Stock actuators

[Sharpy]

Can any parts in stock be used to move parts attached to them?

There are quite a few moving parts that can be used to push the whole vessel (foldable wheels, airbrakes, the drill, cargo bay doors) but I can't attach anything to the moving parts of these. Plus there's motion involving flexing the joints between parts. But can one e.g. build a functional robotic arm, consisting of two joints on a pivot, just using stock parts?

[Juicy]

Sadly, no. Which is why Infernal Robotics is quite popular, even if it has one small drawback (it may mess up badly on docked vessels). On the other hand, it's easier to use than expected, even from watching the introduction video.

I think it used to be possible to use landing gears as joints for a while, pretty sure I once attached a light on one which moved with the wheel on opening/closing, but when I tried a few weeks back, that no longer worked.

[Sharpy]

I wonder if a motor like used in all the stock helicopters would have any reasonable torque... also, how do they make any bearings?

[Signo]

You might want to check Azimech's turboshafts topic to see a few bearings examples. AFAIK they are usually and basically made with landing gears and docking ports but there are a few different solutions.

[Sharpy]

I think I'll try lander wheels plus conical elements (adapters/nose cones)...

[Gaarst]

No, unfortunately, there are no actuators in stock KSP; and unless proven otherwise, you can't attach anything to rover wheels (at least the moving part) that will move with the wheels.

Apart from the mods that have been suggested above, I guess you could build something using the Klaw in free pivot mode and RCS or reaction wheels, though I'm not sure the result would be very convincing.

[Sharpy]

I can't attach anything to the wheels but I can make the wheels ride on any provided surface, in this case the surface of the rotor. Of course the rotor and the stator will be considered two separate vessels (which need to be undocked from each other after launch).

[Juicy]

No, unfortunately, there are no actuators in stock KSP; and unless proven otherwise, you can't attach anything to rover wheels (at least the moving part) that will move with the wheels.

It used to be the landing gears that people used as joints. Things could be attached to the "leg" of landing gear, and would move a bit when lowering/raising landing gear. But I haven't managed to make such connections for a while.

[Signo]

I think I'll try lander wheels plus conical elements (adapters/nose cones)...

If you are going for an arm and not for a propeller you could go for a semispherical bearing using the old aero nose cones. It should then be able to move in an up to 120° spherical sector.

You can have a look at this thread for a flexing ramp made by landing legs and a look at this for a very cool rail system.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Signo

[Kaos]

The claw can be used as flexible joint. But with many of them you will quite likely encounter bugs.

[Signo]

As far as I know it is impossible to "claw" things in the VAB.

[Kaos]

That is also my knowledge. So using the claw also needs some construction outside of the VAB. Nevertheless I made some flexible joint constructions on orbit with it.

[Signo]

Sure, but I feel that launching a STS and its separate arm could be seen as not as efficient.

[Sharpy]

The usual approach to that problem is "Some assembly required" - the arm held in the cargo bay where it is to be mounted, but attached with some separator or other junk, and mounted properly when in orbit. No separate launches.

[Signo]

I see. That's a cool way to do it. The more claws the more Krakens though.

I am the kind of "VAB engineer" player, so I try to have everything set up without any required post-assembly (space stations and weird contraptions excluded), that's why this is not exactly my cup of tea.

Sharpy, you are a little bit "hideous" about your project. Could you please clarify us what do you need to design?

It seems to me that you are thinking about a way to fullfill the kerbal + wreckage pack recover contract.

Using a folding arm would be brilliant but there are easier ways.

If that's not the case feel free to throw empty cans at me.

[SoWeMeetAgain]

Sharpy, you are a little bit "hideous" about your project. Could you please clarify us what do you need to design?

It seems to me that you are thinking about a way to fullfill the kerbal + wreckage pack recover contract.

Using a folding arm would be brilliant but there are easier ways.

I'm not sharpy, but I want to make some kind of jet powered plane that can tilt it's engines and take off/land vertically ... yeeeh I can just do two sets of engines and bind them to rcs activation but it's so much more mass :/

[Signo]

Indeed a few stock actuators would be appreciated by the community in my opinion too.

I am sure that a "smart" stock solution is not so far away (combining pivoting claws and "gearbearings" might soon lead us, stock kerbalkind, to a working raw prototype).

[Sharpy]

My own plans involve a robotic arm on a space station. Something to e.g. attach modules. But how cumbersome that is in stock pretty much dashed these plans.

[Skorpychan]

Sadly, no. Which is why Infernal Robotics is quite popular, even if it has one small drawback (it may mess up badly on docked vessels). On the other hand, it's easier to use than expected, even from watching the introduction video.

I think it used to be possible to use landing gears as joints for a while, pretty sure I once attached a light on one which moved with the wheel on opening/closing, but when I tried a few weeks back, that no longer worked.

It messes up on anything docked?

That's a pain. I want some extendable booms for stations and cruise stages (keep the LV-Ns away from the body of the ship), but docking is inherent to my designs.

[Signo]

My own plans involve a robotic arm on a space station. Something to e.g. attach modules. But how cumbersome that is in stock pretty much dashed these plans.

Well then, I've got my share of cans.

However there are easier way to do it . Indeed less cumbersome, not as "effective". (you might want to experiment with a RCS mono connector/tug that could pull/push modules in place. You could then avoid adding mono to your modules, the main storage you might want if needed will be in your space station's core and into the "connectors/tugs").

Edited July 4, 2015 by Signo

[Sharpy]

Been there, done that, wanted to try something new. The concept of more complex structures having a "service drone" is not strange to me.