0.22: How do nose cones improve stability during atmospheric flight?

[lewisd]

Has anyone had a chance to test this or try it out at all? Any idea how exactly that works? The release notes are the first I heard of this change.

[roosterr]

Gad you asked, I dont know. BUT I am happy to hear the nose cones will be helpful instead of a detriment.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Presumably the same way a command pod always turns its downside into the airstream when it falls. They just exert a force that, in the air, attempts to keep the craft pointing forward.

[Rockfire]

As someone who's always built aerodynamic rockets.. this is great news.

[lewisd]

Presumably the same way a command pod always turns its downside into the airstream when it falls. They just exert a force that, in the air, attempts to keep the craft pointing forward.

Given the primitiveness of the aerodynamic stuff in KSP, I always assumed that was just a function of center of mass and center of drag being different. I wouldn't think with something as light as a nosecone that would have much effect at all, but I could be wrong.

I wish I was going to be home after work tonight to play with 0.22, but alas, I have plans.

[Eric S]

Given the primitiveness of the aerodynamic stuff in KSP, I always assumed that was just a function of center of mass and center of drag being different. I wouldn't think with something as light as a nosecone that would have much effect at all, but I could be wrong.

Given that the nosecone has a lower than average drag coefficient (in 0.22, at least), that may be what they're referring to, though because of it's low mass, I can't see it being that strong.

[lewisd]

Given that the nosecone has a lower than average drag coefficient (in 0.22, at least), that may be what they're referring to, though because of it's low mass, I can't see it being that strong.

Hmm, you're right. From looking at the part.cfg file (all I can do right now) the "Aerodynamic Nose Cone" has gone from 0.3 drag to 0.1. "angularDrag" is 0.5 (unchanged), so maybe the difference between those is what helps force parts to move through the air in a certain orientation, the fact that the drag on an angle is higher than the drag straight on. The larger difference now (0.4 vs 0.2) would make this force stronger... if that's how things work.

[RocketPilot573]

Wait, so nosecones on the back make the craft spin around? Great...

[Whirligig Girl]

Presumably the same way a command pod always turns its downside into the airstream when it falls. They just exert a force that, in the air, attempts to keep the craft pointing forward.

Actually that's because the chute has more drag than the pod.

[Superfluous J]

As someone who's always built aerodynamic rockets.. this is great news.

As someone who's always eschewed aerodynamics for efficient launchers... this is great news for me as well.

I want (real, beneficial in the game) uses for ALL of the parts, and finally nosecones have a use. I can't wait to try 'em out in my next launch.

[numerobis]

Hmm, you're right. From looking at the part.cfg file (all I can do right now) the "Aerodynamic Nose Cone" has gone from 0.3 drag to 0.1. "angularDrag" is 0.5 (unchanged), so maybe the difference between those is what helps force parts to move through the air in a certain orientation, the fact that the drag on an angle is higher than the drag straight on. The larger difference now (0.4 vs 0.2) would make this force stronger... if that's how things work.

Angular drag refers to drag against angular momentum; it does not mean that you get drag when the object is not aligned with the flight path.

Moving from 0.3 drag to 0.1 drag means nose cones help push the center of drag behind the center of mass. But they're so light I doubt it matters much.

[Nabiscovinco]

*incoming stupidity*

Nose cones actual make a rocket move better in the atmosphere now?

[tavert]

It sounds like they changed the drag coefficient of some parts, but I highly doubt (at least until I see testing to indicate otherwise) they dramatically changed the drag model. Adding parts adds to the total drag acting on a craft, unless there is now some sort of shielding or cross-sectional area effect.

[HoneyFox]

I thought that it will detect the part attached to the nose-cone's only attach node and the nose cone will decrease that part's drag coefficient dynamically but now it seems like i guessed wrong.

[patrickcanttype]

This requires science!

[Prime flux]

I did a small test by launching a probe core+ battery with SRB straight up.

One with and one without a aerodynamic nose-cone.

The rocket without a nose-cone reached higher altitude. 44083m compared to 42853m with a nosecone.

apparently the areodynamic shape does not offset the extra weight of the nose-cone

- Nose Cones now actually help with improving stability during atmospheric flight.

