Purpose of the "Hitchhiker" cabin

[AlpacaMall]

Is there any advantage to using the 4-kerbal Hitchhiker cabin over the crew cabins? 

I'd always assumed that it's designed as a space station module, and would be lighter than the airplane cabins. However, this doesn't appear to be the case:

• The Hitchhiker has a mass of 2.07t, or 0.518t per seat
• The Mk1, Mk2, and Mk3 crew cabins have masses of 0.91, 1.85, and 7.18 tons, or 0.455, 0.463, and 0.449 tons, respectively

The only use I see for the Hitchhiker is the 2.5m shape; however, given that the airplane cabins have higher heat tolerances and impact resistances, it doesn't seem like the Hitchhiker is meant for atmospheric flight, where shape and aerodynamics actually matters. That leaves appearance as the only possible use I can see for this part.

Is there something I'm missing? It doesn't seem right that the part is unbalanced in this way.

[Hotel26]

52 minutes ago, AlpacaMall said:

I'd always assumed that it's designed as a space station module, and would be lighter than the airplane cabins.

Yes, to the first assumption, and "not so" to the second.  I'd assume heavier due to "longer trip duration (space for supplies, storage) plus radiation/micro-meteorite shielding".

52 minutes ago, AlpacaMall said:

That leaves appearance

appearance, prefer "form factor", which is much more important than mere appearance.  It's much easier to fit a cylindrical 2.5m part into a space vehicle (not just space stations).  You can see the seating is oriented this way, too.  Perfect for landers, positioned on the ground floor (e.g. Goblin)!

Hitchhikers are great.  (Check out "Hitchhiking to Moho".)  I've used them many times (including just now: a module called "HAL").

(And not to say you cannot build aircraft with Hitchhikers...  I've done it.  But then: I am a "mad scientist"; from Krakpotistan.)

Edited May 16, 2021 by Hotel26

[AlexinTokyo]

Just be really careful trying to re-enter with it.  It seems to stick out beyond the 2.5 m heat sheild and has a nasty habit of burning up as a result.

Edited May 16, 2021 by AlexinTokyo
Can't use Markdown

[AlpacaMall]

4 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

prefer "form factor", which is much more important than mere appearance.  It's much easier to fit a cylindrical 2.5m part into a space vehicle (not just space stations).  You can see the seating is oriented this way, too. 

Can you explain "form factor" a bit more? If I'm interpreting it correctly, then it means that the part isn't bulky and doesn't make placing other parts around it hard, which clearly isn't the case with the equally sized crew cabin:

Spoiler

a perfect fit!

Seating makes sense, but that's another preference thing; my kerbals don't seem to suffer from any negative effects even from sitting upside down, if my outposts ever came to that.

 

4 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

I'd assume heavier due to "longer trip duration (space for supplies, storage) plus radiation/micro-meteorite shielding".

Again, makes sense logically, but these don't exist and protecting against them is down to preference.

[Hotel26]

10 minutes ago, AlpacaMall said:

form factor

I would define "form factor" as the shape of something with special reference to how it is going to be used.

Or, as Wikipedia says: "Form factor is a hardware design aspect that defines and prescribes the size, shape, and other physical specifications of components, particularly in electronics. A form factor may represent a broad class of similarly sized components, or it may prescribe a specific standard. It may also define an entire system, as in a computer form factor."

As for the Hitchhiker, its mass is exactly what its Creator determined it to be.  Whether you use it or not, is up to you.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Hotel26

[swjr-swis]

6 hours ago, AlpacaMall said:

Is there any advantage to using the 4-kerbal Hitchhiker cabin over the crew cabins?

Well, as its own flavour text says "Who needed this remains a mystery, as do his motivations."

 

6 hours ago, AlpacaMall said:

it doesn't seem like the Hitchhiker is meant for atmospheric flight, where shape and aerodynamics actually matters.

Not the most ideal look, granted, but they can work quite nicely.

 

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/ConnaitAir

[Guest]

I’ve never used it. I see it as merely a stock space station part for players who refuse to use mods.

[18Watt]

26 minutes ago, FruitGoose said:

I’ve never used it. I see it as merely a stock space station part for players who refuse to use mods.

Yup, that describes me pretty well.  And even I try not to use the Hitchhiker.  Playing stock, I use it when I need 4 more seats, and the 2.5m form factor works the best.  Strictly on a performance basis other parts would be better.  Likely due to just plain laziness I tend to just plunk down a Hitchhiker when I need 4 more seats.

Not sure if the Hitchhiker holds larger (volume) inventory items, but I suspect there may be an advantage there over the MKI 2-seat fuselage sections.

 

[Snark]

On 5/15/2021 at 11:38 PM, AlpacaMall said:

Is there any advantage to using the 4-kerbal Hitchhiker cabin over the crew cabins

It holds four kerbals and it has a convenient 2.5m squat, cylindrical shape that makes it convenient for building large cylindrical spacecraft. That's pretty much it. It's a convenient shape option.

I use them fairly frequently for "build a station" or "build an outpost" contracts, since it holds a fair number of kerbals and is nicely launchable. Other than that, I don't use them a lot.

[StrandedonEarth]

For when you just need room for four more kerbals stuck into a stack somewhere. An integral part of my 23-seat Space Camp Bus

[jimmymcgoochie]

In the stock game it’s little more than a token nod to space station building, but throw some mods into the equation and it can become a very useful part indeed- for example, Kerbalism makes the Hitchhiker a vital part for long-term missions with a decent internal volume, a radiation detox unit to stop them getting radiation sickness from their years in space and a TV in the corner so they can binge-watch box sets instead of freaking out about the fact that they’re in a tiny tin can surrounded by the nearly infinite expanse of cold hard vacuum.

It also has a massive inventory in 1.11 meaning it’s a great place to stash repair kits and so on within easy reach of the crew.

[18Watt]

Here’s a few more reasons to consider the Hitchhiker over the Mk1-3 cabins.

• Part count.  Might not be an issue anymore, at least to most players.  But for much of KSPs development a good way to achieve smooth graphics was to try to limit your part count.  This used to be such a big factor for me that I still go out of my way to keep parts count at a minimum, even though I no longer need to do that.  I still consider using a single Hitchhiker over two MKI cabins, even though there is no valid reason for me to do so anymore.
• Hatch access.  The MKI cabin only has doors on the ends.  

This thread got me thinking about the lack of larger cabins.  I would probably find some use for an 8-pax 2.5m cabin.  But even more I would find a larger diameter cabin useful.

[Max von Kerman]

Hitchhiker modules can hold a lot of items so can be used on surface bases