zeel

That's the opposite of the point. THe idea is that the name would reveal its class so you wouldn't have to keep checking that when tracking many asteroids.

The pivot on the grabber is awesome, and it's not just awesome for aligning centers of mass. As I demonstrait in this thread the grabber can be used to creat long chains of pivots that then function as giant space arms (or tinticals). The unfortunate part about this is setting up such an effect is a huge difficulty. You can not place parts on the ends of grabbers like you can docking ports. Thus getting all the pivots in a row is very hard to do. I am suggesting two new parts: The pivot, and the powered pivot. Both parts will have a connection point on both ends and act like the grabber pivot in flight. However they will also get some interesting tweaks. A pivot can bend along two axes, and with tweeks one could choose to free/lock either of them independently to create elbow joint. Furthermore the resistance of the pivot could be adjusted so that they could not swing as fast. Finally a range of motion could be selected, so that they could not swing as far as normal. Another addition would be the ability to free/lock pivots using action groups, which can't be done with grabbers. The powered pivot would have the extra ability of setting the angle in game - after the angle is set in the context menu electrical power will be expended to move the pivot to the desired angle. It would also be nice if they could rotate as well, allowing for things like super-size wheels made of fuel tanks for massive surface transports, or engine angling for VTOLs or to allow hard to turn ships to burn retrograde without spinning around or having two sets of engines. Ideally you could even set angle stops in the tweak menu and assign those to action groups, allowing the transition to be done smoothly. Not to mention how useful this would be for space stations, as you could fold them up for lunch instead of sending them up as modules.

What we need is a part that's just the pivot. Connecting on both ends, but without the claw. Plus it would be nice if docking ports/claws could be set to "isolate" mode - the two ships would no longer share control. Then it would be a thousand times easier to move as the end would be treated as a probe that just happened to be attached to a flexible arm. You could just switch too it like a separate craft.

Well the train is. . . interesting. I managed to make the planet disappear more than once - not sure why that happens. But they work really well as long as all the back cars have the wheel steering disabled. Though building them is something of a pain, it's really cool how they turn out. Obviously it would be more useful on another body, moving a very large complex. A car for fuel, a car for RCS, a research lab, etc. Also: Why did this thread move to spacecraft exchange? This is not a craft, nor is anything being exchanged. It's a concept for using grabbers in interesting ways. . .

Oh I hadn't though of trains. That could be very cool, and easier to set up too (since they would start on a flat surface). I am going to give it a try.

So after some testing I have concluded that the best control comes from a single reaction wheel on the end, as well as some RCS ports. Plus the ship/asteroid needs very high mass (like a whole SLS big tank at least). As long as you can disable all reaction wheels/RCS on the ship the arm is relatively controllable. It's a bit fiddly since the same keys don't always move it the same way, but if you are careful it can be done. Furthermore I found a useful exploit: Returning to the space center locks all pivots. So if it gets really crazy or you want it locked in a very specific configuration you can just hit escape and then return through the tracking station. This is super helpful if you go into a spin since actually accessing the context menu on the things in nearly impossible if they move too fast. The down side is that this means all your flexible lines will go rigid if you unload your vessel. The things are still super bendy though, so I doubt that will break anything as long as you remember to free the pivots before making any adjustments. Oh, and one last bit of advice: Watch out for your solar panels.

The orange tank is the standard unit of measure. All tanks bigger are just "two orange tanks" or "one and a half orange tanks" and the gray tank is "half an orange tank".

I'm just sick this whole issue. Sandbox is not supposed to be balanced, it's sandbox mode. Balancing it would be like saying Minecraft needs to balance creative mode. All the balance will come in career, parts that are extremely powerful are going to be hard to unlock or incredibly expensive. I expect all the SLS parts to be at the end of the tree, and I expect the grabber to come sooner but cost so much that you would only use one if you absolutely needed to.

