Why a Geminialike 2-man Capsule is needed in Stock.

[Darnok]

I would like all of them

We have "Mk1 Lander Can" that is larger than 1.25m with 1.25m nodes, how about making almost spherical capsule of same size and with 1.25m nodes?

[passinglurker]

http://i.imgur.com/YvVuyn7.jpg

I would like all of them

We have "Mk1 Lander Can" that is larger than 1.25m with 1.25m nodes, how about making almost spherical capsule of same size and with 1.25m nodes?

Two words" reentry heating"

[Darnok]

Two words" reentry heating"

What?

[nothingSpecial]

Two words" reentry heating"

I tested Mk1 landing can with 1.25m heat shield, it worked nice.

[tater]

From what I can tell, the helmets are roughly 0.625m. I really don't see 2 helmets in a 1.25m pod, it needs to be bigger (least they don't need room to remove them). The 1.25m 2-kerbal pods with helmets off need to put the helmets in there as props. If there is no room... they are too small for helmets off.

- - - Updated - - -

I tested Mk1 landing can with 1.25m heat shield, it worked nice.

Reentry heat and tiny planets is not a real constraint. If the part description for that landercan is to be accurate (impossible to reenter), they strength and heat tolerance of that can should be dropped far, far lower.

[Darnok]

Guys I meant make Capsule in size of Mk1 landing can, because it is larger than 1.25m parts

And with proper seats placement, you should be able to fir there two kerbals

[KrazyKrl]

http://i.imgur.com/YvVuyn7.jpg

I would like all of them

We have "Mk1 Lander Can" that is larger than 1.25m with 1.25m nodes, how about making almost spherical capsule of same size and with 1.25m nodes?

The reason for the conical shape of the capsules, is due to the aerodynamic forces stabilizing the capsule in a blunt-face-down "heatshield-first" position. Having even an unpowered capsule enter the atmosphere in any orientation(and spin rate) able to right itself passively from aerodynamic forces is quite beneficial.

How are you going to pop the chutes in a sphere that is spinning anyhow? What if you have no power & pilots are medically unable to control the craft? You get one shot+redundancies for something that is solved by the innate aerodynamic nature of a conical capsule.

Edited August 17, 2015 by KrazyKrl

[Darnok]

The reason for the conical shape of the capsules, is due to the aerodynamic forces stabilizing the capsule in a blunt-face-down "heatshield-first" position. Having even an unpowered capsule enter the atmosphere in any orientation(and spin rate) able to right itself passively from aerodynamic forces is quite beneficial.

How are you going to pop the chutes in a sphere that is spinning anyhow? What if you have no power & pilots are medically unable to control the craft? You get one shot+redundancies for something that is solved by the innate aerodynamic nature of a conical capsule.

I thought we are talking about low-tech capsule for early game... so having cons you mentioned is fine for me.

[nothingSpecial]

The reason for the conical shape of the capsules, is due to the aerodynamic forces stabilizing the capsule in a blunt-face-down "heatshield-first" position. Having even an unpowered capsule enter the atmosphere in any orientation(and spin rate) able to right itself passively from aerodynamic forces is quite beneficial.

How are you going to pop the chutes in a sphere that is spinning anyhow? What if you have no power & pilots are medically unable to control the craft? You get one shot+redundancies for something that is solved by the innate aerodynamic nature of a conical capsule.

Make bottom heavier. Like was done on Vostok.

Still, the g-forces are much higher. Moonshot with ballistic reentry is too risky (you can't control the sphere the same way Apollo cone was controlled - lowering/raising CoM with rotation) to just go and try. Cones are really best for human flight.

[tater]

The tried and true Soyuz is a variant on the conical shape as well, for good reason. That's a better shape for maximizing volume, but our problem is the base diameter, since kerbal helmets seem to be exactly 1/2 of the 1.25m diameter, leaving no room for anything, and the 2 helmets even touching, and as you go forward from the base, 2 do not fit.

[nothingSpecial]

What about shorter 2.5m capsule? Similar to this mod, without any additional diameters, with enough volume for helmets.

Okay, that will be not very geminiesque. But still would be a good middle point in the career.

Edited August 17, 2015 by nothingSpecial

[passinglurker]

Its viable if it's much much earlier than the mk1-2 pod like before flight control earlier the assumption being you would branch down rocketry first and you don't want to make a equal investment to get a fitting pod

- - - Updated - - -

Actually wait no scratch that you'd also need the heat shield which is much later in the tree it will either need to be moved up or an intermediary size will have to be introduced

[Columbia]

What gap between 1.25M and 2.5M? There is no gap. The only real possible gap I can see is if you are trying to build a realistic 3 engine shuttle, but as far as size gaps I think that is all in your imagination.

Well..

The differences between Size 1-2 parts are quite huge compared to 2.5-3.75m parts.

- - - Updated - - -

Clustered engines suffer as well. For example, if you want to make a realistic Kerbal-esque version of the Soyuz R7 launcher, you're not gonna get engines that are powerful enough. The RD-107 is an unvectored engine used for the boosters (so it would be replaced by the LV-T30 in stock) where the RD-108 is less powerful so you could use the LV-T45 for it.

However, in that configuration with 4 engines on each 2,5m cluster, you're not going to get anywhere near the power of a Soyuz R7. A similar setup with 4 Mainsails and a single Skipper does the job effortlessly.

The 1,25m engines are only useful if you want to lift nothing but 1,25m parts, because the 2,5m parts are too heavy to lift. So yes, there definitely *is* a power gap which is less pronounced on the 2,5m/3,75m transition.

^^Exactly

[mattinoz]

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/TVR-200_Stack_Bi-Coupler

I think the existence of this part in game is almost enough proof for that a 1.8m part size is needed.

Are there any real rockets that use this twin core style?

