Space Stations - Micro to Massive

[Claw]

So I'm starting to get into building space stations and was wondering what most people considered a "massive space station."

Do you guys think about it in terms of physical size? Mass? Part Count? Elegance of Design?

I guess this questions is more of an exploration in curiosity.

I suppose in the same vein, what do you consider to be the "minimum" elements needed for a space station?

And perhaps what do you consider to be the hardest thing about designing/building a space station?

Edited June 3, 2014 by Claw

[LethalDose]

So I'm starting to get into building space stations and was wondering what most people considered a "massive space station."

Do you guys think about it in terms of physical size? Mass? Part Count? Elegance of Design?

I guess this questions is more of an exploration in curiosity.

Part count is probably the biggest qualifier for a "massive" station because of the slow down. After that.. /shrug

I suppose in the same vein, what do you consider to be the "minimum" elements needed for a space station?

And perhaps what do you consider to be the hardest thing about designing/building a space station?

I think the minimum requirement for a space station is that it is independently controllable (probe core or CM), has attitude control (SAS or CM) and regenerates power (solar panels). Docking ports are almost required, but I suppose not an absolute necessity. RCS is super handy for station keeping and orbital adjustments. Anything beyond that is gravy. Typically, crew housing, multiple docking ports, extra fuel tanks and an MPL are the most common additions.

I think the hardest part is figuring out the layout of the modules and how to get some of the more oddly shaped stations modules into orbit under my available fairings efficiently.

I think the most important issue to address when designing a station is the stations purpose. I typically build stations to serve one or more of the following purposes:

1. Fuel depot
   
2. Rendezvous point
   
3. Comm station (with Remotech)
   
4. Science lab
   

Fuel depots will typically have lots of extra fuel tanks. Rendezvous stations will have extra crew capacity and a relative abundance of docking ports on the equatorial plane of the station. Comm stations have multiple directional antennae. Science labs, obviously, have MPL's and space for docking a lander.

[Taki117]

I will answer the second question first.

To me a station is a place for kerbals to spend extended periods of time in space, meaning it must have some place for them to live, and some way for them to get home.

[Heagar]

Most of your questions depends of the computer a player have and her/his intentions regarding her/his spacestation.

It may be only a station for research/refuelling/cargo hold or can be all. In any case it is important to have a look at the partcount, because you have to have enough computer-power to run the game when your spaceships (you have to add their partcount to your station) are arriving. It can be a pain in the ass when you are running a slideshow while attempting to dock. To make things worse, you will have an additional framedrop to take into account if you try to take a video of that.

Conclusion: The more and the bigger ships you want to dock, the smaller the space-station should be.

Minimum requirements:

A pod, an ASAS or some RCS (to kill an unwanted rotation), a battery and an solar cell/RTG. Most important is to have all sorts of docking ports of course (to be able to dock all kinds of ships you have/design in the future). And maybe some docking nodes where you can expand your station in the future when new parts comming out.

Hardest thing:

That is not the design. Normally i build a mockup first and test it on the launchpad or parts of it in space (escape pods e.g.).

Tricky it becomes when you have an modular design with a very long structures witch you have to dock going in reverse (because of the wobbeling).

[Pecan]

As above-mentioned, I start with purpose: my stations are invariably the centre of operations for whichever planet they're orbiting, and its moons, if applicable.

That means, first, they have to have docking ports and refuelling capacity (including RCS) for landers. Landers plural as I consider primary/backup a minimum; had I not been planning to land repeatedly it wouldn't be worth putting a station there and the chances are backup will be needed at some point. It needs another port for a tanker to refuel the station itself.

Secondly it needs a general-purpose but non-landing tug/transfer/rescue tractor vehicle, and a docking-port for it. That usually makes any orbital adjustment burns for the station as well but I usually put a couple of small, 24-77 engines on the station itself as well, just in case I want to do something with it while the tractor is off doing something else. The station will need more fuel capacity for the tractor too. Although most of my stuff uses large docking-ports the landers will be using standard ones and it's possible (but unlikely) they'll be a few juniours around too. The tractor will have symmetrical pairs of each but I'll also have probe-core equipped adapters docked to the station as well. The probe-cores on these are just so I can orientate them and enable SAS to hold them steady for docking.

