Integrated RCS thrusters in Mk1-2 Command Pod

[treejoe4]

The current RCS system relies on placing RCS blocks, this is fine, except some parts still have not implemented the RCS system graphics already shown. Such as the Mk1-2 Command Pod, which clearly has RCS 'holes' on it visible all around the bottom. I am nit picking but it seems like a feature that should have been there long ago. I really home the new space plane parts don't end up with this

[MOD - Edited thread title for clarity - sumghai]

Edited August 21, 2014 by sumghai
Edited thread title for clarity

[sumghai]

The current RCS system relies on placing RCS blocks, this is fine, except some parts still have not implemented the RCS system graphics already shown. Such as the Mk1-2 Command Pod, which clearly has RCS 'holes' on it visible all around the bottom. I am nit picking but it seems like a feature that should have been there long ago. I really home the new space plane parts don't end up with this

This is because up until 0.24.2, RCS thrust transforms integrated into stacked parts would not correctly handle rotation inputs - this bug was only recently fixed, so it's a bit rich to retroactively demand that the Mk1-2 Pod get such a feature.

[Apature rocket science]

I have seen tons of peoples getting to orbit and using rcs just like a rocket engines attacked to the side a example is sccot manly

[sumghai]

Actually, not functioning RCS ports on command pods look ... bad. I agree with OP. They either need to be removed (easy), or made functional.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, and I have nothing against it - I'm just pointing out that the OP's wording is rather callous and disrespectful:

it seems like a feature that should have been there long ago.

Essentially, treejoe4 assumed SQUAD overlooked this feature, without considering the fact that it was an old bug that was only just fixed in 0.24.2. You can't go back and say "they should have made it sooner!!!!!!!!" if the underlying code was originally not implemented/broken.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I like this idea. Should have the ability to deactivate them in tweakables in case their presence unbalances the craft.

I'd really like to see a larger gap in the capabilities between differing command modules.

[Sirrobert]

I'd like to be the one who deceides where the RCS ports are, thank you.

If they randomly add them to a select few parts, it's easy to forget that they are there, not account for them, and suddenly have off ballance RCS

So no

[Kasuha]

I'd like to be the one who deceides where the RCS ports are, thank you.

If they randomly add them to a select few parts, it's easy to forget that they are there, not account for them, and suddenly have off ballance RCS

So no

Even now you can enable/disable each individual RCS block. There's no reason to doubt it will be possible with built-in pod RCS too.

And I love the idea of minimalistic RCS tug consisting only of pod and docking port.

[DocMoriarty]

I'm not a great fan of combined items such as gears with lights or pods with rcs. Correct rcs thrusters are always aligned around CoM and that is with pod thrusters practically never the case.

[treejoe4]

I'd like to be the one who deceides where the RCS ports are, thank you.

If they randomly add them to a select few parts, it's easy to forget that they are there, not account for them, and suddenly have off ballance RCS

So no

Except the MK1-2 pod doesn't even allow parts to be put neatly on it, rcs blocks placed on it often end up angled, and may be damaged when landing. Same goes with parachutes too, as since they are missing from the actual craft I have to weirdly balance and place parachutes on the side of the craft, because I need the dockport on the top.

They should be tweakable features of course.

And who knows, maybe one day the aerodynamic model significantly improves, and many parts now act as drag, nobody should be punished for adding RCS thrusters that should be there.

[thereaverofdarkness]

They're already punished by its extra mass. It's the price you pay for all of its cool features over the Mk 1 Lander Can. I agree, no need to force players to add a part to it. It should "pull its weight", so to speak.

[treejoe4]

They're already punished by its extra mass. It's the price you pay for all of its cool features over the Mk 1 Lander Can. I agree, no need to force players to add a part to it. It should "pull its weight", so to speak.

Adding an optional, tweakable RCS system to the pod is not signigicant, especially since how little mass current RCS blocks have, and the fact that MK1-2 pods automatically carry monopropellant that you may or may not want or use.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I'm already agreeing.

[Sirrobert]

Except the MK1-2 pod doesn't even allow parts to be put neatly on it, rcs blocks placed on it often end up angled, and may be damaged when landing. Same goes with parachutes too, as since they are missing from the actual craft I have to weirdly balance and place parachutes on the side of the craft, because I need the dockport on the top.

They should be tweakable features of course.

And who knows, maybe one day the aerodynamic model significantly improves, and many parts now act as drag, nobody should be punished for adding RCS thrusters that should be there.

True, but I don't put RCS on pods anyway. It's almost never the best place when you want to ballance it around the CoM

[Sasuga]

I'd like to be the one who deceides where the RCS ports are, thank you.

If they randomly add them to a select few parts, it's easy to forget that they are there, not account for them, and suddenly have off ballance RCS

So no

Right now the command module controls the ship's changes in position through, "Magic". You can't just magically move a ship the way the command modules do right now. The reason they had RCS ports is because they had probably planned on using that to change the ship's orientation, but as mentioned above there was a bug.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the command modules used RCS instead of, "Magic" to maneuver... And really, since the movements could come from the command module it wouldn't be much different then now.

Of course, the command module having RCS fuel now... Where would it stick it? ... And would it have a magical, infinite amount?

