Can anyone explain the PPD-10 Hitchhiker capsule?

[Loren Pechtel]

Mk1 Crew Cabin - .5t/kerbal, 225 credits/kerbal, 40m/s impact, temp 1000K/2000K.

Mk3 Passenger Module - .4t/kerbal, 1875 credits/kerbal, 50m/s impact, temp 1500K/27000K

Nothing strange here.  Higher tech, carries more, better stats.

The closest thing to a Mk2 here i the PPD-10 Hitchhiker.

.625t/kerbal, 6m/s impact, 1000 credits/kerbal, temp 1000K/2000K.

It weighs more and is nowhere near as robust.  Also, as it is equal or inferior in all respects to the Mk1 it shouldn't cost more per kerbal than the Mk1.  It also has 4x the volume of the Mk1, thus it should hold 8 kerbals, or else be half as high.

Also, is there an aerodynamic penalty for using the Mk3 in a rocket stack?

[problemecium]

There is indeed an aerodynamic penalty for using any module in a stack with a different cross section, although with Mk3 and Size 3 parts it's rather small.

It's a valid argument that perhaps the Hitchhiker container needs a higher capacity, but currently it's the only inline Size 2 part with crew capacity. Using a Mk2 cabin in a Size 2 stack has a rather large aerodynamic penalty.

Also the Hitchhiker container is much comfier inside, so if you don't want your Kerbals to get space madness it's better for long missions

[Loren Pechtel]

44 minutes ago, problemecium said:

There is indeed an aerodynamic penalty for using any module in a stack with a different cross section, although with Mk3 and Size 3 parts it's rather small.

It's a valid argument that perhaps the Hitchhiker container needs a higher capacity, but currently it's the only inline Size 2 part with crew capacity. Using a Mk2 cabin in a Size 2 stack has a rather large aerodynamic penalty.

Also the Hitchhiker container is much comfier inside, so if you don't want your Kerbals to get space madness it's better for long missions

My inclination would be to drop the price to 1500, cut the height in half and give it 45 m/s impact rather than increase the capacity.

[Superfluous J]

Explanation: The parts, in spite of undergoing at least one rebalance, aren't really all that balanced.

[Starman4308]

It may also be a small sop to making aircraft lighter*. One thing KSP fails to model is the difference between a vacuum-proof crew cabin for use in space, and aircraft cabins, which are generally not airtight and sometimes not even pressurized.

*This leads to "fun" like cockpits being heavier than many real-world aircraft. The capsules aren't too terribly bad mass-wise, but cockpits are made awkwardly heavy so that they aren't absurdly unbalanced against the capsules.

[Stoney3K]

12 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

It may also be a small sop to making aircraft lighter*. One thing KSP fails to model is the difference between a vacuum-proof crew cabin for use in space, and aircraft cabins, which are generally not airtight and sometimes not even pressurized.

This is done for the simple reason that Kerbals do not face certain death when their cabin is not pressurized and they go into space. The light, 'unpressurized' cockpits would be at a major advantage in terms of mass while having no drawbacks.

[DrLicor]

Well, a simple explanation here that came to my toughts. The hitch hiker is a station-part, not a short term transport pod like the MK1 etc. 

The capsules/commands pods are for transportation, not for long term-living. That's why the size is much larger. 
The weight is explainable for protection for the long term space exposure. 
If you want to play it really realistic, you shouldn't let your kerbals go on long term space travel in their pod, which is relative tiny. 
Look at pictures of apollo, you can barely move around. You don't want that if you're years in deep space.  

[Loren Pechtel]

2 hours ago, DrLicor said:

Well, a simple explanation here that came to my toughts. The hitch hiker is a station-part, not a short term transport pod like the MK1 etc. 

The capsules/commands pods are for transportation, not for long term-living. That's why the size is much larger. 
The weight is explainable for protection for the long term space exposure. 
If you want to play it really realistic, you shouldn't let your kerbals go on long term space travel in their pod, which is relative tiny. 
Look at pictures of apollo, you can barely move around. You don't want that if you're years in deep space.  

Hitchhiker certainly sounds like a transport part to me!  We don't really have any station parts other than in mods.

