Why are launch clamps debris?

[Filed.Teeth]

Only found one old thread that was never answered bringing this up.

Seems wrong.

Edited February 19 by Filed.Teeth

[Biggen]

No wonder I have so much damn debris on every launchpad! lol. Never figured out why it keeps moving me to different pads until they finally have me launching at the docks in the water until you posted this!

What dev thought this was a good idea? Goodness…

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, Biggen said:

No wonder I have so much damn debris on every launchpad! lol. Never figured out why it keeps moving me to different pads until they finally have me launching at the docks in the water until you posted this!

What dev thought this was a good idea? Goodness…

Agree, they should simply be removed Do not remove other stuff. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I'm glad someone realized what this was.

I kept seeing "Debris" at KSC and could never figure out what was there.

[Meecrob]

To be honest, they are always a pain to attach. If I don't have the rocket only slightly above the VAB floor, they look like stilts. Maybe I just didn't have the patience to figure them out. Either way, I'm glad I'm not missing anything by not using them.

[The Aziz]

They were counted as scrap in the original game as well. Only they cleared themselves out after launch.

8 hours ago, Meecrob said:

they are always a pain to attach

How? They're just like any surface attachable part.

8 hours ago, Meecrob said:

If I don't have the rocket only slightly above the VAB floor, they look like stilts

True, that needs to be sorted out. The clamps should place the assembly maybe 3 meters above ground.

Edit: oh wow

 

 

Edited February 20 by The Aziz

[Superfluous J]

22 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Edit: oh wow

Yeah I had intended to come back here and say I posted a suggestion but something shiny interrupted my train of thought.

[The Aziz]

36 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

something shiny interrupted my train of thought

I feel that

[Meecrob]

On 2/20/2024 at 6:36 AM, The Aziz said:

True, that needs to be sorted out. The clamps should place the assembly maybe 3 meters above ground.

You answered your own question. Its easier to just make a symmetrical rocket and not use clamps. They are literally superfluous unless you have an asymmetric design. I don't feel like moving my rocket to 3m above the VAB floor to make my rocket not look stupid on the launchpad. Its not like they are realistic; show me one real life rocket that has "launch clamps" like in KSP. There are launch clamps in real life, but they are not truss structures.
 

Edit: @The Aziz I totally mis-read what you said. My apologies. You are correct, and I agree with you. Seriously, sorry, ignore what I said above.

Edited February 23 by Meecrob

[Biggen]

11 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

You answered your own question. It’s easier to just make a symmetrical rocket and not use clamps. They are literally superfluous unless you have an asymmetric design. I don't feel like moving my rocket to 3m above the VAB floor to make my rocket not look stupid on the launchpad. It’s not like they are realistic; show me one real life rocket that has "launch clamps" like in KSP. There are launch clamps in real life, but they are not truss structures.

That still isn’t a good reason why clamps don’t clean themselves up after launch. Just because you don’t use them doesn’t mean they aren’t still poorly designed in the game code.

Edited February 21 by Biggen

[Meecrob]

20 minutes ago, Biggen said:

That still isn’t a good reason why clamps don’t clean themselves up after launch. Just because you don’t use them doesn’t mean they aren’t still broken.

Lol, please understand, I am not defending launch clamps being debris...in fact, I'm saying they are so stupid, I don't use them.

Edit: You are correct, they are totally broken. They have zero advantages that I have found. Maybe someone else has an advantage other than "its more realistic to not have a rocket sit on its engine bells"

Edited February 21 by Meecrob

[Kerbart]

18 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

They have zero advantages that I have found. Maybe someone else has an advantage other than "its more realistic to not have a rocket sit on its engine bells"

• Hold down a vehicle with atmospheric engines while they spool up before launch (yes a single T400 tank is all you need to get into orbit)
• Stabilize sketchy (aka "Kerbal") rockets that would otherwise topple over before launch
• Keep more boosters pointed up instead of dangling diagonally before launch
• If you want to launch a rocket at an angle instead of 90° upward they're very essential
• Opinions vary. It looks cool.

