Jump to content

For Less Money Too!


Recommended Posts

Hi Folks!

I try not to over engineer my crafts and make them as low cost as possible to get the job done. 

I also run a lot of tourism contracts for $$$.

The cheapest way for me to fly around 3 people, er, Kerbals, has been a MK1 Crew Cabin stacked on a MK1 Command Pod. Even after research and unlocking the MK1-2 Command Pod, that holds 3 Kerbals, the cheaper payload is the former.

I can't find a reason to use the 3 seater, MK1-2 command Pod from a financial angle.

Am I missing something?

Here is a pic to show what I mean.

<img src='https://i.imgur.com/DNtMTUP.png' />

DNtMTUP.png

 

 

Edited by Kerbal7
pic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

Hi Folks!

I try not to over engineer my crafts and make them as low cost as possible to get the job done. 

I also run a lot of tourism contracts for $$$.

The cheapest way for me to fly around 3 people, er, Kerbals, has been a MK1 Crew Cabin stacked on a MK1 Command Pod. Even after research and unlocking the MK1-2 Command Pod, that holds 3 Kerbals, the cheaper payload is the former.

I can't find a reason to use the 3 seater, MK1-2 command Pod from a financial angle.

Am I missing something?

Here is a pic to show what I mean.

<img src='https://i.imgur.com/DNtMTUP.png' />

DNtMTUP.png

 

 

Mk1-2 has more heat and crash tolerance, and is easier to reenter with. It also weighs much more. Mk1+crew cab is probably better for tourist contracts, but I'd go with just a probe core+hitchhiker in this occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) The Mk1.2 holds more monoprop

2) Aesthetically, it is better for your ship

3) There is also an added function: you can remote-control probes with it

4) It is annoying to get in/out of mk1 cabins

5) The crew cabine isn't very heat-resistant

6) The Mk1.2 adapts better to a 2.5m stack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MinimalMinmus said:

3) There is also an added function: you can remote-control probes with it

I think you got that one wrong. That is an ability of Remote Guidance Units. It requires a pilot onboard but he may be in any crew part (not sure about the command seat)

Edited by Spricigo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of a summary of MinimalMinmus's post but: you can stick a probe core, single battery, solar panels, antennae, docking port, minimal heatshield and dual parachutes set to about 0.22-0.25 on the mk1-2 cabin, throw it at Kerbin's atmosphere with Pe of about 30km with everything staged and then go make a cup of tea. From just about anywhere in the solar system.

Sure, it's heavier and more expensive than more Kerbal arrangements, but after your 40th time building something in the VAB and then bringing the remains in for re-entry, that subassembly makes for speedier builds, guaranteed contract fulfilment (coms, power etc.), easier docking (enough monoprop for several dockings, just add RCS), and more tea.

Edited by Plusck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Plusck said:

Sure, it's heavier and more expensive than more Kerbal arrangements, but after your 40th time building something in the VAB and then bringing the remains in for re-entry, that subassembly makes for speedier builds, guaranteed contract fulfilment (coms, power etc.), easier docking (enough monoprop for several dockings, just add RCS), and more tea.

Pretty much like so many others subassemblies...

Point is: you may get better tea ratings without the mk1-2. It's a matter of how much each advantage/drawback counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spricigo said:

I think you got that one wrong. That is an ability of Remote Guidance Units. It requires a pilot onboard but he may be in any crew part (not sure about the command seat)

I believe you can actually remote control with this thing; you just need to have two pilots onboard.   The right click menu sound say  something to that effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Mk1-2 Command Pod as well as the Mk2 Lander Can both provide probe remote control functionality if you have two pilots on board afaik. Never used it myself, but I've seen it mentioned before.

Other reasons to use the Mk1-2? How about 45m/s crash tolerance compared to 14m/s on the Mk1? A built in 150 units of EC, and 30 units of Monoprop, pretty damn good reaction wheel torque as well.

Is it heavy? Yes. If you are looking for the most weight efficient solution it prolly isn't it. It is however a very robust and capable Command Pod with a lot of extra bells and whistles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Yeah, the Mk1-2 Command Pod as well as the Mk2 Lander Can both provide probe remote control functionality if you have two pilots on board afaik.

 

Oh well, adding to my "didn't know that, I'd check out sometime" list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spricigo said:

Oh well, adding to my "didn't know that, I'd check out sometime" list.

Like I said, I've never done it myself but just heard it mentioned; so I'm in the same boat almost lol.

I'm gonna make a point of checking it out as well next time I play. Odd that the Wiki page for either part doesn't mention it at all, they should be updated once solidly confirmed.

