Station Organization

[lsutic]

I'm in the process of lifting module after module to my orbital stations - habitation, kethane refinery, docking complex, fuel depot, nuclear plant, solar panels, batteries, people movers, orbital tugs, etc... You know the drill. All good stuff to have in orbit.

The thing is, once the station starts getting to 500 or so parts, frame rates drop quite a lot, and this got me thinking: What is your policy for organizing all these functions in orbit? Is it best to have a single big station with everything, or having multiple stations with ships going between them as needed - one fuel depot, for example, then a habitation module a little behind in orbit, or?

Intuitively, I think one big station is the way to go - if nothing else, it makes fuel transfer a lot easier. But let's say that we just have to keep the individual station part count down. What would we do?

(As a side note, I'd love for a "station mode" where rigid-body physics (the simulation of parts bending and twisting and so on) were disabled. Or at least that each section, delimited by docking ports, counted as one "station part". But that's neither here nor there.)

[HeadHunter67]

First of all, use a tug or payload assist module to put new station components in place. If you launch each module with its own RCS thursters and monopropellant storage, the part count climbs fast.

Also, minimize use of lights by strategic placement. If you put them in the right place, they can illuminate an area, rather than just one port or an incoming vessel.

The best way to keep part counts low is by designing the entire thing first - either in the VAB or in your head. You needn't launch it all as one, but it helps to know how things are going together in order to place parts effectively.

[Capt_Reynolds]

I never thought of the idea of multiple stations. In this case, if your first station is in LKO, I would go and set one up in Minmus orbit (especially for that sweet sweet Kethane). Personally, I find LKO rendezvous to be too long of a process (that's compounded upon when going to multiple stations in one go) Getting Minmus and docking with a second station there is easier, plus it is a great place to transfer Kethane from the surface of Minmus, to orbit, then back to Kerbin for use on ships.

[samstarman5]

First of all, use a tug or payload assist module to put new station components in place. If you launch each module with its own RCS thursters and monopropellant storage, the part count climbs fast.

Also, minimize use of lights by strategic placement. If you put them in the right place, they can illuminate an area, rather than just one port or an incoming vessel.

The best way to keep part counts low is by designing the entire thing first - either in the VAB or in your head. You needn't launch it all as one, but it helps to know how things are going together in order to place parts effectively.

Best advice right here. With the sub-assembly coming next update, that last bit will be even handier, as you can build all or most of your design in the VAB, then split it off into sections for launch(hopefully). I can definitely attest to using a tug. Bringing in my antenna and power array with its own RCS felt ludicrous, and definitely added to the part count with the rcs tanks, nozzles, and the probe unit which just about doubled the load. .22 is not coming fast enough, I will tell ya.

[Stone Blue]

Also, minimize use of lights by strategic placement. If you put them in the right place, they can illuminate an area, rather than just one port or an incoming vessel.

I have been using the Aviation lights mod for all my lighting needs. While they are awesome, I was ending up with way too many on my stations.

Then i found some inline stack lights that I have since fallen in love with and have started using. Now I only use the Aviation Lights White Strobe Lights for direct lighting onto docking ports, or as "navigation" lights on satellites. I was also using these little strut bracket things (dont remember which mod they are from), to mount and point many of them. So I cut many of those also.

Scroll down to post #27: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/46879-Sunshine-movie-style-Deployable-Light-Globe-%28Large-Version%29/page3

These have easily cut my parts count as far as lighting goes, by 50-75%. Numbers-wise, I've cut 20-40 parts per station by using these.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Stone Blue

[VirtualCLD]

First of all, use a tug or payload assist module to put new station components in place. If you launch each module with its own RCS thursters and monopropellant storage, the part count climbs fast.

What's the best way to keep the docking port rigid when positioning parts of the space station. I built a basic heavy lift rocket with a remote orbiter stage that allows me to position station parts. But usually if I have to reposition two or more parts that are already assembled, they tear apart at the docking port.

[HeadHunter67]

The UDKLD strut tabs are nice, but yes, they do cause the part count to add up.

