strider3

Why won't this dock?? It just keeps bouncing off.

What replaces the KAS "legacy" CS-R2 Portable Strut in the latest versions of KAS? I can find nothing equivalent in my parts.

1. Once I have decided on which part will be the "root" part, should that root part have auto-strut disabled? 2. When putting together a space station, in orbit, will the root part (in this case a heavy part in the central stack) change as I attach the station's arms? In trying to alleviate this stations death wobble, I am trying different auto-strutting techniques and I've run into another problem...station coming apart when docking arm #3 of 4. In the screenshot I have the octo-girder shown as the "root" (in the VAB, at least), the weldable Konstruction docking ports auto-strutted to the root. After docking an arm, I weld the ports and then set the auto-strut for the arms inner octo-girder to "root", and all other parts of the arm to "grandparent". This has worked fine for the first 2 arms. Now when I try to dock the 3rd arm, the station breaks up into 3 large pieces as soon as docking is complete (before "welding" the arm)...and I'm at a loss as to why. I've used these Konstruction weldable ports for station building in previous versions of KSP without having this issue (the death wobble has always been an issue , thus the CS-R2 Portable Struts on the 2 attached arms). I'm wondering if my auto-strutting technique, in this case, is causing the break up on docking? I should also note that the station does not break up at the welded joints, necessarily.

So...added 4 BZ-52 Radial Attachment ports to the Octo-girders and then added the weldable Konstruction ports. I think the BZ-52's just add another point for the wobbles, but I'm running out of ideas. I do have a buttload of EAS struts, sooooo...

Well...this just gets more aggravating by the minute. The weldable Konstruction port won't attach to any part of the octo-girder. I think I'll go shoot something on my Xbox instead.

SOOoooo...no bueno. By the time I get my engineer out of the cupola, with tool and EAS strut in hand, the thing will fly apart. I haven't even bothered trying to strut it, in truth...I'm not even sure my engineer can carry an EAS strut?. I'm not sure if it's the imbalance when adding the third (of 4 ) arms that brings it on but had no problem with the 1st arm hanging out there waiting for #2? S-I-G-H! So, I'm going to go with the assumption that the octo-girder modular hub is...inadequate () as the attachment point for the four heavy radial arms (why call it a "hub", then??). I'm going to try redesigning the central stack with a heavy part to attach the arms to...making it the root while in the VAB. I can't think of anything heavier than a girder with fuel tanks in it, tanks that will never be emptied, but I'm open to suggestions. Here's hoping KSP2 fixes death wobbles...in my mind, once the various parts are permanently attached, nothing should make it wobble itself apart while in a steady orbit with reaction wheels set for very low torque? But, hey...I'm no rocket scientist (obviously! ).

The ability to build a space station without the idiotic "death wobble". I have tried various construction techniques/auto-strutting/EAS struts until I'm red (not blue ) in the face. Nothing really seems to work except a massive amount of ugly EAS struts...if I can get them attached before the thing "wobbles out". That's a very big if, BTW.

Very nice, NavyFish...thanks for that!

So, for now, I went back and rebuilt the station my "old way"...the Cupola is the root...everything else is grand parented. I know, it ignores much of what you guys are telling me but all my "heaviest" parts are fuel tanks and, therefore, may not remain the heaviest. I suppose I could do some rearranging and make a heavy, fuel carrying part, in the central stack, the root...and never pull fuel from it. I'll save that as plan F (or is it G now ). This has worked in the past with very reduced torque settings on reaction wheels and ensuring the docking craft has SAS and RCS off before docking...and a container full of EAS struts, if needed. I'll let ya know! As always...thank you.

Went ahead and tried disabling auto-strut on the hub and changing the 4 inner girders to auto-strut "root part"...came apart almost immediately...

What in this text, tells you this part is the root part? I'm wondering if this hub, being the root part, should have auto-strut turned off? PART { name = truss-octo-hub-01 cid = 4293108844 uid = 3574767260 mid = 3209845381 persistentId = 3698953673 launchID = 73 parent = 0 position = 0,0,0 rotation = 0,0,0,1 mirror = 1,1,1 symMethod = Radial istg = -1 resPri = 0 dstg = 0 sqor = -1 sepI = -1 sidx = -1 attm = 0 sameVesselCollision = False srfN = , -1 attN = right, 109 attN = left, 145 attN = back, 73 attN = front, 43 attN = top, 1 attN = bottom, 14 mass = 0.5 shielded = False temp = 230.81008699473853 tempExt = 230.48421195134645 tempExtUnexp = 299.57779829575736 staticPressureAtm = 0 expt = 0.5 state = 0 PreFailState = 0 attached = True autostrutMode = Root rigidAttachment = False flag = Squad/Flags/kerbin rTrf = truss-octo-hub-01 (Mobil 1) modCost = 0 EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } PARTDATA { } MODULE { name = USI_ModuleRecycleablePart isEnabled = True stagingEnabled = True EVENTS { } ACTIONS { } UPGRADESAPPLIED { }

Finding that will be almost impossible, I think. There will be many parts with the same weight once construction is complete? Also, this station is already in flight...not sure how you change the root part once you have left the VAB?