That is what I did, and it's not as great as you would think. You see the game tries to correct the jets based on center of mass to move the ship as directed. So as the arm swings the same key will trigger different jets based on the angle of the arm. The result is that the RCS is no better at controlling it than the reaction wheels. The good news is that only putting the reaction wheel on the end works well. Still difficult to control because the game isn't treating it as an arm, but an extension of the ship - it doesn't get that activating the trust in a given way will just swing the arm instead of the whole ship. That's good if you have a rigid arm the maneuvering system will still work. Bad if you want a flexible arm you can control. Quite doable. Though the fuel lines really won't help, the cross feed will work without them. One thing I am considering is carry bunch of attachments, just grab em (no need to use an actual docking port!) and they could be anything from a docking port to an engine.

I had not considered using the strafe keys instead! That might be far more stable. And I can easily disable the main crafts RCS jets when I need to move the arm. I just wish that you could add the pivot control to action groups. If you could switch from rigid to snaky on the fly that would be amazing.

Probably, perhaps even only putting the reaction wheel on the end would held as well. It certainly requires more testing of different designs. Removing the torque altogether and simply using it to chain things together would be cool though. You could dock it before releasing the pivot, and then loosen it up to avoid breaking things.

I managed to put one (actually a pair) into space. The result was. . . interesting. If you enable SAS they flail around like mad. My ship was very low mass so it did not fair well. There is far too much torque in the arms for a small craft to handle (it just spins as they flail) but mounted on an asteroid or very massive ship they would do well. Interestingly, to deploy them in space you need to accelerate into them, not too fast or they will fail to connect, but if you do not accelerate the segments will simply drift away. I just wish it was possible to dock two ships without sharing control. Then as long as the arm is linked by a docking port you could control it without spinning the ship. As it is you can't control the arm unless it is attached to something massive enough that reaction wheels won't turn it.

I posted a thread about it: The Space Arm - Flexible connection system using the grabber! It's built by holding a bunch of segments just above each other (what that vertical part is for) and using mini docking ports to uncouple them all at once so they fall on each other.

I built a space arm: Big flexible arm for grabbing, moving, and all around recreation. Haven't put one in space yet, but when I do it will be epic.

So one thing I have been wishing for has been movable parts, so that sections of a ship can rotate or bend. Though there are no such parts, I have found a way to build them, to an extent. The key is the pivot ability of the grabber, all you need to do is link lots of small grabber segments together and you can make a rather fun flexible chain. Add reaction wheels and it's a fairly useful arm. . . The design is simple, each segment is a fuel tank, a reaction wheel, and a grabber. Those Are connected to a support shaft using mini docking ports and girders. The support shaft is made of structural fuselage and ASAS units, the ASAS are only there for proper spacing. Then I simply stack many of those units together. And action group is used to arm the grabbers, and another to undock all but the first docking port (the first one needs to remain as long as I want to keep my arm attached to my ship). This creates a highly flexible arm structure, simply using the maneuvering keys causes t to swing around. You can unlock or lock and joint to get a rigid shaft, an elbow, or a tentacle. An interesting quirk is that your action group for arming the claws will not release them even if you close their housing. This means they stay stuck even while hiding the claw parts, which I think looks a bit nicer. Such a system would be ideal for linking multiple large vessels (or asteroids) as the flexible arm will not stress that would destroy a rigid joint, allowing multiple very massive objects to be connected without tearing each other apart (in theory at least). A similar (but much shorter) system with multiple arms could allow very large clusters of engines to anchor to E class asteroids with strong foundations without losing the ability to align them with the center of mass, with multiple pivot points even tripods could be adjusted to align the engines. Or some kind of tool could be attached to the end instead of the last claw. Spotlight? Kerbel in a char? Docking port? Missile launcher? Engine??? Just about anything, and then it can be pointed wherever you need it. Finer control could probably be had with some RCS jets, and I'm sure a slightly better system for setting the thing up is probably possible. I'm not sure how well it will connect in space, but I do know it will work on the surface - you just have to undock the nodes one at a time, and hope that they all link properly. Some more research may reveal better ways of aligning them. I recorder a a video to demonstrate:

Ideally it would simply have two thrust regulators, one for up and one for sideways. Then you can tweak it however you need it.