[thereaverofdarkness]

Of course, the command module having RCS fuel now... Where would it stick it? ... And would it have a magical, infinite amount?

They already have specific amounts of RCS fuel.

I'd definitely like to see some command modules and probe cores have no torque wheel at all, instead making you choose between adding your own torque wheel or your own RCS gear, leaving the choice up to you. And some also shouldn't have SAS. These of course would be things that affect the mass of the module. The heavier ones would have more built-in equipment, allowing you to have more stuff as a single part, with the drawback of having less flexibility in what you're bringing along. Having them in the command module should cost the same amount of mass and space as fixing them externally.

For instance, the OKTO2, being the smallest probe core, could be the bare minimum suite: a control point only, with minimal energy storage. No SAS, no RCS, no monopropellant, no reaction wheel. This lets you choose all of the things attached to it, and you can go without anything you don't want. On the other end of the spectrum, you could have an oversized module, 2.5m but only fitting 1 kerbal due to all of the other features it has: a powerful reaction wheel, plenty of energy storage and monopropellant, built-in RCS thrusters, SAS computer, full science suite consisting of all small experiments you've unlocked thus far, solar cells, built-in antenna, tiny landing legs capable of supporting the module by itself, and even a radioisotope thermoelectric generator to make sure the vessel never gets stuck being out of power. This lets you put a heavy and costly module on in one click and not have to worry about all those little details if you don't want to, or just helps you save part count if that's your aim.

[Sirrobert]

Right now the command module controls the ship's changes in position through, "Magic". You can't just magically move a ship the way the command modules do right now. The reason they had RCS ports is because they had probably planned on using that to change the ship's orientation, but as mentioned above there was a bug.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the command modules used RCS instead of, "Magic" to maneuver... And really, since the movements could come from the command module it wouldn't be much different then now.

Of course, the command module having RCS fuel now... Where would it stick it? ... And would it have a magical, infinite amount?

Rotation wheels are not magic....

[Joonatan1998]

KSP rotation wheels are magic.

They can generate infinite amounts of torgue from electric charge.

From wikipedia: Reaction wheels work around a nominal zero rotation speed. However, external torques on the spacecraft may require a gradual buildup of reaction wheel rotation speed to maintain the spacecraft in a fixed orientation.

You can't balance unbalanced spacecraft by adding more reaction wheels.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Joonatan1998

[Murph]

KSP rotation wheels are magic.

They can generate infinite amounts of torgue from electric charge.

You must be playing something other than KSP, or have modded the reaction wheels beyond recognition. They certainly do not provide infinite amounts of torque, and it's easy to produce ships which either have insufficient total torque, or insufficient battery power to maintain the torque wheels.

The concept is very real, have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_wheel

It's possible that KSP's wheels may need some balancing, but probably not, as KSP clearly isn't intended to be precisely realistic, just a rough approximation of real spacecraft technology.

I don't see any issues whatsoever with KSP craft orbital attitude being primarily controlled by reaction wheels (atmospheric flight, and attitude holding during burns are different issues).

As for the original topic of this thread, I'm more or less 50/50 on whether the pod really should have built in RCS ports. It doesn't bother me at all that it doesn't have them. I've never found myself wishing that it did, or adding RCS blocks to it. I don't have any fundamental objection to them being added, but don't see it as important, don't see it as having any priority or urgency, don't see a problem needing solved.

Edit: I'm not even sure if the bits of the pod texture which are being called RCS ports really are intended to be RCS ports. They could easily be something else, such as umbilical connector ports, equipment vents, toilet ejection port, etc.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Murph

[Red Iron Crown]

KSP reaction wheels are magic though, they never saturate. They can hold a lander upright indefinitely when only one of the legs is touching the surface.

I think I'd hardly use built in RCS thrusters even though I put RCS on almost every manned craft. It's hard enough to balance them correctly without having to account for immovable thrusters.

[Joonatan1998]

Don't mix reaction wheels and gyrodynes.

What is reaction wheel: Device designed to change one angular coordinate. Consists of heavy disk and electric motor, which changes rotation speed to produce rotational force. It have speed limits and uses a lot of energy.

Reaction wheels are indeed weak and awkward to use, because they saturate.

What is gyrodyne: Device designed to change one or more angular coordinate. Constant speed gyroscope, attached to 1-3 coordinate powered gimbal. Powerful, efficient, but complex. Actually OP IRL

If they work without using fuel, they should saturate too. You can't spin anything at infinite speed.

[R0cketC0der]

Don't mix reaction wheels and gyrodynes.

What is reaction wheel: Device designed to change one angular coordinate. Consists of heavy disk and electric motor, which changes rotation speed to produce rotational force. It have speed limits and uses a lot of energy.

Reaction wheels are indeed weak and awkward to use, because they saturate.

What is gyrodyne: Device designed to change one or more angular coordinate. Constant speed gyroscope, attached to 1-3 coordinate powered gimbal. Powerful, efficient, but complex. Actually OP IRL

Could you show me a website that explains how they work/what precisely they are? When searching for "gyrodyne" all I can find is that there is a type of VTOL called gyrodyne and that there is a company that is called gyrodyne.

[Guest]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Moment_Gyroscope

"Gyrodyne" is actually a type of VTOL and just that. What WildLynx was talking about is called a CMG.