Replica's Docking port consideration...

[Jestersage]

A recent discussion point me to a dilemma I have for choosing port in replica/analogues

In typical situation, we will use the standard dock for almost everything, with some Senior Docks for space station, and junior docks for small craft, Apollo crafts, and refueling ports/hardpoints.

However, if we consider that the diameter for the tunnel, then it gets... funny.

• The common Docking port for spacecraft (IDSS, NASA docking system, SSVP, and APAS) all have the transfer passage of 800mm, which if we apply the 66% conversion rate to KSP scale, is 528mm... which is close to the 0.625m Jr Port
• The Common berthing mechanism, which is the largest use in space and only on US segment of ISS, has the transfer passage diameter of 1300 mm. Convert to KSP scale it becomes 858mm. Nowhere close to the Jr port or the Standard port -- but "close" enough.

So in your opinion, is there good reason why the Jr Port is bad to use when building replicas?

Edited September 10, 2019 by Jestersage

[Majorjim!]

56 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

in your opinion, is there good reason why the Jr Port is bad to use when building replicas?

It's totally dependent on what you are replicating.

[Jestersage]

1 hour ago, Majorjim! said:

It's totally dependent on what you are replicating.

Say ISS or Soyuz (SSVP) and Orion (NDS). If we go by scale, Russia segment and the Orion should definitely use Mini port...

[Pds314]

"KSP SCALE" well there's your problem. Unless you're making mini "replicas" instead of full size replicas.

[swjr-swis]

On 9/9/2019 at 7:04 PM, Jestersage said:

So in your opinion, is there good reason why the Jr Port is bad to use when building replicas?

Depends on your self-imposed rules and restrictions when building replicas, and even what your personal interpretation is of 'replica'.

I would say use whatever works within your personal context, and don't worry about what others might consider 'bad'. The relative scale of humans and their spacecraft is different from kerbals and their spacecraft, so trying to directly compare hatch or docking port diameters between the two is going to be problematic anyway. Gigantic heads with even more ridiculously big helmets to try and fit through a hatch... it's best not to overthink that aspect.

[Jestersage]

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Depends on your self-imposed rules and restrictions when building replicas, and even what your personal interpretation is of 'replica'.

I would say use whatever works within your personal context, and don't worry about what others might consider 'bad'. The relative scale of humans and their spacecraft is different from kerbals and their spacecraft, so trying to directly compare hatch or docking port diameters between the two is going to be problematic anyway. Gigantic heads with even more ridiculously big helmets to try and fit through a hatch... it's best not to overthink that aspect.

Oh okay. Basically trying to figure out the ISS ports, PMA, and what not. (context as listed in OP)

Edited September 18, 2019 by Jestersage

[swjr-swis]

18 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Basically trying to figure out the ISS ports, PMA, and what not. (context as listed in OP)

You mention one good reason to use the Jr size, and one that leaves it undecided. No other argument is made based on any other constraints other than 'relative diameter'. What 'we are used to doing' has no bearing on the single constraint of 'keep it close to the relative diameter'. If there are no other constraints, it sounds like you should go with the Jr for standard ports, and maybe the standard port for common berthing to visually distinguish the two.

You still keep the issue of 'weird' sizes, either way. Directly comparing to RW craft, It will look oversized if you go Sr/Standard, and with Standard/Jr it will look impossible for kerbals to transit. Your choice as to which of those matters most to you when building replicas. That's why I said that this is one of those things that you really need to not overthink too much. Pick what matters most to you, add an explanation of your choice in the craft description if need be for your own peace of mind, then stick to it for consistency between craft in the same save.

[panzer1b]

I almost exclusively build capital ships in chibi scale, so im fairly likely to use the smallest ports availeable for them when adding hangar space (if a starfighter hull is below 1.2m its very hard to make the larger ports look good on it).  Capital ships tend to use the mid range port options for docking to themselves and or stations/refulelers (they are more numerous for asthetic choice), and stations or vertically stacked ground base modules use the largest one for its improved stability (and the fact that 90% of my ground/station designs are physically large enough to accomodate that size port without looking stupid).

The largest port is also very big and has a huge hitbox, so i dont go near it on anything that expects to get shot at (especially with stock non-BDA weaponry which evicerate those large ports very quickly).  That and i tend to use ALOT of klaws on both ships (its helpful to be able to dock to a section of a ship and use its fuel after its been lost in combat), and even starfighters that are physically large enough to add one without making it look like a joke, which is not all that many of them as of this point in time (trifighters use them, and most bombers/heavy fighters but every other one uses the small ports or the extendable MH one which docks to the small ports).

And ofc as for non military replicas (i do actually make a few of those), i just pick whatever port looks the part and fits closest to the rest of the ship scale wise.

Edited September 19, 2019 by panzer1b