RCS Probe Idea

[thescientist]

Hi guys!

Have you ever done an probe with an RCS propulsion? What do you think about that? Post here you answer!

Personally I think that it has advantanges and disvantages, something like that:

ADV

(potentially) higher thurst than the standard "ant engine" and the ion engine:D

new design:sticktongue:

something new to try:cool:

DIS

uncontrollabile throttle;.;

lower ISP:0.0:

inefficient propoulsion sistem:mad:

very heavy fuel:blush:

Do you agree with me about that point?

P.s. I'm not a mother-tongue, so write me if you found a mistake...I hope I will learn!

Edited June 14, 2013 by thescientist

[Nullspace250]

Actualy, if done right, i got a RcS probe from minmus to mun, and from mun to Duna!

You dont need all that much RCS.

Rcs is OP

[Sir Nahme]

It having more thrust than an ion engine or ant is debatable. A single rcs thruster does not have much, if any, more thrust than either of them, but we tend to have alot more of them in play. And with it's abyssmal fuel usage and very heavy fuel you are far better off using either of the other two in clusters to achieve the same effect.

[Johnno]

I completed the Luna 9 tutorial found off the wiki for giggles, getting server errors so can't go find the link right now but it's in the tutorials section. It's about landing a probe on the Mun with RCS only, no battery and only solar panels for power. Was quite fun.

[koshelenkovv]

Yes, I've made RCS probes, RCS landers and RCS landers since 0.15.

RCS grants great level of control, but have disadvantage what you get significantly less dV from RCS than from liquid fuel + ant or 24-77 for vessel of same mass.

If you are not good with landing, try tiny-tiny RCS lander, it incredibly easy and does not require fiddling with throttle.

RCS rovers are great too, they can be stopped fast and can right themselves if get flipped over accidentaly.

New rover wheels largely obsoleted RCS usage on rovers, though.

Edited June 9, 2013 by koshelenkovv

[Typhor]

Back around 0.18, it was possible to make a four or five part RCS probe. Due to the RCS glitch, now fixed, it was possible to reach interstellar speeds, all with a probe body, monopropellent, a solar panel, and a linear thruster

[Vanamonde]

I sent an interplanetary ship to the Jool system, and then launched RCS-propelled probes from it to several of the moons while the ship itself stayed in Jool orbit. So yes, if the probe is small enough, RCS can do the job by itself.

[joppiesaus]

You can do anything with RCS. I landed on almost every celestial body with probes with RCS. Works great!

[Kerbol Prime]

I've made a small Minmus lander with rcs, quite fun to use.

[DisarmingBaton5]

RCS used to be OP, even more than it is now. I once got an RCS-powered probe within 200km of the sun (any more time spent burning would have made it a sundive, and I wanted low solar orbit). Scott Manley also has a few videos on the subject, from before RCS got nerfed.

[Sapphire]

Back around 0.18, it was possible to make a four or five part RCS probe. Due to the RCS glitch, now fixed, it was possible to reach interstellar speeds, all with a probe body, monopropellent, a solar panel, and a linear thruster

Ah yes, those were the days...

[thescientist]

RCS used to be OP, even more than it is now. I once got an RCS-powered probe within 200km of the sun (any more time spent burning would have made it a sundive, and I wanted low solar orbit). Scott Manley also has a few videos on the subject, from before RCS got nerfed.

what does OP mean?

[KSK]

what does OP mean?

Over powered I think.

[OrbitusII]

what does OP mean?

Over powered I think.

Yes, it means "over powered," but it could also mean "original post" depending on the context of its use.

Anyway, the Monoprobe is powered by RCS fuel, and while it's only got 638-ish m/s dV, that's enough to land on a lot of the bodies in the Kerbol system. I should probably update it to use the 0.20 GameData system...

[Joe Shmoe]

My first probe to land on Mun (successfully:D) was done with RCS.

[thescientist]

I'm still working to make an interesting RCS-Probe...i'll post some screenshot as soon as possible

do you suggest me to make it lightweight or with a big RCS tank?

[Tw1]

do you suggest me to make it lightweight or with a big RCS tank?

Just remember to factor in the amount of thrust you need, VS the mass when the tanks are full.

[7499275]

It is a great idea in my opinion but... There is a problem, you need a conventional launch system from Kerbin to be able to use it. What I mean is, RCS will not have enough TWR to lift it off Kerbin but once in orbit it will work, might need to be refueled after a while though!

[Francesco]

the problem with RCS is that it's heavy: using stock parts, a single rounded tanks weights almost 250 kg. on very small probes, for almost the same weight, you can use two toroidal tanks and have more delta-v.

also, consider a RCS thruster vs. an ant engine: the ant engine is lighter, and has better thrust and ISP.

[Tw1]

It is a great idea in my opinion but... There is a problem, you need a conventional launch system from Kerbin to be able to use it. What I mean is, RCS will not have enough TWR to lift it off Kerbin but once in orbit it will work, might need to be refueled after a while though!

It is possible to get of the ground, but not very far. I built an RCS based thing with a mk1 pod, a few tanks and dozens of thrusters to land on the old launch tower in 0.18. It ran out of fuel before landing, but I'd brought a 'chute for that.

Though I agree with the suggestion to use the Ant instead. My current Jool probe (actually got there, yay!) has several rover-probes, and the non-tylo ones were going to use RCS to land.

But experiments showed I could do much better with the Ant and mini fuel tanks.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Tw1

[thescientist]

Just remember to factor in the amount of thrust you need, VS the mass when the tanks are full.

You're right!

I made a two stage-probe: once the first (and the most heavy) is empty, I can gettison it and continue my flight with the second stage, lighter and with lower power.

Sorry, can someone explain to me how to put images in a message? I have the screenshots, but I don't know how to post them:(

[thescientist]

It is a great idea in my opinion but... There is a problem, you need a conventional launch system from Kerbin to be able to use it. What I mean is, RCS will not have enough TWR to lift it off Kerbin but once in orbit it will work, might need to be refueled after a while though!

Also you are right! I used the Kerbal X rocket to put my probe on orbit at about 250km (to use the X1000 time warp).

Edited June 14, 2013 by thescientist

[thescientist]

the problem with RCS is that it's heavy: using stock parts, a single rounded tanks weights almost 250 kg. on very small probes, for almost the same weight, you can use two toroidal tanks and have more delta-v.

also, consider a RCS thruster vs. an ant engine: the ant engine is lighter, and has better thrust and ISP.

That's one other disvantage of this propulsion sistem...my probe has a mass of about 5 tons...I'll add that to the list.