So are you practicing "Pointy Rockets"?

[SpacedCowboy]

With the new aero and drag coming on, have you changed your rocket building? Anyone have any ideas on what we should expect? Are we going to have to "slim down" the top sides (upper stages) to make orbit or whatever?

[Starwhip]

I've always done it the "pointy" way. I'm not going to need anything new, because in my book aesthetics = realism. And I make my rockets aesthetic.

[regex]

Since I play FAR + RSS I'm already ahead of the curve. No need to practice, I'm already livin' the life.

[Kommitz]

You'll probably have to look more to real designs for inspiration, but that's not necessarily going to mean you'll have to scale things down; there are some fantastically huge Russian concepts around.

http://andegraf.com/rockets/rus_never.htm

[Whirligig Girl]

http://imgur.com/aHlGCUx,nLqUDoC,Tz76UWG,e9wqkLW,buxmYNJ,hY64uF1,SqBzlY9

I should think so. (Ignore the first picture)

(Can't post as an album due to Imgur glitch)

[hoojiwana]

You'll probably have to look more to real designs for inspiration, but that's not necessarily going to mean you'll have to scale things down; there are some fantastically huge Russian concepts around.

http://andegraf.com/rockets/rus_never.htm

I hate to say it but the UR-700 is really Kerbal. The ridiculous nested staging and boosters that is.

[SpacedCowboy]

I've always done it the "pointy" way. I'm not going to need anything new, because in my book aesthetics = realism. And I make my rockets aesthetic.

Yes, I get your "point". I also fallow the "pointy" way. Just wondering if our concepts of aero and drag will match up with what squad has in mind.

[Coam]

I'll have to go back to putting fairings on things. I haven't been bothering much recently (partly due to a lack of launches that really need them), but I used to do it for aesthetic purposes so I can always go back to it. Generally my rockets have been designed to look plausible in reality, so there's little need to rethink designs.

[SpacedCowboy]

Since I play FAR + RSS I'm already ahead of the curve. No need to practice, I'm already livin' the life.

Well, Since I play VAN , I'm in the curve, so I need to practice so I can "live the life". Just messin with ya regex, Your comments are always welcome, (grumpy or not)

[PB666]

With the new aero and drag coming on, have you changed your rocket building? Anyone have any ideas on what we should expect? Are we going to have to "slim down" the top sides (upper stages) to make orbit or whatever?

Or use technologies that do not need to achieve great speeds in the lower atmosphere. Jet engines can be used to lift stuff with relatively small fuel weight at speeds half the terminal velocity or less.

I can lift aero, or lift slowly. Im not going to change my payloads. Even if I have stuff to heavy for the jet I can take the post orbital fuel and send it up in a refueling.

[Mahnarch]

I'm going to have to jump on board with putting pointy things on the tops so I can get used to them, learn about them and try to remember where they are in the parts list... (aero, right?)

[Superfluous J]

I'm not "practicing" it, no. I build the best rocket for the situation, and the situation includes how well it flies given the current models. So, if I'm flying stock, I ignore drag. If I'm flying FAR, I make it pointy.

[hoojiwana]

I'm going to have to jump on board with putting pointy things on the tops so I can get used to them, learn about them and try to remember where they are in the parts list... (aero, right?)

Don't forget that we're getting some form of payload fairings as well, so try out some mod ones to get a feel for building with them in mind.

[Renegrade]

Pointy my foot.

I always use FAR unless I'm either A) playing BTSM or a pure-stock or stock-plus-info playthrough.

FAR fuel station. Made it to orbit using less than 4K of vacuum delta-v.

- no nosecones at all

- open docking port at the top (I did that maliciously, it's VERY easy just to stick the aero nosecone on a docking port and decouple it later via right-click)

- tanks deliberately set at right angles for maximum drag

- tanks offset using the rectangular struts (these cause a lot of drag in that orientation in FAR)

- I'm pretty sure the tanks were dry (so I could use a smaller rocket), which is bad for stability

- Ascent was still faster than in stock air

(of course making it pointy would have reduced that to 3200-3500 instead of like 3800-3900. Goes to show how thick and sludgy the current souposphere/jellosphere is - but that makes sense, as the souposphere essentially means that ALL objects are broadside-on to the airflow regardless of actual orientation)

I think a bigger concern for most rocket builders will be that since orientation matters, aerodynamic stability matters a lot more, and that violent pitch maneuvers are insane. Judicious use of tailfins can alleviate a lot of stability issues (or just flat-out spamming deltas can overcome even insane issues like the above design), so I hope Squad looks at moving the tailfins down the tree a bit. (My Horrible Nerf puts the fixed one in the start node, and the moving ones in Stability)

[Brotoro]

Yes...I've been building a set of payloads to go explore Duna, and I've been restricting the diameter of the payload stacks to what I think is a reasonable maximum diameter.

[regex]

so I need to practice so I can "live the life".

Just live la vida loco bruh.

[Madrias]

Meh. I'll relearn how to make my planes and rockets when that time comes. Until then, I'll keep flying the completely ridiculous and the horrifyingly insane.

[Superfluous J]

Just live la vida loco bruh.

Actually it's vida loca

(returning the favor)

[The Yellow Dart]

Nowadays, since 0.90, the only time I build something "ugly" (aerodynamically unrealistic) is when I am bumping right up against one of the limits with the payload and rocket, and can't get it to work without being either shorter, lighter, or fewer parts. Otherwise I always make an effort to streamline anything launched from Kerbin. I always try to self-govern myself to make things more realistic and interesting, such as no airhogging, minimal reaction wheels, and I use the "no science for contracts" mod as well.

[Renegrade]

Meh. I'll relearn how to make my planes and rockets when that time comes. Until then, I'll keep flying the completely ridiculous and the horrifyingly insane.

Don't stop the insanity! It can still be done .. just step up your insanity game to the new rules and strut moar

[cicatrix]

With the new aero and drag coming on, have you changed your rocket building? Anyone have any ideas on what we should expect? Are we going to have to "slim down" the top sides (upper stages) to make orbit or whatever?

Yes, sort of

[regex]

Actually it's vida loca

(returning the favor)

Oh good lord, I messed that up?

Thanks.

[Wanderfound]

Big single-stage jobbies still work in realistic aero if you build 'em right:

[LordFerret]

For the most part - 'pointy'. An exception would be my Mun/Minmus rover & science complex which sits atop a behemoth lifter.

This brings me to a question. I've seen a lot of people post pics of their builds, and the tops of their fuel tanks are left uncovered and blunt-ended. There are parts to adapt down to a smaller size and put a cap/nosecone on top ... but in the current game version I don't see any advantage in doing so aerodynamically. If anything, it just adds mass ... but does make it look 'clean'. Will this change in the upcoming version? Will using pointy nosecones give a drag reduction value?

[regex]

Will this change in the upcoming version? Will using pointy nosecones give a drag reduction value?

If it doesn't change would you still call it an aerodynamic "overhaul"?