The minimal crew I assume to be 3; lander pilot, tractor pilot, station commander. As a long-stay station they need 2 x accommodation (6) which I usually count as Hitch-Hiker's + the 'spare' lander and tractor seats. Crew-rotation and visiting missions add to the requirements for docking-ports and accommodation. I tend to add a lab just because it looks so good from the outside (no internals, of course).

Then I deck it out with comms and other equipment, tending to make it look busy even if I don't actually need them. Somewhere I'll tuck a couple of small Xenon tanks as well, 'just in case'.

The hardest thing I find is using a cupola - I can't give them up! The view can be great but I want it looking at the station, not the sky/ground. That means attaching it facing 'inwards', with the obvious problem that that means at least partly blocking the centre window. Whatever you do with it though it's a pig to launch because of its mass and drag so more or less has to go at the bottom of the payload.

I have another self-imposed constraint, which is that Kerbals should not need RCS while moving around the station and that movement within the 'accommodation section' should not even need EVA. That, ladders and the logic of Connected Living Spaces slightly restricts the ways in which I can arrange everything. In practice I don't find that a problem.

All that needs solar panels, RTGs, batteries, large SAS and the usual accoutrements.

Finally, if it's a station around Kerbin, it'll be refuelling quite a few ships so it needs extra fuel capacity - which usually means more ports for tankers.

[Rickenbacker]

I tend to build small, specialised stations. i currently have a station with a lab and a mid-sized fuel tank in orbit around the Mun, from which a small lander makes trips to the surface to dig out science. I first used it around Minmus, then moved it to the Mun to do the same thing. Around Kerbin I have a larger station, with some fuel, a (Interstellar mod) science lab and I plan to add a telescope to it for the science. This stations serves as a halfway point for crews rotating to other planets/moons and for science transfer. I generally have ships transfer crews and science to the station, then send up a small shuttle to pick them up and return them home.

I did mess around with huge stations, with all kinds of living quarters and 8-12 orange tanks of fuel, but it was just too inefficient and the FPS dove through the floor.

[RockoDyne]

I would define a station massive once you go from frames per second to seconds per frame.

I don't make stations anymore though. The most I would need them for is an SSTO refueling depot which I never really got to the point of absolutely needing. I've gotten much more into interplanetary command ships though.

[Red Iron Crown]

I consider a ship with at least one docking port, command module/probe core, space for kerbals, power generation, attitude control, and no main propulsion a station.

Once you stick rocket engines on it, it becomes a mothership, to my mind.

[HeadHunter67]

To me, the minimum definition for a "massive" station, is one that cannot be launched by a single vehicle. My stations are modular and usually launched in several pieces, and assembled in orbit by an RCS-powered probe tug. This lets me launch reasonable payloads (typically 12-18 tons) with reasonable lifters. I avoid truly "massive" stations for two reasons: performance, and lack of necessity.

Essential components for my stations are: bridge (I prefer the cupola for this), habitation (2x crew space for each occupant, so a hitchhiker can accommodate two Kerbals long-term), power generation (a little bit from RTG and mostly from solar), attitude control, communications, and a means for all occupants to evacuate to safety (I designed a very tiny 4-man escape pod using lawn chairs). I generally have a modest amount of fuel to refuel visiting ships (I was able to save an otherwise-doomed mission by making a rendezvous with the station to refuel before going on). Even though the game still doesn't make orbital science that worthwhile, I like having full scientific capability - as others have said, the lab looks spiffy.

[Kaezan]

This is my newly made space station. It will serve as a supply depot and center of operations for planet Duna or Eve (havent decided yet)

This is massive. 2 seconds per frame. took me a lot of time to do this but ima proud man

And yes i needed mechjeb. i just cant figure out the docking

[allmhuran]

I've never really built a space station as such. Oh sure, I've built a few things that could be considered space stations, but they've usually ended up being part of some monstrous interplanetary vessel, or just space art

I would say qualifications for a space station would be excessive crew capacity (beyond just the control module), it should be self sufficient in terms of power storage and generation, it should have a bit of RCS or other means of orienting itself, and it should have at least one docking port. Very much like Red Iron Crown's definition.

