Communotron 16 vs 16s

[BrokenPhysics]

I just came back to KSP after a very long break (since 1.0), and I'm loving the new CommNet mechanics!

I just don't understand the Communotron 16S:

I can't find any advantage it has over the non-S variant, same range, same energy consumption, same cost. Combined with the downside of not being combinable, I can't see any reason to use it, except for aesthetics. 

Am I missing something? 

 

Thanks for your replies!

[WanderingKid]

It doesn't rip off in atmosphere when you deploy it, because you don't have to deploy it.  It's basically for launch communications during liftoff.

[BrokenPhysics]

22 minutes ago, WanderingKid said:

It doesn't rip off in atmosphere when you deploy it, because you don't have to deploy it.  It's basically for launch communications during liftoff.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for pointing that out!

[bewing]

Or for communication with robotic landers during and after atmospheric entry on your destination CB.

AFAIK, it also has a lower drag coefficient than a retracted Comm16 -- so it may be beneficial for airplanes.

Edited June 23, 2017 by bewing

[Tex_NL]

And it's always active at full capacity. You can not forget to deploy it.
Plus sometimes it just looks better.

[Spricigo]

What they said... Also,  for complete complaint sake: heavier. 

 

[Snark]

6 hours ago, bewing said:

it may be beneficial for airplanes.

It's also the only external antenna that's useful for unmanned airplanes, since it doesn't get ripped off while flying, but is still operational.

(The RA-2 works okay, later on, if you put it inside a a fairing, either at the front of the craft or in-line.  But it unlocks at a much higher tech level, and is somewhat less convenient to put on the craft.)

[Spricigo]

8 minutes ago, Snark said:

It's also the only external antenna that's useful for unmanned airplanes, since it doesn't get ripped off while flying, but is still operational

A minor difference,  with all those ground station conveniently in range of the built in antenna. 

Then again, every difference between communotron 16 and 16S are minor anyway. 

[Snark]

17 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

A minor difference,  with all those ground station conveniently in range of the built in antenna.

Sure... if you have the extra ground stations turned on. And if it's Kerbin you're flying on.

Otherwise, not so much.

[Spricigo]

Well,  certainly less convenient (e. g.  requiring relays in closer orbit,  landing required to transmit science)  but still pretty doable to explore most bodies with only a communotron 16 and built-in antenna. 

In other words: unnecessary but far from impossible.