2 years and still no balanced command pods

[NikkyD]

One of the major annoyances for me is the cockpits. I like to build minimalistic and efficient, so the least weight per kerbal. Now in the old versions there was no need to bring more than one kerbal into space, but now with the 3 different classes it makes sense to have one of every type on board.

Every single time in the last 2 years when i start building a new rocket it goes like this:

1 lander can, monoprop out, 600 kg, 1 kerbal.

It isnt aerodynamic but that was never really an issue. Now there is aero but also fairings, problem solved.

For cheap missions its ok to take a MK1 pod with 800 kg and put a 100 kg parachute on top, perfect aero for 200 kg more weight... acceptable.

But now i want to take 2 or 3 guys on a lander... HOW ?!

So i start with 3 small cans stacked, 3 kerbals, 1,8 t weight, parachute on top... where to attach the fuel ? Bottom ? +engine its a really long one and has a bad CoM regarding landing gear.

The other option, one center fuel can with engine below and 3 cans attached to the side of it. Landing gear at the side of the cans, perfect. But now i need 3 nosecones and it doesnt really look like a rocket.

Besides, a thing that wide is VERY troubling for fairings or cargo bays, sure it could be done but only with major overkill for a small mission.

So what else is there ? Mk2 capsule, looking good! It has aero, chute on top, flat fuel can below, wide base for landing... all good but...

4 tons! thats 1.33 per kerbal, TWICE the weight of a small can. Usually when u make a bigger container you have less weight because you only need certain stuff ONCE, like a door. But here we have twice the weight per kerbal and for what reason ??? It has 45 m/s "crash tolerance". WHO ever needs that ? I dont plan missions that include dropping a cockpit from orbit hoping it will survive the impact!

Reentry heat ? I can build around that, thanks, i just want a LIGHT WEIGHT cockpit that is aerodynamically slick.

What about a big lander can ? Place for two, 2.5 t EVEN WORSE. 1.25 per kerbal and for WHAT ??? It has the same resistances as the small one, so where does the extra weight go ???

There is one better one, the Mk3 cockpit, 3.5t for 4, that is 875 kg per kerbal. But its not exactly a lander can or rocket cockpit but a rather a plane cockpit.

Same goes for the Mk2 cockpits with 1 t per kerbal, they are not suited for a slim lander.

So is it that no one ever bothers balancing the most important parts of the rockets ??? I want 2 or 3 kerbals on board and still be able to build a lander that doesnt look freaky.

Yes i know, i could just install mods... mods mods mods. But then there is a new version out and i have to check if that mod is still compatible etc. Or i just edit the cfg file of the command pods BUT then i go here onto the forums which i like and i ask "whats wrong here and there with my rocket" or "what do you think about this design" BUT i always have to include "but wait, you need those 3 config files because i altered the sillyness out of the parts". Not exactly comfy.

Am i really alone with this opinion ???

[KerikBalm]

I was also very dissappointed when 1.0 came out and there was no rebalance of the command pods.

They said they'd be looking at every part and tweaking them if something was amiss (or something similar to that)....

Well, they made a lot of changes to the engines and fuel tanks... and the probe cores got a lot of changes recently... but command pods...

yea, broken.

[Roderik]

What about a big lander can ? Place for two, 2.5 t EVEN WORSE. 1.25 per kerbal and for WHAT ??? It has the same resistances as the small one, so where does the extra weight go ???

uhm first you're talking about a 4 ton capsule and then a 2.5 ton capsule is even worse? how?

[NikkyD]

I'm sorry Roderik i got a little mixed up there but that isnt really the point. 1.33 or 1.25 when the lowest end is 0.6

[Roderik]

I'm sorry Roderik i got a little mixed up there but that isnt really the point. 1.33 or 1.25 when the lowest end is 0.6

true but when i play ksp i never ever (okay sometimes) think scientific unless i go to duna or something.

[Superfluous J]

Totally agree with you. My "creativity" in design is more about how I can creatively use lander cans than most anything else.

[clivman]

They should integrate HGR and make the 2.5 m can hold seven kerbals like it should. Apollo, CST-100, and Dragon V2 are all very close in size.

[NikkyD]

In a sandbox game you can play for creativity if you like, i like to go for maximum efficiency, its what WOULD make me happy.

If you look at the engines, they are somewhat balanced in regards of weight and thrust and ISP. But such a simple number like "whats the weight per kerbal" on a command pod no one ever bothered...

[Lord Aurelius]

Yeah, this is one of the more glaring balance issues that still hasn't been addressed. I'm still firmly of the belief that 1.0 is a meaningless number to Squad (except for hype building and raising the price), everything I've seen about the game itself as of 1.0.2 and the planned 1.0.3 and 1.1 updates still screams early access.