[Pecan]

Incidentally; from the penultimate tutorial chapter, on spacestations (which I haven't published yet):

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(The final chapter adds the landers and an interplanetary tractor) Note that the station and the tractor are both < 25t so light, if awkward, to launch. At ~40t the fuel module is about the limit of what I single-launch. The tractor can place the complete station in Mun orbit without excessive burn-times, although it's probably better to assemble it there in the first place if you even want a station around Mun. I did because I was visiting lots of 'anomalies' on the surface but there's not much other reason to. The cupola is at the bottom for the reasons given earlier, docking adapters on two of the four ports around the core, there are also two dockable 'claws' on the hitch-hiker because I don't think there's such a thing as too much docking versatility ^^. Oh, and notice the ladder running from top to bottom.

And, yes, I know the spaceplane isn't wonderful - there is a (not very good) reason.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Pecan

[Tex_NL]

What can be called 'massive' is all relative. It totally depends on what you and your computer can handle. And of course of what you're used to.

Kaezan's station on the previous page can't be called micro for sure but in my opinion it also isn't truly massive. For me massive means pushing the boundaries either in weight, resources, part count or sheer size.

My current heaviest station weighs in at 690 tons (including the docked vessels). Fully fueled it would weigh at least 100 to 150 tons more.

For size my Ring station is #1: Nearly 90 meters in diameter and capable of housing 672 kerbals.

Both stations where build in orbit with Extra Planetary Launchpads as they would be impossible to launch conventionally.

[Pecan]

*cough* Tex's signature *cough*

You want to know about stations? Really nice design/building guide.

[Kaezan]

Thank you for the appreciation Tex_NL, but following your line of though we can define SS's as micro, small, medium, large, huge and Ginormous. Besides all of those can be simple or complex, usefull or beautiful. I dont mean to be exaustive, just saying we can get many, many adjectives for the same thing.

In my case, that SS isnt massive for sure, but it took me a 'massive' amount of time to figure out how to do it.

Cheers

[cantab]

Despite being opposite to the technical meaning, I'd say a "massive" space station is one that's large in size, preferably in two or three dimensions. (Ie a very long stick wouldn't "feel" as massive as a cube even if it had the same parts.)

Mine is about a VAB long, so it's pretty extensive, but I wouldn't call it "massive". Maybe "massive" for me will always mean bigger than mine.

Docked by cantab314, on Flickr

The hardest thing, indeed the thing I've failed at, is controlling the part count. Using the long SRBs for beams helped, but having each module be autonomous with its own RCS propulsion really pushed the count up. Next time round I might try using a tug for module placement instead, but then I'm not sure how I'd sort RCS balance out and docking with off-balance RCS sucks.

[Claw]

First, thanks for all the great replies!

Yeah, it seems part count is a huge part of "massive." I suppose that's because it becomes a limit for just about everything. Although I set my sights on mass most recently.

I haven't started to figure out a purpose for my stations yet. I just like building them. Although I tend to include a hab module, power, some level of fuel (or a lot of fuel on my most recent), and a lab. I've also been trying to build without RCS anywhere to keep the part count down.

...

I think the minimum requirement for a space station is that it is independently controllable (probe core or CM), has attitude control (SAS or CM) and regenerates power (solar panels). Docking ports are almost required, but I suppose not an absolute necessity. RCS is super handy for station keeping and orbital adjustments. Anything beyond that is gravy. Typically, crew housing, multiple docking ports, extra fuel tanks and an MPL are the most common additions.

I think the hardest part is figuring out the layout of the modules and how to get some of the more oddly shaped stations modules into orbit under my available fairings efficiently.

I think the most important issue to address when designing a station is the stations purpose. I typically build stations to serve one or more of the following purposes:

1. Fuel depot
   
2. Rendezvous point
   
3. Comm station (with Remotech)
   
4. Science lab
   

Fuel depots will typically have lots of extra fuel tanks. Rendezvous stations will have extra crew capacity and a relative abundance of docking ports on the equatorial plane of the station. Comm stations have multiple directional antennae. Science labs, obviously, have MPL's and space for docking a lander.

