How to make a compact & nice passenger ship?

[Reusables]

I was trying to make a passenger craft dedicated to space(vacuum) which will shuttle kerbin station, mun station and minmus station. The problem is, I just can't make one which is compact, efficient and looks aesthetically pleasing.

Especially with 1 pilot and 2 to 4 passengers, I have to use a mk1 lander can for pilot and mk1 crew cabins due to weight and tech limitation. But their theme looks entirely different, so I can't seem to build seamless spacecraft out of them.

How would you go with this? I can't find any examples on this, tried to search 'passenger craft/ship/vehicle' only to find overpowered/big crew shuttle/interplanetary vehicles.

 

To be specific, what I want is a passenger spacecraft with a docking port and has

Dv: 1.5~1.8km/s

TWR: 0.4~0.5

 

External Seats, Mk3 Passenger Module and Mk2 Crew Cabin are not available.

  (I can't agree more that seats should be great choice for nice-looking passenger quarters)

Edited May 4, 2017 by Reusables

[FancyMouse]

I still prefer mk2 even I know they are draggy. A single mk2 crew cabin is all you need. And I don't use lander can/pod - either unmanned piloting or I use a true cockpit.

Docking port I either use the shielded one at the front (yeah I know it's draggy), in which case I need to find an air intake solution, could be in front of side stacks, or using inline mk1 supersonic intake. Or just a regular one, surface attached on top of the middle of the plane.

My design doesn't require it to be reachable to Mun/Minmus on its own - if I want to go there I refuel at LKO station.

[Reusables]

8 minutes ago, FancyMouse said:

I still prefer mk2 even I know they are draggy. A single mk2 crew cabin is all you need. And I don't use lander can/pod - either unmanned piloting or I use a true cockpit.

Docking port I either use the shielded one at the front (yeah I know it's draggy), in which case I need to find an air intake solution, could be in front of side stacks, or using inline mk1 supersonic intake. Or just a regular one, surface attached on top of the middle of the plane.

My design doesn't require it to be reachable to Mun/Minmus on its own - if I want to go there I refuel at LKO station.

Uhm.. I mean I need translunar passenger vehicle on space only.

Also Mk2 crew cabin is not available on the tech tree for me.

[FancyMouse]

1 minute ago, Abastro said:

Uhm.. I mean I need translunar passenger vehicle on space only.

Also Mk2 crew cabin is not available on the tech tree for me.

Oh my bad assuming some sort of spaceplanes. If it's just a ship for vaccum operation, then pod - adapter (C7, 1.25m to 2.5m) - hitchhiker - Terrier would be my first thing to consider. I don't know if the adapter is low-tech enough for you, though.

[Reusables]

22 minutes ago, FancyMouse said:

Oh my bad assuming some sort of spaceplanes. If it's just a ship for vaccum operation, then pod - adapter (C7, 1.25m to 2.5m) - hitchhiker - Terrier would be my first thing to consider. I don't know if the adapter is low-tech enough for you, though.

I have the adapter, so I can use the design!

Though, I have a concern with the craft: wouldn't Hitchhiker be too heavy? (2.5t compared to 2t) I'm reluctant to use it for something other than station/interplanetary vehicle.

Also what about a craft for 2 passengers, how would you go with it? (This one is more problematic for me)

Edited May 4, 2017 by Reusables
Changed some wording

[FancyMouse]

1 minute ago, Abastro said:

I have the adapter, so I can use the design!

Though, wouldn't Hitchhiker be too heavy? (2.5t compared to 2t) I'm reluctant to use it for something other than station/interplanetary vehicle.

Also what about a craft for 2 passengers, how would you go with it?

I usually don't care about 0.5t difference. For station vehicle I care more about part counts (affects performance, save file size, etc.), so I'm super willing to make it a little bit heavier but saving a lot of parts.

For only 2 passengers, it's probably going to be pod - mk1 cabin - (T400) fuel tank - Terrier/Spark.

btw, I tend to design those station modules in a rather thin fashion is because not only they are friendly as launch payload, but also require less on the station design - i.e. I wouldn't need to stretch the docking port of the station out to have enough space to fit a fat module.

[HvP]

If you have access to the EAS Command Seat you can stick a few of those inside a 2.5 meter service bay. The "Take Command" mod lets you assign your Kerbals to the command seats from the VAB without having to transfer them from a pod.

