Why a Geminialike 2-man Capsule is needed in Stock.

[passinglurker]

Why does any set of parts exist? To support a pod of that size. The bill works out to about 4 fuel tanks, 1 decoupler, 1 seperator, 1 reaction wheel, 1 battery, 1 docking port, 2 engines, 4 size adapters, 1 crew can, 1 probe core, 1 service bay, 1 heat shield, 1 fairing, 1 nose cone, 1 Lander can.

Many of those parts would be regarded as useful in their own right as anyone who has played career and paid attention to the early game would notice the abruptness in where you suddenly go from tiny 1.25m launchers to big 2.5m and even if they didn't notice or care they would surely find themselves wishing for many "bigger than 1.25m" parts that are locked up at the end of the tree in which case an intermediary size that's available sooner would be very welcome.

And of course it's the only way other than even larger parts to get two kerbal's in a sensible reentry capsule with helmets. Though I would welcome the tandem cockpit solution the stock mk1 cockpit has the worst model and iva out of all of them and needs a revamp any way

Edited August 15, 2015 by passinglurker

[Higgs]

I like the idea of a 2 man pod AND a dragon like 4 man. But if that would mean being saddled with RSS then no flippin way. But for real 2 & 4 man pods heck ya

[tater]

I like the idea of a 2 man pod AND a dragon like 4 man. But if that would mean being saddled with RSS then no flippin way. But for real 2 & 4 man pods heck ya

What are you talking about? The probability of RSS becoming stock is zero, and no one is, or has suggested it.

[passinglurker]

1.875m parts != RSS ("!=" means "does not equal")

I don't know where people are getting ideas to the contrary :/

[Alshain]

Who said anything about RSS?

Everyone in this thread maybe? Go back and read through it, the argument for the 1.875 parts is for scaled solar systems and you want to add a bunch of parts just to support a single pod, which is ridiculous. The K2 Command pod works fine as a 1.25m part, why wouldn't a similar stock part?

[Higgs]

Tater when i made my post you commented on, i was under the belief that one Alshain was suggesting RSS be added along with 2 man pods. When I went to reply just now I hunted his post, found I had misread. But from what I gather the 1.87m or so seem to be used along with RSS hence my mistake. But that being said, 2 & 4 man pods would be nice. I use novapunch and its 6 man 3.75m pod is nice

[tater]

No worries. I think mentioned scaled up system mods as well, but that's entirely optional, those won't ever be stock.

I like the bigger parts just because I like them. I looked at the K2, and it looks like it shouldn't actually work to me (feels a little like a TARDIS on the inside ).

[passinglurker]

I don't like the k2 personally it doesn't strike me as a feasible shape for a reentry pod, I find it's texture ugly, and like what others said it's more tardis'y than other 2 man pods. Corvus and tantares have better 2 man pods but those get bogged down trying to be both stock alike and replicas, and in all cases the break the stock trend of wearing helmets in capsules because the helmets don't fit, a 1.25m plane cockpit would be fine but as I understand it none presently exist or are at least up to date.

As for 1.875 for the second time no I'm not saying add a bunch of parts for the sake of one pod(though I don't believe it would be a bad thing if I was) many of the parts that would be added would be just as useful as the new pod in their own right because the jump from 1.25 to 2.5 is very jarring and many vital 2.5 parts are locked up at the end of the tree to stretch it out. 1.875m parts alleviate problems.

[Alshain]

I don't like the k2 personally it doesn't strike me as a feasible shape for a reentry pod

I can see the other arguments but it's the exact shape of the Gemini pod. I'm pretty sure that one did re-entry. As for size it was shown earlier in the thread that Gemini wasn't that much larger than Mercury.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Alshain

[tater]

It's not the exact shape of Gemini, or even terribly close. I'll leave superimposing images of the 2 to someone else.

Regardless, it looks wrong with a helmeted kerbal next to it.

