RCS: to torque or not to torque?

[Somtaaw]

Been building rockets for a while now, and I used to follow a simple rule of thumb that served me well. a 4-pack somewhere near the front, a 4 pack near the back, and that was the end of it. Once I picked up and started using RCS Build Aid, I realised my instinctive placement was always very close to good.

But lately I started using the RCS Build Aid to try and make my station components, and started making them as close to torque-less as I possible could. Did I want the torque, or is achieving goals of 0.00XX levels of torque good for the rcs thrusters.

[Tw1]

It always depends on what you want from your spacecraft. If you have enough reaction wheels, getting the RCS accuracy perfect is not essential. But if you don't need to add reaction wheels, you can save on the stations part count- RCS ports are physicsless, and don't add to lag, I believe.

[Streetwind]

That depends entirely on your usage scenario.

If you're using RCS for attitude control (turning), then whether or not your thrusters are closely balanced is largely irrelevant. However, if you're using RCS for translation (lateral shifting) without turning the craft, such as is required for docking, then unbalanced thrusters will induce a rotation when you don't want to rotate.

Since you're building space station sections, I'm going to assume that you want to launch them part-by-part and dock them together afterwards. Therefore I'd say yes, having a torque level as small as possible is good for you.

[Somtaaw]

This is an older set of images of my station, but shows the general idea I had, which is correct street. It's entirely modular, flown up in sections of approximately 30-50t pieces that total under 50 parts, and then docked together.

Most of these were done both pre-MechJeb, and pre-RCS build aid, so things like RCS were eye placed. Now I'm starting to redesign, both to reduce part count, and increased effiency. If you look closely on the first station shot, each of my designated "fuel hubs" is actually 2 subcomponents, each subcomponent having 2 ASAS modules and 2 RCS thruster rings on either end near the docking clamps.

Originally designed when I wanted as little color as possible on my station, but I realised the price I pay in performance, so I'm redesigning to second generation fuel rings with 1 Rockomax orange tank, which coupled with the need for reduced clamps and RCS, have reduced the fuel hub part count by almost 50%. I'm grabbing the new fuel hub picture off the laptop I use to actually play KSP while I'm nominally supposed to be doing work.

[Somtaaw]

Second generation fuelhub, will be built using EPL, directly at the station. Once it docks to the main hubs, the only reason the station parts undock is because I'm assembling an interplanetary rocket. Otherwise it stays in my 150km apo/peri, 0 inclination station acting as a link up point.