parts [1.12.x] Sounding Rockets! Start small. Dream big!

[RoverDude]

Ok your issue is the engine did not fall off.

- - - Updated - - -

Also - use those nice enclosed trusses I give you!!!

[biohazard15]

I'm landing this:

It can sometimes survive the surface landing, but it cannot survive splashdown no matter what.

Crash tolerances (or parachutes) need to be buffed. Rockets made of porcelain is NOT fun.

[goldenpsp]

Ok your issue is the engine did not fall off.

- - - Updated - - -

Also - use those nice enclosed trusses I give you!!!

Did not see the trusses until later.

How is the engine supposed to fall off? Keeping in mind that you don't get the small stack separator out of the gate. Sure once you unlock some nodes you can use that, but I think the issue being brought up was the utility of the parts you get out of the gate at the start of the game.

[RoverDude]

The engines normally fall of automagically

[goldenpsp]

The engines normally fall of automagically

Hmm. I have tried multiple configurations and no joy. My Kerbals must be using Super glue.

[RoverDude]

I've heard of this bug. could not repro tho

[Svm420]

I think it happens when the motor is the root part instead of the truss

[goldenpsp]

I've heard of this bug. could not repro tho

The only relevant info I could think of is install order. I started with a clean 1.0 install and added the USI mods in the order they were listed in my downloads folder. So sounding rockets was copied over after MKS and before SrvPack. When copying I did allow files to be overwritten, as I assumed all the latest builds had the same versions of the common folders (usitools etc).

[futrtrubl]

Where is KSP installed? Since it's the plugin and not the parts that aren't working it might be a program files issue. Also I see you have parts radially attached to the SRB. Does it still happen if they are not?

[goldenpsp]

Where is KSP installed? Since it's the plugin and not the parts that aren't working it might be a program files issue. Also I see you have parts radially attached to the SRB. Does it still happen if they are not?

It's not a program files issue. But it could be what SVM suggests as I had been picking the motor first. I will try again when I get home from work.

[Amram]

I think it happens when the motor is the root part instead of the truss

Been there, done that, complete agree, being the root part will cause the motors to not drop off, simply not using them as root resolves it.

[Holyvision]

Been there, done that, complete agree, being the root part will cause the motors to not drop off, simply not using them as root resolves it.

I can re-re-confirm this as well -- when I'm using the sounding rockets on a new game, I make the science-holding truss the first part, and everything always works out perfect.

I have also had zero issues with the parts not being able to survive a landing when using the sounding rocket parachutes as well. The small truss + 2 experiments + 2 sounding batteries + sounding control module + small parachute nosecone will always give me ~7.1m/s touch-down speed.

[Svm420]

I can re-re-confirm this as well -- when I'm using the sounding rockets on a new game, I make the science-holding truss the first part, and everything always works out perfect.

I have also had zero issues with the parts not being able to survive a landing when using the sounding rocket parachutes as well. The small truss + 2 experiments + 2 sounding batteries + sounding control module + small parachute nosecone will always give me ~7.1m/s touch-down speed.

I have parts break running all 4 experiments, avionic package and 2 batteries all on the truss of course . Blows up almost every time. Thats ok I have switched to using real chutes much better control.

[Zeenobit]

I have parts break running all 4 experiments, avionic package and 2 batteries all on the truss of course . Blows up almost every time. Thats ok I have switched to using real chutes much better control.

I'm experiencing this as well. At 7 m/s landing, everything just explodes. Tried this with the small 0.35 meter parachute.

[SyberSmoke]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

The Payload:

1- Avionics Unit

2- Batteries from Jebs remote

1 of each experiment

1 - 0.35m parachute nosecone

The problem: The small nature of the sounding rocket payload truss causes collision mesh overlap.

The Result: The payload can be partially or wholly destroyed because of the overlap.

Testing:

The above album demonstrates the effect. Both launches used the same payload. Speed at time of full parachute deploy was 7m/s apx (it fluctuated between 6.3 and 8).

The first launch was fired toward terrain. The result as the truss intersected with the terrain sinking about half way before sitting on the terrain. This of coarse also meant that the avionics package and two batteries also hit the terrain and were destroyed.

The second launch was into the ocean. The on parachute deploy, the same speed of 7 m/s occurred. In this case the effect was worse. On impact the truss started bouncing violently on the water. At first only the avionics package and batteries were destroyed. But after three more bounces, all experiments and the nose cone were also removed from the truss.

The simple solution for terrain would be to add a second truss adding more space for the impact. But this would also increase the weight of the rocket and parachute. But for water landings a second truss did not matter as it would bounce violently and the payload would be destroyed.

Permanent Solutions:

1. Increase the crash tolerance of the experiments so they can withstand the impact at a reasonable speed. But this may not solve the issue with water landings.

