How to make an SRB ignite one detached.

[venku122]

Is there a way to edit the cfg so a SRB ignites once its been detached from a radial decoupler? Im trying to build a carrier but once I drop the SRB powered planes they just fall without ignition . Any help would be appreciated

[Andras]

IIRC it's not supported yet. It's not just a matter of editing the cfg.

You can activate the SRBs first, then detach them though.

[Kryten]

IIRC it's not supported yet. It's not just a matter of editing the cfg.

Actually, now it is, although I don't think anyone's made use of it yet.

According to the readme file;

* Parts now have an ActivatesEvenIfDisconnected parameter on the cfg to allow them to be activated after jettisoning

[Tim_Barrett]

You can't do that yet, but you can ignite and detach at the same time i suppose

[NovaSilisko]

Fire them, then detach very quickly is all I can offer.

[Causeless]

Actually, now it is, although I don't think anyone's made use of it yet.

According to the readme file;

Damn, I remember reading that, then while making a rocket, I needed to activate a booster after it had jettisoned, and I looked all over the wiki to find that, because I swore I saw it, and I eventually game up and decided I imagined it. Never had I thought to look in the readme again... Damn. Time to edit that cfg files for those back-firing rockets!

[foamyesque]

Me, I'll be making missiles.

[rdfox]

Please tell me you'll be making a Sidewinder-level (five-sector bang-bang logic) guidance system for them, too! ;P

[HarvesteR]

* Parts now have an ActivatesEvenIfDisconnected parameter on the cfg to allow them to be activated after jettisoning

This is already in as of version 0.9, and it works. The parachutes use this parameter to deploy when jettisoned. Just make sure the engines you want to activate are staged properly, and it should work.

By the way, the values for that parameter can be either True or False (or you can omit it altogether and it will default to false)

Cheers

[DoctorEvo]

Please tell me you'll be making a Sidewinder-level (five-sector bang-bang logic) guidance system for them, too! ;P

More importantly, tell us how you'll set it up to use proportional navigation instead of that obsolete tail-chasing nonsense.

[foamyesque]

Please tell me you'll be making a Sidewinder-level (five-sector bang-bang logic) guidance system for them, too! ;P

You'll be lucky if it'll fly in a straight line. >:|

[Itchono]

This is already in as of version 0.9, and it works. The parachutes use this parameter to deploy when jettisoned. Just make sure the engines you want to activate are staged properly, and it should work.

By the way, the values for that parameter can be either True or False (or you can omit it altogether and it will default to false)

Cheers

Yes we all saw that in the readme file but I just can't find it.

[DoctorEvo]

You'll be lucky if it'll fly in a straight line. >:|

SAS modules, my equestrian friend. SAS modules.

[rdfox]

More importantly, tell us how you'll set it up to use proportional navigation instead of that obsolete tail-chasing nonsense.

Well, AIM-9X got rid of that... I just thought that the original AIM-9A tail-chase logic would be more... Jeb-ish. 'It's followin' it, ain't that good enough for ya?!' ;P

[foamyesque]

SAS modules, my equestrian friend. SAS modules.

I'm thinking about 'em. It'll be interesting to test it and see how they behave once decoupled. The other issues are the decoupling itself (which may, depending on how its done, knock the missile off-direction from the start) and gravity (even if pointed straight, the flight path won't be).

At least, the issues I can see prior to testing. There might well be more.

[DoctorEvo]

I'm thinking about 'em. It'll be interesting to test it and see how they behave once decoupled. The other issues are the decoupling itself (which may, depending on how its done, knock the missile off-direction from the start) and gravity (even if pointed straight, the flight path won't be).

At least, the issues I can see prior to testing. There might well be more.

If you activate the SAS BEFORE firing, it should seek the heading you activated it at (unless it self-disables upon release).

And your missile may fly with a nose-up attitude, but so will your launch platform. Adjust weight, and number and type of winglets on the missile to tune how it tracks until it matches the launch platform's flight attitude.