And an additional tip, if you add the seats in mirror symmetry and rotate them so that the head of the chairs point radially out the doors (the front of the seats face the prograde direction) then your Kerbals won't spawn on top of your rocket stack when they get out of the seats. Also, you won't accidentally burn in the wrong direction when they get into the seats because they will be pointing the same direction as the command pod. Stick a small probe core inside there and you can dispense with the command pod entirely, leaving room on top for the standard docking port.

This also works great as a method to complete orbital rescue contracts.

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by HvP
added pictures

[Reusables]

39 minutes ago, FancyMouse said:

I usually don't care about 0.5t difference. For station vehicle I care more about part counts (affects performance, save file size, etc.), so I'm super willing to make it a little bit heavier but saving a lot of parts.

 That sounds right. I'd rather have focused on part count than weight. I'll try making a passenger craft out of hitchhiker container.

39 minutes ago, FancyMouse said:

For only 2 passengers, it's probably going to be pod - mk1 cabin - (T400) fuel tank - Terrier/Spark.

Would you let me know how to make this look good?

I can't get any grasp of what to do to improve the look.

Cockpits don't carry enough monopropellent, so I would need monopropellent tank with them.

39 minutes ago, FancyMouse said:

btw, I tend to design those station modules in a rather thin fashion is because not only they are friendly as launch payload, but also require less on the station design - i.e. I wouldn't need to stretch the docking port of the station out to have enough space to fit a fat module.

Oh, then I was going for the opposite direction...

I might have to redesign it.

 

EDIT: As HvP said, command seats should be great. Currently I don't have one, though...

Edited May 4, 2017 by Reusables

[HvP]

@Abastro Do you have access to RCS yet? Those docking ports are going to be a pain if you don't have RCS to control your docking, although not impossible.

Also, I really like that cupola module with the 6 passenger cabins around it. That's a clever design and will look pretty cool as a station component.

Edited to add that I just saw the RCS on your picture.

Edited May 4, 2017 by HvP

[HvP]

@Abastro Don't underestimate the uses of a small fairing clipped into the lander can.

 

You can even put your monoprop tanks inside the fairing. I bet there are plenty of ways you can use similar tricks with your creativity.

Edited May 4, 2017 by HvP

[Reusables]

1 hour ago, HvP said:

@Abastro Don't underestimate the uses of a small fairing clipped into the lander can.

You can even put your monoprop tanks inside the fairing. I bet there are plenty of ways you can use similar tricks with your creativity.

Thanks! I forgot about the fairing. Looks promising, I'll try it.

[Wanderfound]

1 hour ago, Abastro said:

 That sounds right. I'd rather have focused on part count than weight. I'll try making a passenger craft out of hitchhiker container.

Would you let me know how to make this look good?

I can't get any grasp of what to do to improve the look.

Aesthetics are invariably subjective, but...

Replace the capsule with a service bay. Stick a probe core and whatever ancillary bits you've got (batteries, RCS tanks, etc) inside there, whack the docking port on top. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Wanderfound

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

7 hours ago, Abastro said:

I was trying to make a passenger craft dedicated to space(vacuum) which will shuttle kerbin station, mun station and minmus station. The problem is, I just can't make one which is compact, efficient and looks aesthetically pleasing.

I'm at work, so I can't put up a pic, but I think I can score 2 out of 3. It won't be the most efficient but, for a 4-passenger shuttle, have you considered a Viewing Cupola on top of a Hitchhiker Storage Facility? You've already expressed concerns about the Hitcher's weight, but the 2 parts definitely look good together. Granted it'll look more like a station at first, but engines will fix that. With FL tanks placed radially, you can add whatever engines you want to overcome the weight problem. With legs attached to the tanks, it's a pretty good lander. A docking port on top and a docking port Sr on the bottom gives you great flexibility. You can refuel it easily and, if you want, connect a booster to the Sr at the bottom if you need to jaunt off to Ike or Gilly or something.

For the 2-man, I really like @HvP's fairing/lander can combo. I think I'd throw the Mk1 command module on top just for the cone shape. It's dark, obviously, and more weight (I have a problem adding things for aesthetics all the time), but I think it would look even better. A docking port on the bottom and a Jr on top would give you flexibility again. With Oscar B's and Sparks placed radially (with the small landing legs attached), you'd be in business with plenty of Delta-v, I think.

