Surface attachable probe core

[pandaman]

AFAIK, non of the stock probe cores are suitable for surface attachment.

Several times recently I would have found it useful to have such a part.  Something maybe of a similar size to the radial parachute, obviously large enough to contain all the workings, but small enough to look OK on small ships,  and a little aerodynamic so it looks ok on planes too.

[Nich]

I like the second antenna

[Red Iron Crown]

I would love this, as well as a radially attachable fighter-planish cockpit.

[Kerbalstar]

5 hours ago, pandaman said:

AFAIK, non of the stock probe cores are suitable for surface attachment.

Several times recently I would have found it useful to have such a part.  Something maybe of a similar size to the radial parachute, obviously large enough to contain all the workings, but small enough to look OK on small ships,  and a little aerodynamic so it looks ok on planes too.

This! For me trying to launch a hab module unmanned to a space station, but I like realism so I can't  place it between the docking port and hab or between habs because my kerbal's couldn't pass though. I have a Mk: 1-2  pod so I put it between that and the hitchhikers. 

[DoctorDavinci]

I use the small nosecone deal ... radially attach to most parts and is aerodynamic

I just ad a probe core

Edited April 4, 2016 by DoctorDavinci

[Coeus]

When I need a radially attached probe core, I just stick it on a cubic octagonal strut, and sink it into the ship. But yes, we also need that part.

[Blaarkies]

1 hour ago, Coeus said:

When I need a radially attached probe core, I just stick it on a cubic octagonal strut, and sink it into the ship. But yes, we also need that part.

Because of that, I believe all probe cores should be surface attachable by themselves. Why should it be necessary to tax CPUs with 2 parts for a single probe core?(this goes for most other parts as well)

Edited April 4, 2016 by Blaarkies

[pandaman]

I tend to use an RTG rotated flat to the surface then attach a probe core to that. That way I'm at least adding a part I was including anyway.  Looks a bit odd though having a half an OKTO flat on to the line of flight, not good for drag either.

 

[Wjolcz]

That would be handy and much desired, but should also be limited in a way. If the probe core is small and surface attachable then it shouldn't have any reaction wheels.

[mattinoz]

5 hours ago, Veeltch said:

That would be handy and much desired, but should also be limited in a way. If the probe core is small and surface attachable then it shouldn't have any reaction wheels.

Could be like the probe version of the command seat. no reaction wheels, no power and mono storage.

Would be useful for many uses, including the building stations or small one-way sub probes.

[KrazyKrl]

1 hour ago, mattinoz said:

Could be like the probe version of the command seat. no reaction wheels, no power and mono storage.

Would be useful for many uses, including the building stations or small one-way sub probes.

 

Probe cores are small and light on their own... even large (and heavy) wings are surface attach. I don't see any reason to limit the functionality of a part; just to add an attachment rule in the VAB when building your craft. IMO all parts should support surface attach, node attach should be the unique thing with parts.

[pandaman]

I'd agree with the 'no reaction wheels' idea on a small core.  Perhaps there's scope for a slightly larger model too with reaction wheels that aren't too strong. 

[KamenRiderzero1]

I built several rovers designed to drop probe cores for geological relay units.

 

I found using a plate made it easy to attach them to the body of the rover

[Stoney3K]

On 04/04/2016 at 9:23 AM, Blaarkies said:

Because of that, I believe all probe cores should be surface attachable by themselves. Why should it be necessary to tax CPUs with 2 parts for a single probe core?(this goes for most other parts as well)

I'd stretch that even more: IMO, if we want to have optimal building freedom, we would want to have ANY part surface-attachable. If you can surface-attach whatever you want using a cube strut, what's the point of having a restriction on surface attachment in the first place?

[Blaarkies]

2 minutes ago, Stoney3K said:

I'd stretch that even more: IMO, if we want to have optimal building freedom, we would want to have ANY part surface-attachable. If you can surface-attach whatever you want using a cube strut, what's the point of having a restriction on surface attachment in the first place?

I 100% agree, with this Oscar-B_Fuel_Tank you can do the same(hide it using gizmos). I bet there is a lot of other parts that can be used the same way( FL-T100 Fuel Tank , small MonoProp stack tank?). There are so many "BZ-52_Radial_Attachment_Point" parts in the early techtree that the game is just forcing us to go through the hassle of correctly aligning and hiding those parts so that the craft still looks good

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I totally support this idea being added into stock.

That said, MechJeb mod pretty much does this exactly if anyone's interested.

If you just stick the MechJeb part (I'm almost 90% sure it's surface attachable) on your craft, it counts as a working probe core. (In addition to providing the actual MechJeb mod functionality which you don't have to use if you don't want.)

[Blaarkies]

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I totally support this idea being added into stock.

That said, MechJeb mod pretty much does this exactly if anyone's interested.

If you just stick the MechJeb part (I'm almost 90% sure it's surface attachable) on your craft, it counts as a working probe core. (In addition to providing the actual MechJeb mod functionality which you don't have to use if you don't want.)

But do contracts and the like pick it up? It should since it has command module.(yes it is definitely surface attachable)

[Malich]

Some mod already has them as I have a pair of them in my "pods" button on my KSP build... Alas I am 200 miles from home atm and not sure which it is.

It might be Modular Rocket Systems.

Either way, the concept is sound

Edited April 5, 2016 by Malich

[pincushionman]

I'd love a surface-mount probe core the same mass and moment arm as a goo canister.

[Red Iron Crown]

5 minutes ago, pincushionman said:

I'd love a surface-mount probe core the same mass and moment arm as a goo canister.

Same drag cube, too.

[passinglurker]

On 4/4/2016 at 7:40 PM, Red Iron Crown said:

I would love this, as well as a radially attachable fighter-planish cockpit.

Oh like the just the bulge from the 1.00 to 1.02 mk1 inline cockpit without the cylinder part? Seriously I swear that thing started life as a radial cockpit...

[pandaman]

On 4/4/2016 at 2:40 AM, Red Iron Crown said:

I would love this, as well as a radially attachable fighter-planish cockpit.

 

11 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Oh like the just the bulge from the 1.00 to 1.02 mk1 inline cockpit without the cylinder part? Seriously I swear that thing started life as a radial cockpit...

That's a good idea, but the 'bubble canopy' is just where the pilot's head goes, the rest of him/her is inside, so if you attach that to a fuel tank the pilot gets wet feet.

That said, a cockpit that puts the pilot in a more reclined position, so giving a lower profile could work quite well visually.