My solution is to play with balance mods. SETI is the best I've seen, although it still hasn't really been updated for 1.0 until the author is reasonably sure Squad won't make any more major balance changes for awhile. The pod weights were one of the first things addressed by the mod, I think they were balanced around 1 ton/kerbal with a little wiggle room based on the type of pod.

[Alshain]

For starters, they need a Gemini-based pod. They have a Mercury and Apollo equivalents but no Gemini so we have to resort to mods for the period between the Mk1 and Mk1-2. I'm personally fond of the K-2 Command Pod but wish it had it's own IVA. EDIT: Oh! It does have an IVA now. Nevermind.

Lander cans do seem too big and bulky for the number of Kerbals they hold. With fairings, you have to go a size down to take a lander can and have it fit in a streamlined rocket. So if you are using the Mk1-2 pod, which is based on Apollo, you should be able to take 2 Kerbals (because Neil Armstrong didn't do it by himself after all). That means the Mk1 lander can that fits in a 2.5m fairing should hold 2 Kerbals. By that token, the next one should hold 3.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Alshain

[Hannu]

I think that small 1 man pods are for very short missions. Like first suborbital and orbital test flights and for very light one man landers to transports an astronaut between the surface and orbiting mothership. Larger 2 and 3 man capsule are for longer missions which need more complex and massive life support equipment. I use them in Kerbins SOI. Missions last typically less that 30 kerbin days. For interplanetary use I use extra hitchickers or modded crew cabins.

I feel that pods are quite well balanced. Maybe the 2 man lander pod could be made lighter but then it should burn always in re-entry or high speed atmospheric flight during ascent from planets with atmosphere.

[bakanando]

The real one weights just a bit more than 5.5 T and at 4m diameter is a bit less that twice the size.

The kerbal one is extremely heavy for a thing that should be as light as possible. In my case, I'm using the hitchhikers for transporting more than two kerbals at a time.

[NikkyD]

best "Container" is the mk2 crew cabin with 2 tons for 4 seats -> 0.5 t / kerbal

ofc its a mk2 part and has trouble fitting normal rockets...

[Needing Reheating]

How about 3 Mk1 Lander Cans on an adapter? 2.5t with docking port. Clipping enabled.

[Capt. Hunt]

For starters, they need a Gemini-based pod. They have a Mercury and Apollo equivalents but no Gemini so we have to resort to mods for the period between the Mk1 and Mk1-2. I'm personally fond of the K-2 Command Pod but wish it had it's own IVA. EDIT: Oh! It does have an IVA now. Nevermind.

Lander cans do seem too big and bulky for the number of Kerbals they hold. With fairings, you have to go a size down to take a lander can and have it fit in a streamlined rocket. So if you are using the Mk1-2 pod, which is based on Apollo, you should be able to take 2 Kerbals (because Neil Armstrong didn't do it by himself after all). That means the Mk1 lander can that fits in a 2.5m fairing should hold 2 Kerbals. By that token, the next one should hold 3.

but if you want a lander can that holds 3 you can just use the Mk1-2 pod. A 3 man lander can would be redundant.

If you are interested in a 3 man can there's always the ALCOR.

[NikkyD]

That's afaik the wrong thinking cpt hunt. Especially with a cmdpod size and shape, weight and loadout are all important factors. LanderCan size and shape is different and may matter to the guy designing his rocket

[Superfluous J]

And in all fairness, it's not been 2 years. The game's been out of beta for what? A month? Before that they were not even considering balance.

Fair to call them on "we balanced everything" when they clearly did not.

[NikkyD]

Its simple values in a cfg file that MATTER a lot. So how hard is it to have one dev sit down and go over it for one hour ?! They have tweaked other things, so they had time for that but no one ever bothered with the pods.

[Capt. Hunt]

you know, you don't need to send all three down anyway. The engineer's really only useful if something goes wrong (or if you are planning on building something with KIS). You don't even really need a pilot if you have a probe core.

[Alshain]

but if you want a lander can that holds 3 you can just use the Mk1-2 pod. A 3 man lander can would be redundant.

If you are interested in a 3 man can there's always the ALCOR.

What NikkyD said. Command modules are command modules, landers are landers. The Mk 1-2 is heavy but designed for the atmosphere. Lander cans save fuel when landing. Lander cans are already unaerodynamic but I would be perfectly fine with lander cans being weaker to heat to prohibit their use as a re-entry vehicle. It should be just strong enough for Duna but not Kerbin, Laythe, or Eve.

[NikkyD]

Landing gives extra xp and that's finding excuses why "all is good" when it isn't.

[TheMoonRover]

Yeah, the Mk1 Command Pod is 0.8t. The Mk1 Lander Can is 0.6t, but is bulky and less aerodynamic. That sounds to be on the right lines. But in terms of weight, the larger command pods are much heavier per kerbal. I can understand a slight increase, but not the difference there is. (Although I think the Cupola had it's mass reduced. Or was it the lab? Or the HSC? Something did anyway.) If you're not against using aircraft parts in space then the Mk2 Crew Cabin is the way to go, although the shape is hard to work with and you need a probe core to provide command authority.