[richfiles]

Gemini was a pretty "sardine" like can. The only reason it really worked, was because there was no free space inside, and it had large dual hatches, one for each astronaut. The service module was also tapered, and if you refer back to the image I posted, the mercury stat on a tapered segment too, leading to a primary stack that was very similar in diameter. Gemini's Titan II launch vehicle was a 3.05 meter diameter stack. Mercury's Redstone launch stage was 1.78 meters... but the catch was that it only had power for ballistic trajectories... sub-orbital hops. To actually achieve orbit, required the Atlas launch vehicle... which was 3.0 meters in diameter... Narly identical to the later Gemini launch vehicle. The difference was fuel used, and overall length of the vessel, and how it was staged.

Or in other words, orbital 1 seat and orbital 2 seat capsules can justifiably use the same basic diameter. If we wanted to really be realistic, both he 1 and 2 seaters would need to sit on fatter tanks to get to orbit, but hey, this is a game, and a tiny Kerbin, so it's all good!

What we need, is a slightly longer, slightly heavier two crew capsule, with the same base diameter of the 1 crew capsule.

On another side note... Gemini was also unique, in that after it deployed it's chutes, it took a sideways landing approach, landing with the side of the heat shield touching first, and then coming to a rest on it's side. It'd justify such a module having a standard radial chute mounting location just above the heat shield (even if it had to be recessed to withstand heating and aero), in addition to the nose parachute. That would provide the most realistic landing method.

Edited August 16, 2015 by richfiles

[passinglurker]

I can see the other arguments but it's the exact shape of the Gemini pod. I'm pretty sure that one did re-entry. As for size it was shown earlier in the thread that Gemini wasn't that much larger than Mercury.

have you seen the k2 pod? its not the exact same shape its not even close excluding the twos noses the gemini is a long cone while the K2 is more like a narrow headlamp with a flange around the edge to fit standard diameter and it's that narrowness that makes its ability to fit 2 kerbals dubious compared to it competition , the resulting concave shape makes its reentry aerodynamics also very dubious in my eye. As for "Oh we made it work in real life with gemini" That's all well and good but the fact remains this isn't real life, kerbals have big tall stupid heads, you can't fit two helmeted kerbals side by side in a 1.25m cylinder no matter their orientation (tandem works but good luck finding a believable capsule shape thats long enough, plane cockpits would work believably with tandem seating but if it was a plane part we wouldn't need the helmets anymore as per stock trends)

Gemini was a pretty "sardine" like can. The only reason it really worked, was because there was no free space inside, and it had large dual hatches, one for each astronaut. The service module was also tapered, and if you refer back to the image I posted, the mercury stat on a tapered segment too, leading to a primary stack that was very similar in diameter. Gemini's Titan II launch vehicle was a 3.05 meter diameter stack. Mercury's Redstone launch stage was 1.78 meters... but the catch was that it only had power for ballistic trajectories... sub-orbital hops. To actually achieve orbit, required the Atlas launch vehicle... which was 3.0 meters in diameter... Narly identical to the later Gemini launch vehicle. The difference was fuel used, and overall length of the vessel, and how it was staged.

Or in other words, orbital 1 seat and orbital 2 seat capsules can justifiably use the same basic diameter. If we wanted to really be realistic, both he 1 and 2 seaters would need to sit on fatter tanks to get to orbit, but hey, this is a game, and a tiny Kerbin, so it's all good!

What we need, is a slightly longer, slightly heavier two crew capsule, with the same base diameter of the 1 crew capsule.

On another side note... Gemini was also unique, in that after it deployed it's chutes, it took a sideways landing approach, landing with the side of the heat shield touching first, and then coming to a rest on it's side. It'd justify such a module having a standard radial chute mounting location just above the heat shield (even if it had to be recessed to withstand heating and aero), in addition to the nose parachute. That would provide the most realistic landing method.