To me, the minimum definition for a "massive" station, is one that cannot be launched by a single vehicle. My stations are modular and usually launched in several pieces, and assembled in orbit by an RCS-powered probe tug. This lets me launch reasonable payloads (typically 12-18 tons) with reasonable lifters. I avoid truly "massive" stations for two reasons: performance, and lack of necessity.

Essential components for my stations are: bridge (I prefer the cupola for this), habitation (2x crew space for each occupant, so a hitchhiker can accommodate two Kerbals long-term), power generation (a little bit from RTG and mostly from solar), attitude control, communications, and a means for all occupants to evacuate to safety (I designed a very tiny 4-man escape pod using lawn chairs). I generally have a modest amount of fuel to refuel visiting ships (I was able to save an otherwise-doomed mission by making a rendezvous with the station to refuel before going on). Even though the game still doesn't make orbital science that worthwhile, I like having full scientific capability - as others have said, the lab looks spiffy.

I think I would tend to agree with most of this. I definitely find that I design a better craft if I have a purpose in mind. However, I haven't found that "purpose" yet for my stations.

I will answer the second question first.

To me a station is a place for kerbals to spend extended periods of time in space, meaning it must have some place for them to live, and some way for them to get home.

I think I agree with this too. Although I have been remiss in including an escape plan for getting home.

Most of your questions depends of the computer a player have and her/his intentions regarding her/his spacestation.

That's why I pose the question. I'm mostly interested to know what others think.

Minimum requirements:

A pod, an ASAS or some RCS (to kill an unwanted rotation), a battery and an solar cell/RTG. Most important is to have all sorts of docking ports of course (to be able to dock all kinds of ships you have/design in the future). And maybe some docking nodes where you can expand your station in the future when new parts comming out.

Hardest thing:

That is not the design. Normally i build a mockup first and test it on the launchpad or parts of it in space (escape pods e.g.).

Tricky it becomes when you have an modular design with a very long structures witch you have to dock going in reverse (because of the wobbeling).

Lots of people mention RCS, but I have yet to include much on my stations... Hmm...

...

Secondly it needs a general-purpose but non-landing tug/transfer/rescue tractor vehicle, and a docking-port for it. That usually makes any orbital adjustment burns for the station as well but I usually put a couple of small, 24-77 engines on the station itself as well, just in case I want to do something with it while the tractor is off doing something else. The station will need more fuel capacity for the tractor too. Although most of my stuff uses large docking-ports the landers will be using standard ones and it's possible (but unlikely) they'll be a few juniours around too. The tractor will have symmetrical pairs of each but I'll also have probe-core equipped adapters docked to the station as well. The probe-cores on these are just so I can orientate them and enable SAS to hold them steady for docking.

...

I have another self-imposed constraint, which is that Kerbals should not need RCS while moving around the station and that movement within the 'accommodation section' should not even need EVA. That, ladders and the logic of Connected Living Spaces slightly restricts the ways in which I can arrange everything. In practice I don't find that a problem.

...

Yeah, I definitely found a tug is very important for my builds. It takes up a huge portion of my part count.

I didn't think of including ladders all over. I suppose that's because I was trying to keep part counts down. Maybe on my smaller stations...

I tend to build small, specialised stations. i currently have a station with a lab and a mid-sized fuel tank in orbit around the Mun, from which a small lander makes trips to the surface to dig out science. I first used it around Minmus, then moved it to the Mun to do the same thing. Around Kerbin I have a larger station, with some fuel, a (Interstellar mod) science lab and I plan to add a telescope to it for the science. This stations serves as a halfway point for crews rotating to other planets/moons and for science transfer. I generally have ships transfer crews and science to the station, then send up a small shuttle to pick them up and return them home.

I did mess around with huge stations, with all kinds of living quarters and 8-12 orange tanks of fuel, but it was just too inefficient and the FPS dove through the floor.

I would define a station massive once you go from frames per second to seconds per frame.

