Solid and permanent dock for complex construction in space

[Mannaro The Patient]

(I hope this was not already suggested)

Here is my idea: what about a permanent and solid dock? Or the actual Docking Port make solid/permanent by EVA activity.

When I build a complex rocket/spaceship or a space station I have to launch the single parts and dock to the main structure. But is not very much stable during acceleration... the whole structure tends to wobble, so what about make this connection permanent (and solid) like a normal part join?

The kerbonauts can make an EVA activity to soldering the two joining parts and make them permanent. If we use the docking port the game can spawn that cilindrical protection like in exaust rockets when attached on a decoupler.

(sorry for my bad english)

[nli2work]

this mod adds ability for manual construction in orbit. not sure if it's functional for 0.24.2; last update was 0.24. It's active mod so I expect it will get updated a some point.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/9923-0-24-Lazor-System-v34-(July-22)

[M3tal_Warrior]

the whole structure tends to wobble, so what about make this connection permanent (and solid) like a normal part join?

To be honest this was quite often suggested, just search for space hangar. (got that one wrong, my bad)

The wobbling won't stop with normal part joins, I'm afraid. I filed that bug a couple of weeks ago with my Kerbin Tank Station - it's phantom forces acting on the ships.

Edited August 5, 2014 by vexx32
FTFY

[JMBuilder]

What I want to see is a symmetrical docking port. Instead of having to rotate modules, a special symmetrical docking port would have fixed rotation points.

[Sirrobert]

If your rocket is wobbling under accelration, it's not stable.

Replacing the docking ports with a solic structure isn't going to fix that, you need some wider reinforcement

Check KAS, it has struts you can assamble in space

[Vanamonde]

Mannaro the Patient is not suggesting construction facilities in space (which is a What Not to Suggest item). He is instead asking for something that works like docking, but creates a permanent bond as strong as connecting parts in the VAB. (Just to clarify. )

[Master Tao]

While I would also like to see a more permanent docking clamp, for the moment there's KAS, Quantum Struts, and Active Struts.

[CodatheSpaceFox]

I think this can actually be a great idea if used right. Obviously, there are arguments that a permanent combination instead of a docking joint won't solve things like wobbly lengths of construction, but there may just be another use to reenforce the point. As the OP pointed out, he was asking about a way of taking two separate constructions and binding them together. Like docking, the items will combine, but in this case the binding joint becomes a permanent single part, as if it were built that way out of the VAB.

A downside at first glance, is that once combined these parts will forever be bound once activated. So I'd recommend treating these combining parts as docking nodes until the seal is activated. Right click, hit the "lock joints" button, get a pop up asking if you're sure you want to solidify the combined product, and there you have it.

Functionally, this can make for intense constructions not needing the world's biggest donut of a lifting stage, and for you aesthetic nuts... no docking ports to speak of, all solid pure tape and bubble gum bound construction as far as the world is concerned.

Mind you, I would sincerely advise against putting this feature into the current docking ports. (However adding a "align to 90/X degrees from top" setting in the tweakables would be a god send in both solid and natural docking.)

In my tired conclusion, I support the idea, but it'd need a little bit of fleshing out to make sense. This may also solve the age old multiple attachment points problem some people have as well. It'd be nice to have two parallel lengths of fuselage holding two larger sections together for some added support.

[Wanderfound]

While the suggestion is certainly a good idea, in the meantime: don't push, pull. Instead of putting your rockets on the back, make a tug with engines on outriggers spread wide enough so that they won't fry whatever is directly behind you and attach it to the front of whatever you're moving.

Wobbly docking ports aren't a problem when the thrust is pulling them straight. Build yourself a space train.

[M3tal_Warrior]

I got an idea how it might work:

Give parts the possibility in VAB/SPH (like an additional trait) to act like the claw. Upon activation it is able to dock, but not allow transfer of fuel/electricity, and is easily ripped apart (say 1/10th of the force that is able to undock two junior clamp-o-trons). To actually weld the parts together you need a Kerbal on EVA doing that (maybe even with additional requirements in skill or equipment, if that's to come). This way you don't introduce new parts (which would screw the picture), wouldn't make the claw and docking ports useless and upon welding the trait is deleted so it is like there always was this connection, which wouldn't the engine allow to screw things up with phantom forces created by the part (as it is with docking ports).

@CodatheSpaceFox

Since I do that frequently and found the docking interface to be bugged/not being of any help whatsoever, I installed only one mod that gives you this working interface with correct alignment info and - very important - the right target without altering the game in any other respect: Docking Port Alignment Indicator. It still works despite being for v0.23.5.

While the suggestion is certainly a good idea, in the meantime: don't push, pull.

Does it work now? Last time I tried that the thrust vectoring behaved like normal instead of inverted (as it should when being in front of the COM), so my lander flipped the moment I touched the throttle or corrected direction.