Please enough with the real life comparisons in addition to my above statements that no matter how many times you shout "AMERICA!" it won't change the shape of kerbals or their helmets I can think of 3 mods that tried to make gemini and they all encountered the same problems when kerbalizing the craft the service module is a kit craft nightmare there is no place to slip in heat shields or decouplers without making them tapered to odd ball diameters that require you to puzzle piece the craft together a certain way. This is all well and good for some mods but it isn't in any way kerbal or conducive to creative freedom. You can't make Gemini and have it truly adhere to stock behaviors you can get "stock-a-like" close as some mods do, but this delusion that "mk1 pod is mercury, mk1-2 pod is apollo, so the official 2 man pod must be gemini, and the same size as the mk1 pod because gemini was the same size as mercury!" is never going to be real at least not in the official stock game.

So there that's it no more gemini it simply can't be stock unless stock changes very very drastically (like let us mod the appearances of kerbals and give them different helmets drastic)

[richfiles]

Wow passinglurker... get poked in the retrograde by the spring loaded flag there, did ya? Cool your jets, man!

First... it's just a game. I don't really care if a 2 kerbal capsule employs TARDIS grade sci-fi magic. Seriously though, WHO CARES!!!

As for your out of the blue "America" comment, it's clear what inspired the creators of the game to create the various primary capsules. They only are adjacent to the country that launched capsules of that shape. I'm sure Central America was just as excited about the space launches as the rest of the world was. YOU are the only person shouting anything, "America" or otherwise. Since you feel like SHOUTING... How about this: I'M ONE OF THE PEOPLE who suggested Tantares as an alternative, and even PROVIDED THE LINK! Get off you high horse, and stuff your freaking 'Murica hating down a Mohole...

And seriously... It's Squad... They HAVE CHANGED the stock parts in the past... You act like they can't do it a second time. For all I care, they could make a 2 crew capsule with an integrated ablator, and just enough extra width, and an attachment node positioned just right to clip the capsule to line with the largest diameter portion of the decoupler. You could have unique parts to fit it. So what if you end up with a decoupler that pairs a mid size capsule to a smaller or a larger tank. Who cares if they create tapered service bays, or even create a low profile separator at a unique diameter.

The only one stifling creativity, passinglurker, is you, who would rather run your mouth off at people with ideas, than actually suggest anything productive.

I'd HIGHLY suggest living up to your name, and be both passive, and a lurker...

I, for one, WOULD welcome new parts. You don't even need a new size of tanks or engines, as long as the capsule comes with either an integrated ablator, a matched ablator, or "magically" fits two Kerbals into an MK1 base diameter. If it is a little bigger than an MK1, you can simply have a tapered service module. Maybe one could even integrate a decoupler on the top end, for simplicity's sakes, so you don't have to create a unique part for one singular task. I've actually seen that done before. There is a radial engine mount mod that has integrated fuel cross feed, and decoupling, all built into the single piece. Why couldn't an "Mk2 Command Pod" have an integral ablator (adjustable int he VAB), or a custom sized ablator, and then a service bay that has built in decoupling from the pod/ablator. You could have two service bays, one to fit the FL-T tanks, and another to fit the Rockomax. You are talking a MAXIMUM of 4 parts to make a 2 crew pod work, and loosely fit a Gemini styling. it can be done in as little as two parts, if you have an integrated ablator (built into the pod), and have only a single service bay size. That forces you to use a C7 adapter to fit larger Rockomax tanks, but you'll still get fuel in the adapter. It would reverse the taper of the service module, in relation to the real Gemini, making it get narrower after the capsule, instead of wider... but then again, who cares about sticking to realism, right?

Even if the decoupling isn't built into the service bays, you can still do a low profile decoupler, same thickness as the tiny, tiny decoupler. With that, you are looking at a TOTAL of 5 parts for a complete 2 crew, Gemini inspired tier int he tech tree, with NO additional tanks or engines. Pod, Ablator, low profile decoupler or separator ring, capsule to FL-T service bay, or Capsule to Rockomax service bay. That's it. Sure, if your trying to mimic Gemini perfectly, and you try to keep stock parts, of course it'll have issues, but all I'm saying, is it would take very few parts to make a Gemini like 2 crew capsule VERY feasible in the stock game.

