Rebalance of the MK2 Lander Can.

[passinglurker]

Expressing an opinion in no way "forces a play style" on anyone else. Disagree with the opinion if you like, but everyone is entitled to their opinion about how the game should be.

true people are entitled to their opinions but the value of these opinions only extends so far. If I want to make a logical case for a part to be lighter or more capable for a given mass he can conveniently maintain his status quo by not using the added capability or clipping in a locked fuel tank to make it heavier again. where as on my end if this excessive unjustified mass is maintained if I want to make it lighter I must delve into config files and accept that my craft will be incompatible or at least impaired for those who do not to the same. This is where the frustration lies he can coexist with reasonable and logically balanced parts by ignoring order and serenity and continue to design and play according to his chaotic ways. we on the other hand can not coexist with his enforced chaos so we make a reasonable case that the mass or capability of the mk2 lander can needs to change while he spins in nonsensical circles because he seems to think that if squad focuses on part ballance he will have to wait longer for mac compatibility. (I'm feeling oddly dramatic this morning...)

[Red Iron Crown]

We won't be dismissing any opinions out of hand here, as I said you are free to disagree with and discuss any opinions but accusing them of forcing a playstyle is both false and not useful. Only Squad can change stock parts; thus they are the only ones capable of enforcing a playstyle. PM me if you'd like to discuss it further, passinglurker, it's offtopic here.

[Keith_Bones]

Red has an excellent point, I think we should return the discussion to the part in question, not overall gameplay choices, or personal preference.

We have shown that 2 MK1 lander cans are objectively better in every statistical way. They weigh less, they cost less, even though it has slightly less mono prop and reaction wheel torque, it is easily argued that the reduced weight means that they have more overall effect on the craft, and even if they don't, those stats can be re-added to the craft still for less weight. It has more containers for stored science experiments.

We can argue until the cows come home about how we specifically play the game, but the numbers suggest that the thing is bad, even if you can find workarounds.

[tater]

A General thread about reentry heating got me experimenting (a mk1-2 pod can happily reenter at 11km/s, shield instantly burns away (2 seconds), then slows and lands without exceeding 1375 K). All the parts are vastly overpowered in this regard. The lander cans are set to 2000k? The Shuttle had the areas of maximal heating designed to withstand that kind of heating, and that included a margin of error. The lander cans should be very weak in every regard. If impact tolerance cannot be reduced, maybe heat tolerance should be. A lot. From 2000 to maybe 700. The mk2 can be set higher to have the mass make more sense.

[Keith_Bones]

A General thread about reentry heating got me experimenting (a mk1-2 pod can happily reenter at 11km/s, shield instantly burns away (2 seconds), then slows and lands without exceeding 1375 K). All the parts are vastly overpowered in this regard. The lander cans are set to 2000k? The Shuttle had the areas of maximal heating designed to withstand that kind of heating, and that included a margin of error. The lander cans should be very weak in every regard. If impact tolerance cannot be reduced, maybe heat tolerance should be. A lot. From 2000 to maybe 700. The mk2 can be set higher to have the mass make more sense.

I've done similar tests at about 10km/s that have indicated that a few airbrakes is enough that almost no part in the game even needs a heat shield, and if they do, you still don't lose any ablator. That's really more of an overall heat mechanic discussion, but I see what you're getting at. In a world where heat functions properly, that stat could be a good place to look at.

[tater]

I just tested the SKY mod with a 3.7x Kerbin, and reentered at 4200 m/s. In a mk1 landercan. mk1 lander can, 1 FL-T200 tank with a 909 under it, and 3 LT-1 legs. Easily survived (didn't brake with the engine past a reentry burn), and I landed under power. The heat bars showed up for the (retracted) legs, but only about 50%. So much for the part description.

[Keith_Bones]

I just tested the SKY mod with a 3.7x Kerbin, and reentered at 4200 m/s. In a mk1 landercan. mk1 lander can, 1 FL-T200 tank with a 909 under it, and 3 LT-1 legs. Easily survived (didn't brake with the engine past a reentry burn), and I landed under power. The heat bars showed up for the (retracted) legs, but only about 50%. So much for the part description.

