You know what I think we need? I think we need parachutes with nodes on top like engines!

[Fireheart318]

You know how engines have nodes on top for attaching to fuel tanks, and nodes on the bottom with shrouds for attaching decouplers? I think we need that for parachutes but the node on top has the shroud instead of the bottom!

Also, there's probably a mod for this, but it should be stock

Edited June 17, 2017 by Fireheart318

[Alshain]

I agree, I've wanted something like the stack chute in RealChute to be stock for ages (preferably with a better texture).

[Fireheart318]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I agree, I've wanted something like the stack chute in RealChute to be stock for ages (preferably with a better texture).

Or a modification to the current ones?

[NSEP]

Yeah! Good idea. For a docking spacecraft its usefull.

[GluttonyReaper]

7 hours ago, Fireheart318 said:

Or a modification to the current ones?

I'd rather see stack parachutes as new parts... I like the nosecone/parachute combos we have now.

[Alshain]

8 hours ago, Fireheart318 said:

Or a modification to the current ones?

I don't think the current ones would make sense with a top node.  They are all intended to be nose cone replacements.

[Fireheart318]

18 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I don't think the current ones would make sense with a top node.  They are all intended to be nose cone replacements.

But why can't they ALSO be in a shroud for deployable landers and return capsules?

[klgraham1013]

Stack parachutes would be nice.

[Greenfire32]

Basically inline stack chutes? Sign me up!

[qzgy]

On 6/18/2017 at 10:47 AM, Fireheart318 said:

But why can't they ALSO be in a shroud for deployable landers and return capsules?

The current parachutes work by literally blowing the top off. So a simple shroud around it doesn't really work.
I would also prefer a new part.

[Alshain]

1 hour ago, qzgy said:

The current parachutes work by literally blowing the top off. So a simple shroud around it doesn't really work.
I would also prefer a new part.

I think his idea is to discard the shroud before deploying, and you wouldn't be able to deploy until you did decouple from it.  That's fine, but I would like stack chutes too so I don't have to discard half my craft landing on Duna, and I don't have to have radial chutes getting in the way.

[qzgy]

39 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I think his idea is to discard the shroud before deploying, and you wouldn't be able to deploy until you did decouple from it.  That's fine, but I would like stack chutes too so I don't have to discard half my craft landing on Duna, and I don't have to have radial chutes getting in the way.

Ahh, ok. That could work.... but having to decouple to deploy is inconvenient. Stack chutes would be a lot nicer.

[Alshain]

2 hours ago, qzgy said:

Ahh, ok. That could work.... but having to decouple to deploy is inconvenient. Stack chutes would be a lot nicer.

I agree, but there could be a cost/benefit balance situation.  If the stack chutes were more costly or have more mass for their container's structural rigidity, it could balance them.

[qzgy]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I agree, but there could be a cost/benefit balance situation.  If the stack chutes were more costly or have more mass for their container's structural rigidity, it could balance them.

Are we also assuming they take the same volume? Like, on a 0.625 m stack chute, the cute is the same as the current 0.625m inline chute? I agree with the balancing, just asking

Edited June 25, 2017 by qzgy

[Alshain]

Just now, qzgy said:

Are we also assuming they take the same volume? Like, on a 0.625 m stack chute, the cute is the same as the current 0.625m inline chute?

I would think there would be at least a little volume difference.  A stack chute would have to be designed to structurally hold whatever is above it.  A nose chute would have the external shroud which would be the structural part and that would add volume to the model we see now.  It's a pyramid fitting into a cylinder after all, a lot of left over space.

[qzgy]

Just now, Alshain said:

I would think there would be at least a little volume difference.  A stack chute would have to be designed to structurally hold whatever is above it.  A nose chute would have the external shroud which would be the structural part and that would add volume to the model we see now.  It's a pyramid fitting into a cylinder after all, a lot of left over space.

So if we assume that there is a bit of a volume difference, would that also affect the parachute size? I would think so since the extra volume should be used as effectively as possible.

[Alshain]

Just now, qzgy said:

So if we assume that there is a bit of a volume difference, would that also affect the parachute size? I would think so since the extra volume should be used as effectively as possible.

Well, at least some of the extra volume is in structure, the brackets needed to hold the upper part of the module, but yes I think there would be more space than even that needed.