Thanks for the link to the stack light - they look really sharp! I'm going to try them out.

Edited September 26, 2013 by HeadHunter67

[Merinsan]

First of all, use a tug or payload assist module to put new station components in place. If you launch each module with its own RCS thursters and monopropellant storage, the part count climbs fast.

Also, minimize use of lights by strategic placement. If you put them in the right place, they can illuminate an area, rather than just one port or an incoming vessel.

The best way to keep part counts low is by designing the entire thing first - either in the VAB or in your head. You needn't launch it all as one, but it helps to know how things are going together in order to place parts effectively.

This is exactly what I have learnt through multiple station builds.

I love building fuel depots, and have slowly refined my design.

My first station was massive, and lagged the game to death, and made it a nightmare to dock with.

Now I have depots with the same fuel capacity, but are easy to dock with.

My first station had RCS ports on each part that was docking and extra docking ports, plus pretty stuff to make it look good. I now dock orange fuel tanks with docking ports at each end, and nothing more.

[lazarus1024]

I tend to break up my station in to two. One is a fuel station and one a personel station.

The former generally in a 240km orbit, the later in a 300km orbit.

Both have tugs. The first a rockomax large grey tank. Most of my interplanetary designs make it to orbit with 70-90% fuel on board, so the fuel station is mostly just topping off the fuel. I haven't yet gone to a reusable interplanetary ship program. In fact I pretty much never even return missions to Kerbin with the exception of Mun and sometimes Minimus missions. I think I've returned one Duna mission in my 16 months of game play. That will change with R&D and career mode.

So with career mode, refueling is going to be more important.

Based on my current designs and thoughts on future plans, things for outside of Cismunar space are likely going to take the following design from front to back.

Lander module->Command/Orbiter module->Fuel section->Drive section->booster section

A typical design for me has a fuel section consisting of girders with ports around it for 2-4 Rockomax orange or grey tanks. Behind is a drive section with 4-8 NERVA engines and a rockomax large or medium tank. I'll also ususally leave a port at the back of the drive section so I can attach the upper stage of one of the payload lifters (typically a rockomax grey tank with skipper engine). I'll use that as the boost stage for higher TWR to boost the whole thing out of Kerbin orbit, or at least get a good start on it.

I'll drop the fuel section tanks as they get emptied.

So in my reusable scenario all that would come back would be the command/orbital section, which would have a small engine(s) to deorbit it for return to kerbin (non-reusable), the fuel section which by the time it gets back, would probably be devoid of tanks (unless I overcompensated for fuel and the tanks aren't all the way empty yet) and the drive section with its lone tank.

Fuel depot would allow me to at least refuel the drive section, or if the fuel section had any tanks left I could refill those easily.

Non-landing missions to Eve or Duna (or if I build a Cisminmus shuttle) would likely have fully reusable designs (well, command/orbital module would still be non-reusable to return to Kerbin itself, but no drop tanks).

[lsutic]

The best way to keep part counts low is by designing the entire thing first - either in the VAB or in your head. You needn't launch it all as one, but it helps to know how things are going together in order to place parts effectively.

Yes. I'll definitely second that.

I do use tugs to position things. They go up on a standard heavy lifter which brings them to ~100 meters from the station, then the tug goes out, docks with the module and lifter, grabs as much leftover fuel and RCS from the lifter as possible, before bringing the module back. The lifter is then sent into the nearest lithobraking-capable object.

What I'm talking about isn't just "how to get a space station for KSP interplanetary missions up". I'm more thinking "how would I build a spacefaring civilization?" (Like Iain M. Banks's "Culture", if you know that one.)

Right now, I'm flying missions from Kerbin to other planets and back. But suppose we had in-orbit construction. (Well, with HyperEdit we more or less do.) How would we build stations if we really conquered space and the missions to other planets weren't supposed to come back, but establish a permanent presence in space for the majority of Kerbalkind?

[Mordeth]

Seems like a good thread to ask my question.