I'm loving those docks. The six panel design looks great. I might do something like that with my asteroid (above).

Today in KSP I attempted to tow an asteroid. I set my sights on a D class asteroid, and designed a ship to go pull it into Kerbin orbit. My first attempt was a bust, the engine were too close to the rock and canceled out my velocity. So for my second probe I devised a workaround Those four long part on the sides are mini strut-probes to create a long tow line, the one in the center is my main grabber. Each strut probe is also carrying an RCS node with a claw to plant on the surface (I figured that would help maneuvering), each equipped with RCS fuel, jets, and a big solar panel (so my rock can have power!). The center probe is the attachment point. Now I did succeed in intercepting my target (took a few tries, lining up that encounter was tough), and I managed to dock the attachment node. Unfortunately due to my failure to notice the RCS drain from the small tanks first (come on KSP, what gives?) I lost one strut probe when it ran out of fuel. But I did manage to dock all the others - which was not an easy task because I only gave them linier RCS jets, and none of those were facing along their primary axis. Then came time to dock the ship, and in perfect Kerbal fashion. . . It ran out of RCS. Not to worry! I managed to do it inter engine power only. I was able to use the small side engines to rotate my asteroid into position and burn till I managed to get captured. Unfortunately the stability of my control system with the long tow cable. . . wasn't great. I attempted to turn for another maneuver to bring down the long side of my orbit, but I couldn't stabilize it enough. My ship is swinging around like crazy on that, the swing actually generates acceleration causing my orbit to oscillate nearly a million meters at it's AP. I had to undock to get the game to let me save. I shot a quick video of the crazy rocking, as the image just doesn't do it justice: I intend to follow up with another mission, this time I think I will go with pushing rather than pulling. Probably a set of engine mounts around the asteroid (to cut down on turning), and then I will try to circularize and adjust my plane. I would like to get this thing at a nice circular 3 million meter equatorial orbit. But that's going to mean a lot of fuel. But hey, I captured it! That means future missions will be all the easier.

I don't really think comets should be generated like asteroids. Rather they should just be very small and highly eccentric celestial bodies.

I agree, it's cool to see asteroids that are going to encounter kerbin, but if you want one around Jool getting it there would be a pain. If we could send a probe to Jool that would let us see asteroids encountering it we could capture them instead.

No that's splitting across monitors, which can actually be done without changing the game by simulating a single monitor with extremely high aspect ratio. No this suggestion is not that. What we want is the ability for the game to utilize multiple displays for extra content - such as map view on one and stage view on another. You could even view two camera angles at once for docking, or have one screen watching a very long burn while the other is at the VAB designing a new rocket. The possibilities are endless.

There would be no separate treatment between planes/rockets - anything that makes it back without losing anything will not require you to replace anything. This would hold true for a plane, an SSTO rocket, or a massive 5 stage rocket that you aborted before even launching. The idea is that anything that doesn't make it back need to be replaced, be it a lifting stage, a broken control surface, or just the fuel. This makes planes and SSTOs cheaper to run (though I imagine more expensive to build in the first place), but it isn't due to some special rule - if you crash the plane and recover the ejected capsule it's no better off than recovering the capsule of a rocket. As for fuel I certainly think it should cost you something, and launching a rocket with an empty tank would be cheaper (as well as lighter) than doing it with a full one. That mean that doing just building a really big lifter to use on everything is no longer a good idea - efficient fuel consumption to reduce costs is a need, and you don't want to send more fuel than will be needed in a part that you can't recover. Now the issue of thing like boosters on chutes is important, at this point I don't think they ever land do they? Won't the debris just despawn? There would need to be a system in place to properly simulate the falling objects and track them so you can recover them. And that brings me to another point - recovery should not be free. Something like distance + terrain modifier * mass would calculate the cost of recovery. Where distance is how far from KSC it is, (anything on the KSC grounds (airstrip/launchpad/VAB roof/island runway) is a distance of zero. Terrain modifier is a factor based on things like mountains or being in the ocean, again it's zero at KSC. And mass is obviously the mass of the ship, and debris is it's general area. This means that anything you land at KSC or the island is a free recovery, anywhere else is going to cost a lot more. That means planning your landings is now far more important. I would say though that an EVA kerbal should be free recovery anywhere on Kerbin - we can assume they hitchhiked.