My bad. the change is about stability in atmospheric flight, which my test does not cover.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Prime flux

[sgt_flyer]

they would need to apply a 0.x drag multiplicator to all parts placed inline below a nosecone to really change something to the drag model (would be a simple solution i think - but much less difficult than FAR ex : the nosecone keeps it's drag, but all drag from the parts with the same size attached inline behind it is multiplied by 0.5 - here halving the resultant drag of the pieces without risking to have negative drag (which would prove... interesting to say the least )

Edited October 17, 2013 by sgt_flyer

[Dispatcher]

I tried the new nose cones on one of my current projects (SSTO rocket plane, no jets). Its hard to tell whether any improvement in flight is due to the cones, or to the improved SAS (which I use to save fuel). I'm betting that most of that is due to the SAS.

I suppose testing can be done without SAS using a simple rocket; with and without cone. If anyone reading this is going to do (or has done) such tests, let us know the results please.

[Starwhip]

As someone who's always built aerodynamic rockets.. this is great news.

Yes it is, isn't it? I always spend the time to make them this way, nosecones on fuel tanks and sepatrons to each stage to make sure the rocket goes flawlessly.

[allmappedout]

Someone needs to call Scott Manley up and get him Sciencing this conundrum!

[lazarus1024]

I think before SQUAD adds better aerodynamics they need to add payload fairings to the game...otherwise it'll cripple a lot of designs.

Payload Fairings plus the mention of reducing drag by some amount to everything below a nose cone in a stack could go a long way to making more realistic rocket designs without a complete overhaul of the aerodynamic system.

Amusingly my son (5 1/2) whenever he is "investigating" something, like a rock, or how a clock works or something, calls it "Sciencing".

For example "Daddy, I am going to go an science that leaf".

Its AWE-SOME.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Hi Guys,

I just read the Release Notes of 0.22 and I discovered something yet unexplained or maybe I missed it.

* Parts:

- Added new scientific parts, like the Materials Bay and the Mystery Gooâ„¢ Canister. Also added experiments to many existing parts.

- The old science sensors now have a purpose. They all have their own experiments which enable them to log scientific data.

- The antennas are now functional, and can be used to transmit science data back to Kerbin, if recovering the physical experiments is not an option.

- Antennas consume massive amounts of power when transmitting. Make sure you have fresh batteries in.

- Added a new deployable antenna, which is an intermediate model compared to the two original ones.

- Completely remodelled the Communotron 88-88 Comms Dish. The new mesh uses the same placement rules so it won't break ships that have it.

- Nose Cones now actually help with improving stability during atmospheric flight.

- Revised a lot of part values and descriptions, in preparation for them actually meaning something in the near future.

- Overhauled the landing legs and gears, they now have proper shock-absorbing suspensions.

What exactly was improved on the Cones because I only used them for a cosmetic reason until now.

Do you save Fuel while pushing through the atmosphere or does the craft simply tend less to tip over or start to roll?

Thank you guys in advance.

Edit: Ouh, my thread has been moved here. So I just follow the conversation

Edited October 17, 2013 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[tfabris]

The rocket without a nose-cone reached higher altitude. 44083m compared to 42853m with a nosecone.

apparently the areodynamic shape does not offset the extra weight of the nose-cone

My bad. the change is about stability in atmospheric flight, which my test does not cover.

No, but it answers my question, which was: "In addition to what they said in the release notes, did they also improve the nose cones so that they reduce the craft's overall drag?" Your science test seems to say, no, they do not improve overall drag. Thanks for doing that test!

[Procyon]

did a few tests to look at stability, sent a very simple pod up with and without nosecones and no sas (different sizes to test the big ones to) and waited to see when it deviated from the projected flight path ( spun out ). didn't see any difference between the flights over several flights each, then tried with SAS to see if there were any difference in acceleration. no real difference that I could tell.

[Rizendell]

they don't. the drag coefficients all get added together, so its still a pointless part that does nothing but add drag and mass. Maybe one day they will reduce the drag of the parts under them, but not in .22.