I do agree the cramped quarters are unrealistic.  My previous game I had Kerbals in small spaces for decades.

[DrLicor]

15 minutes ago, Loren Pechtel said:

Hitchhiker certainly sounds like a transport part to me!  We don't really have any station parts other than in mods.

I do agree the cramped quarters are unrealistic.  My previous game I had Kerbals in small spaces for decades.

Haha Yes we do, just look at the wiki of the ksp parts. It literally says it used to be a station part. 

Also the research lab is a station part as wel. 

Not that the stock ksp is the most realistic game, but I think they just wanted to add some station look a like parts and therefor they are less efficient in the stats, because many realism factors don't count in the game.

[Loren Pechtel]

35 minutes ago, DrLicor said:

Haha Yes we do, just look at the wiki of the ksp parts. It literally says it used to be a station part. 

Also the research lab is a station part as wel. 

Not that the stock ksp is the most realistic game, but I think they just wanted to add some station look a like parts and therefor they are less efficient in the stats, because many realism factors don't count in the game.

"Hitchhiker" is referring to a means of travel.

[Draalo]

Dont forget the science needed for first part use in career.

The Hitchhicker is early availiable and leads to more parts needed for rockets. It fits well with docking port Sr. and the Lab - and 2,5m Capsules ofc. Great for contract to expand stations around Kerbin.

MK3 crew cabin needs more science to unlock.

 

Of course, later in the career i use the crew cabin for large motherships. Especially with a MK3 Lf-only tank and NERV-engines radial attached.

 

BTW: Impact tolerance is the least thing i consider when choosing a part

[Pand5461]

18 hours ago, Loren Pechtel said:

Mk1 Crew Cabin - .5t/kerbal, 225 credits/kerbal, 40m/s impact, temp 1000K/2000K.

Mk3 Passenger Module - .4t/kerbal, 1875 credits/kerbal, 50m/s impact, temp 1500K/27000K

Nothing strange here.  Higher tech, carries more, better stats.

The closest thing to a Mk2 here i the PPD-10 Hitchhiker.

What? There is a Mk2 Crew Cabin with 0.5t/kerbal, 1050 credits/kerbal, 45 m/s impact, 1400/2000 K.

Why such difference in costs? It's the addition of the hatch I think (and hitchhiker container also has ladders!)

[Kerbal101]

Hitchhiker is an oversized Mk1 Lander Can with additional comfort. Its designed for long-term space habitation, rather than atmospheric reentries.

From Mk1 description:
"This capsule was designed for lightweight non-atmospheric landers, and seats a single occupant. Features a novel full-body crumple-zone technology."

PPD-10 description:
"The HSC was an invention of necessity - how do we store 4 Kerbals on-orbit without any real provisions for return? Who needed this remains a mystery, as do his motivations."

It works pretty good for atmosphere reentry too, provided heatshield and parachutes attached and COM is towards the heatshielded side.

[Loren Pechtel]

1 hour ago, Pand5461 said:

What? There is a Mk2 Crew Cabin with 0.5t/kerbal, 1050 credits/kerbal, 45 m/s impact, 1400/2000 K.

Why such difference in costs? It's the addition of the hatch I think (and hitchhiker container also has ladders!)

The Mk2 is only suitable for aircraft use.

1 hour ago, Draalo said:

 

BTW: Impact tolerance is the least thing i consider when choosing a part

While it's not that big a deal I do care about it for big things returning under chutes.  If your crew compartment(s) are tough you don't need to worry about your rocket tipping over after landing.  Some stuff might break but your Kerbals (and any science) will be fine.  Hitchhikers sometimes explode if their rocket tips over.

[Pand5461]

11 minutes ago, Loren Pechtel said:

The Mk2 is only suitable for aircraft use.

Okay then, I didn't get that from your original question. But my point is still the same: increased costs reflect the fact that pod has doors (and probably airlocks but who knows).

[Nicias]

 

1 hour ago, Loren Pechtel said:

The Mk2 is only suitable for aircraft use.

I disagree. I often put 2-4 of them on top of a multi-adaptor and then a mk2-1.25 adaptor, and then nosecones (or chutes). This allows you to easily accommodate 8-16 kerbals in a 2.5m stack.