Anyone else going RCS-less?

[Frank_G]

Leaving a precision tool in the shed? Oh c'mon, i am german...

[Levelord]

That's insanity. That's like eating an ice cream sundae with chocolate sauce, and not putting little bits of crushed up peanuts on it! We are now enemies.

I think I love you.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Levelord

[corvustech]

I find myself using rcs on the non docking ships, but only if they payload is so massive that the ship might tip in upper atmosphere. An example would be Kerblab 1, a station I launched last night with a science module, three person command, and a hitchhiker. It has four large monopropellant tanks and rcs thrusters both to keep it from falling over during launch and for course and docking correction . With all its batteries and panels the rcs spent half it's fuel on ascent.

[aeroeng14]

I use RCS thrusters on all of my ships, expect for probe landers. I do take more monopropellant for the large interplanetary motherships for fine-tuning encounters and aerobraking instead of turning the entire ship. Though I only ever use 4 or 8 thrusters placed at the extreme ends of the ship for every size of craft or flying fuel tank.

[KaBob]

I put RCS on almost everything and it has saved me so many times in situations that have nothing to do with docking. Plus it's just plain convenient to be able to tweak my speed in any direction without having to rotate the entire ship.

One time I even landed a satellite on Duna using only RCS even though it hadn't been designed for landing.

[DeathFromBelow]

Real men use SRBs to dock, none of this gentle puff-puff RCS baloney. You need to slam those docking ports together hard to make a good seal.