This seems like something of an "undocumented" feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:

I can't find a reason to use the 3 seater, MK1-2 command Pod from a financial angle.

Am I missing something?

Nope. Don't use it. Continue to use the cheaper parts if that's what matters to you.

E: Different players have different criteria for what makes a craft good. I, for one, don't particularly care about cost past a certain point in career mode. I don't really care about mass either, for the most part, because getting pretty much anything to orbit in the base game is ridiculously easy for me. and the most grueling delta-V requirements for the base game are pretty low, all things considered.

Edited by regex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regex said:

Nope. Don't use it. Continue to use the cheaper parts if that's what matters to you.

E: Different players have different criteria for what makes a craft good. I, for one, don't particularly care about cost past a certain point in career mode. I don't really care about mass either, for the most part, because getting pretty much anything to orbit in the base game is ridiculously easy for me. and the most grueling delta-V requirements for the base game are pretty low, all things considered.

Agree.  The Mk 1-2 is lousy from a cost and mass perspective.   But  if you just want a simple way to send 3 kerbals somewhere,  rather than cobbling together something that's potentially dodgy on reentry,  it might still be worth using.    

I personally edited the dry mass down to 3 tons in the .CFG file (and edited the bigger lander can down to 1.8).  At those numbers,  these parts are still a little heavier per passenger than the Mk 1 versions, but that seems like a fair trade-off for added survivability, more electricity and torque, etc.  I use both parts quite a bit now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Pretty much like so many others subassemblies...

Point is: you may get better tea ratings without the mk1-2. It's a matter of how much each advantage/drawback counts.

Can't agree with you on that.

The one thing that you can say without a doubt about the Mk1-2 is that it is over-engineered. A design committee clearly got involved in the process:

- for the pilots, it works perfectly well both as upwards-facing rocket pod and forward facing flight pod;
- the most indestructible crewed pod available;
- would have been more comfortable as a two-pilot pod, but since there's space for a third man, why not? As long as he doesn't mind the view and as long as the other two guys don't eat beans for lunch;
- decent amount of torque, enough to avoid the need for added wheels for any circa 3k-dv final stage.

And this is where the tea comes in: you can design new and funky builds to do the job better in any given situation, probably, but there is always going to be that nagging question of "is it going to survive first try?". And "is the part count going to hurt?". Whereas with the Mk1-2, you just put the kettle on and send someone off to the warehouse with a (reinforced) forklift to get one off the shelf. One part, multiple functions, plus a tasty kickback for the foreman (which means tastier tea, of course).

And when your Kerbals are off on a 2-year trip to Jool, do you really want to squish them into a can barely big enough to hold their helmets? Of course not. And you can be sure that the Mk1-2 pod has the full tea-making kit installed as standard. And the third guy there to go make it (if only to escape from that bloody seat for a while).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aegolius13 said:

Agree.  The Mk 1-2 is lousy from a cost and mass perspective.   

Hi!

That's the way I see it too.

It's not just a little more expensive but a lot. As well as being a lot heavier. If I have a contract to land 2 kerbal tourist on the Mun or Minimus, etc., I think I'm sticking to the Mk1 Command Can and Mk1 Crew Cabin combination. It just makes more practical sense.

It sucks because the Mk1-2 looks so much cooler. But it is what it is.

Using the crew cabin with a probe core sounds good. But I'm using  maximum coms and my communication satellite coverage is a bit dodgy at the moment. I wouldn't want to lose control of the vessel and the tourist to deep space! :/

I am still new and getting to understand the simulator.

Thanks for all the discussion!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kerbal7 said:

Hi!

That's the way I see it too.

It's not just a little more expensive but a lot. As well as being a lot heavier. If I have a contract to land 2 kerbal tourist on the Mun or Minimus, etc., I think I'm sticking to the Mk1 Command Can and Mk1 Crew Cabin combination. It just makes more practical sense.

It sucks because the Mk1-2 looks so much cooler. But it is what it is.

Using the crew cabin with a probe core sounds good. But I'm using  maximum coms and my communication satellite coverage is a bit dodgy at the moment. I wouldn't want to lose control of the vessel and the tourist to deep space! :/

I am still new and getting to understand the simulator.

Thanks for all the discussion!!

 

 

One other thing to keep in mind with cost is that,  unless something goes very wrong, you sound be able to recover your command pod.  So you get a refund based on distance from KSC.  On simple missions like orbital tourism, it's pretty feasible to get almost all that money back by fine turning your deorbit burn.   And even if you come back in at random,  you should expect to see at least some funds returned. 

