SRB Overhaul

[RocketSimplicity]

I personally think the srbs of the game need a well needed overhaul which changes everything about them. My idea is that we split up the srbs into sections:

Choose a fuel source (least efficient at bottom of tech tree, most efficient at top) (not too necessary, but what would differentiate earlier and later booster in the tech tree?)

Choose an igniter (not necessary)

Choose a nozzle (launch, space, gimbal variants, also tilting the nozzle by itself, not entire booster)

Most of all, solid fuel segments (like the current liquid fuel tanks. The space shuttle used 4 segment srbs and the SLS 1A and B may use 5 segment srbs)

Hopefully these would be in 0.625m (Delta 2 replicas, more stable boosters for smaller sizes), 1.25m, 1.875m (DLC, Titan replicas), 2m and if you are daring, 3.75m and 5m (DLC) SRB parts.

Also, as a bonus, it would be cool if once the boosters run out of fuel, the exhaust keeps on going as the thrust slowly decreases like the real Space Shuttle boosters.

Hope you like this idea,

RS

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by RocketSimplicity
reasons

[T1mo98]

Good idea.

Some feedback:

I think dividing it into so many different parts is a little bit too much.
The fuel source and igniter are not necessary I think, altough a customizable nozzle (vacuum optimized, sealevel optimized, angle, gimballed etc.) would be pretty nice.

 

[Aegolius13]

I'm not sure the modular approach would be in keeping for the rest of the game (i.e., we can't customize nozzles for LF engines, as much as we would want to).  But it could be a great feature for KSP 2!

However, I would very much welcome adding some additional features via new SRB models to choose from.  A few that come to mind are: a 2.5m booster, with power proportional to the actual shuttle SRB; an SRB with gimbal; and a smallish, vacuum-optimized SRB a la Star-48.

[Eridan]

18 hours ago, RocketSimplicity said:

Also, as a bonus, it would be cool if once the boosters run out of fuel, the exhaust keeps on going as the thrust slowly decreases like the real Space Shuttle boosters.

 

BetterSRBs by OhioBob is a good starting point for studying how variable thrust can be implemented. The bottom percentage of fuel offers very little thrust but still shows a plume. In turn, BetterSRBs prevents RESOURCE { amount } from being set inthe VAB, but has a custom DLL that allows RESOURCE { maxAmount } to be set instead.

The modular SRB segments are problematic with the stock resource system. RESOURCE { flowMode } doesn't have options that would work comfortably well. You'd want solid fuel or whatever resource to flow only through the top and bottom nodes of the segments and through the top node of the engine, but all the other options allow flow as long as there is a valid (fuelCrossFeed = true) part, with the difference being staging & prioritization.

ModuleB9PartSwitch is your best bet, allowing both custom length (with custom models/meshes & resource amounts, avoiding the modular part resource issues) and engine/fuel type implementations for a single diameter part. Then all you need are the assets, which is the difficult part of this endeavor.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Eridan

[KerbolExplorer]

i like the idea

you can chosse a pole in the upper left of the editor

[mannscla]

I think the nozzle and fuel is really good. i have always had problems with gravity turns with srbs running

[Aeroboi]

@RocketSimplicityKSP is a part puzzling game.

Each segment should completely overlap the texture of the other segment just like when connecting Mk3 fuel, cargo bay or passenger modules.

Then you would be able to chose 3 or 4 different srb engines.

This would add more dynamic building diversity.
It would also make SRB only missions more versatile and easier to build.

It would give us additional looks on rocket builds and gets us rid of the same uniform SRB parts the game currently offers.

@SQUAD Thought to remodel most of their parts, I hope they do something like this to SRB's additionally including changing the model/textures of it.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Aeroboi

[T1mo98]

I think instead of seperate tanks it would be better to just have different varients.

For instance, you could have a 1.875m STS SRB in 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 segment varients. 

The larger SRB's (1.25 meter and up) could have gimballing nozzles while the smaller ones (1.25 and down) could have changable nozzles with offset thrust and vacuum or ASL optimized

[Tweeker]

1 hour ago, T1mo98 said:

I think instead of seperate tanks it would be better to just have different varients.

For instance, you could have a 1.875m STS SRB in 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 segment varients. 

The larger SRB's (1.25 meter and up) could have gimballing nozzles while the smaller ones (1.25 and down) could have changable nozzles with offset thrust and vacuum or ASL optimized

   2.5m would be more appropriate for a SLS/STS SRB. 

I find that most things in KSP are about  2/3 diameter.

[T1mo98]

53 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

   2.5m would be more appropriate for a SLS/STS SRB. 

I find that most things in KSP are about  2/3 diameter.

https://imgur.com/a/YJic9h0

Having done a very quick mock-up, I think the 1.875m ones look much better visually and scale-wise.

 

Also, KSP isn't very consistent with scale. For instance, the 5m parts are based on the Saturn 5, which was 10 meters wide.

If we use this scale that the SRB's should be 3.7/2= 1.85. So they would fit perfectly.