2. Add an additional survival mechanism, a 0.35m and 0.625m inflatable inline cushion. The cushion can have a larger collision mesh that KSP will have less of an issue understanding. It can also act as a float for in water and could be a reentry shield for the rockets. After all...I am sure some one will make one that can get to space.

[RoverDude]

Option 3: Pack fewer things in the truss or use two trusses

[skbernard]

something i saw this morning while running with this was that no matter the orientation of the avionics package, the new engineer inspector thing always says its on wrong (not pointing up)...

[SyberSmoke]

Option 3: Pack fewer things in the truss or use two trusses

As suggested, removed two experiments. Results.

Water Landing: Near total loss - one experiment survived. Speed at impact: 6.8-7.3 m/s Payload bounced four times destroying avionics, batteries, and one experiment. Truss flipped rapidly.

Ground Landing: Payload survived

Result: water is still problematic.

Second suggestion: Add a second truss (Testing for water only) Two experiment payload.

Results: Total Loss of payload. Speed after Parachute deploy: 7.3-8.2 m/s. The second truss worked for the first two bounces on the water. But after that the payload flipped impacting the water destroying all elements except for a battery. The trusses kept bouncing for one minute after when I reverted to VAB.

Solutions presented offered limited results. For launches that land on terrain they worked. But for water landings to get over water science, the proposed alterations resulted in near total loss of payloads.

[biohazard15]

I think I would drop this mod.

Why, you ask?

Because its author decided to go "pseudo-hardcore" way.

I'm not against difficulty - it's cool. You have to learn how to overcome things. But "pseudo-hardcore" (note the quote marks) is different. It's basically "this is hard because we want it to be hard no matter what". It's like "we give you one life and if you fail, you start again, and there is no saves or checkpoints".

If you make something that has a nicely defined learning curve - it's fun. KSP goes that way.

If you intentionally break some unwritten laws (like "do not make start parts that has crash tolerance LESS than your start chute can mitigate") - this is NOT fun.

Goodbye, Sounding Rockets. It was a nice experience.

[Sajuuk001]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but could we get a high isp in vacuum liquid fuel engine and a science storage payload? Might help keep the parts relevant into the mid to late game.

[SyberSmoke]

I think I would drop this mod.

Why, you ask?

Because its author decided to go "pseudo-hardcore" way.

--- snip ---

Goodbye, Sounding Rockets. It was a nice experience.

How is this mod hard? How is it even pseudo hard. These are small, cheep, for science only rockets that you launch to progress some in the science tree.

It is not like you need to strap a Kerbal onto the thing with duct tape and set it so they can not respawn. I do not get your perspective here...or may be you just missed the intent and purpose of the mod.

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but could we get a high isp in vacuum liquid fuel engine and a science storage payload? Might help keep the parts relevant into the mid to late game.

I think that goes against the core concept of the mod. After all Rover said in the OP:

"and because the idea of grinding science on the launchpad makes me sad, I give you Sounding Rockets!

This mod adds a series of very simple 0.35m parts to the start node

The point of the mod is for early game progression with out the need to collect gravel and dandelions from the space center. Beyond that strikes me as beyond the intent of the mod. Rover can of coarse correct me, and if history is a judge...will. But once you get to a certain point in the tree you are just better off taking the small sci experiments, tossing them in a normal rocket, and running them that way.

Edited April 28, 2015 by SyberSmoke

[LN400]

I only recently got this mod (0.90) and was concerned an early launch could void the contracts on altitude records. I did read it wouldn't and I read it would but how will it be now, with this new system of auto-completion of alt/speed records? Can I launch these and still get to fulfill the contracts or is it better to first do manned launches?

[SyberSmoke]

I only recently got this mod (0.90) and was concerned an early launch could void the contracts on altitude records. I did read it wouldn't and I read it would but how will it be now, with this new system of auto-completion of alt/speed records? Can I launch these and still get to fulfill the contracts or is it better to first do manned launches?

Start a game, Launch a Sounding Rocket. If it triggers the mission then you have the answer. If it does not...then you also have the answer.

[Sajuuk001]

I think that goes against the core concept of the mod. After all Rover said in the OP:

I was just thinking about keeping the mod parts useful later into the game as a science return platform from the moons.

[undercoveryankee]

Start a game, Launch a Sounding Rocket. If it triggers the mission then you have the answer. If it does not...then you also have the answer.

There's never been a situation where a flight that didn't complete a contract would void it (unless you destroy the object you were supposed to recover). If the altitude and speed contracts still have the hidden requirement for a manned capsule, then they'll still be there after your sounding rocket flight. If an unmanned rocket can complete them, then the sounding rocket will complete any tiers that its altitude and speed qualify for and the next tier up will be waiting for you afterward. There is no down side that I can think of.