I don't make stations anymore though. The most I would need them for is an SSTO refueling depot which I never really got to the point of absolutely needing. I've gotten much more into interplanetary command ships though.

I think if I built any "refueling" stations, it wouldn't include much habitation or anything else for what you guys mention. Frame rates and painful docking.

I consider a ship with at least one docking port, command module/probe core, space for kerbals, power generation, attitude control, and no main propulsion a station.

Once you stick rocket engines on it, it becomes a mothership, to my mind.

Well, I have engines on my large one but that's mostly because they are on the tug. But I suppose that's not what you're talking about.

[Claw]

http://i.imgur.com/YeostTK.png

This is my newly made space station. It will serve as a supply depot and center of operations for planet Duna or Eve (havent decided yet)

This is massive. 2 seconds per frame. took me a lot of time to do this but ima proud man

And yes i needed mechjeb. i just cant figure out the docking

This is a nice one. I like the asymmetric look of it. Makes it look more kerbal-esque.

I've never really built a space station as such. Oh sure, I've built a few things that could be considered space stations, but they've usually ended up being part of some monstrous interplanetary vessel, or just space art

I would say qualifications for a space station would be excessive crew capacity (beyond just the control module), it should be self sufficient in terms of power storage and generation, it should have a bit of RCS or other means of orienting itself, and it should have at least one docking port. Very much like Red Iron Crown's definition.

I've seen that picture before. You do make some pretty amazing creations!

Incidentally; from the penultimate tutorial chapter, on spacestations (which I haven't published yet):

http://imgur.com/a/EJiRo

....

That's a nice looking tutorial Pecan. Keep it up.

What can be called 'massive' is all relative. It totally depends on what you and your computer can handle. And of course of what you're used to.

Kaezan's station on the previous page can't be called micro for sure but in my opinion it also isn't truly massive. For me massive means pushing the boundaries either in weight, resources, part count or sheer size.

My current heaviest station weighs in at 690 tons (including the docked vessels). Fully fueled it would weigh at least 100 to 150 tons more.

http://tex.texel.com/ksp0235/screenshot11.png

For size my Ring station is #1: Nearly 90 meters in diameter and capable of housing 672 kerbals.

http://tex.texel.com/ksp023/screenshot13.2.png

Both stations where build in orbit with Extra Planetary Launchpads as they would be impossible to launch conventionally.

These are awesome. It inspired mine to some extent, although I've been building from the VAB still so I haven't built any massive (haha) ring stations yet.

*cough* Tex's signature *cough*

You want to know about stations? Really nice design/building guide.

I have seen it. And you're right, it's pretty excellent.

Thank you for the appreciation Tex_NL, but following your line of though we can define SS's as micro, small, medium, large, huge and Ginormous. Besides all of those can be simple or complex, usefull or beautiful. I dont mean to be exaustive, just saying we can get many, many adjectives for the same thing.

In my case, that SS isnt massive for sure, but it took me a 'massive' amount of time to figure out how to do it.

Cheers

That's sort of why I started this thread. I'm curious what different people think is a "massive" and what is a "micro" station.

Despite being opposite to the technical meaning, I'd say a "massive" space station is one that's large in size, preferably in two or three dimensions. (Ie a very long stick wouldn't "feel" as massive as a cube even if it had the same parts.)

Mine is about a VAB long, so it's pretty extensive, but I wouldn't call it "massive". Maybe "massive" for me will always mean bigger than mine.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5494/14253979174_a87db72368_o.pngDocked by cantab314, on Flickr

The hardest thing, indeed the thing I've failed at, is controlling the part count. Using the long SRBs for beams helped, but having each module be autonomous with its own RCS propulsion really pushed the count up. Next time round I might try using a tug for module placement instead, but then I'm not sure how I'd sort RCS balance out and docking with off-balance RCS sucks.

This is probably the other thing I would consider as part of "massive." In my mind, mass and size more so than part count. Although taken to the extreme you could just launch a bunch of full fuel tanks and it would be pretty heavy, which doesn't seem to "space station-y" to me either... (not that you said that.)