I dare say more than zero.

[Meecrob]

17 hours ago, Kerbart said:

If you want to launch a rocket at an angle instead of 90° upward they're very essential

Okay, but fins and thrust vectoring exist. If you want to use your mission architecture, then cool, more power to you. Most rockets launch vertically and use active guideance to aim themselves. If you want to make things "Kerbal" I don't have a counter argument. We have different goals in our assembly techniques, and we both have fun playing the game, so cool.

Other points: I have a quick video to show how you can make your own launch clamps at whatever height you want them...give me 5 minutes or so.

 

Edit:

Still debris, but you can control the height less annoyingly.

Edited February 21 by Meecrob

[Kerbart]

20 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Okay, but fins and thrust vectoring exist. If you want to use your mission architecture, then cool, more power to you. Most rockets launch vertically and use active guideance to aim themselves. If you want to make things "Kerbal" I don't have a counter argument. We have different goals in our assembly techniques, and we both have fun playing the game, so cool.

Other points: I have a quick video to show how you can make your own launch clamps at whatever height you want them...give me 5 minutes or so.

If we consider "you can macgyver something instead of needing this part" we can probably get rid of half the parts list. Angled launches do exist. Maybe I want to see if I can get something to orbit with zero input. Maybe I want to launch some ballistic missile. Maybe I want to replicate a real life nission where it's done.

The "challenge" was that there were zero reasons to use launch clamps. I merely pointed out that this is not the case.

[rogerawong]

On 2/20/2024 at 9:23 PM, Meecrob said:

They have zero advantages that I have found.

You save a few hundred dV depending on the rocket by starting 300 feet above the launchpad.

[Meecrob]

On 2/21/2024 at 7:32 PM, Kerbart said:

If we consider "you can macgyver something instead of needing this part" we can probably get rid of half the parts list. Angled launches do exist. Maybe I want to see if I can get something to orbit with zero input. Maybe I want to launch some ballistic missile. Maybe I want to replicate a real life nission where it's done.

The "challenge" was that there were zero reasons to use launch clamps. I merely pointed out that this is not the case.

I didn't "challenge" anything. I merely said, after people complained that launch clamps junk up their launchpad, that I personally do not use them because I cannot be bothered to mess around with making them not look stupid when I can just rest my rocket on the engine bells.

You are trying to re-create that rocket JAXA has that due to not being allowed to have ITAR-restricted guidance, they launch it passive-guided on an angle? Thats cool, I hope you are having a great time. It seems you think I have an issue with how you play or something. I really have more important things to care about. Don't use my launch clamp idea. I don't care.

Give me a bit, I think I have a workaround for your mission...

 

Edited February 23 by Meecrob

[Meecrob]

23 hours ago, rogerawong said:

You save a few hundred dV depending on the rocket by starting 300 feet above the launchpad.

Lol, wait til I'm done my launch clamp mod. I'm gonna make it so they go to geostationary and you only need like 45 cm/s of dv to orbit.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Meecrob said:

Lol, wait til I'm done my launch clamp mod. I'm gonna make it so they go to geostationary and you only need like 45 cm/s of dv to orbit.

There was a way to do that in KSP1 by editing the craft file. I never tried it but saw a picture and it was amusing. Looked like a janky Space Elevator.

[Meecrob]

8 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

There was a way to do that in KSP1 by editing the craft file. I never tried it but saw a picture and it was amusing. Looked like a janky Space Elevator.

Yeah, exactly, its hilarious! I love those videos where people exploited it.

 

(to people in general) Have I ever had a mission not make it off the launchpad, then added clamps and it worked? No. But I get that I design rockets in a certain way, as I'm sure everyone else designs rockets in their own way. I'm just saying that I, personally, am glad I'm not missing out on the debris accumulating on my launchpad by not using clamps. I hope everyone else is having fun in their own way.