Edited March 21, 2019 by T1mo98
Extra information

[RocketSimplicity]

@T1mo98

That mockup looks pretty realistic. I like the booster on the left in the second shot. It would also look good in Titan III and IV replicas.

On a different note, I do have to admit that the nozzle section of this suggestion will not line up with the rest of the game's nozzle system (which isn't very realistic). Scott Manley has a good video about how KSP doesn't teach rocket nozzles here:

Though of course this suggestion would be pretty bland without the nozzles so I am definitely not rubbing it out. It would still be great to have the nozzles.

Edited March 21, 2019 by RocketSimplicity

[T1mo98]

46 minutes ago, RocketSimplicity said:

@T1mo98

That mockup looks pretty realistic. I like the booster on the left in the second shot. It would also look good in Titan III and IV replicas.

On a different note, I do have to admit that the nozzle section of this suggestion will not line up with the rest of the game's nozzle system (which isn't very realistic). Scott Manley has a good video about how KSP doesn't teach rocket nozzles here:

Though of course this suggestion would be pretty bland without the nozzles so I am definitely not rubbing it out.

Yeah, maybe the different nozzle types (vacuum and ASL) aren't really necessary, but I do think we need to be able to tilt them in the hanger so we can create some offset thrust.

[Superfluous J]

Maybe instead of different fuels, have different "flow rates" unlocked. Then when you put your 5 segments on your large booster, you can set the flow rates to burn at different speeds at different times. Controlled either just top-bottom or with the already implemented (but unique to each srb) fuel flow priority numbers.

This way you can get your variable thrust without having graphs and whatnot.

Then all you'd need is 3-4 bases and 3-4 tanks, and the bases can toggle between gimbaled and not once you unlock gimbaling.

( That's the closest I can get to procedural SRBs using the stock paradigm )

[RocketSimplicity]

1 hour ago, T1mo98 said:

Yeah, maybe the different nozzle types (vacuum and ASL) aren't really necessary, but I do think we need to be able to tilt them in the hanger so we can create some offset thrust.

Sorry, what I was trying to say here was that even though the nozzle idea doesn't really go with the unrealistic liquid fuel rocket nozzles, it should still be kept as it would be a nice thing to have. Also, the idea that you could offset the nozzles (and not the entire srb) is a really good feature that I'm not sure why it isn't in the game already.

[Tweeker]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 3:07 PM, T1mo98 said:

https://imgur.com/a/YJic9h0

Having done a very quick mock-up, I think the 1.875m ones look much better visually and scale-wise.

 

Also, KSP isn't very consistent with scale. For instance, the 5m parts are based on the Saturn 5, which was 10 meters wide.

If we use this scale that the SRB's should be 3.7/2= 1.85. So they would fit perfectly.

The problem with using a 2:1 scale is that all the shuttle fuselage parts are 3.75M, or about 72%

the boosters are ~70% the diameter of the shuttle fuselage, which mean 3.75 X .7 =2.625m   which would round to 2.5M in KSP,

I messed around with making a more realistic shuttle maybe 3??? years ago,  if I can dig up the save I'll post some photos,

Basically I re-scaled the vector, and kickback to be closer to scale, I both dimension and thrust,

The kickback need to be 2.5m and have about 2,500 thrust while the vectors are nerfed to about 450 thrust.

 

 

[T1mo98]

5 hours ago, Tweeker said:

The problem with using a 2:1 scale is that all the shuttle fuselage parts are 3.75M, or about 72%

the boosters are ~70% the diameter of the shuttle fuselage, which mean 3.75 X .7 =2.625m   which would round to 2.5M in KSP,

I messed around with making a more realistic shuttle maybe 3??? years ago,  if I can dig up the save I'll post some photos,

Basically I re-scaled the vector, and kickback to be closer to scale, I both dimension and thrust,

The kickback need to be 2.5m and have about 2,500 thrust while the vectors are nerfed to about 450 thrust.

 

 

After playing with Tweakscale a bit I've come to the conclusion that 2.5m parts are better for shuttles (my mock-up was too small hence why 1.875m looked better) but 1.875m fits better with all other parts.

Let's just agree that scale in KSP is all over the place and the best thing would be to have both 2.5m and 1.875m SRB's with multiple segment varients, that way you can use the 2.5m for Shuttle replicas (since Shuttle parts are oversized) and 1.875 for things like SLS (since those are undersized).

If anything this means we need a 3.75m command pod and more 2.5m parts resized to 3.75m

 

[RocketSimplicity]

Wow! The developers at squad listened to this! New SRBs are coming to the game!

[Jestersage]

But that begs the question: So what is the old Kickback suppose to be? When it came out, it's suppose to be the Booster for SLS...

[RocketSimplicity]

I guess it will just be it's own thing, like the Flea and the Hammer. @Jestersage

[linuxgurugamer]

And of course, most of the wishlist item mentioned here are in my new mod which I’m developing, Modular Segmented SRBs.  7 parts, of which there are 3 types of motors, each provided by itself or with a 2m segment already attached, and SRB segments in the following sized: 1.25m, 1.875m, 2.5m.  The stack segment has three sizes, 2m, 4m, and 8m.  Obviously all engines will have versions for each size