RCS Round Tank Talk

[Firedtm]

Hello all,

I have a question for SQUAD. do they plan to make a smaller FL-R1 RCS fuel tank, that is half the size for the large rockets. i use RCS a lot but never burn more then i say 1/4 of what in that tank. even before .21 and .20

i do not like the Stratus-V tanks hanging off the sides of my rockets/ships but still want to a smaller tank

[M4ck]

How large would you like it to be? I mean both vertical size, compared to the regular one, and the amount of monoprop in it. Do you want it to be shorter and lighter, or just to have less fuel but to remain the size it is now?

[Firedtm]

shorter and lighter, if its has less fuel, then it would have to be shorter and lighter. i don't know if i am just good with the RCS but like i said i do not use that much fuel with the FL-R1 RCS fuel tank, i feel i waste too much of it when i let it go reentering the planet

Edited: most likely shorter and lighter and so its half the cost

[Whackjob]

You can always slap a docking port on it and leave it up there as an emergency fuel reserve.

[Firedtm]

that is something i will think about, its a thing i never thought of

[Whackjob]

Remember, even NASA has no qualms re-purposing used equipment! At some point Mars colonists will pay a premium to have their Mohito's mixed by Curiosity.

[M4ck]

Will this do? The bolts are not round, but other than that it is just as the original, only shorter and smaller. The bottom one is stock.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

If yes, then paste this under the last "}" in your GameData\Squad\Parts\FuelTank\RCSTank1-2\part.cfg file. This way nothing more gets loaded into game like models, textures. It already uses what is present there and what gets loaded anyway

PART
{
// Kerbal Space Program - Part Config

// --- general parameters ---
name = RCSTank1-2-half
module = Part
author = NovaSilisko

MODEL
{
	model=Squad/Parts/FuelTank/RCSTank1-2/model
	position = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
	scale = 1.0, 0.5, 1.0
	rotation = 0, 0, 0
}

rescaleFactor = 1

// --- node definitions ---
node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.25, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.25, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

// --- editor parameters ---
cost = 800
category = Propulsion
subcategory = 0
title = FL-R1-S RCS Fuel Tank
manufacturer = Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co.
description = A larger-scale version of the standard RCS fuel tank. This one is half the original length.

// attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision
attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0

// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 0.2
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.2
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 12
maxTemp = 2900

// --- rcs fuel tank parameters ---

RESOURCE
{
 name = MonoPropellant
 amount = 375
 maxAmount = 375
}
}

Actually any part.cfg file would do, this one is specifically the one containing the info about the stock tank as well.

Edited September 9, 2013 by M4ck

[Scotius]

Hmm, i prefer to have hefty reserve of monopropellant on my ships. Especially on long range exploration vessels leaving Kerbin's SoI. I would hate to run out of mono somewhere around Jool. Better safe than sorry.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

I just use the radial ones and hide them behind other parts

I still would like a smaller height RCS tanks, like the ones from the stock expansion pack

[M5000]

Wait where are you using RCS again? During your ascent and/or circ burn? You do know we have reaction wheels, right? A good lifter shouldn't require any RCS.

Actually, if you got enough reaction wheels plus enough power supply, you shouldn't even need RCS except for to translate, it's really just extra mass...

[EvilotionCR2]

Wait where are you using RCS again? During your ascent and/or circ burn? You do know we have reaction wheels, right? A good lifter shouldn't require any RCS. Actually, if you got enough reaction wheels plus enough power supply, you shouldn't even need RCS except for to translate, it's really just extra mass...

Well,then we can say that most of our RL lifters are bad.

[Giggleplex777]

Well,then we can say that most of our RL lifters are bad.

Yes, they are bad. Why can't we just teleport to the next habitable planet?

[Scotius]

Because we did not found Stargate yet. Or at least no one confessed to finding one. Chinese have something suspiciously Stargate-looking, but they do not speak about it either.

[KrazyKrl]

KSP reaction wheels are quite energetic. And they don't have any of the drawbacks of a large spinning wheel of death causing vibration and energy drain on the vehicle.

I'm sure that NASA and other space agencies have researched Reaction Wheels, Control Moment Gyroscopes, and RCS. The fact is, if they could find a way to make Reaction Wheels applicable, they would have. RCS is simpler to implement, and is probably MUCH lighter per unit of delta-v. A Control Moment Gyroscopes has AT LEAST 3 moving parts, the wheel itself, the motor, and the gimballing system.