My 4 arm Kerbin refueling space station is very prone to the death wobbles unless the innermost part of the 4 arms are auto-strutted to the central hub using "heaviest part". Everything else on the station uses "grandparent part". This is, so far, the only way to keep the thing from flying apart within a very short period (<1 minute). My concern is that I have been told here that as the "heaviest part" may change...especially as I will be adding and removing fuel from this station regularly...when it changes it may cause the death wobble to return. The 4 arms were attached using the Umbra Space Industries Konstruction "weldable" Construction ports, the same ones you see on the arms awaiting tanks, in the screenshots below. Your thoughts on possible issues using "heaviest part" auto-strutting on these 4 parts? My only other option, as no other auto-strutting type works to keep the death wobble away on this station, is rampant and ugly usage of EAS-4 Strut Connectors going every which way.

That's what I did...waited until it was overhead and launched and then "followed" it until I got a good handle on bearing and inclination... [snip] So...got it done. It took a dozen attempts, tweaking the landing path a bit every time, until I "lucked" onto a relatively flat spot but, Sigton is home safe!

Sweet, I'm launching the upgraded rescue lander from Kerbin now. I'll let you know how it goes. Thanks buddy!

I always get confused on KerbNet vs. CommNet. Whichever one requires you to have communication (relays, etc.) to remotely control a craft is turned off in my current career. Can ScanSat mod perform the same function?

How do you place a waypoint anywhere...when still landed?

One issue I have when launching to return to orbit, to rendezvous with a polar orbiting craft, when landed on or near a pole, is...which way do I go? It sounds stupid but, after getting the lander on the ground, taking back off in the correct direction seems to "avoid" me? Is there some information I'm missing (I have KER) that would stop me from wasting fuel while waiting for the "thin blue line" to tell me how jacked up my direction is? Polar operations stump me and I'm sure I'm not using the KER tools correctly, to figure out which way to turn after launching. Equatorial is easy for me...polar is...

I managed to find a relatively flat landing spot well within the 2.3 km limit...but with a large ridge between the rescue lander and poor Sigton. I jetpacked him to the lander but I beat the crap outta him in the dark, bouncing off just about every terrain feature I could find...EVA lights do not include a "high beam" . Got him boarded...and did not have the DV to get back to low orbit to refuel. I've redesigned the lander portion to increase DV and will give it another shot. Thanks!!!

I've done some orbital rescues around Kerbin (thanks to a lot of help from everyone). Now I have a contract to save a Kerbal crash landed on Mun. Does the following still apply for a landed rescue (especially the distance)? "Contracts to rescue a kerbal. For these, all you have to do is rendezvous with the target and park next to it (i.e. under 2.3 km) in orbit, then ferry the kerbal across on EVA, as mentioned above." (thanks bewing!) I ask because Sigton crashed in a terrible place on the Mun's north polar area and flat landing spots are not exactly "walking distance" for him.

Yep, just finished that and all my ships will open so I can now remove the legacy parts myself. I didn't do the "4. Find the KAS compatibility patch and disable it. It's located at GameData/KAS/Patches/COMP-LegacyParts.cfg. Either drop this file or rename it to non-cfg extension." Not sure why I need to do that as everything appears to be working? But, I'll go do that now...why tempt fate? Thanks!!

YEaaa...that doesn't work as advertised. I've tried following the directions given, many times, to get KAS to do the "KAS upgrade pipeline"...is no worky...doesn't "do" anything.

I know why this is happening...these are older ships that used the legacy KAS parts and some Scansat stuff. SCANsat can be fixed...I haven't installed it yet in 1.7.3. But, how do I fix the KAS issue if I can't open the craft in the VAB, so I can replace the old stuff with the new KAS stuff??

SOooo...found 2 that aren't "bail outs", Open-source tech program and Patents Licensing. And it seems bewing is correct (as always), I tried to give a 50% commitment to the first one...no go. So I settled for 25% for each and used the one time Research rights sell-out to convert the leftover Science to Funds. Going to the Contracts list I see each one available reduces my Science to "0" and adds Funds and Reputation. Eureka! Thanks gang!!

Well...that certainly explains it! Thank you! I guess I'll go back and see if there is a strategy for turning Science into Funds that is not a one time deal.