2.5m and 3.75m reaction wheels.

[XOIIO]

something that I think would be great, there is already a 2.5m SAS module, but no 2.5 reaction wheel module, I'd love to see one, and maybe even one for 3.75 so that you could turn large ships more easily, and not put as much strain on the smaller sections where the extra reaction wheels do fit.

Edited May 23, 2014 by XOIIO

[Fox62]

I would definitely like this.

[Capt. Hunt]

Is there a difference between ASAS and reaction wheels? They both seem to do the exact same thing. The only difference I can see is that the reaction wheel is .2 tons lighter then the small ASAS.

[Endersmens]

There is no difference whatsoever. the ASAS should be removed because SAS is now implemented into command pods, it used to be that you had to have an ASAS module to have SAS.

[technicalfool]

There is no difference whatsoever. the ASAS should be removed because SAS is now implemented into command pods, it used to be that you had to have an ASAS module to have SAS.

Pretty much this. 2.5m reaction wheels already exist. 3.75m reaction wheels really should exist though. The 1.25m wheels really do need dropping by at least 0.1 tons though. It makes no sense for the 1.25m wheels to be heavier than the 2.5m ones!

Personally I like KW Rocketry's reaction belts. Two halves that strap around the rocket body in a ring-shape.

[NERVAfan]

I agree that the reaction wheel masses need to change, but I think it would be better to increase the mass of the 2.5m one -- the LV-T45 engine weighs .25 ton more than the LV-T30, and has 15 less thrust, for the sole benefit of thrust vectoring... if the 1.25m reaction wheel was less than .25 tons, the LV-T45 would be (as far as I can tell) completely pointless (I already pretty much don't use it).

Alternately, they could just give the LV-T45 better thrust and decrease the reaction wheel mass. But they're pretty powerful...

[biohazard15]

Reaction wheels shouldn't be light - they're heavy by design, or else they won't be able to produce enough torque to rotate spacecraft. These on ISS weighs about 300 kg each.

I second 3.75m reaction wheel\SAS module - it was strange that we didn't get them in ARM pack.

[technicalfool]

These on ISS weighs about 300 kg each.

So exactly the same weight as the 1.25m wheels then!

(Assuming KSP measures things in metric tons, that is)

Thing is, as we've had mentioned in a few threads lately, Kerbal reaction wheels are massively powerful compared to real reaction wheels. To get a real reaction wheel rotating a spacecraft with the vigour that a Kerbal reaction wheel manages, the wheels would probably need to weigh several tons each, and be spun by motors demanding more energy than the entire ISS power system can sustain (which is about 150KW or so, if I remember right). So, compromises are made that are biased more toward "fun" than "realism".

Is a bit silly that the 2.5m wheels are lighter than the 1.25m ones though.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

Reaction wheels do not need to be heavy, its about the force of acceleration not the mass of the object. If a motor can accelerate with a force of 10 newtons then it doesn't matter if the mass is 1kg or 100kg it will produce the same torque. The only reason for a larger mass is that it reduces the RPM of the object after the same force of acceleration meaning less friction on the bearing (if there is friction) and less change of it breaking at extreme RPMs.

The ISS reaction wheels weight 0.3 tons in Kerbal units by the way so it's not much heavier than the 0.2 of the Advanced S.A.S Module, don't know how many it has though.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

Kerbal reaction wheels are massively powerful compared to real reaction wheels.

So, compromises are made that are biased more toward "fun" than "realism".

Yea BetterThanStartingManned droped the reaction wheels down to 1% or their stock power. I found this very annoying game wise as it became almost impossible to use them. Flower child talked about reaction wheels being used in all situations but instead in his mod RCS was used in every situation and nothing else was used. Variety should be what we aim for. I think dropping their power by somewhere between half and a tenth of their present power would be a good idea (I side more on the 10% range). Also they should have double the power usage.