I did not mean to imply that there would be two lists or anything, just that part of repairing is refueling - so since an undamaged space plane only needs fuel to go again it is far cheaper than a rocket to reuse.

That seems reasonable. The way I would do it is as follows: Step one design a ship, anything you want to build and save in the VAB/Hanger is fair game (long as you unlock the parts). But to use it you have to "build" one - press a button to spend all the money for all the required parts and add that ship to your built vessel list (or 'hanger'). At this point you can "scrap" a ship and gain some % of the worth back (perhaps some parts are sold at a better return, while others are essentially worthless), or you can launch it. Recovering a ship return it to the list as-is. If something is broken, it remains that way. However you can pay to repair it (you pay the price for all replacement parts) which restores it to its original configuration. Or you can still choose to scrap it, though damaged parts are worth little to nothing. In this case a space plane that returns undamaged is simply refueled (which I imagine should cost you something) and can be launched again. Something launched with a ricked would need its entire launch stage rebuilt - and you would need to pay for that - which means "repairing" a rocket means "build a new launch stage". I would guess that some parts (such as the claw) would be so expensive that returning and rebuilding the rocket would be far preferable to building an entire new ship. It would also be nice if each stage could be repaired separately, and if you could build something in the VAB designated as a "launch stage" or as a "payload" that could be built and connected to any of the payloads you have recovered previously. This would probably integrate with sub-assemblies in some way, perhaps where you could "build" an assembly and then when designing a rocket it would remember what parts are sub-assemblies, then when you "build" the rocket you could choose to replace the designated sub-assembly with the already built version you own.

Perhaps instead of a instant warp gate, we could have a new part that uses electricity to push/pull other ships (like a tractor beam). Possibly involving magnets. Now how is this relevant you ask? Because you could use it to build an acceleration gate. Think, a massive orbital station with hundreds of beams/magnets/gravity-projectors focused on a small ship - activate them all at once and you would accelerate the ship to incredible (near light) speeds. Essentially we have a large structure capable of imparting a huge amount of Delta-V onto a small object like a sling shot. How is this better? Well first it's not instant, your ship still has to travel the distance - it's just faster. Then there is the building part, this isn't actually an acceleration gate! It's a part that could be used (by a skilled builder) to create such a thing. You still need to figure out how to build one to accelerate your ship. Not to mention powering it, and aligning it with the target. You still deal with trajectories, the flight is still like normal, only faster. This means you need to actually line up the gate and ship to accelerate in the right line or you will miss your target. You will still need to slow down. Don't forget it's space! There is no way to stop if you don't plan it out. You could Aerobreak, or even build another gate at the other end to slow you down (good luck with that one), or just carry a big rocket. One way or another, you will be going fast, so stopping could be a challenge. Fun with relativity. Hey Kerbals don't seem to upset with the long years of time warping we put them through, so relativistic travel probably won't bother them too much. And perhaps science done at relativistic speeds would be worth more? Instead of "put this thing in orbit to telleport", we have a system far more like building a rocket in the first place. First you have to plan things out, how much mass is my ship? How much mass can each accelerator move to what velocity? How much power is required? Once you figure that out, you have to build it, put it into orbit, line it up just right, and hope you don't miss - because if you do the little shuttle will not have the Delta-V to stop. Or we could scale down, no reason it couldn't be used to send small ships to other planets, or just to put all your space junk into a higher orbit!