Nose cones are not useless, and people need to stop saying that they are

[KITTYONFYRE]

Nose cones do not reduce drag, as they should, but they DO add stability to a vessel. This was written in patch notes of (I believe) update .22. "Nose cones actually add stability in atmosphere" or something.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53061-The-Grand-0-22-Discussion-Thread?highlight=Grand+.22+discussion

Yep. Look under "parts" then stand corrected!

[SlinkyBlue]

If I am not mistaken, that is referring to the previously SAS nose cone, now atmosphere science module, that was used for flight.

[Boris_T_Roach]

I've started putting aerodynamic nose cones on my ships because they look cool.... plus they fly off really well with 9 seperons* when you fire them off at 40km up

Boris

* thats 8 evenly spaced and 1 at an angle to make sure it does'nt hit the rocket

[SofusRud]

If I am not mistaken, that is referring to the previously SAS nose cone, now atmosphere science module, that was used for flight.

No its the regular nosecones. they have a 0.1 drag coefficient now rather than the normal 0.2. This means that when placed on the front end of a rocket (in front of the center of mass), the center of drag gets pushed downwards, adding stability as the end with lowest drag tends to point prograde.

[purpletarget]

That is correct. Prior to .22, some of the nosecone parts had drag values at .2 or higher, making them counterproductive in terms of improving performance, since all they did was add dry mass at best, and extra drag as well at worst.

With the change in .22+, they now improve the drag stability of the parts, as SofusRud mentioned. The jury may still be out as to the actual trade-off between the drag savings and stability advantages being worth the mass, and that's mostly an individual engineering preference. But they certainly don't hurt the way they used too.

[Maxwell Fern]

The alleged "stability" they're supposed to provide does not outweigh the mass and drag they add.

If your rocket somehow tends to flip while in the atmosphere, you'd better add controls such as surfaces and/or reaction wheels.

Nosecones are, for now, useless. Or anyway not useful enough to be used.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Maxwell Fern

[KITTYONFYRE]

The alledged "stability" they're supposed to provide does not outweigh the mass and drag they add.

If your rocket somehow tends to flip while in the atmosphere, you'd better add controls such as surfaces and/or reaction wheels.

Nosecones are, for now, useless. Or anyway not useful enough to be used.

Funny, I added another set of reaction wheels and did not get stability, but adding nose cones too helped greatly.

[The Jedi Master]

I started adding nosecones after 0.22 for this very reason.

[Dispatcher]

Nose cones are good. Especially when they hold fuel. See my sig line.

[Whirligig Girl]

If I am not mistaken, that is referring to the previously SAS nose cone, now atmosphere science module, that was used for flight.

No, the pure aero cones have some aerodynamic stuff that aids in stability.

[Kasuha]

I did some testing with them some time ago and their main property is that they have high "angular drag". That means they decrease speed at which the ship turns.

Imgur album is below.

Ship equipped by two SRBs with cones and two without was turning to the side with cones, meaning they still slow down the ship.

When released from the ship, nose cones first cause coned SRBs to turn slower, but then other properties cause them to turn more so coned SRBs end up falling with the cone down, while non-coned SRBs fall horizontally.

The flight test shows nicely that coned SRBs turn slower than non-coned.

In total, the effect can be seen, but is IMO still too weak to make them useful.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Kerbart]

They make my rockets look better.

That increases the pleasure I have in playing the game.

For a game, that is extremely useful.

I don't see how anybody can call nose cones "useless."

[JoCRaM]

here you go, a test I did to demonstrate the effect of nose cones

the longer your rocket, the more pronounced the effect - cones in front of CoM = stability, cones behind = instability - which is not the case if it was "angular drag". Kasula's "turning slower" and landing cone down are explained by the same prograde stability that pushing the centre of drag behind the center of mass causes.

however, for the effect to be of much use. the nose cones have to constitute a significant portion of the mass of your vessel... which makes them a bit of a problem. use canards instead.

Edited December 20, 2013 by JoCRaM

[WafflesToo]

I did some testing with them some time ago and their main property is that they have high "angular drag". That means they decrease speed at which the ship turns.

Imgur album is below.

Ship equipped by two SRBs with cones and two without was turning to the side with cones, meaning they still slow down the ship.

When released from the ship, nose cones first cause coned SRBs to turn slower, but then other properties cause them to turn more so coned SRBs end up falling with the cone down, while non-coned SRBs fall horizontally.

The flight test shows nicely that coned SRBs turn slower than non-coned.

In total, the effect can be seen, but is IMO still too weak to make them useful

All that proves is that they have mass, pulling the CoG out of line of the CoT.

Try setting up two sets of SRBs in a drag-race with each other and see which pulls ahead as they pick-up speed.

Edited December 20, 2013 by WafflesToo
I hate my phone!!!

[Kasuha]

If you check the nose cone's parameters you'll realize they have 0.1 drag. That's why they turn your experimental ship around when they're at the back. That has nothing to do with their other properties.

[Kasuha]

All that proves is that they have mass, pulling the CoG out of line of the CoT.

Try setting up two sets of SRBs in a drag-race with each other and see which pulls ahead as they pick-up speed.

In powered flight, the one without nose cone wins.

In unpowered fall, the one with nose cone wins.

This is not FAR, the one with nose cone has less TWR. I even tried that. With nose cone it went to 82673 m, without one 83725 m.

I understand these pictures are not extremely readable. It's alwys good idea to run these tests yourself and see what happens.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Kasuha

[JoCRaM]

If you check the nose cone's parameters you'll realize they have 0.1 drag. That's why they turn your experimental ship around when they're at the back. That has nothing to do with their other properties.

their main property is that they improve prograde stability, as demonstrated in the video.

[Kasuha]

their main property is that they improve prograde stability, as demonstrated in the video.

Heh, I never said they don't. I only said that in my opinion the effect is too small for them to become useful.

[Markus Reese]

They look good so I have always used them.

[Execute13]

They look good, and they're no longer totally worthless. If you are regularly running payload budgets so fine that you can't afford nosecones, you can probably improve your launcher.

[maccollo]

With the current drag model there is no reason to "add" stability, because drag is so uniform and stable that you get all the stability you need from gimbaling engines and reaction wheels.

[Commissioner Tadpole]

Useless or not, nosecones shall always be added to my rockets because they are pretty. ^.^

[zxczxczbfg]

I believe it's been stated that nose cones have lower drag than most parts, meaning that if your ship has an engine on the back, a nose cone on the front, and a pod and fuel tank in the middle, the ship tends to stay pointed prograde during flight. Which is good. Usually.

[barrenwaste]

The importance of the nosecone is dependent on the type of ship you are building. If you are building a straight up rocket, then the current physics of the game make a nosecone a detriment. The added weight and drag reduce the fuel efficiency and increase the thrust needed. On the other hand, with atmo craft like planes and many ssto's the nosecone is quite useful. Platforms that spend anytime in horizontal flight need the center of mass to be in front of the center of lift. This can cause problems because the most massive parts are most often attached to the rear and middle of the platform. While the nosecone doesn't add much counter balance, each little bit adds up. The balancing effect of the nosecones is also more apparent and useful in horizontal flight where you often need to add stability without moving the center of lift forward any further. In many cases you can increase the flight performance of your craft by using cones where you had placed your ram air intakes. This means you don't need the canards and won't push the center of lift forward.

TL;DR: The benefit of the nosecone is dependent on the flight characteristics of the craft you are building. Rockets no, planes yes.

[Sof]

Nose cones are useful in FAR modded games.

Otherwise they are just there to look pretty and don't really do anything other than act as a place holder for when Squad gets around to adding realistic aerodynamics.