Higher powered R.C.S thrusters for docking

[Bilfr3d]

Docking can be a real pain, but what if newer, higher powered R.C.S thrusters were introduced, specifically for use with docking? This would probably make the job a whole lot eaisier.

[Fox62]

It would certainly be nice to have thrusters that can move those really big ships without having to slap a few dozen of the littler thrusters on there.

[sumghai]

The current RCS thrusters are sufficient for manoeuvring even medium-sized craft for docking.

If you have larger crafts, just put more RCS thrusters at appropriate locations - the small size RCS thrusters allows for precision control.

[allmappedout]

Larger ship? Place it further from CoM - the magic of levers in action!

[LeadMagnet]

mmmmmmmmmmmm..........leeee..vvveeersss!

[El wonso]

Linear RCS port is more powerful than a blocky one.

[Tyren]

Get NovaPunch, there are some really powerful RCS blocks in it, to move extreme heavy payloads.

[Themohawkninja]

Linear RCS port is more powerful than a blocky one.

^^This^^

Plus, just add more RCS thrusters if you really don't want to be very patient. Four points of thrust for all three axis seems to be quite sufficient for docking even whole orange tanks.

[Eric S]

Linear RCS port is more powerful than a blocky one.

Not true. Both have a thrust of 1.0, and I've done tests on that to confirm it.

[Stir_Fry_Beans]

5 linear RCS ports have the same monopropellant use as one RCS block. This is because the block has five nozzles XD so maybe just use five of the linear ones next to your docking port which would produce 5 times the thrust of a single RCS block.

[Eric S]

5 linear RCS ports have the same monopropellant use as one RCS block. This is because the block has five nozzles XD so maybe just use five of the linear ones next to your docking port which would produce 5 times the thrust of a single RCS block.

It doesn't work that way. As I said, I've tested this. Unless you place the quads wrong, only one nozzle thrusts at a time. If all four nozzles were thrusting at the same time, they'd cancel each other out.

I threw two craft, identical except for one having four RCS quads and the other having four RCS linear thrusters, into a solar orbit, pointed them prograde and burned off the RCS fuel. Both craft had the same acceleration and burn time, resulting in the same final velocity.

[Piggius_Max]

Yeah just larger RCS thrusters would be nice on some of the bigger craft instead of having to strap loads on

[hotcrazyfruit]

I am all for larger RCS thrusters. Maybe 3 - 5 kN Range.

There are, arguably, places where these will simply be more useful than multiple smaller thrusters, one for sure being part count.

[Bilfr3d]

I am all for larger RCS thrusters. Maybe 3 - 5 kN Range.

There are, arguably, places where these will simply be more useful than multiple smaller thrusters, one for sure being part count.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Also, you might to be able to put the small ones everywhere on your ship, it depends on the room and if they can actually fit. Also, theoretically, a few big thrusters would also use less RCS fuel than millions of small ones. Just saying.

[karolus10]

I think that second linear RCS, would seal the deal, Also I Would like to see ability for assigning thrusters to specific axis, for example two pairs of strong thrusters could be used for roll control in lower stage, when engines gimbals will take care of Pitch an Yaw.

[Dunbaratu]

Usually my problem is the opposite. I have a very tiny mass ship and find that I want a mode that 'nerfs' rotational power even MORE so than capslock does. Even under capslock I tap a WASDQE key just once and I'm already spinning at about 1 rev per two seconds or so.