Why this isn't feasible??? I have no idea... I'd say that the tech tree should unlock the two kerbal pod and early service bays at near the same level. That was a big thing that got introduced around the time of Gemini. Gemini had the guidance computer, and added a lot of stuff, whereas the Mercury capsules had only the tiniest little retrorocket pack on the back. Unlocking service bays and the 2 person pod makes sense.

*Nothing is drawn to scale, i just sketched this as a proof of concept, cause I'm tired of naysayers.

- - - Updated - - -

You know what... I looked at K2, and I'm in love.

I hope Squad sees the need for a 2 Krew pod in stock, but for the time being, I've said all I think needs to be said here, cause I'm just downloading K2 and installing that puppy!

[passinglurker]

I'm mostly ragging on the realism arguments because they fuel the arguments for a smaller pod. simple amature debabting. though the "look how we did it in gemini" arguments were wearing on me as many of them didn't address kerbal's technical obstacles to simply recreating gemini it was like people were just spouting "gemini!" as an answer without thinking.

Squad has changed the meaning of stock in the past the act of adding a part at all is itself a minor change I'll admit, but limitless possibilities often leads to either a poorly balanced and convoluted mess on one end or RSS on the other so I tried to keep things constrained to existing stock part behaviors to conceive what form a 2 man pod would take. my attempt at a logical conclusion to this train of thought presented a few possibilities A. 1.875m pod/full set of parts (surprising backlash on this one), B. 2 kerbal tandem plane cockpit (largely ignored when mentioned), C. tandem pod (highly unsure if this would work if a pod is too tall for its diameter it won't shield its parachutes in the new heat and areo models some prototyping will need to be done)

as for your suggestion as to how my name should dictate my behavior it has been noted and saved to /dev/null for further review

despite our friction you have drawn similar conclusions about using an intermediary sized pod the difference we have here is you are content with couple size adapters as part of a kit where as I'd prefer the full set so that no part is ever meant to be used with only one other part.

now if you liked k2 just wait till you get a load of this a genuine 1.25 gemini no space helmets unfortunatly so I'd never consider it a candidate for official official stock, but still more than stock-a-like enough to consider it one of my favorites

Edited August 16, 2015 by passinglurker

[tater]

I'm game for whatever if the bloody helmets fit. Seems to me a little larger just makes that easier to accomplish. The 2d drawing above shows it nicely on a 1.25m. Really, it's sorta like Ares 1 CLV.

[mattinoz]

As long as it comes with a Gemini style adaptor equipment module with integrate rcs thrusters and retro engine it would be a good addition.

Or or could be more Russian style. Really why not have another 3-4 capsules in the game.

[Stoney3K]

I'm game for whatever if the bloody helmets fit. Seems to me a little larger just makes that easier to accomplish. The 2d drawing above shows it nicely on a 1.25m. Really, it's sorta like Ares 1 CLV.

Keep in mind that the proportions of Kerbals are a bit different to those of humans. The dimensions of a Kerbal are more or less defined by its helmet, and a body that is smaller than the helmet underneath. Humans (and real-world space suits) are a lot more narrow in comparison.

So I suspect you need a 1,875m command module if you want to seat two Kerbals, unless you want to seat them in tandem.

[tater]

That's what I've been saying

[passinglurker]

Keep in mind that the proportions of Kerbals are a bit different to those of humans. The dimensions of a Kerbal are more or less defined by its helmet, and a body that is smaller than the helmet underneath. Humans (and real-world space suits) are a lot more narrow in comparison.

So I suspect you need a 1,875m command module if you want to seat two Kerbals, unless you want to seat them in tandem.

I said that too... A lot... Good to find a like minded individual

As long as it comes with a Gemini style adaptor equipment module with integrate rcs thrusters and retro engine it would be a good addition.

Or or could be more Russian style. Really why not have another 3-4 capsules in the game.

And this is precisely why I think the suggestion should be constrained to existing stock part behaviors because otherwise people will try to make their favorite gimmick part a deal breaker for their support. There will always be modders making these sort of parts no need to burden squad because if 1.875 was added they would have enough work to do already.