So I see mass as the bigger long term disadvantage,  though both are definitely factors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Aegolius13 said:

One other thing to keep in mind with cost is that,  unless something goes very wrong, you sound be able to recover your command pod.  So you get a refund based on distance from KSC.  On simple missions like orbital tourism, it's pretty feasible to get almost all that money back by fine turning your deorbit burn.   And even if you come back in at random,  you should expect to see at least some funds returned. 

So I see mass as the bigger long term disadvantage,  though both are definitely factors. 

Or yet another view...

 Low mass and cost are the way I happen to design my craft, but there's another overriding factor beyond those: Sheer laziness. :D Often, I will select a design that's not the absolute cheapest or lightest option simply because it's easier. Spend a couple hundred more dollars per launch, but in return you get to waste your free time flying spaceships and fulfilling contracts instead of a design/ build/ fail/ tweak loop trying to make a cheaper and lighter (but more complicated and temperamental) design work.

 In the cases where a simple solution is available, I usually go with it and don't worry about the cost savings, since tourist and rescue contracts are so ridiculously profitable anyway.

 In that spirit, I use the Mk1-2 capsule when it presents itself as an option.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bewing said:

Heh. But working and conserving are two different things. :D

That's true. Doubly- so in KSP :wink:

You have to ask yourself what you're working for and what you're conserving in the process. I mean... if you're concerned about such things to the point that you notice the price and weight difference, then odds are you are skilled enough that your KSP career isn't struggling for cash. So why go to the trouble?
The only viable reason I can see is that you happen to enjoy the exercise for it's own sake. Which,... Nothing wrong with that. I enjoy it too.

Best,
-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Plusck said:

Can't agree with you on that.

Why not? I'm just saying:

1.different players will give different importance for each of those aspects.

2.Similar results can be achieved without the Mk1-2 CP. 

You settling for the Mk1-2 is not a reason for other people not enjoying their tea in a different way.

14 hours ago, Plusck said:

And when your Kerbals are off on a 2-year trip to Jool, do you really want to squish them into a can barely big enough to hold their helmets? 

Yes. I'd send half-dozen kerbal in years long trip inside a 2.5m service bay . In fact I did, worked like a charm.  So I did again many more times.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2017 at 9:21 PM, GoSlash27 said:

Or put another way...

working.png

Yep, I figured that out myself a while ago.  I'll still go to a different station to get a lower gas price -- especially if it's as much as ten cents a gallon difference -- but it'll be a station that's on my way or barely out of my way.  I'll get off the highway, fill up at one of the near-exit stations, and get back on the highway to save as little as a nickel a gallon, since the time it takes to fill the tank is the same, and I'm spending at most a minute or two extra getting off the highway and back on.  I won't make a left instead of a right to save a penny a gallon, on the other hand (unless there's no traffic, so the left doesn't take any longer).

I haven't gotten the Mk .1-2 yet in my career game, but I'll surely use it (at least for missions that require two or more Kerbals) when I get it -- I'll be flying a lot of 2.5 m hardware by then (I've already got the 2.5 m tanks, adapter tank, and Skipper; just built a Mun/Minmus lander partially based on 2.5 m hardware).  As previously noted, design time is worth something too, and the Mk. 1-2 can survive reentry from almost anywhere, even with extra stuff stuck on  that 1.25 m nose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Why not? I'm just saying:

1.different players will give different importance for each of those aspects.

2.Similar results can be achieved without the Mk1-2 CP. 

You settling for the Mk1-2 is not a reason for other people not enjoying their tea in a different way.

Yes. I'd send half-dozen kerbal in years long trip inside a 2.5m service bay . In fact I did, worked like a charm.  So I did again many more times.

You're right. There wasn't really anything to disagree with other than the tea-quality-value principle of the thing :wink:

And yes, of course lighter, cheaper and more powerful solutions can be used to achieve the same purpose. At the end of the day, the only "real" relative advantage that the mk1-2 has going for it is partcount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Plusck said:

At the end of the day, the only "real" relative advantage that the mk1-2 has going for it is partcount.

I'd also add "ease of implementation" and "reliability", but yeah... The Mk.1-2 is easily the worst pod in the game for cost and mass vs. capacity. (Excepting the command cupola; all that glass) I have recommended a rebalance of the Mk. 1-2 for years.

Best,
-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think crew count is the thing that matters the most. In total, the Apollo spacecraft weighs about 4x more than the Soyuz Spacecraft but can carry the same crew, the Apollo just has more capabilities, and gizmos than the Soyuz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...