Any point for Nose Cones?

[USAGuerrilla]

They seem to make performance worse not better. Rockets don't go as high with them as without!

[Pondafarr]

stock physics says no, they only add drag and mass.

With Ferram Aerospace, yes, they reduce atmospheric drag and help stabilize the rocket.

So....it depends.

[Red Iron Crown]

They help with directional stability in stock KSP, too, that was a tweak made a version or two ago IIRC. Other than that, they're dead weight and drag.

They do make rockets look better, which cannot be ignored.

[cantab]

Yeah. They add mass and drag, but because they add *less* drag per unit mass than most parts (expressed by the in-game "Drag" value) they can help stabilise the rocket. Basically a rocket is stable with low-drag parts at the front and high-drag parts at the rear. Conversely draggy parts up front, such as the cupola, make the rocket want to flip.

[Felsmak]

Yes; they look fabulous.

[Tortoise]

Less drag with FAR

[Red Iron Crown]

I can't hold it in any more.

Nosecones have a point, it's right at the top of them.

There, I feel better now that I've released the pent up pun.

[DunaRocketeer]

The aesthetic benefits far outweigh any defecit in vehicle performance, imho. It's not difficult to offset the weight and drag issues. Make your rockets pretty!

[Jarin]

The aesthetic benefits far outweigh any defecit in vehicle performance, imho. It's not difficult to offset the weight and drag issues. Make your rockets pretty!

This is basically my exact outlook. Also they make nice easy places to stick angled separatrons for my outer stages.

[Kasuha]

Nosecones have lower drag coefficient so any ship using standard parts and having a nosecone mounted somewhere on it will naturally turn with that nosecone in front in direction of its fall. It may take some time to do so, though, since nosecones have relative small mass and that results in only relative small torque on the ship. The longer and thinner the ship is (assuming the nosecone is on its top) the stronger the effect.

Putting nosecones on tops of boosters which end at half of the whole ship length is pointless (except for aesthetics).

Even better than nosecones are inline docking ports - they have small drag (even smaller than nosecones) and substantial mass, so they stabilize the ship rather strongly. If you have a part with high drag at the top (typically the cupola module), stabilizing the ship using a few inline docking ports mounted nearby is a good idea.

[Javster]

Nice pun

No, as others said, they are aesthetic.

[Red Iron Crown]

Even better than nosecones are inline docking ports - they have small drag (even smaller than nosecones) and substantial mass, so they stabilize the ship rather strongly. If you have a part with high drag at the top (typically the cupola module), stabilizing the ship using a few inline docking ports mounted nearby is a good idea.

I wonder if that's why the mass of the inline docking port got bumped up so much in the last update. A pleasant side effect, even if it makes the port itself inefficient masswise versus the other ports.

[problemecium]

They're mainly aesthetic, but as others have mentioned, the drag coefficient on nosecones is much smaller than that on most parts. Since KSP simulates drag by multiplying the average drag coefficient of all parts on the ship by the ship's mass (roughly... I'm sure I've oversimplified a bit), nosecones do reduce the overall drag of the ship. That said, I haven't done the math to see if that makes up for the added mass - my guess is probably not.

But ships with nosecones do look a lot less stupid than flying oil barrels.

[cantab]

Yes; they look fabulous.

Incidentally, this I have to dispute. I'm fine with the smaller ones, but I think the 2.5 m nosecone looks derpy.

[SpenSpaceCorp]

I can't hold it in any more.

Nosecones have a point, it's right at the top of them.

There, I feel better now that I've released the pent up pun.

Haha, thats... PUNNY!

[RSwordsman]

I've got FAR, but even if I didn't use it, I'd be inclined to add them. What good is a rocket if it doesn't look awesome?

[Dispatcher]

Shameless plug. My nose "cones" and adapters are fueled. I'll be adding some more and will have to put them up at the cursed site.

[USAGuerrilla]

LOL. I think I am more a science person than art so it's hard for me to justify adding weight/drag to my rocket.

[USAGuerrilla]

I just did experiments. Put nose cones and launched a rocket, removed nose cones and launched it again. One with nose cones goes a bit lower than one without. So IMHO they are a waste.

[Werwolf]

I can't hold it in any more.

Nosecones have a point, it's right at the top of them.

There, I feel better now that I've released the pent up pun.

That must have been killin ya....

[RocketBlam]

This is basically my exact outlook. Also they make nice easy places to stick angled separatrons for my outer stages.

Often when I try this, if the separatron is pointed at a full fuel tank, it explodes.

[Kasuha]

Just for fun, I made this ridiculous rocket to demonstrate nose cones effect.

The flight plan is a newbie launch to orbit:

• full throttle
  
• ascend vertically to 10 km
  
• turn east 45 degrees
  
• wait till your apoapsis rises to 75 km. Remember to stage when your boosters get empty.
  
• (kill throttle)
  
• (coast to apoapsis)
  
• (circularize)
  

You don't need to execute last three steps to save time, the matter is exiting atmosphere. It is important to stick to the flight plan as close as possible.

First, try it with the rocket as is.

Second, decouple all nose cones shortly after launch by pressing 1 and try the same flight plan with now lighter rocket (the difference is 11 tons!).

Compare your experience

Craft file

Edited May 31, 2014 by Kasuha

[Madrias]

Nosecones make my planes look better. Enough said.