 

On 2/21/2024 at 7:32 PM, Kerbart said:

I want to see if I can get something to orbit with zero input.

So this is enough to get the idea. I think I found a bug where the Kickback aims radial out for some reason, so I cheated and used some sepratrons. The only control I utilized was the spacebar. Everything else was just SAS on, but no target.
 

 

Edit: I apologize. I am being a jerk by not showing you what I did. Here is a video to explain. Honestly, most of it went out the window when I found the radial out bug. The first part of the video is too quick. I was trying to show I had the radial boosters offset vertically so the rocket was resting angled over a few degrees before launch.
 

 

Edited February 23 by Meecrob

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Have I ever had a mission not make it off the launchpad, then added clamps and it worked? No.

I haven't in KSP2, but in KSP1 I'd frequently have massive launchers lose engines and fuel tanks because they were sitting on the launch pad. Sometimes they'd just fall off, and at least once the weight of the craft caused an engine to explode. IIRC, the shifting of the launcher than caused the launchpad to explode.

Usually those were very odd constructions, though. Not something you'd normally make.

[Meecrob]

29 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

I haven't in KSP2, but in KSP1 I'd frequently have massive launchers lose engines and fuel tanks because they were sitting on the launch pad. Sometimes they'd just fall off, and at least once the weight of the craft caused an engine to explode. IIRC, the shifting of the launcher than caused the launchpad to explode.

Usually those were very odd constructions, though. Not something you'd normally make.

I don't mean to say I have never used clamps before. They are almost necessary if you make a shuttle design. My point is that I do agree with the people who say they suck in their current iteration.

Also, sometimes, maybe you have to just dock two huge things rather than launch something absurdly big?

Edited February 23 by Meecrob

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Meecrob said:

Also, sometimes, maybe you have to just dock two huge things rather than launch something absurdly big?

BLASPHEMER.

(rocks back and forth hugging his knees, repeating "must add moar boosters" over and over)

----

But no seriously yeah I agree their current iteration is meh. But it's not like it's that hard to remove them once you know they're there. You don't even need to leave the VAB to do it.

[Meecrob]

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

BLASPHEMER.

(rocks back and forth hugging his knees, repeating "must add moar boosters" over and over)

----

But no seriously yeah I agree their current iteration is meh. But it's not like it's that hard to remove them once you know they're there. You don't even need to leave the VAB to do it.

I think I have more failed huge rockets than ones I put my tail between my legs and did them in parts lol.

With regards to the launch clamps in their current form, hopefully the devs are aware, but I think they have lower hanging fruit. At the end of the day, its not the biggest deal the launch clamps aren't perfect kinda thing. They are avoidable for...I'll stick my neck out and say "most" designs.

Lol, thats gonna bite me, isn't it?

Edit: What I mean is that its not critical to your mission like the orbit decay or parachute bugs...both of which, as much as I want to complain, are being worked on and I have noticced an improvement.

Edited February 23 by Meecrob

[Filed.Teeth]

I just had one large ship that wouldn't get past the usual "Hit Launch button, fall apart on pad, Revert to launch"  sequence, so I tried 'em. That's what led to the original post. My stuff is designed symmetrically but maybe it hangs off the edge just enough, I dunno.

Until this particular payload, which is still nowhere near it's max, I could always do a revert and get stable on the pad. Maybe it's just parts count. As a holdover from KSP1, (where it cost game money) all my launchers achieve orbit before releasing payload, then deorbit and splash down. The payload is also going to be recoverable upon return, so between these two ships I've got, 653 parts, 357 of which are chutes.

Not using struts, had enough trouble with them already, back in the wobbly rocket versions.

Regardless, having to manually destroy launch clamps after a takeoff, no matter how you feel about them, seems silly, and like an easy fix.