Need more torque?

[Xyphos]

[Sharpy]

How much torque does it have?

[magnemoe]

59 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

How much torque does it have?

30+5*7*2=100
Elegant solution, however using 4 large reaction wheels give 120 with four parts. rather than 19. Yes its 4 times as long but you can hide other stuff in them. 

[Xyphos]

11 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

30+5*7*2=100
Elegant solution, however using 4 large reaction wheels give 120 with four parts. rather than 19. Yes its 4 times as long but you can hide other stuff in them. 

actually, 30 + 9(5*2) = 120
there's 8 in the ring and the ninth is in the core.
you get 4 large wheels' worth of torque in the same space as only 1

[magnemoe]

Just now, Xyphos said:

actually, 30 + 9(5*2) = 120
there's 8 in the ring and the ninth is in the core.
you get 4 large wheels' worth of torque in the same space as only 1

My mistake I thought it was 6 way symmetry not 8. 

[Sharpy]

And how does that work out mass-wise? What configuration would give most newton-meters per tonne?

Edit: lemme answer that. The small wheels have the worst "torque density", 1 torque per 10kg. The two others have 1.5 per 10kg. So you'd be actually better off stuffing that wheel with medium wheels as the medium wheel gives thrice the torque for twice the mass of small.

edit2: ok, but not entirely in this form factor.

This thing is 1.1 tons at 120 units of torque. 9.1kg/unit

This is 807kg at 105 units. 7.6kg/unit.

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Sharpy

[Xyphos]

doesn't fit, but an interesting resemblance to a wheel bearing

[Sharpy]

Well, if we're going to optimize for space, here's 210 torque

I'm tempted to claw it to an asteroid, but I'm afraid transport would be nightmarish.

[foamyesque]

3 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

Well, if we're going to optimize for space, here's 210 torque

<snip>

I'm tempted to claw it to an asteroid, but I'm afraid transport would be nightmarish.

 

Rig an action group to enable/disable the wheels, then fly it out like an ordinary dead payload. Shouldn't be any harder than any other asteroid rendezvous mission.

[Sharpy]

A good idea. I forgot you can enable/disable the wheels through action group. Switching them on/off manually would be about impossible, and anything smaller than a full orange tank would be so twitchy I'd go crazy trying to maneuver it in orbit.

[X-SR71]

Ahh! Great use of unused space there! Will definitely make an subassembly of that!

[Corona688]

If you can SSTO by rolling uphill that's a bit too much torque

[GoSlash27]

Those things look like kraken bait.

Best,
-Slashy

[Snark]

My personal favorite solution for "need lots of reaction torque" is the radially attachable reaction wheels from SpaceY.

Among other stuff, the mod adds two sizes of radially-attachable reaction wheels, one for 3.75m craft and one for 5m (SpaceY is all about big rockets, so it adds a 5m part size with some really big tanks and engines).

The design is brilliant.  The reaction wheel is a semicircular thing that you can radially attach to the surface of a cylindrical part of the right diameter.  (Or the wrong diameter, but then it looks kinda dorky.)  It's designed so that if you attach two of them with twofold radial symmetry, they mesh nicely with each other and you get a single ring around your ship.  (Looks really nice.  He's designed the visual appearance so they have a similar paint scheme to the 3.75m stock parts.  Fits in perfectly.)

They produce a lot of torque (being big) ... but what's really nice about it is that since they're radially attached, you don't have to put them inline in your stack, which means you don't end up with a wobbly/floppy rocket and you can pack on as many of them as the height of your fuel tank will allow.

Of course, this won't help you if your stack is smaller than 3.75m.  However, I find that's not an issue for me-- the only time I need such huge amounts of torque is when I have a big ship, which means I generally have a large-diameter part somewhere anyway.

[Guest]

@Snark If you're feeling cheatsy, you can attach more than two and they don't Z-fight.

[SpacedCowboy]

Why on Kerbin would you want that much torque to begin with?

[TheDestroyer111]

10 hours ago, SpacedCowboy said:

Why on Kerbin would you want that much torque to begin with?

On the picture in the OP, look at the mass displayed by KER. It weighs over a frappin 400 tons.

[Sharpy]

11 hours ago, SpacedCowboy said:

Why on Kerbin would you want that much torque to begin with?

Asteroids.

 

[Ultimate Steve]

22 hours ago, SpacedCowboy said:

Why on Kerbin would you want that much torque to begin with?

I shall now direct you to the link in my signature that says "Project Intrepid." I am currently launching a 94 meter long ship. That's not counting the lifter.

 

[SpacedCowboy]

4 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I shall now direct you to the link in my signature that says "Project Intrepid." I am currently launching a 94 meter long ship. That's not counting the lifter.

 

Yes Master ! ,,, Just messin'

I'll CIO. Sounds interesting.