Max claw tensile force

[ajburges]

Anyone have any observations on the max force you can pull a claw with before you encounter more problems than normal?

I'm designing an asteroid puller and would like to know if the almost 900 kN of engine thrust I'm giving it will be an issue.

Edited August 8, 2015 by ajburges

[Sharpy]

I don't know what its tensile force is, but it's high. I had a craft literally ripped apart when I opened parachutes of a deorbiting vehicle clawed to the craft while going at 4x phys warp - the connection between MK1 fuselages gave in while the claw kept holding. So I think it's more likely the claw will break off at its node than at the claws.

[InterCity]

I'm pretty sure the claw makes a rigid connection, or at least I've never managed to break it. As you described it, you shouldn't have any issues.

[Sharpy]

900 kN at a single point may be an issue though. It won't rip the rocket in half, but you will need some means of not burning the asteroid to crisp (a very long tower?) and as result any lateral forces (turning the asteroid?) applied to something so long will treat it more as a ribbon than a rigid structure.

[Padishar]

900 kN on a single claw certainly wasn't a problem back when the claw was introduced and I don't believe they've made any significant changes to it. This tug has 6 mainsails for a total of 9000 kN...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(and it can still be launched fairly easily in the post-1.0 aero model)

[LostOblivion]

I assume the claw works as any other joint in KSP, and if the claw experiences this kind of force, then all other parts in your craft that are between the engines producing the thrust and the asteroid must also experience the force. So by extension, since other parts experience this force and are all fine, the claw should be fine too.

[ajburges]

900 kN at a single point may be an issue though. It won't rip the rocket in half, but you will need some means of not burning the asteroid to crisp (a very long tower?) and as result any lateral forces (turning the asteroid?) applied to something so long will treat it more as a ribbon than a rigid structure.

I'm hoping that 25 degree thrust offset (and a boom of 5 Modular Girder Segment XLs to the mining pod) is enough to avoid that issue. That angle still allows 90% thrust efficiency. I can't find hard data for E class radius though.

The reason I'm even limiting myself to 900 kN is that I prefer the aesthetics of the 16 nuke array. Pushing that to 24 would require the use of the top and bottom of the Mk3 body and push part count of this design to dangerous levels. Plus, I'm as of yet unsure if just 2 small thermal control systems will be enough to manage the heat for 16 nukes attached to low thermal mass parts.

Edited August 7, 2015 by ajburges

[Just Jim]

I can tell ya this, I tested a new rescue ship out last night, and when I saw I had to claw a big Mk-III 4-seat cockpit, I was a little worried about it. But once I grabbed it, I could spin the ship and cockpit around like a top without it budging. It apparently has a very tight grip.

[ajburges]

The class E ateroids i'm looking to grapple are a little larger than 4t

[Laie]

You may run into trouble if there's no-adjective docking ports in the stack; those can take only a limited amount of force (considerably less than on KR-2L worth of thrust). Maybe there's a few more parts that are tender enough. But the claw will hold up. Expect it to bend and flex quite noticably, but it won't break.