So, I can now launch and sustain a stable circular orbit. My next plan is to set up *Spaceholme* for my Kerbals. I can get the 1st part of the station to orbit no problem at all. My questions are these, when should I drop the last stage? Also, my station spins and spins and spins. I almost get dizzy watching it. What do I need on Spaceholme to stop this spin?

[HAMsmith]

I go very simplistic now after going over the top in the beginning. Current model is an orange tank, hitchhiker can, couple of SR ports, one JR, and two normal. Fancy additions would be adding a six-way hub with extra SR ports for interplanetary vehicle assembly.

Not sure how well it works in KSP but I love this concept:

Image is from this site:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

[AmpsterMan]

I only have one kind of "science" station. ISS style at 30° inclination with an orbital period twice sidereal rotation of Kerbin.

Any orbital construction takes place in LKO and usually is just an engine module combined with the service/command/lander module.

[Van Disaster]

Right now, I'm flying missions from Kerbin to other planets and back. But suppose we had in-orbit construction. (Well, with HyperEdit we more or less do.) How would we build stations if we really conquered space and the missions to other planets weren't supposed to come back, but establish a permanent presence in space for the majority of Kerbalkind?

There's two off-planet resource-gathering and construction mods, plus Kethane which isn't directly construction-related; anyone who uses those is getting used to solving those issues already ( and believe me it makes things massively more complicated ). It doesn't really change the way you use stations, though.

What do you need stations for?

* Holding fuel

* Transferring Kerbals ( this becomes an actual necessity rather than a roleplaying thing if you build ships off-Kerbin - unless you use Kerbtown which removes all the resource elements, you can't build Kerbals anywhere )

So really all you need is some tanks, some living space and enough room to dock a couple of ships. In Kerbin orbit I have a main station for transfers - I'm a spaceplaneaholic so crew all come up in those - & fuelling, and then in a slightly higher orbit I have what's basically a docking hub with some solar panels. I leave anything resembling a tug there, and if they need fuelling I can either dock a fuel tanker or a kethane tanker with a converter ( hence the need for the solar panels ). That means no tugs lying around doing nothing in the main station except killing FPS. I use quantum struts to keep the sections of station ( and docked ships too ) together more rigidly, and disposable RCS packs to align station elements.

"Some tanks, living space and enough room to dock a couple of ships" can also quite happily be done with a large ship; the only reason to use a static station is if you've a really busy system and you need to transfer from some really diverse ship types, or you have regular trips and you want highly optimized transfer vessels. The latter becomes more important if you're gathering all your own fuel, Kethane is a scarce resource when your operations start encompassing offworld construction.

[lsutic]

What do you need stations for?

* Holding fuel

* Transferring Kerbals ( this becomes an actual necessity rather than a roleplaying thing if you build ships off-Kerbin - unless you use Kerbtown which removes all the resource elements, you can't build Kerbals anywhere )

* Living.

But I see your strategy - multiple stations based on usage.

[Antikris]

If you recall how the Apollo astronauts went to the moon: a command and service module attached to a lunar landing module, which detached in lunar orbit, went down and back up, rendezvoused with the CM and then back to Earth. Mix a space station in there and you have what I've been building: Apollo-esque crafts dock there with a fresh crew, resupply the station and take the docked surface module down to the Mun.

The station started with a science module as a means to examine rock samples in orbit instead of on Kerbin, allowing multiple surface expeditions per mission. Then a docking module was added with an antenna and solar panel array adding to the station's self-sustainability. Then a habitat module came and the station could now support a permanent crew roster. Subsequent missions brought another surface lander and a large fuel tank to initially refill the landers.

Then the moment came to start a surface base; habitat module and mining drones arrived and docked for later transfer to the surface. Once a mining unit was up the small surface base could sustain the landers by itself. Fuel refills of the station by arriving crafts now served a new purpose: to refuel an unmanned drone that travels between the surface and the station and delivers unpowered base modules.

