Lander Cans: They Need A Little Love!

[Barefoot Friar]

I've become increasingly disatisfied with the stock selection of lander cans. I've become equally disatisfied with the apparent overweight and under-manned nature of some certain stock 2.5m lander cans. (Ahem.)

I think they need a little love. I think we need some more options here. Perhaps a tweak here and there. Two single cans weigh in at 1.32t; the two-man weighs a hefty and bloated 2.66t. Why is this? I get that it has slightly more RCS and battery power, but there isn't even an RTG or anything like that.

And with needing to actually land and plant flags with my entire ship crew, I now need a way to land three Kerbals at a time -- and the stock 3-man pod weighs 4.12t. It's a lot lighter to use 3 one-man cans, but it's also a lot uglier and more ungainly.

Two discussion questions:

1. If you could buff or nerf the lander cans, what would you do?

2. If you were designing a new one, what features would you include, and at what weight?

[Specialist290]

Moving this over to Suggestions and Development Discussion, as it's more of a "What would you change if you could?" question than a "How do I use these parts as they are?" question

[Rusty6899]

I'd say that the multi-kerbal cans have to come down in mass.

It makes no sense to have the mass/capacity increasing with capacity and if the 1 man cans get much bigger, probes will become so much more efficient than kerbals that you'd be crazy not to use them. Maybe 1.2t for 2 man 1.25m pod and 1.7t for a 3 man 1.25-2.5m pod.

Considering that a 4 man mk2 crew cabin weighs 2 tonnes, and a 16 man mk3 cabin weighs 6.5t I don't think that's so unreasonably low.

[Kelderek]

My biggest complaint with these lander cans is that they have slightly different diameters than the size they are supposed to be. If you place the 2-man can on top of a processing lab or hitchhiker storage, you can't use the built in ladder rungs to climb to the next part - it's off by just enough to be really annoying.

[Slam_Jones]

My biggest complaint with these lander cans is that they have slightly different diameters than the size they are supposed to be. If you place the 2-man can on top of a processing lab or hitchhiker storage, you can't use the built in ladder rungs to climb to the next part - it's off by just enough to be really annoying.

So much this.

[tater]

^^^ good point about the diameter. I'd hope that the impact and reentry tolerance could be made such that lander cans are not atmospheric things. I suppose the mk2 right now might be tougher for that reason, hence the mass, but I'd really like to see a better way to integrate landers into stacks with interstage fairings with no bulge.

[Tex]

I made a thread on this a month ago, just for the curious as to what the people have said already. It also includes my take on things, based on the things I've noticed upon comparing lander cans to the Apollo LM.

[maltesh]

My biggest complaint with these lander cans is that they have slightly different diameters than the size they are supposed to be. If you place the 2-man can on top of a processing lab or hitchhiker storage, you can't use the built in ladder rungs to climb to the next part - it's off by just enough to be really annoying.

That has not been my experience, or at least, not entirely. Climbing down from the 2-man landercan to a Hitchhiker or a science lab that's attached to its bottom works fine. I've been doing that on my Cheddar-class landers since 0.18.

Climbing up from a Landercan to a Hitchiker or a science lab attached to the top of the landercan, however does not; I'd just assumed that Squad didn't make the landercan so its ladder extended above the door.

[Kelderek]

I may have been thinking of the viewing cuppola instead of the lander can, it was one or both of those I had trouble with before.

[Barefoot Friar]

Thanks for the move.

I really am thinking the 2.5m can needs to be a lot lighter. And, once we get the upgraded aero (and re-entry heat?), the temperature tolerance and crash resistance needs to be nerfed bigtime.

I'm actually a bit surprised that more modders haven't created new ones, given the limitations of the stock parts. I would have expected lighter and/or higher crew capacity parts to have been created already. If I could do it myself I would. Perhaps now is a good time to learn, right?

[FishInferno]

That has not been my experience, or at least, not entirely. Climbing down from the 2-man landercan to a Hitchhiker or a science lab that's attached to its bottom works fine. I've been doing that on my Cheddar-class landers since 0.18.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4057920/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/v0.90/Screenshots/screenshot461.png

Climbing up from a Landercan to a Hitchiker or a science lab attached to the top of the landercan, however does not; I'd just assumed that Squad didn't make the landercan so its ladder extended above the door.

But if you put the lander can under the hitchhiker, it doesnt work

[Jouni]

I'd prefer having a gameplay reason for using the heavy multi-kerbal pods. Maybe something related to life support.

[tater]

Higher crew capacity is sort of hard to imagine sometimes. The IVAs often remind me of a TARDIS compared to how the same part looks on EVA

- - - Updated - - -

I want a larger lander part, like a Mars Direct hab. Cylinder in the 3.75m part size, 1 floor high (but at least 2 parts, one as the command pod/cabin, maybe another with a science lab and ideally rover garage with ramp (and possible fuel or mono).

(the one on the right is what I was referring to, and you see how it could be an upper and lower part (plus engine parts as a third piece if 909s don't cut it)

Gotta love stuff like this, too:

(some similar designs are a lot like Roverdude's excellent stuff, I just want them bigger)

I'd prefer having a gameplay reason for using the heavy multi-kerbal pods. Maybe something related to life support.

My desire for the bigger lander/landed-hab parts is exactly this. Even before I started playing with LS I never sent any mission that didn't look like it had enough LS to me. So my even my first Duna mission was a lander with a Hitchhiker (6 seats, 2 used), and remaining in orbit a science lab, hitchhiker, and mk1-2 capsule (4 kerbal crew on the whole mission, 15 seats, 4 used).

Edited March 12, 2015 by tater

[Barefoot Friar]

I'd prefer having a gameplay reason for using the heavy multi-kerbal pods. Maybe something related to life support.

My in-game reason is "everyone must plant a flag in order to get experience points." "Because I can" is a really good motivation, too, although it is admittedly external to the game.

[Rath]

I really hate how you cant attach another part on top of the 2.5 metre lander can with it looking good.

[Darnok]

Higher crew capacity is sort of hard to imagine sometimes. The IVAs often remind me of a TARDIS compared to how the same part looks on EVA

- - - Updated - - -

I want a larger lander part, like a Mars Direct hab. Cylinder in the 3.75m part size, 1 floor high (but at least 2 parts, one as the command pod/cabin, maybe another with a science lab and ideally rover garage with ramp (and possible fuel or mono).

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/mars-direct-photo-credit-Orange-Dot-Productions.jpg

(the one on the right is what I was referring to, and you see how it could be an upper and lower part (plus engine parts as a third piece if 909s don't cut it)

Gotta love stuff like this, too:

http://www.oocities.org/hollywood/heights/5927/gifs/lander2.jpg

(some similar designs are a lot like Roverdude's excellent stuff, I just want them bigger)

My desire for the bigger lander/landed-hab parts is exactly this. Even before I started playing with LS I never sent any mission that didn't look like it had enough LS to me. So my even my first Duna mission was a lander with a Hitchhiker (6 seats, 2 used), and remaining in orbit a science lab, hitchhiker, and mk1-2 capsule (4 kerbal crew on the whole mission, 15 seats, 4 used).

Wow those things looks great

I love that rover cabin and all those habs... and 100% agree we need ramps and 3.75m science lab.