What is the least useful non-structural part?

[ComradeGoat]

Why are people saying the linear RCS port is useless? On a tall rocket where you are unable to place a 4-way directly on the nose or on the tail, the linear RCS ports are the only way to get good torque.

IDGI - why use RCS on boost stages? That's what vectoring is for.

[MiniMatt]

Inline Advanced Stabiliser

Right now, at the tail end of .22, the only non-structural part I really avoid would be the Inline Advanced Stabiliser; post SAS changes it has the exact same function, torque & size as the Inline Reaction Wheel but with 200kg more mass. Aesthetically the advanced wheel does have a slight advantage from a side-on perspective, but equally the HAL-9000-esque red dot of the standard reaction wheel can bring a smile to my face.

Aesthetics are important. One does not simply crash into Duna. One must crash with style. So I'll very frequently cap verticals with nosecones, use shielded docking ports and solar panels etc.

I suspect many of the engines are suffering because the 48-7S is simply too good. It was arguably too good in 0.21 when it had 20kn thrust, now with 30kn and far superior ISP to much around it it's rendering obsolete many other engines.

Can't understand the lack of love for the Toroidal tank. Practically I seem to use it on so many landers and skycranes to fine tune delta-v. Aesthetically it's beautiful, and works as a very nice size adaptor - sit one beneath a regular 1.25m width fuel tank and you've got a natural looking adaptor for the ubiquitous 48-7S engine.

[celem]

I have issues finding uses for most of the aerodynamics. Wings and fins especially. Once i have the delta wing and the deluxe fin i never use anything else. Caveat: I dont do much spaceplaning.

Register another positive vote for the 55's. Yes its bulky and inefficient, but its a godsend for emergency twr. I often have a pair on my central launcher stack for when all the radials are gone and im circularising hvy payloads on a single mainsail. Its preferrable to a forest of the little ones, for sanity when you do actually need a couple hundred kN.

Im also a huge fan of the 'useless' ant engines and similar 'tinys other than 48-7S'. I stick ants to slack tanks to give me a fuel indicator in the staging menu (i hate searching amongst and right-clicking tanks to find the next asparagus drop).

Agreed the 48-7S is OP though. A forest of them on cubic struts and you can replace mainsails even. Clustering these is a very powerful tool.

[Moar Boosters]

IDGI - why use RCS on boost stages? That's what vectoring is for.

RCS can be more reliable on really tall rockets. All the vectoring force is applied to the bottom, which can cause the top to wobble on really tall rockets. Well placed RCS ports can apply the force more evenly along the length of the rocket, so produces less wobble. This doesn't just apply to launch stages. It also applies to those long built-in-orbit interplanetary ships which are held together with docking ports which like to wobble a lot.

In especially big rockets with 10+ mainsails the vectoring can be too powerful and produces violent oscillations that rip the craft apart, so vectoring is often disabled on whackjobian designs........ relying on reaction wheels or RCS to provide more gentle control.

[el_coyoto]

Mark 55 would be the least used part in my space program.

I've never found any practical use for them because of their weird characteristics (okay-ish ISP ruined by its mass).

Their only advantage over a radial Rockomax 24-77 would be their superior thrust.

Too bad I've never needed so much thrust that I couldn't use one or several radial 24-77 instead...

[Eadrom]

In this thread: people discovering new uses for parts previously discarded as useless.

Thanks for all the great ideas for rarely used parts!

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

I never really use the radial mk55's (the white one#s at the start of this thread), to be honest, I didn't even know they still existed (removed in .18) .till a few weeks ago

[LostElement]

The Linear is useful for Monoprop probes. The Radial liquid engine, use it in all or most of my landers, the radial ant engine is useful for probes under 5 tons. Every Part is useful, whether you make it useful is your choice

[rpayne88]

The smallest probe landing legs. I never use them for one simple reason: I wind up needing a 1.25m engine and fuel tank to land most sensors.

[Mr. Speed]

I have found a use for most of the parts in the ships I built, so I find it hard to name a least useful part. Especially non-structural, the parts that are least useful in my opinion are the hubmax and it's little cousin the micronode, symmetry doesn't work well with them and they are easily replaced by other sometimes lighter parts. Also a lot of stuff is radially attachable so I have almost no use for them.

I don't understand the hate for the radial engine, it looks awesome and it has a great thrust to weight, sure it's not the most efficient piece of technology but adding a couple of these is sometimes all you need to give your old launch vehicle the power to bring that extra heavy payload into orbit. and a tank with these attached doesn't need to rest on it's engine, so it can make your rocket a lot more stable without the need to bolt a spider web of struts to your rocket.