[Columbia]

Everyone in this thread maybe? Go back and read through it, the argument for the 1.875 parts is for scaled solar systems and you want to add a bunch of parts just to support a single pod, which is ridiculous. The K2 Command pod works fine as a 1.25m part, why wouldn't a similar stock part?

Honestly, IMHO, there are quite a lot of fitting uses for 1.875 parts.

-Of course, the 2-man pod that's mentioned a few pages back.

-There's a huge gap between 1.25 and 2.5m parts, while the gap between 2.5M and 3.75m parts doesn't seem to huge.

-As well as sizes, we still have a gap between 1.25m engines and 2.75 m engines as well. Take the LV-T Series and the Rockomax series of engines. Their power gaps are pretty huge, and also take jet engines. I think they'd be more suitable for Mk3 airplanes and such. Take the Ramjet and the Basic Jet engine. The Basic engine seems to be really, really underpowered compared to the Ramjet, and the Ramjet seems to be for supersonic aircraft (Hence the unusual engine effects.) A counterpart to a modern-day jet engine for airliners would fit really well with 1.875 parts, honestly.

Then again, it would use up much more RAM to add a whole system of parts.. But this is all my own thinking.

[MrWalrus123]

Yeah, it's kind of hard to have a cluster engine with 1.25 parts on a 2.5 rocket

[Alshain]

Honestly, IMHO, there are quite a lot of fitting uses for 1.875 parts.

-Of course, the 2-man pod that's mentioned a few pages back.

-There's a huge gap between 1.25 and 2.5m parts, while the gap between 2.5M and 3.75m parts doesn't seem to huge.

-As well as sizes, we still have a gap between 1.25m engines and 2.75 m engines as well. Take the LV-T Series and the Rockomax series of engines. Their power gaps are pretty huge, and also take jet engines. I think they'd be more suitable for Mk3 airplanes and such. Take the Ramjet and the Basic Jet engine. The Basic engine seems to be really, really underpowered compared to the Ramjet, and the Ramjet seems to be for supersonic aircraft (Hence the unusual engine effects.) A counterpart to a modern-day jet engine for airliners would fit really well with 1.875 parts, honestly.

Then again, it would use up much more RAM to add a whole system of parts.. But this is all my own thinking.

What gap between 1.25M and 2.5M? There is no gap. The only real possible gap I can see is if you are trying to build a realistic 3 engine shuttle, but as far as size gaps I think that is all in your imagination.

[nothingSpecial]

What gap between 1.25M and 2.5M? There is no gap. The only real possible gap I can see is if you are trying to build a realistic 3 engine shuttle, but as far as size gaps I think that is all in your imagination.

Well, there is a gap in my imagination too. I like slim service modules, but 1.25m is too slim for 2.5m crew module. 2.5m launch stage, on the other hand, is too wide for 1.25m orbital insertion stage. And I have met other people who really find this gap existing. Just check HGR thread, there is a plenty of them. TThere is no need to be so strict.

[passinglurker]

Unless one can fit Two kerbal's with helmets in tandem in a reentry pod that is short enough that it's parachutes could service reentry the pod will have to be 1.875 or larger

[Stoney3K]

What gap between 1.25M and 2.5M? There is no gap. The only real possible gap I can see is if you are trying to build a realistic 3 engine shuttle, but as far as size gaps I think that is all in your imagination.

Clustered engines suffer as well. For example, if you want to make a realistic Kerbal-esque version of the Soyuz R7 launcher, you're not gonna get engines that are powerful enough. The RD-107 is an unvectored engine used for the boosters (so it would be replaced by the LV-T30 in stock) where the RD-108 is less powerful so you could use the LV-T45 for it.

However, in that configuration with 4 engines on each 2,5m cluster, you're not going to get anywhere near the power of a Soyuz R7. A similar setup with 4 Mainsails and a single Skipper does the job effortlessly.

The 1,25m engines are only useful if you want to lift nothing but 1,25m parts, because the 2,5m parts are too heavy to lift. So yes, there definitely *is* a power gap which is less pronounced on the 2,5m/3,75m transition.