Hitchiker module seem underpowered now

[Maukse]

Hello everyone,

My RP rules :

*days-long mission : spaceplane cockpit (mk I & mk II), mk I pod&lander; mk1 / 2 / 3 crew cabine

*weeks-long mission : mk 1-2 pod & mk II lander; probably the mk III cockpit, altought I've actually never used it so far (IRL the orbiter had multiple decks that included life support equipment)

*months-long : any of the above supported by a hitchiker place for each crew member.

for years-long stuff, this is something I can not imagine, as we do not have yet the working technology to do it now in a mass budget that is not many orders of magnitude away from KSP figures.

So my typical interplanetary ship consist of a cuppola (manned from LKO to target orbit), backed by a RC-L01, and manned by 2 kerbals (in shifts, usually 1 pilot + 1 engineer).

Then I have a mk-II lander ship, manned by 2 kerbals (pilot + engineer). And a hitchiker module for "life support". A crew of 4 for 7 "seats".

So I guess it's up to you to set the rules you are willing to follow.

The same way, massiv abuse of engine clustering and mad offsets were seen (dunno yet if 1.05 still allows this) in the past for higher efficiency ships. But I've never used these designs, according to my own RP rules.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Maukse

[Hotaru]

*days-long mission : spaceplane cockpit (mk I & mk II), mk I pod&lander; mk1 / 2 / 3 crew cabine

*weeks-long mission : mk 1-2 pod & mk II lander; probably the mk III cockpit, altought I've actually never used it so far (IRL the orbiter had multiple decks that included life support equipment)

*months-long : any of the above supported by a hitchiker place for each crew member.

That's pretty close to the rules I follow as well, though I don't stick to them 100% rigidly. Most of my long-duration ships or stations have accommodations in Hitchhikers or Mk3 passenger cabins (which I assume to have lower-deck living quarters, as they have quite a lot of unused volume down there) for about twice their actual crew. Only short-duration missions (within the Kerbin system) every operate at capacity.

[Maukse]

Well, to be honnest, I've never used the mk3 crew cabine.

Too many kerbals in there !

[rodion_herrera]

It's kind of insane that in a game about space exploration we have more kinds of jet engines than we have places for Kerbals to live.

Live? I think that word will have more weight, if Squad truly and finally implements consumables for Kerbals. This is precisely why there is more focus now on jet engines and such--there seems as yet no need to come up with a variety of habitat styles, simply because the Kerbals don't really eat, sleep or sh*t. They don't even consume air (or whatever gas they require for respiration). You just leave them on a planet's surface and they don't die.

[tranenturm]

I'm sorry, can you please elaborate?

You see, you can technically put a bunch around it radially.

Sure you can. But when you launch, do you have a bunch of crew cabins stuck on the side of the ship increasing drag? Or do you put rocket parts in front and behind it? Or do you use a 2.5 rocket, put them side by side and ignore the attending structural and aesthetic issues?

[Red Iron Crown]

I just checked my stock 1.0.5 install: Mk3 cockpit is definitely still 3.9t and 4 kerbals, Mk1-2 is 4.12t and 3 kerbals. There is a mod (which I use in my 1.0.4 installs) which activated the two unused seats in the Mk3, making it a six-seater; don't know if that mod changed the mass or not.

I just looked at the config, looks like you are right. Sorry for the misinformation.

[GoSlash27]

If anything's underpowered, I'd say it's the Mk1-2 capsule (4 tonnes, 3 crew) and the Mk2 lander can. (2.5t, 2 crew),

I have found no use for the things.

Best,

-Slashy

[abowl]

Everyone gives great suggestions but i would like to add my own observation. The hitchiker has an edge over the new crew cabin since the hatch is on its side whereas the new crew cabin does not. This is makes the new crew cabin slightly more challenging to use in your builds. But if you know what you are doing it shouldnt be a problem.

[TimePeriod]

Like I've said before, I just lowered the tonnage of the items in question to a more appropriate amount and the price if I judge so needed. This way I can make use of parts which I rarely ever use.

[Pthigrivi]

If anything's underpowered, I'd say it's the Mk1-2 capsule (4 tonnes, 3 crew) and the Mk2 lander can. (2.5t, 2 crew),

I have found no use for the things.

Best,

-Slashy

Yeah with all the effort thats gone into balancing the engines Im surprised the capsules are still so out out of whack. There are some weird anomalies in the structural parts too. Im sure they could pretty quickly go through and level them out a bit. I generally think the MK1 cabin aught to be heavier and get a door on the roof.

[Jouni]

I guess Squad has some plans for making the heavy 2.5 m crew modules more useful in the future. Perhaps they're going to be the crew modules intended for long-term space travel. Maybe those parts have better life support, or maybe engineers and scientists will be able to do more, if they EVA from a ship with one of those parts.