For a while I was thinking about refueling the station from the mining operations on the surface, make it fully independent from Kerbin supply, but so far the fuel that is spent by a dedicated transport drone to ascend the Mun and rendezvous with the station in orbit (and then return to the surface) is too much for just that purpose alone, IMO. The light LM's however already ferry personel up and down and are much more practical to also carry excess fuel to the station.

Maybe I can work out a slingshot system of some sort, though...

Anyway, the entire setup here is supposed to be an exercise in logistics where fuel and redundancy play a central role. I posted an infographic in another thread.

[Van Disaster]

Well, you can't actually *do* anything on a station atm; I KAS connect most of my ground operations so I need Kerbals there ( ok you can do it with robot craft, but they can't work around things falling off... ), but there's nothing I need them for on a station yet.

I used to build giant stations with the idea of assembling things there, but FPS was usually so bad by the end of construction that I could hardly dock, let alone build anything.

And for construction methods, this is the central hub of my current game's main Kerbin station:

Sparing use of strut guns keeps it all pretty rigid.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Van Disaster

[Josh Harris]

Build only what you need. Giant solar arrays and excessive lighting is bound to drive up your part count. I second space tugs (at least probed upper stages with RCS) as well to move parts around.

Seems like what everyone is suggesting up to this point is the 1970 version of the Space Transportation System proposed by NASA administrator Thomas Paine, but nixed because of cost (except for Shuttle).

[M5000]

Antikris: Very nicely drawn infographic you have there, what program did you use to make it?

And to answer the thread: I love to build stations. Here are some of the key things you can do to keep your part count low, and your station organized and effective at what it does.

-Throw "making the station look good" out the window. Form MUST follow function on large things such as stations. If you build your station well, it will end up looking good anyway.

-Keep in mind what you want to accomplish. Set a goal for the station at the beginning, and follow that goal.

-Design a lifter that has a main purpose of station building. Give it either a transfer stage, or an enlarged insertion stage, with its own support systems, so that you don't need to put RCS, electricity, or probe cores on each station module. This will really cut down your part count. The modules, once docked, will have their own support systems once docked to the rest of the station, where there are already electricity supplies, fuel, and anything else of that nature.

-As others have said, design the entire station, in its entirety, as well as any types of expansions or alterations you may make to it, out in your head, or in the VAB, or, like I do, on paper or in a graphics program. It doesn't have to be DaVinci quality sketches, but you want to know basically how you're going to lay things out. This also lets you allocate where you're going to place resources, and lets you know which modules are actually going to need RCS thrusters. (Not every module needs them, but some of the station's extremities may need them for better rotation.) It will allow you to plan your light placement, and hopefully your solar panel placement, so that they are away from high-traffic areas, and will receive the best sun exposure.

-Use as big of resource containment pieces as possible. This is an interesting problem. When you use a larger fuel tank to hold some amount of a given volume, you reduce part count, but you also reduce the potential for modularity. In general, if you've set some number for how much of a resource you want to keep aboard your station, you want to use as large of a part as possible to make that happen. For example: Let's say I want to keep an orange tank worth of fuel on my station. Well, the best way to do that in respect to part count, is to place..Well, an orange tank of fuel on my station. I could also sub-divide that into smaller tanks, if I wanted to spread out the mass, or make the design more modular, but it will require more parts. This is where your planning really comes in handy. When you plan, you'll balance your needs and decide what's best for your application. Want a supply of RCS? Use a big RCS tank. Wanna spread it out? Fine, use smaller ones and spread it out. But it really doesn't make sense to use a bunch of radial cylindrical tanks to store 4000 units of monoprop. It's more parts than you need.. It may arguably look cooler, but it's more parts than you need.

-Keep one unmanned orbital tug on-hand at all times. Your station lifter will peter out sometimes on you, and other times you'll need to move loads around, so for those times, it's always good practice to keep a medium-duty unmanned tug on-hand.

-Also a good idea, keep an OTV/Space capsule on board in the event of needing to rescue a Kerb.