Now I wanna get home and test it out. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

[Spricigo]

I'd go with docking port, 2x crew cabin,  3(±1)x radially attached solar panels,  no-staging fairing (probecores okto/okto,  reaction wheel,  batteries monopropelant, antenna,  something-small-I-forgot-which-I-don't-need-to-reach), tank, engine, RCS thrusters where needed. I not usually concerned about looks but I find the fairing invaluable when modellingm, 

Rotating one of the crew cabin to make the hatch usable is something to consider.  There is also a small mod,  properly named Crew Cabin Hatch,  that  put a hath radially to the crew cabin. 

 

[Foxster]

How about a mini space station like this?...

Each ROUND-8 tank has an Oscar B inside its hollow core to maximise fuel storage density. 

TWR is 0.55 and dV is 2646. 

Or some variation thereof...

Edited May 4, 2017 by Foxster

[Spricigo]

58 minutes ago, Foxster said:

How about a mini space station like this?...

Each ROUND-8 tank has an Oscar B inside its hollow core to maximise fuel storage density. 

TWR is 0.55 and dV is 2646. 

Or some variation thereof...

 

If my opinion worth something (probably very little) it's a nice overall design ruined by too much RCS thrusters and roundified monopropelant tank. 

 

59 minutes ago, Foxster said:

How about a mini space station like this?...

Each ROUND-8 tank has an Oscar B inside its hollow core to maximise fuel storage density. 

TWR is 0.55 and dV is 2646. 

Or some variation thereof...

 

If my opinion worth something (probably very little) it's a nice overall design ruined by too much RCS thrusters and roundified

Just to be clear,  the 'problem'  it's that I prefer to be minimalist in regard to RCS thrusters,  and this particular MP tank disgust me.  Just a matter of taste 

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

1 hour ago, Foxster said:

How about a mini space station like this?...

Each ROUND-8 tank has an Oscar B inside its hollow core to maximise fuel storage density. 

TWR is 0.55 and dV is 2646. 

Or some variation thereof...

That second design's pretty sweet. Although, the roundified tanks are usually ugly, as @Spricigo pointed out. Maybe a 1.25 RCS instead? Though it would be a bit heavier. You could always lessen the amount in the tank if you wanted.

[HvP]

3 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Just to be clear,  the 'problem'  it's that I prefer to be minimalist in regard to RCS thrusters,  and this particular MP tank disgust me.  Just a matter of taste 

I actually kind of like the look of the roundified monoprop tanks. They look like they were designed for function rather than aesthetics. After all, the greatest ratio of volume to surface area is a sphere and an elongated sphere is one of the most impact resistant shapes known. It reminds me of a propane tank strapped to the side.

As for RCS, i usually put them on with 2x mirror symmetry and then embed a single linear RCS port into the middle of each of them. It's a much cleaner look and still gives you control on all axes. Plus, it means less chance that a RCS thruster will end up overlapping another part, like a hatch or solar panel.

Edited May 4, 2017 by HvP

[Spricigo]

1 minute ago, HvP said:

I actually kind of like the look of the roundified monoprop tanks. They look like they were designed for function rather than aesthetics.

 

      I just hope the irony was intentional. May, 4th be with you.

[GluttonyReaper]

5 minutes ago, HvP said:

I actually kind of like the look of the roundified monoprop tanks. They look like they were designed for function rather than aesthetics. After all, the greatest ratio of volume to surface area is a sphere and an elongated sphere is one of the most impact resistant shapes known. It reminds me of a propane tank strapped to the side.

I haven't really used them much since capsules got their own monoprop, but I always used to like using a 2.5m tank, attaching a Terrier to the bottom, and surrounding it with round mono tanks along the rim. It looked pretty nice, and it meant I could have them not stick out the side of the craft  Nowadays I use the same trick with Fuel Tanks Plus's half-sphere 0.625 LFO tanks.

Edited May 4, 2017 by GluttonyReaper

[Reusables]

On 2017. 5. 4. at 5:37 PM, Wanderfound said:

Aesthetics are invariably subjective, but...

Replace the capsule with a service bay. Stick a probe core and whatever ancillary bits you've got (batteries, RCS tanks, etc) inside there, whack the docking port on top. 

The problem is that I may lose commnet connection when I need to perform important burns. Any crew can do the burn with a command pod, but probes have hard time doing that.