The engineer's really only useful if something goes wrong (or if you are planning on building something with KIS). You don't even really need a pilot if you have a probe core.

Regarding the engineer: If you use KER, the engineer is important, although there are parts which provide the same functionality, a bit like with pilots and probe cores. When delta-v stats are stock, I suspect that may be tied to the engineer too. Scientists are a must in career until you complete the tech tree, then they're only really useful for getting science to convert to funds. Although personally I bring at least one of each on any crewed mission outside Kerbin SOI anyway.

[JacaByte]

The Mk1-2 capsule does have some issues, post 1.0.0 I've had trouble getting it slowed down using parachutes only, but I managed to solve that with seperatrons and some experimenting. With the Mk16-XL parachute you'd expect the capsule to slow down to about 4 m/s right? In 1.0.2 with 1.0.0's aero it turns out that parachute only slows the capsule down to 14 m/s. Survivable, thanks to the pod's unusually high crash tolerance, but it will destroy anything on the underside of the pod.

Let's talk about the capsule's role in the game. It's clearly meant to be a successor to the Mercury style Mk1 capsule and among the rocket parts it holds the most kerbals, barring the Hitchhiker. If you want to bring one or two kerbals from orbit, don't have any available landers in orbit and don't have any viable spaceplanes yet you're probably going to use a Mk1-2 capsule to get those kerbonauts home. Thus it three-kerbal capacity makes it a good reentry craft.

If you don't have any space stations or intermediary craft and you have a lander that can't survive reentry (a lander for a non-direct ascent style mission if you will) you'll probably use a Mk1-2 capsule in the role of a service and command module for an Apollo style mission. Again, its crew capacity makes it a good command module.

Beyond that I don't know why I would use a Mk1-2 capsule. It's heavy, so I wouldn't use it in a lander that has to take off again. On that note it's actually lighter than the Apollo capsule that it's clearly inspired by, which was 5.5 metric tons, but the other capsules in this game are also lighter than their real life counter parts. The weight of the Mk1-2 means it's not a viable capsule until you can build 2.5 m rockets. But these rockets are more expensive, so you'll probably continue using the Mk1 capsule for contract work anyway, unless you can find a way to combine missions.

I wouldn't use it for a space station again because it's heavy, but also because its ladder is in a weird place. It's the only capsule or part in the game with a ladder that's not normal to its flight path. When you launch a capsule the ladder is normally facing due north, but the ladder on the Mk1-2 capsule is facing southwest. I don't know why, it's just the way the part was made. And if you rotate the capsule to compensate your compass will not be facing north like it normally does when you launch.

And finally it's ugly. The capsule door is in a strange place and there are two upwards facing windows which mess with the conical geometry of the capsule and make it a pain to place radial parachutes. It has widgets and gunk painted on which serve no purpose, and overall it doesn't look like something that belongs in KSP 1.0.2 alongside the new spaceplane capsules like the Mk3 cockpit.

Definitely the first change I would make would be to make it lighter. A lighter 2.5 m capsule would be a better contender for all the roles I mentioned and make it suitable for use in landers and situations where deltaV conservation is necessary. It would also fix the problem with parachutes not slowing it down, eliminating the need for goofy solutions like using solid rocket motors to slow it down the instant before it hits the ground.

I also think it needs an aesthetic change. I think a lot more people would use a capsule with a ladder in the expected position. It would also be nice to reposition windows so radially attached parts don't block them.

[Kegereneku]

My opinion :

Ever since Kerbal got roles, we are lacking a 1.25 two-seat pods. Preferably the mk1-lander-can so you can have a scientist along a pilot without staking a command pot on top (it's ugly).

In fact, since the landing-can-mk1 is quiiiiite heavy and large, you could still afford a 2 seat more streamlined pods so it can be protected by a 1.25 shield.

To compensate you could make the mk2-Lander a 3 seats pods.

Nothing to say on the stats of every pods here and there, it obviously need to change the day they'll make a real Tech-tree (for now I'll surely use Opentree v2), rework contract and make the administration building not pointless.

[Rath]

What NikkyD said. Command modules are command modules, landers are landers. The Mk 1-2 is heavy but designed for the atmosphere. Lander cans save fuel when landing. Lander cans are already unaerodynamic but I would be perfectly fine with lander cans being weaker to heat to prohibit their use as a re-entry vehicle. It should be just strong enough for Duna but not Kerbin, Laythe, or Eve.

I really like this idea because lander cans, even with a heatsheild have lots poking out to they will still burn up unless you a oversized heatsheild.