[Lunaran]

POODLE.

Its ISP says "only use me in space" but its weight says "don't bother." I couldn't care less about a vectoring range of 2.5, because any vessels I'm using in a vacuum are either small enough to be torquey on their own, or big enough that I'm using nukes.

I really just want a shorter and wider LV-T30 for 2.5m use cases.

[Ravenchant]

Or the toroidal fuel tank. I've never used that, ever.

Wha...how...oh boy. They're all over my crafts. I assumed people used them more

The radial ants are useful outside of probes, for example in smaller skycranes. You just need a lot of 'em. Likewise, using 48-7S on girders instead of the orange or white radials has its merits. If nothing else, it definitely looks better than a truckload of 24-77s, with higher ISP. Nosecones are good for aesthetics, and linear RCS ports for balancing.

But those two parts ->

WHY?!

Edited December 18, 2013 by Ravenchant

[cpottinger]

For me, the parts I have found to be useless are the ROUND-8 Toroidal Fuel Tank and the Stratus-V Roundified Monopropellant Tank. Haven't found any use for either one yet.

[Spartwo]

White radial engine.Low isp,thrust and usefulness.

[Spica]

White radial engine.Low isp,thrust and usefulness.

AGREED

The last time I ever used that engine was when I was still a noob back in 0.16

[MrChumley]

Inline Advanced Stabiliser

Right now, at the tail end of .22, the only non-structural part I really avoid would be the Inline Advanced Stabiliser; post SAS changes it has the exact same function, torque & size as the Inline Reaction Wheel but with 200kg more mass.

^^^ I came to say that. I can't understand why they left it in after the .22 update (and took/changed away the original lv-1 landing legs which ruined the anti-turtle aspect for my rovers)

[CaptRobau]

The radial version is great though.

IRL, this engine would run on monopropellant. Deep space probes generally use monopropellant thrusters/engines for maneuvers with about the same thrust/Isp due to the simplicity and low requirements. Making it monopropellant would make it more efficient, because that fuel is lighter than LiquidFuel/Oxidizer.

[DisarmingBaton5]

Inline docking port. Used that for my first docking and haven't used it since (except on my many failed SSTOs)

EDIT: The largest monopropellant tank is also largely unused by me. 750 is a bit much as I do not build large ships generally.

[Stargate525]

Someone is going to say it eventually, so with tongue firmly in cheek I present to you:

Couldn't help myself.

[quasarrgames]

I would go with

The MK2 cockpit

It's really, really ugly, it has no proper IVA view, and no adapter works well with it. i'd rather use the mk1 anyways

[makinyashikino]

I would go with

The MK2 cockpit

It's really, really ugly, it has no proper IVA view, and no adapter works well with it. i'd rather use the mk1 anyways

They should just get it over with and add a flippin' IVA for it, It's the only cockpit that doesn't have one, and frankly the other Cockpits IVA is cool, I would bet that this one would be too.

[tetryds]

They should just get it over with and add a flippin' IVA for it, It's the only cockpit that doesn't have one, and frankly the other Cockpits IVA is cool, I would bet that this one would be too.

I heard somewhere that all airflight parts will receive a complete overhaul once aerodynamics is improved

That might be why MK3 parts and inlike cockpit doesn't have IVA's

And I'm pretty sure that the MK1 cockpit will stay, its really cool.

Just figured out i never even clicked the Probodobodyne HECS

[numerobis]

That cockpit is lighter and lower drag than the other cockpit, so it's good when hyper-optimizing. It also allows you to put things in front of it, so you can have two cockpits in a row (one of each, say).

[makinyashikino]

Someone is going to say it eventually, so with tongue firmly in cheek I present to you:

Couldn't help myself.

It's more useful than a lot of parts, it can clean experiments and increase transmission value. If you really want to call science parts useless, call the transmitters useless, they are all functionally the same except for power usage and transmission time, and that really doesn't matter at all.

That cockpit is lighter and lower drag than the other cockpit, so it's good when hyper-optimizing. It also allows you to put things in front of it, so you can have two cockpits in a row (one of each, say).

Drag really doesn't mean anything unless FAR is installed, but I really like the idea of putting a Mk I in-front of an inline.

[numerobis]

Drag quite definitely makes a difference in the stock game. Those drag values aren't just for show.