Orbital Construction Joints

[Superfluous J]

2 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

But not through the part configs?

No you can change the part configs (that's all MM configs do), but it's clunky to hand-edit configs that will automatically change back when you update.

[Twreed87]

I think keyed ports is the way to go. Use tweakables to set the angle snap, magnets rotate it to fit. So simple yet it'd open up so many possibilities.

[Wanderhoof]

Not sure if this is the correction discussion to add this, but... it seems to fit/follow.

Angled docking ports.  Or docking ports that could have a variable angle.  Thus far, I can do straight, in-line docking (call it 'noes-to-nose'?) and T or cross docking (perpendicular?).  But, I have not found an efficient way (then again, I am most definitely a noob) to make angled docking ports or angled docking port intersections (like in a 'Y' configuration).

I could see this useful for making hexagonal (or any number of other geometric, multi-sided configurations) space station rings, as one example.

 

As a side note on the matter of current, real world space stations being temporary and eventually de-orbited, isn't this more a matter of the economic viability (or lack thereof) of keeping them maintained in perpetuity versus whether or not is technologically possible to do so?

[Red Iron Crown]

On 10/16/2016 at 1:23 PM, Wanderhoof said:

Not sure if this is the correction discussion to add this, but... it seems to fit/follow.

Angled docking ports.  Or docking ports that could have a variable angle.  Thus far, I can do straight, in-line docking (call it 'noes-to-nose'?) and T or cross docking (perpendicular?).  But, I have not found an efficient way (then again, I am most definitely a noob) to make angled docking ports or angled docking port intersections (like in a 'Y' configuration).

I could see this useful for making hexagonal (or any number of other geometric, multi-sided configurations) space station rings, as one example.

Try using the rotate tool after the port is placed on the craft.

On 10/16/2016 at 1:23 PM, Wanderhoof said:

As a side note on the matter of current, real world space stations being temporary and eventually de-orbited, isn't this more a matter of the economic viability (or lack thereof) of keeping them maintained in perpetuity versus whether or not is technologically possible to do so?

Orbits decay and parts wear out IRL, so a controlled deorbit to an unpopulated area is a good way to dispose of stuff that's outlived its usefulness in a safe way. KSP has perpetually stable orbit and parts are as good after a century as the day they were launched so there's not really a need to dispose of things that way.

[Wanderhoof]

1 minute ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Orbits decay and parts wear out IRL, so a controlled deorbit to an unpopulated area is a good way to dispose of stuff that's outlived its usefulness in a safe way. KSP has perpetually stable orbit and parts are as good after a century as the day they were launched so there's not really a need to dispose of things that way.

Right.  Those are the IRL factors that lead to orbital decay and controlled (or uncontrolled, yikes! ) deorbit of space stations.  KSP space stations, by contrast, require no maintenance nor resupply to remain in their stable orbits, keep their crews supplied with food and oxygen (assuming Kerbals respirate and ingest nourishment).

But, as for IRL space stations, given a regular resupply of fuel and parts and other supplies necessary for life support, in theory, couldn't they be maintained in orbit in perpetuity given sufficient resources (notably, the funds necessary to provide all of the parts and infrastructure for resupply and regular maintenance)?

I realize it is not a practical theory, as public will and political/bureaucratic focus to sustain such and endeavor seems to be utterly lacking.  It was more of a daydreaming theory... a probable what if?

And, since I am daydreaming and wandering off on tangents, if (IF) a space station were of sufficient mass and in high enough orbit (somewhere around the distance of the lunar orbit?), in terms of human lifespans would its orbit be considered indefinitely stable, akin to moons and other orbiting planetary bodies?

Wow.  I really rambled there... sort of just thinking out loud, I suppose.  I will readily admit to knowing precious little about space stations in solid technical and scientific aspects.  But, they do fascinate me, and I always love a good discussion about them even if it means I need to be 'taken to school'.