It's KSP that is sacrificing realism for gameplay reasons. When you scale down space travel, lots of weird things start happening. Real spacecraft use CMGs anyhow.

[Brofessional]

If you're using RCS during ascent, you're doing it wrong.

Anyway there are some smaller RCS tanks in KSPX that will likely get added eventually.

[Read have Read]

I agree with Brofessional

I wouldnt be surprised if the RCS was used on a lifter stage to either to suddenly pitch over to 45 degrees at 10Km instead of a slow gradual turn or used to keep a wobbly and unsound rocket on course.

However OP never said anything about having RCS on the lifter or on the payload, so assuming it is for a payload, KSPX already has a half sized 2m RCS tank that holds 375 units of mono an weighs 1.7 tons.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Read have Read

[Whackjob]

I shudder to think how it would affect my creations if I had to use RCS for attitude control.

RCS (13078/2250000)

[Firedtm]

Wait where are you using RCS again? During your ascent and/or circ burn? You do know we have reaction wheels, right? A good lifter shouldn't require any RCS.

Actually, if you got enough reaction wheels plus enough power supply, you shouldn't even need RCS except for to translate, it's really just extra mass...

i use it for mostly docking and undocking for the most part

i am getting better at docking with useing less and less RCS

[magnemoe]

KSP reaction wheels are quite energetic. And they don't have any of the drawbacks of a large spinning wheel of death causing vibration and energy drain on the vehicle.

I'm sure that NASA and other space agencies have researched Reaction Wheels, Control Moment Gyroscopes, and RCS. The fact is, if they could find a way to make Reaction Wheels applicable, they would have. RCS is simpler to implement, and is probably MUCH lighter per unit of delta-v. A Control Moment Gyroscopes has AT LEAST 3 moving parts, the wheel itself, the motor, and the gimballing system.

It's KSP that is sacrificing realism for gameplay reasons. When you scale down space travel, lots of weird things start happening. Real spacecraft use CMGs anyhow.

Reaction wheels are common in satellites. However the real world version is far weaker than the ones in KSP. This is for gameplay reasons, NASA don't care if they use half an hour rotate an satellite but we would.

Manned crafts are so heavy and are not used for months and years so they use only rcs with the exception of IIS.

RSC is KSP is used mostly for docking, also useful for landings, secondary use is turning large ships fast but the new reaction wheels in 0.211 takes over most of this.

For boosters you might want to use it to stabilize during gravity turn and rotate the ship from end of gravity turn toward circulation node. here you ship probably has an orange and gray tank in addition to mainsail as an overweight tail and can be hard to turn.

[m1xte]

If you're using RCS during ascent, you're doing it wrong.

Have you considered that someones orbital insertion stage might be 500t.

[magnemoe]

Have you considered that someones orbital insertion stage might be 500t.

Picture of rocket on pad please

Know the problem, for real fun try the orion mod, try rotate a 10.000 ton ship in orbit. I seriously considering adding four 909 radially to help rotating. groups of 4 rcs trusters did not cut it.

[Hannu]

In real life there are continuous small torques which affect to spaceships. They are due to the solar pressure or some gases escaping from ship. Reaction wheels can resist such torques by increasing their rpm. But naturally there are some maximum rpm value. After that they need so called momentum dumping, during which RCS thrusters produce torque so that wheels can be stopped. So, satellites and probes must have the RCS. Most satellites have both systems because reaction wheels are more controllable and no not consume fuel. Manned crafts do not typically need very high pointing precision and they do not need to stay maneuverable longer than couple of weeks, so they do not have reaction wheels (except ISS).

I would also like smaller spherical RCS tanks. For example 10 units of monopropellant. Typically I need one RCS operation during the flight (for example when a lander docks to a station or mothership) and it uses 5-10 units. Now I have to take 80 units (or 40 if I take risk of unbalance and put just one tank) which is just useless weight eating limited delta v.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Hannu

[Slugy]

I too would like some much smaller RCS tanks in the stock game, in the meantime you can make your own:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/48368-Part-Generator-Version-3-Win-Linux-Mac

[m1xte]

Picture of rocket on pad please

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/29618-The-Simple-Heavy-Lifting-challenge?p=366461&viewfull=1#post366461

Its outdated and works lot better with the pod torque replaced with RCS.

[DChurchill]

KSPX has a half-size RCS tank.