Would it make sense to have bigger solid fuel boosters?

[demian_travis]

Solid fuel boosters are great - cheap, with a lot of blast and easy to use - just have a really brave Kerbal light a match and BOOOOM. The question is: The biggest one we have (so far) is the one we got with the Nasa update. All cool and dandy, but... vould they be bigger? maybe a REALLY large one to substitute wider initial parts? Although it does not have a throttle control after it is lit, the rocket can be tweaked on assembly. I think this could be quite useful to reduce cost (and steps) to send a lot of stuff upstairs... This is not a suggestion for a part, is a question of its efficiency... I guess.

[Random Tank]

Yeah, I love the Thor SRB's that KW Rocketry adds, so I'd love to see some bigguns in stock... They really help save some cash in .24 too, so being able to lift more with SRB's for cheaper I can only agree with.

This should be moved into suggestions though.

[demian_travis]

I forgot the main question, how dumb :B. Well. They have a thrust to weight ratio, right? a heavier rocket does not necessarily mean a faster one - it has more fuel. Would a wider rocket provide extra boom?

[astropapi1]

Longer = More boom

Wider = Longer boom

[lammatt]

The shuttle SRB from the NASA pack burns for 1.5min+ already, why would you want even bigger ones anyway?

[r_rolo1]

TBH I would like a smaller SRB , something between the RT-10 and the Sepratrons. It would make pure solid sat launchers far easier to do ...

[r4pt0r]

a 1.25m booster?

[Moar Boosters]

The shuttle SRB from the NASA pack burns for 1.5min+ already, why would you want even bigger ones anyway?

It's still not really big enough to make a decent shuttle with.

[Jouni]

The shuttle SRB from the NASA pack burns for 1.5min+ already, why would you want even bigger ones anyway?

They're nice boosters for small rockets, where the main engine is a Skipper. 2.5 m SRBs with thrust around 1500-2500 kN would be useful for bigger rockets.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

Longer = More boom

Wider = Longer boom

I was going to say this, this is also the case in real life as well.

[montyben101]

The shuttle SRB from the NASA pack burns for 1.5min+ already, why would you want even bigger ones anyway?

Because compared to my rockets they're tiny.

Edited August 2, 2014 by montyben101

[Wanderfound]

The shuttle SRB from the NASA pack burns for 1.5min+ already, why would you want even bigger ones anyway?

Repent; you have strayed from the Kerbal way...

[Comrade Jenkens]

I think a 0.625m one is needed as well. On my 1.25m launchers I'm having to use stacks of Oscar b tanks to make nice looking boosters.

[Whovian]

TBH I would like a smaller SRB , something between the RT-10 and the Sepratrons. It would make pure solid sat launchers far easier to do ...

I think a 0.625m one is needed as well. On my 1.25m launchers I'm having to use stacks of Oscar b tanks to make nice looking boosters.

I know Novapunch adds some small SRBs and maybe KW Rocketry does too. Some of Novapunch's are only on par with Separatrons and I can't remember if there are any bigger small ones, though.

[GusTurbo]

I definitely think more boosters are in order. Smaller and larger.

[astroboy820]

Have you tried using TweakScale? You can have the smallest SRB as 62.5 cm I believe and I want to say a max of 5 m.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80234-24-2-TweakScale-Rescale-Everything!-(v1-33-2014-07-28-20-00-UTC)

[Woopert]

1.875 meter, segmented boosters are a MUST add option, IMO.

2.5 meter boosters would be nice as well, for Titan III / IV style rockets.

[GoSlash27]

I'll put on my "heretic" hat and go have a seat beside lammatt. I can't fathom why anybody would need SRBs bigger than what we already have. You can already do everything in this game with the boosters we have available if you work it right.

/scratchin' mah head...

-Slashy

[No one]

I'll put on my "heretic" hat and go have a seat beside lammatt. I can't fathom why anybody would need SRBs bigger than what we already have. You can already do everything in this game with the boosters we have available if you work it right.

/scratchin' mah head...

-Slashy

If you work it right you can do everything with Sepratrons. That doesn't mean that all we need are sepratrons. I think that larger SRBs would be useful, in particular wider ones. I mean, yes I can just use 8x symmetry to attach 8 S1s to a rocket, but it would create much less lag if I just had one SRB with the size and power of the rockomax-sized parts.

[Jouni]

I'll put on my "heretic" hat and go have a seat beside lammatt. I can't fathom why anybody would need SRBs bigger than what we already have. You can already do everything in this game with the boosters we have available if you work it right.

/scratchin' mah head...

There are two main ways to use SRBs. The first is to give the rocket a bit more thrust and delta-v in order to lift bigger payloads. For this purpose, the existing SRBs are already good enough. In the second approach, the boosters do the real work, while the "main" engines are really second-stage engines with a bit of extra fuel. Think about the Space Shuttle, for example, with big powerful boosters and puny little main engines. We don't have boosters like them in the stock game at the moment.

[Renegrade]

I daresay I'd love to see 2.5m and 0.625m SRBs. SRBs have interesting limitations that make them fun to design with, and they get heavy use in the real world due to the cost / store-ability advantage, and thus deserve a fair representation in KSP.

Especially since we now have parts for liquid fuel from 0.625 to 3.75m in size..

[LethalDose]

There are two main ways to use SRBs. The first is to give the rocket a bit more thrust and delta-v in order to lift bigger payloads. For this purpose, the existing SRBs are already good enough. In the second approach, the boosters do the real work, while the "main" engines are really second-stage engines with a bit of extra fuel. Think about the Space Shuttle, for example, with big powerful boosters and puny little main engines. We don't have boosters like them in the stock game at the moment.

I gotta disagree. This big SRBs produce as much thrust as a Skipper and more than 3 T-30s, despite being 1.25m in diameter. In fact, the large SRBs are the strongest 1.25m engines in the game, and unless I missed something, the BACCs are the second strongest.

IMO, these SRBs are able to do plenty o' "real work".

[Jouni]

I gotta disagree. This big SRBs produce as much thrust as a Skipper and more than 3 T-30s, despite being 1.25m in diameter. In fact, the large SRBs are the strongest 1.25m engines in the game, and unless I missed something, the BACCs are the second strongest.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the existing SRBs are good for small rockets using a Skipper as the main engine. For bigger rockets, I'd like to have 2.5 m SRBs with thrust in the 1500-2500 kN range.

The Space Shuttle SRB was the most powerful rocket engine in the world by a wide margin. It was 80% more powerful than the F-1 and 60% more powerful than the RD-171. I'd like to have something similar in the game.

[problemecium]

It is ALWAYS a good idea to have a bigger version of EVERYTHING. ;P

It's KSP after all. Moar boosters. Bigger boosters is just another way to have moar - it means moar booster per booster.

[BunTiggly]

Dude, it always makes sense to add bigger boosters.