What is the point of the External Command Seats?

[Rusty6899]

So I'm planning a fairly complex mission, and as a part of it I was planning on using external command seats to aid with docking various segments of my ship together for landing on different bodies etc.

The problem is that the seats have no torque, so if I want to assemble parts in orbit, I will have to use RCS to rotate them. This causes annoyances with moving away from the main ship due to unwanted thrust.

This lead me to think "what is the point in the External Command Seats"? They are heavier than the lightest unmanned pod even when the seat is unoccupied, and provide no torque, making it much worse than any of the other command pods.

The only benefit is that you can position it radially, which is all well and good, but you can do the same using a docking port and a Probodobodyne OKTO2 for 0.01t more mass.

Is there ever a situation where a external command seat is more useful than alternatives?

Edited March 23, 2014 by Rusty6899

[Temstar]

Apollo style open air rovers, open air landers, <10 ton Eve ascent vehicles

[Tank Buddy]

You're looking at it the wrong way. It weighs much less than the MANNED command pods. I'm not big on strapping my kerbals on a rocket like that, so I use them for rovers, jet packs, etc. Pretty much anywhere where you want a Kerbal, but don't need or want the weight or size of the command pods.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Tank Buddy

[Lohan2008]

Apollo style open air rovers, open air landers, <10 ton Eve ascent vehicles

[Dave Kerbin]

The original intent was rovers but they can be used for a lot more.

Specifically addressing your docking concerns if you don't have torque then you add it using self contained reaction wheels. And if you need SAS assistance you can add an SAS module.

[Fendleton]

Seats are mainly designed for rovers. They do work OK for ultra-light landers as well (I use them on RCS-powered Gilly landings and the like), although you definitely need a reaction wheel as well. They're also useful for emergency "I need to recover these guys from their dead spaceship" capacity.

...they're also good for ultra-minimalist aircraft, and hilariously awful "what happens if I?" style inventions.

[cantab]

Probe cores can't fix punctured wheels, take surface samples, repack parachutes for a second use, etc etc.

[Superfluous J]

For awesome.

[Vanamonde]

Great for rovers, but at least occasionally, leaving Kerbals in them can cause spontaneous craft detonations during docking. :'(

Edited March 23, 2014 by Vanamonde

[Rusty6899]

I was probably missing the point of them. I hadn't really considered using them for landers, and I had figures that with rovers they were more there for aesthetics.

Still, theres no point in me using them as I had planned. Makes more sense for me to use a probe core in this situation.

Thanks guys.

[Kasuha]

Is there ever a situation where a external command seat is more useful than alternatives?

It is the lowest mass means of Kerbal transport. So, for instance, a lifter from Eve surface to orbit can be made significantly smaller if it uses seats.

It also does not consume electricity like probe cores do and when you stick a battery and reaction wheel to it, you still have the lightest full-featured "command pod" available (0,345 t).

[SSSPutnik]

They are great for low mass challenges, or for landing/ascent Tylo and Eve.

[FREEFALL1984]

They're really useful for attaching to the top of a toroidal tank which is then attached to an ASAS module surrounded by batteries atop a/several mainsail engine/s, then using the fuel hack you can try and reach lightspeed, or build a horizontal takeoff rocket, which can achieve a 1000m orbit around kerbin.

[LethalDose]

They can also be useful to provide manned part control if you're using Remotech. You don't have to worry about contact with KSC to guide small craft.

[Amaroq]

@Vanamonde Oh, that screen shot made me smile in so many different ways!

[Silverchain]

I was sceptical of using external command seats on landers, until I saw this...

...at which point this was inevitable!

[lajoswinkler]

We can see by the look on his face that such vehicle is efficient and cost effective.

[Roxette]

I'll just leave this here...

[BloodyRain2k]

Danny has his own use for them.

[Hyomoto]

Primarily to have them. I think rovers were really the major reason though, people were tired of using ladder workarounds.

[Specialist290]

Primarily to have them. I think rovers were really the major reason though, people were tired of using ladder workarounds.

More or less this. Clever ladder placement was never more than an unreliable workaround for the absence of seats, and a lot of people were glad to see actual seats implemented in the stock game.

[lajoswinkler]

I'll just leave this here...

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

Damn. You need a roof, dude.

[Seret]

They're the absolute most efficient way to ferry Kerbals around.

Chair = 0.05t per Kerbal

1-man pod = 0.8t per Kerbal

3-man pod = 1.15t per Kerbal

2-man can = 1.25t per Kerbal

Hitchhiker = 0.625t per Kerbal

[Superfluous J]

They're the absolute most efficient way to ferry Kerbals around.

Chair = 0.05t per Kerbal

1-man pod = 0.8t per Kerbal

3-man pod = 1.15t per Kerbal

2-man can = 1.25t per Kerbal

Hitchhiker = 0.625t per Kerbal

Actually, the chair is 0.14375t per Kerbal, as the Kerbal himself masses 0.09375t. Kerbals' mass doesn't count in pods but it does count in the chair.

Still far better than any other option out there.

[Red Iron Crown]

Actually, the chair is 0.14375t per Kerbal, as the Kerbal himself masses 0.09375t. Kerbals' mass doesn't count in pods but it does count in the chair.

Kerbals must be made of the same stuff their planet is made of. A 1m tall creature that weighs 93 Kg (~3ft, ~200lbs for you Imperial types) is awfully dense.