Edited August 7, 2014 by M3tal_Warrior

[Kasuha]

To build a rigid structure in space, use large parts with large joints (size of the green sphere in VAB/SPH tells you how strong the joint is) and make sure any appendages made of small parts are short and mounted directly on the rigid skeleton. Prevent long structures and make interconnected rings/cubes instead.

[Wanderfound]

Does it work now? Last time I tried that the thrust vectoring behaved like normal instead of inverted (as it should when being in front of the COM), so my lander flipped the moment I touched the throttle or corrected direction.

I haven't had that problem occur myself. Disabling the gimbaling seems like it would be a simple enough solution, though.

[M3tal_Warrior]

Prevent long structures and make interconnected rings/cubes instead.

Well, doesn't help - been there, tried that.

I haven't had that problem occur myself. Disabling the gimbaling seems like it would be a simple enough solution, though.

You have to disable gimbal and all direction control on the engine and fully operate with RCS/reaction wheels at that point. Although changing the code to check for COT/COM alignment to figure out how the steering should work doesn't seem to be hard work, but that's a whole other story.

[Kasuha]

Well, doesn't help - been there, tried that.

1.25 m tanks you use as structural elements in that ship don't come with the most rigid joints, I would definitely consider 2.5 m parts instead. And your design is like four interconnected pendulums, such design can break itself right on launchpad if you use the right parts.

[Bomoo]

I believe NearFuture Structural has a 2.5m docking port that's supposedly meant as a more rigid structural connector. Haven't tried it myself, but you might find that useful. KAS struts, also, are great for creating more rigid connections between modules while also providing EVA gameplay.

[kalor]

I would like to see a permanent dock as well. I've kind of thought of a way to go about it, but I don't know if it is feasible in KSP, due to unity and the way loading/unloading is handled.

My thought is that once two docking ports are connected, and the user decides to make them permanent, it could be flagged for a replacement part (possibly on next craft load, or even game load) with a single structural part instead of the paired docking ports. It may/may not reinforce the structure, but, at the very least, it would be a single part instead of two, and part reduction is always handy!

[M3tal_Warrior]

1.25 m tanks you use as structural elements in that ship don't come with the most rigid joints, I would definitely consider 2.5 m parts instead.

Stock doesn't provide the nodes for that. I would, if I had the chance.

And your design is like four interconnected pendulums, such design can break itself right on launchpad if you use the right parts.

No, it's not. Prerequisite for a pendulum is freerunning suspension, and since all southern docking ports connect even before the first clamps are released there is no freerunning suspension any longer but a rigid linkage. Of course you could see the cross itself as a semi-4way-pendulum, but there's no force applied, so with all I know about physics (and that's quite a bunch) this shouldn't happen.

[Kasuha]

No, it's not. Prerequisite for a pendulum is freerunning suspension, and since all southern docking ports connect even before the first clamps are released there is no freerunning suspension any longer but a rigid linkage. Of course you could see the cross itself as a semi-4way-pendulum, but there's no force applied, so with all I know about physics (and that's quite a bunch) this shouldn't happen.

Please. Of course you have free suspension, everything has free suspension in space. Your design is basically what is in the image below. Try and place such thing on launchpad and watch what happens. Still image does not capture the process very accurately...

[M3tal_Warrior]

Try and place such thing on launchpad and watch what happens.

That's the whole point - I did start that from launchpad in the first place without any problems, and at least there's gravity instead of no force at all in space (Of course I know gravity is why all orbits work, but I think you get my point - it all is ruled out by centrifugal forces, so it boils down to exact zero for every point on the vessel - that's why the orbit works). And then there's still the issue with resistance of the joints (which should be quite high even for medium size parts), ruling out any amplification in reality (since no harmonic oscillating force is contributing to the harmonic oscillator, without even going about the force having to be bigger than the resistance in the first place).

[Kasuha]

The point is that your ship is essentially the same design as my "suicidal pendulum", except with a bit (but not much) stiffer joints. Of course the reason why it self-destructed is because of inaccuracies in physics engine, real object would not get into such resonance without external forcing. But the important part is that this vulnerability property of this design, not of designs I was talking about initially.

[Seret]

is not very much stable during acceleration... the whole structure tends to wobble

That's half the fun. Embrace the wobble.

[Javster]

EVA. STANDS. FOR. EXTRA. VEHICULAR. ACTIVITY. You wrote EVA activity. *explodes*

[Frank_G]

You can stabilize the wobble pretty good by constructing your ship with additional trusses as fortification. Worked very well for my Jool exploration vessel. However its a real task to bring all the stuff into orbit and assemble it precisely. You can take a look here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84993-Grand-Tour-to-Jool

[Starwaster]

EVA. STANDS. FOR. EXTRA. VEHICULAR. ACTIVITY. You wrote EVA activity. *explodes*

Yeah... you know... as opposed to IVA activity

[M3tal_Warrior]

I know, I did that for the improved version, since it's a single cargo object. ATM it's sadly impossible to do struts and stuff on the flight.