Looking for a Heavy Docking Port

[capi3101]

Howdy all. I've broken down and decided to add my first mod, the Subassembly Loader; that one just strikes me as being useful without necessarily being "cheating".

Anyways, I was wondering first if there were any folks out there swapping around customized parts they'd developed, and if so if anyone could point me in the direction of a "heavy docking port". I saw a picture not to long ago where someone had strutted up four docking ports to the side of a Rockomax Adapter 02; something like that one would be awesome if it's available. The interplanetary ship I was building (the one with five LV-Ns) assembled the way it was designed but I discovered that it wobbled pretty badly under thrust - steering was a bigger nightmare than I anticipated, to say nothing about keeping a steady course. Any help here would be appreciated.

[Sol_Rokks_Teddy]

FusTek adds more docking ports that are much strogner than the stock ones. There are 1m and .5m ports that will connect to the vanilla ports of the same size. As well as 2m wide and huge 3m wide ports. Quantum strut is also very good for strengthening docking connections.

[Temstar]

This one?

Just download the craft files at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24990-0-19-1-Orbital-Propellant-Depot-Olympus-II and save the part as your own subassembly

[capi3101]

Yep - that's the one. Much obliged.

[GoldenShadowGS]

I've had success mating a triple docking port. I used the TVR-1180C Mk1 Stack Tri-Coupler with three docking ports. I think this makes a stronger connection than one. and it looks nice too.

[bigbonebilly]

have a look at quantum struts. its so nice when you dock something together and it reduce the wobble to nearly 0.

you only use one docking port an maybe 4 struts around the port -> perfect connection.

[Endangerment]

With that heavy docking port I can't attach two together in the VAB, is that normal - do they have to be attached in space?

[Temstar]

They have to be attached in space because many-to-one relationship for parts is not allowed. KSP's tree structure for crafts only allows one-to-one and one-to-many

[Endangerment]

Thanks, thought that was the case.

[shand]

it is possible to preconnect these types of things, but not this particular design.

[Blackstar]

I tend to use the tri-coupler method as IMO it's a little easier to get lined up during docking than the quad, plus you can build one on the fly and all the ports will be in the right spot. Both have the advantage of limiting the possible docking orientations, which is nice for building things like space stations so you don't have to worry as much about having your modules turned slightly and not aligned.

They have to be attached in space because many-to-one relationship for parts is not allowed. KSP's tree structure for crafts only allows one-to-one and one-to-many

A workaround for this is to build one part normally -- starting with the coupler, then adding the docking ports second. I save that to subassembly loader as my 'A' port.

Then build another, placing a docking port first (flip it backwards and stick it to the side of any random object). Place the tri-coupler on top of it, then add 2 more docking ports. The second one will have the first docking port as its "anchor" and only node that shows up when placing it. I save that one as my 'B' port.

When building a ship, use 'A' ports to place on the central structure -- the back of the tri-coupler will be your attachment node. Then grab the 'B' port and you'll be able to place its 'primary' docking port snugly attached to one of the ports of your 'A' group in the VAB. If you did it right, upon launching the ship all 3 ports will be magically connected even though you only had one node connected.

[Endangerment]

I thought adding the tricoupler simply moved the instability from the ports to the join between the tricoupler and whatever it is attached to? Or do you strut it?

[capi3101]

Quick question - can anybody take a guess as to the mass of that heavy port? I got to thinking that I'd probably have to stick one of thems on my lander, which is going to mean more dead mass/less delta-V/a lower TWR for it.

I could probably do it myself - 9 EAS-4 struts (0.45), 4 Clamp-o-Trons (0.2), looks like 4 BZ-52s (0.16) and a Rockomax Adapter 02 (.08). 0.89 tonnes? That sound about right?

[Temstar]

It's 0.28 tons:

[capi3101]

Ah...okay. That's right - EAS-4s are massless despite the values listed for them in 0.19. I didn't think BZ-52s were, though - makes me wonder if I'm just seeing things.

Well, that's a fair sight better than what I calculated, isn't it...

Definitely need the part; my alternative interplanetary design didn't wobble, it had so many parts it made the game lag. This will give me a good compromise.