This has more to do with the way aero heating is applied. Having come in with a similar setup before, I'm assuming your engine was on the bottom, pointed into the wind, followed by the fuel tank, and the lander can in the rear. If that's the case then both the engine and the fuel tank are occluding the can from the aero heating because anything with the same size or larger node will occlude in that way. The legs took heating because any radially attached part will always suffer from aero heating, regardless of visual occlusion, unless the part is stowed in a bay or fairing.

So the can was probably only receiving extremely minor amounts of heat, given that the heat first had to transfer from the engine to the tank, and then into the pod, and that process is probably pretty slow because fuel tanks heat up extremely slow, given that they have high thermal mass. It's also unlikely that the engine would blow up because engines are designed to withstand the intense heat of the flames blowing out of them under normal use, effectively turning it into a heat shield on reentry.

Or the short version, you essentially reentered with a double heat shield. Heating is not balanced, or even kind of difficult. : /

[tater]

Yeah, I know, but it's not like a lander can would try to reenter alone with no other parts (except for those stranded kerbals everywhere in career ).

Pods are pods, basically, and you have to work pretty hard to manage to ver have a fatality in KSP. Internal temp, perhaps.

[Keith_Bones]

Yeah, I know, but it's not like a lander can would try to reenter alone with no other parts (except for those stranded kerbals everywhere in career ).

Pods are pods, basically, and you have to work pretty hard to manage to ver have a fatality in KSP. Internal temp, perhaps.

Yeah, this is kinda my problem with balancing the MK1 around reduced max temp because even if heating were actually an issue, like you say, it's not like you would reenter without some kind of shield anyway.

And honestly the MK2 is so much heavier that even if it had a higher heat tolerance, crash tolerance, more electric charge and mono prop, and more science containers, the weight would still have to come down some, otherwise you work too much functionality into 1 part, and 2.66 tons would take a lot of functionality to justify.

[passinglurker]

Yeah, this is kinda my problem with balancing the MK1 around reduced max temp because even if heating were actually an issue, like you say, it's not like you would reenter without some kind of shield anyway.

And honestly the MK2 is so much heavier that even if it had a higher heat tolerance, crash tolerance, more electric charge and mono prop, and more science containers, the weight would still have to come down some, otherwise you work too much functionality into 1 part, and 2.66 tons would take a lot of functionality to justify.

I would argue otherwise if it possesses a science lab capability at all as the only other example is a ton heavier, 4 times the size, and doesn't possess command capabilities. regardless of how heavily a mk2 lander can lab would need to be nerfed it could suit the role rather well though when you try to imagine landing a tall unwieldy mobile processing lab instead.

as for how a lander lab would be balanced the configs seem to indicate that labs can yield a bonus to their performance based on their location. I'll have to read up on the mechanics more but it may be possible to configure the mk2 so that it has a built in lab that is rather subpar except when landed on the surface of a planet

Edited May 17, 2015 by passinglurker

[Windspren]

The ALCOR mod fixes all of these issues with a pod that looks like the Apollo lander and seats 3. It also has a beautiful IVA.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I don't have any idea how a Kerbal can fit into the Mk 1 pod.

But the Mk. 2 Lander Can is overweight and oversize for its job. It might make some sense if it had a cargo section that you could open, but as it is it's pointless. Now, if it could hold 3 crew, it would be a lighter but crunchier alternative to the powerful Mk. 1-2 Command Pod. Another way to do it would be to make it a bit shorter, and reduce its mass significantly.

[tater]

A cargo section would be nice, but that wouldn't explain the weight

Actually, a more serious issue, IMO, is poorly arranging the windows and hatches for RCS. Anyone building a pod of any kind should think about likely CMs, and make sure that a proper RCS arrangement is possible on the crew pod if that is where the CM will likely land. The mk 1 and 2 should both have the hatch offset.