[foamyesque]

TWR will change during flight, so an attitude that results in straight flight at one point will not do so at another. I don't think current controls are sophisticated enough to build a proper level-flight autopilot.

[DoctorEvo]

TWR will change during flight, so an attitude that results in straight flight at one point will not do so at another. I don't think current controls are sophisticated enough to build a proper level-flight autopilot.

Hmm, that's a good point. How did I miss that?

Well, if you're trying to maintain level-flight rather than a straight line, you COULD design an aircraft that had good positive-stability characteristics and roughly the proper amount of thrust to maintain level flight. I've attempted this, but not much can be done with stock winglets. Some .cfg editing could potentially make it viable though.

[foamyesque]

Yes, something with a very large fixed mass relative to it's fuel would certainly fly straighter. I suppose you could try making a fake airbreathing engine...

[DoctorEvo]

Yes, something with a very large fixed mass relative to it's fuel would certainly fly straighter. I suppose you could try making a fake airbreathing engine...

If all you're trying to make is a short-range missile, you shouldn't need all that much propellant anyways... (well, by rocketry standards, that is). But if you're making new parts anyways, the first thing you should try is cutting back on drag.

Oh, and I should probably have mentioned... most real missiles have engines that only burn for 2-4 seconds. Once the initial boost phase is over, mass is constant.

Well, AIM-9X got rid of that... I just thought that the original AIM-9A tail-chase logic would be more... Jeb-ish. 'It's followin' it, ain't that good enough for ya?!' ;P

Every Sidewinder ever made used proportional navigation. However, up until about the AIM-9L (I think), a tail-aspect firing position was necessary because the seeker wasn't sensitive enough for frontal-aspect firing. That doesn't mean the older ones used a tail-chasing pursuit algorithm, though.

[Herpderpsslerps]

I've been messing around with this, trying to make the dumb bomb from the wings and bombs pack a gliding bomb. So far failure. Thing spins like Jebs favorite toy once the engines light, now trying a different setup.

[Herpderpsslerps]

SUCCESS! Got them to go (more or less) Straight, tri symmetry fins and three of the orange tanks with two of Quadbits mini engines and fuel tanks on either side to help me get past the tower. The missile does have stub wings to help it stay going straighter, though it always ends up going sideways at some point because the SAS won't stay active once dropped from the lifter.

I was using my three hybrids to get this massive thing airborne, I need to balance them out still though as they are almost SSTO capable and that isn't kerbal.

ActivatesEvenIfDisconnected = True

Is the command line you need to get things to light off after dropping from the lifter.

The parts on this missile have been tweaked, I originally edited MMI's ion engine to act more like a jet engine and it works nicely as that, so I used it for the missile.

[Herpderpsslerps]

More success, I've made a copy of the H-77 series tanks and used the little rocket motor (modded to burn harder) Getting it to drop clean is a challenge and not blow up anything on the launch vehicle.

The pictures are dropping free, and igniting It maintains attitude pretty well until it is losing altitude.

[Herpderpsslerps]

I've made 1.75 meter rockets! using symmetrical 1.75 meter flange decouplers from Silisko's pack and the radial booster from Captain Slug I've made rotationally stabilized rockets!

Since the 1.75's are used to get the rocket airborne and the decouplers don't make them lose balance immediatly, using a radial booster you can get some pretty good flights out of them, now to see if I can get away with just one.

http://captainslug.com/temp/RadialBoosterPack2.2.zip

[CaptainSlug]

The problem I\'ve always had is that after a radial decoupler is triggered, the drag of the radial decoupler only affects the detached portion of the decoupler.

So unless you add a second radial decoupler that\'s vertically snapped on the other side of the missile you are trying to fire, the assymetrical drag is what will make its trajectory unstable.

Force imparted by the radial decoupler can contribute as well, and setting it too low tends to result in the missile colliding with the parent rocket/spaceplane.