[Claw]

Well, I don't quite mean for this to turn into a "post your space stations" thread, but to give you guys some idea of where I'm coming from, here is my most recent station. When I was planning this, it seemed massive at the time. Now that I've built it, I'm wondering what the next step in "massive" is...

Phoenix Station - It's all stock except a removable MJ stuck on for stat tracking.

Completed station took 9 major docking operations not including refueling. Mass is approximately 600t dry and 1300t wet with a part count of just over 600. It has habitation space for 384 kerbals plus a major lab module.

I can remove the service module and the wet mass would drop by ~20 tons but would save ~60 parts. I only really needed it for the major docking operations, but left it on afterward. (It's the small piece at the end with the LV-Ns on it, on the tip of the docking hub.) I found the service module was hugely necessary to control part count.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Pecan]

Sorry, I hadn't realised your main question was 'massive'. Yeah, mine are small - the one in the pics being physically small and only 130t including tractor and (2) fuel modules. If anything, other designs I've used have been smaller but I just found I was having to send out too many tankers ^^.

[cantab]

Lots of people mention RCS, but I have yet to include much on my stations... Hmm...

I'm not sure it's essential. Mine has it, but I'm not sure I've ever used it. To an extent it depends how often you want to rotate the station. I'm happy to leave mine with the central fuel tank oriented north-south, and dock to ports however they're oriented, but some people might prefer to be able to orient the station so the target port for a given docking is oriented in a desired direction.

Well, I have engines on my large one but that's mostly because they are on the tug. But I suppose that's not what you're talking about.

To an extent it would depend on size and type of engines compared to the station. One LV-909 isn't going to make a hundred-ton thing not a space station, but a big cluster of LV-N's or a KR-2L might. Then again, there's not a huge amount of reason to put an engine permanently on a station anyway.

And seeing it, I think yours qualifies as massive. And a really nice aesthetic design.

[Claw]

I'm not sure it's essential. Mine has it, but I'm not sure I've ever used it. To an extent it depends how often you want to rotate the station. I'm happy to leave mine with the central fuel tank oriented north-south, and dock to ports however they're oriented, but some people might prefer to be able to orient the station so the target port for a given docking is oriented in a desired direction.

Sure, makes sense. My smaller ones have more RCS and reaction wheels so I can turn it around a bit more. I hadn't thought about the idea of orienting north/south. That's a good idea, since the approach to a station such as what I posted would almost always look like the same. Instead of coming in at it from the top or bottom or where ever... I've learned a lot from my RCS/Tug design. And I think I'll have to stick with building the massive stations as relatively fixed orientation, mostly due to part count.

To an extent it would depend on size and type of engines compared to the station. One LV-909 isn't going to make a hundred-ton thing not a space station, but a big cluster of LV-N's or a KR-2L might. Then again, there's not a huge amount of reason to put an engine permanently on a station anyway.

Agreed on the engines. I mostly kept the tug around (4x LV-Ns) in case I wanted to boost the orbit a bit. Right now it's in a 150km circular orbit. That was convenient because the 160km and 200km orbits already have stations.

And seeing it, I think yours qualifies as massive. And a really nice aesthetic design.

Thanks After assembly, I replicated it in the VAB and it basically fills the inside of the VAB. Wall to wall and floor to ceiling. I was curious if anyone had experience beyond that, because I feel like design and building is going to get a bit more tricky. I was also curious if I had already grown past what's practical.

Also, I was a bit reluctant to post a picture of mine because I'm still interested in other people's thoughts and designs, as I tend to think mine are rather unimaginative.

[HeadHunter67]

Next time round I might try using a tug for module placement instead, but then I'm not sure how I'd sort RCS balance out and docking with off-balance RCS sucks.

With sufficient RCS and SAS torque on the tug, it's not much of an issue. My robot tug is an RGU with the most powerful reaction wheel on either side, an RCS fuel tank on either side of those, and two sets of 4 RCS blocks. I can move just about anything into place with little difficulty - and with a 4000 point battery and a set of 4 RTGs for power, it's only around 21 parts.

Edited June 1, 2014 by HeadHunter67

[Kaezan]

Claw, my SS is supposed to have a tri-simetry but each block is supposed to be unique, even the center block, so it makes the most usefull SS