high altitudes and is probably very light.

Again, all true. But the issue about this is not exactly that one, but the fact that apparently simply activating a engine via staging at the same time you decouple will destroy atleast the decoupler, no matter how low the thrust is. Like I said some pages ago, from what I understand of Nathankell explanation, this might be because of a improperly set inverse square law ( added to the fact that parts in stock are in a binary state of fully intact/completely destroyed ) giving quite high values of thrust damage to parts that are by definition very close to the engine nozzle ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majorjim!

Majorjim!

Posted
Posted
Well, yeah, true ;) And neither the 0.90 or the 1.0 version were doing it right :P

Again, all true. But the issue about this is not exactly that one, but the fact that apparently simply activating a engine via staging at the same time you decouple will destroy atleast the decoupler, no matter how low the thrust is. Like I said some pages ago, from what I understand of Nathankell explanation, this might be because of a improperly set inverse square law ( added to the fact that parts in stock are in a binary state of fully intact/completely destroyed ) giving quite high values of thrust damage to parts that are by definition very close to the engine nozzle ...

Do parts have a binary state? Why then does it say at times, such and such a part was damaged by such and such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
r_rolo1

r_rolo1

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, I should had said fully functioning vs completely non existant. The parts take damage, true, but that is not visible in most parts in both terms of functionality and performance ( IIRC the only one that shows diferences according to anything resembling it's state are the ablators and even then ... ) until they go poof.

Edited by r_rolo1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
But the issue about this is not exactly that one, but the fact that apparently simply activating a engine via staging at the same time you decouple will destroy atleast the decoupler, no matter how low the thrust is. Like I said some pages ago, from what I understand of Nathankell explanation, this might be because of a improperly set inverse square law ( added to the fact that parts in stock are in a binary state of fully intact/completely destroyed ) giving quite high values of thrust damage to parts that are by definition very close to the engine nozzle ...
Well, in KSP we use abstractions because a part is either intact or destroyed, and recovery doesn't reflect damage to a tank or decoupler from hot staging that may render it unusable and in need of full replacement. Furthermore, tanks are not contiguous in KSP like they would be in real life. Why would you have twenty tanks in your lower stage when you could have two with a superstructure? The plumbing would be ridiculous. So this is actually a decent representation of "non-binary" damage, if your decoupler and the top tank are destroyed on hot staging. It could be an attempt to represent the sort of damage you would see on hot staging using KSP's imperfect part system.

That being said, I haven't tried with larger tanks and engines, nor seen how heat buildup happens in situation where one larger tank is being affected by an engine. Parts have different thermal mass and accumulate heat based on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Franklin

Franklin

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'd be fine with this if the lower stages weren't blinked from existence by a chintzy, orb of static flame texture. Kerbal part destruction is ugly and clumsy.

Lower stages should be deflecting the exhaust, not being comically disintegrated. And the degree of damage obviously should reflect the degree of exhaust. 1% Spider and Sepratrons vs. 100% Mainsail.

Artistsconcept_separation.jpg

I get what Squad was trying to do, make exhaust rightfully deadly, but it needs work in degree and staging realism.

Edited by Franklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igor_perusco

igor_perusco

Posted
Posted

having pointed a small engine at a ridiculously large heatshield (with a lot of ablator), i can get it to hold for a few seconds, so the parts don't blow up *instantly* (it's not a glitch) rather they heat up and explode as before, it's just the heating that's very high

in other news, PSA: the new fuselage is HOLLOW -> http://imgur.com/a/yyu3q

engines can fire through it, use this to avoid blowing stuff up, and it doubles as a nice interstage

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Psycho_zs

Psycho_zs

Posted
Posted
IMHO, exhaust damage is a bit off. I made a two-stage mun lander with science stuff, core and antenna in the descend stage, to leave it on the surface in case of contracts for science. The accent stage had just a single Spark engine. Well, it shredded my descend stage in pieces instantly upon liftoff.
Compare that to a gentle breeze that Apollo landing stage got, judging by liftoff footage )

P.S. My lander:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/s73F9Va.png[/IMG]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hcube

Hcube

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Psycho_zs']IMHO, exhaust damage is a bit off. I made a two-stage mun lander with science stuff, core and antenna in the descend stage, to leave it on the surface in case of contracts for science. The accent stage had just a single Spark engine. Well, it shredded my descend stage in pieces instantly upon liftoff.
Compare that to a gentle breeze that Apollo landing stage got, judging by liftoff footage )

P.S. My lander:
[url]http://i.imgur.com/s73F9Va.png[/url][/QUOTE]

Nice lander ! Try putting sepratrons on the top part, angled so that their exhaust doesn't burn the descent stage. Fire them off as you stage, wait 3 seconds in freefall and then burn with the main engine ! :) A bit like a missile bursting out of the silo, freefalling half a second and then boosting up to space
I always do that, it looks cool and saves the descent stage ^^
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...