-Build your station in lower orbits, and boost it up as a whole with a disposable tug. This will allow your lifter to loft much larger payloads, so you can make much larger modules with less relative parts, rather than boosting smaller payloads to a higher orbit.

Those are all the station tips I've built up over time, and I've gotten station building down to an art, and it's currently my favorite thing to do in the game.

[Kerba Fett]

Yes. I'll definitely second that.

I do use tugs to position things. They go up on a standard heavy lifter which brings them to ~100 meters from the station, then the tug goes out, docks with the module and lifter, grabs as much leftover fuel and RCS from the lifter as possible, before bringing the module back. The lifter is then sent into the nearest lithobraking-capable object.

What I'm talking about isn't just "how to get a space station for KSP interplanetary missions up". I'm more thinking "how would I build a spacefaring civilization?" (Like Iain M. Banks's "Culture", if you know that one.)

Sems like you're adding an extra step. You had to attach your station module to a rocket to get it up there. Why not leave it attached until its part of the station?

The last stage on my station module lifters is:

A poodle, an orange tank, a large asas, a large battery, a large probe core, a large RCS tank, then a large docking port.

The station module is then attached to the docking port. (all my modules have docking ports on each end)

I also have an L shaped girder assembly that attaches to the RCS tank and runs parallel to the station module about 1m away from it. I use 2 or 4 way symmetry depending on the shape of the station module.

These girders are where I mount my RCS thrusters, retro engines, ( so I dont need to turn around to slow down) and lights. They also provide an attach point so I can run struts to the station module.

I dock with the station, transfer most but not all remaining fuel and monopropellant, then undock the delivery ship from the new module. This disconnects the struts and I just back away from the station and de-orbit the delivery ship.

All thats left on the new station module is a few strut connectors.

[Dkmdlb]

Sems like you're adding an extra step. You had to attach your station module to a rocket to get it up there. Why not leave it attached until its part of the station?

Exactly, let the final stage on the rocket be whatever is required for a few hundred m/s delta-v. Let it do the circularization burn (so that all other stages fall back to Kerbin), and then it should have enough dv to perform a rendezvous. Once the station module is docked, use the probe body on that final stage to de-orbit it.

An orange tank seems a bit excessive (and certainly doesn't help with manueverability), but whatever you need.

[HeadHunter67]

You had to attach your station module to a rocket to get it up there. Why not leave it attached until its part of the station?

The last stage on my station module lifters is:

A poodle, an orange tank, a large asas, a large battery, a large probe core, a large RCS tank, then a large docking port.

That doesn't sound like it maneuvers too well - I'd rather not risk crashing that much stuff into a station if there's an accident. I wouldn't want an unneeded Jumbo to get too close to my station, even if it wasn't attempting to dock something.

A tug works much better for precision construction, but something in between works nearly as well. I prefer a payload assist module, like the OAM from Wayfare's MOMS system. It's similar to what you describe but more compact, so there's less unneeded torque and it can put things right where they belong.

But tugs have their advantages - I'd recommend that any modular station keep one on hand. If you need to rearrange the construction of the station (like the Soviets did with MIR several times), it is the ideal choice.

Edited September 27, 2013 by HeadHunter67

[Kerba Fett]

Usually by that time the orange tank is only about half full so it doesn't handle that bad. With the station module strutted in and the RCS placed properly it seems pretty easy to dock.

I don't really worry about accidents since hitting the station too hard will probably destroy it anyway wether I've got a big fuel tank or not. It also let's me add more fuel to the station without having to dock a tanker which would be a lot heavier anyway.

But I can see where using a tug might be more fun since it increases the challenge.

[Van Disaster]

I use the final stage of the rocket as delivery too but it's usually not very big, it won't have fired until well into the upper atmosphere. I use rcs tanks on either seperators or docking ports ( with RCS thrustes attached ) so it's easy to dock, but I don't end up with excess RCS thrusters once it's all finished.

A robot arm with a KAS magnet is rather handy for rearranging things.

[lsutic]

I just want to say that I'm following this discussion with interest. I just don't have much to write except thanking you for sharing your advice!