On 2017. 5. 4. at 9:38 PM, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

I'm at work, so I can't put up a pic, but I think I can score 2 out of 3. It won't be the most efficient but, for a 4-passenger shuttle, have you considered a Viewing Cupola on top of a Hitchhiker Storage Facility? You've already expressed concerns about the Hitcher's weight, but the 2 parts definitely look good together. Granted it'll look more like a station at first, but engines will fix that. With FL tanks placed radially, you can add whatever engines you want to overcome the weight problem. With legs attached to the tanks, it's a pretty good lander. A docking port on top and a docking port Sr on the bottom gives you great flexibility. You can refuel it easily and, if you want, connect a booster to the Sr at the bottom if you need to jaunt off to Ike or Gilly or something.

I don't have docking port Sr. as it needs expensive level 3 R&D. Also I'm already pushing the weight limit of the 4-passenger shuttle, another 0.5t will make it cost more fuel than 12-passenger one!

+ 2-4 crew shuttles are spark-powered.

On 2017. 5. 4. at 9:45 PM, Spricigo said:

I'd go with docking port, 2x crew cabin,  3(±1)x radially attached solar panels,  no-staging fairing (probecores okto/okto,  reaction wheel,  batteries monopropelant, antenna,  something-small-I-forgot-which-I-don't-need-to-reach), tank, engine, RCS thrusters where needed. I not usually concerned about looks but I find the fairing invaluable when modellingm, 

Rotating one of the crew cabin to make the hatch usable is something to consider.  There is also a small mod,  properly named Crew Cabin Hatch,  that  put a hath radially to the crew cabin. 

Hatch is one problem, and control is the other. I occasionally got out of CommNet.

Also I found that .

On 2017. 5. 5. at 0:50 AM, Foxster said:

How about a mini space station like this?...

Each ROUND-8 tank has an Oscar B inside its hollow core to maximise fuel storage density. 

TWR is 0.55 and dV is 2646. 

Or some variation thereof...

Looks good! Though, I don't have the round-8 tank. What tech node was it in?

On 2017. 5. 5. at 5:28 AM, GluttonyReaper said:

I haven't really used them much since capsules got their own monoprop, but I always used to like using a 2.5m tank, attaching a Terrier to the bottom, and surrounding it with round mono tanks along the rim. It looked pretty nice, and it meant I could have them not stick out the side of the craft  Nowadays I use the same trick with Fuel Tanks Plus's half-sphere 0.625 LFO tanks.

I like the configuration, too. But the smallest 2.5m tank already contains too much fuel.

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

38 minutes ago, Abastro said:

+ 2-4 crew shuttles are spark-powered.

 

Not sure if this is to your taste, or if it's heavier than what your looking for.

 

I prefer the Mk1 command module; it's hard to make the lander can look good.

 

 

I like versatility when I can get it, so docking port Jr on the top, regular on the bottom.

 

 

Tried to make the roundified RCS tanks look good. Not sure if I succeeded.

[Reusables]

2 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

Not sure if this is to your taste, or if it's heavier than what your looking for.

(snip)

 

I prefer the Mk1 command module; it's hard to make the lander can look good.

(snip)

I don't care much about using mk1 command module, but it does look too heavy. I use 1 spark and up to 2 ants for the propulsion, or it ends up cost more fuel than 12 passenger shuttle.

[Spricigo]

5 hours ago, Abastro said:

Hatch is one problem, and control is the other. I occasionally got out of CommNet.

hatch is only a problem if you obstruct it  (but I personaly use Crew Cabin Hatch mod, name says all)

Just combined some parts to show some possibilities. Same vessel in first 3 images. And I really liked the Rosie.

5 hours ago, Abastro said:

Looks good! Though, I don't have the round-8 tank. What tech node was it in?

Precise propulsion, cost 160science and requires propulsion systems

5 hours ago, Abastro said:

I like the configuration, too. But the smallest 2.5m tank already contains too much fuel.

The  2.5m to 1.25m adapter hold 360lf+440ox. Which is about the amount (or even less) used in the design posted in this thread.

[Reusables]

1 minute ago, Spricigo said:

hatch is only a problem if you obstruct it  (but I personaly use Crew Cabin Hatch mod, name says all)

I don't like the blunt edge of the hatch. It's the problem 

24 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

Precise propulsion, cost 160science and requires propulsion systems

That's one of the most useless node for me.. I just don't want to unlock the node.

25 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

The  2.5m to 1.25m adapter hold 360lf+440ox. Which is about the amount (or even less) used in the design posted in this thread.

It has the same amount of fuel with the shortest 2.5m tank, while being more heavy. Also I want to haul less fuel, about 600 units of LF+Ox for 4 crewed one.