[Laie]

Right now if you want a two kerbal ship the best looking option I know of is a mk1 pod on top of a mk1 lander can, which doesn't really look that great.

Yup. I'm perfectly capable of building a two-person vessel when I need it, I don't need a dedicated model for that. But I'd much prefer if there was a stackable crew module that a) isn't oversized and has hatch and ladder in a stack-friendly place.

[nothingSpecial]

Yup. I'm perfectly capable of building a two-person vessel when I need it, I don't need a dedicated model for that. But I'd much prefer if there was a stackable crew module that a) isn't oversized and has hatch and ladder in a stack-friendly place.

Mk1 inline cockpit can suffice if you don't mind having your 2-kerbal pod suddenly change color and protrude glass bulb to side.

[RuBisCO]

Question: why side-by-side, why not in tandem? Why not a two Kerbal 1.25 m airplane cockpit that we can put a heat shield on the back?

[passinglurker]

Question: why side-by-side, why not in tandem? Why not a two Kerbal 1.25 m airplane cockpit that we can put a heat shield on the back?

If the pod is too long it in theory won't occlude the parachutes testing will need to be done with this to determine if its really a problem and if so whats the minimum length needed for two tandem kerbals. The mk1 cockpit going tandem would be fine without ablator when entering like a spaceplane but we'd need lifting and control surfaces earlier and possibly fairings too. That would give you a two man craft for early tourist and rescue until you get a 2man 2.5 for exploration with minimum new parts assuming a tandem two man 1.25 conventional cone pod isn't possible.

[Wjolcz]

Question: why side-by-side, why not in tandem? Why not a two Kerbal 1.25 m airplane cockpit that we can put a heat shield on the back?

I'm no spacecraft design expert, but it might be because of the stereoscopic field of vision thingy. Two side-by-side pilots could judge the distance better than two in tandem configuration.

[Alshain]

Arguments on helmet size and being able to fit are invalid as long as we have the Mk2 Crew Cabin which seats 4 in the same basic size as a 2 man cockpit (EDIT: Actually smaller). There is nothing wrong with a 1.25m capsule except to those who just think the game should have another size of rocket parts, the same reason for the phantom gap between sizes, it doesn't exist unless you need an argument for more parts.

[passinglurker]

Arguments on helmet size and being able to fit are invalid as long as we have the Mk2 Crew Cabin which seats 4 in the same basic size as a 2 man cockpit (EDIT: Actually smaller). There is nothing wrong with a 1.25m capsule except to those who just think the game should have another size of rocket parts, the same reason for the phantom gap between sizes, it doesn't exist unless you need an argument for more parts.

plane parts like the crew cabin don't have helmets

[Stoney3K]

Arguments on helmet size and being able to fit are invalid as long as we have the Mk2 Crew Cabin which seats 4 in the same basic size as a 2 man cockpit (EDIT: Actually smaller). There is nothing wrong with a 1.25m capsule except to those who just think the game should have another size of rocket parts, the same reason for the phantom gap between sizes, it doesn't exist unless you need an argument for more parts.

I expect the Mk2 parts to seat unhelmeted Kerbals instead of helmeted Kerbals on the command pods, just like the entire Space Shuttle cabin was pressurized, removing the need for bulky EVA suits and helmets on launch. Also, the cockpit seats 2 Kerbals side by side without helmet, where the crew cabin seats 4, in 2 rows of 2, with no useful props or instruments around them except for their seats.

Capsules may not be pressurized entirely (instead, only the suits would be pressurized) so they need more room inside to accomodate EVA suits.

A 1,25m 2-Kerbal command pod would theoretically fit, barely, but don't expect any room for your Kerbals to move in to, I don't know, move the ship's controls or push any buttons.

[passinglurker]

As long as we can't control how kerbals sit, move, or dress in terms of helmet size a side by side 1.25m reentry capsule can't work and no turning the helmets off isn't acceptable this is a capsule if it was a plane part it would be ok but then we'd need to to change how the plane parts are arranged in order to safely land one early game where a 2 man pod or cockpit is needed (one of the flaws in the current tech tree is you get the mk1 cockpit before wheels wings or radial chutes so there is no way to land it safely)

[tater]

Arguments on helmet size and being able to fit are invalid as long as we have the Mk2 Crew Cabin which seats 4 in the same basic size as a 2 man cockpit (EDIT: Actually smaller). There is nothing wrong with a 1.25m capsule except to those who just think the game should have another size of rocket parts, the same reason for the phantom gap between sizes, it doesn't exist unless you need an argument for more parts.

It just means the cockpit is broken, too, frankly. Can the kerbals EVA? Is there an airlock? If not, the entire space inside the cabin is depressurized (as in a capsule) and they must have helmets on.

The scale chosen by Squad was 100% arbitrary WRT the size and geometry of Kerbals and their gear. Perhaps the smallest size should in fact have been 1.75m, or 1.9m. That or they could have arbitrarily made kerbals X% smaller. Whatever path they take/took, the IVAs should be 100% inside the actual part model (with appropriate thickness of those external walls), and the kerbals should fit inside, fully suited if that is something the part requires (any part that allows EVA).

That we are possibly saddled with parts that break this is bad, but it would be worse to add new parts that knowingly break this notion, IMO.

Edit: I just looked at the 2 mk1 parts in question, and there is room for the helmets. In the crew cabin, they should have them in place of the bundles of whatever it is under the windows. The head centers slightly overlap the hatch outline.

Edited August 18, 2015 by tater

[Columbia]

doesn't exist unless you need an argument for more parts.

As I said earlier.. Solid Rocket Boosters? Mk3 Jet Engines? An actually useful rocket engine that isn't as obsolete as the current 1.25m engines (which can lift 1.25m rockets.. but not much else.).

Quite a lot.