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

[Alshain]

plane parts like the crew cabin don't have helmets

I expect the Mk2 parts to seat unhelmeted Kerbals instead of helmeted Kerbals on the command pods, just like the entire Space Shuttle cabin was pressurized, removing the need for bulky EVA suits and helmets on launch. Also, the cockpit seats 2 Kerbals side by side without helmet, where the crew cabin seats 4, in 2 rows of 2, with no useful props or instruments around them except for their seats.

Capsules may not be pressurized entirely (instead, only the suits would be pressurized) so they need more room inside to accomodate EVA suits.

A 1,25m 2-Kerbal command pod would theoretically fit, barely, but don't expect any room for your Kerbals to move in to, I don't know, move the ship's controls or push any buttons.

2 people that didn't read.

- - - Updated - - -

It just means the cockpit is broken, too, frankly. Can the kerbals EVA? Is there an airlock? If not, the entire space inside the cabin is depressurized (as in a capsule) and they must have helmets on.

The scale chosen by Squad was 100% arbitrary WRT the size and geometry of Kerbals and their gear. Perhaps the smallest size should in fact have been 1.75m, or 1.9m. That or they could have arbitrarily made kerbals X% smaller. Whatever path they take/took, the IVAs should be 100% inside the actual part model (with appropriate thickness of those external walls), and the kerbals should fit inside, fully suited if that is something the part requires (any part that allows EVA).

That we are possibly saddled with parts that break this is bad, but it would be worse to add new parts that knowingly break this notion, IMO.

Edit: I just looked at the 2 mk1 parts in question, and there is room for the helmets. In the crew cabin, they should have them in place of the bundles of whatever it is under the windows. The head centers slightly overlap the hatch outline.

This is exactly my point, the size is arbitrary and therefore you can have a 2 man capsule in 1.25m format.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said earlier.. Solid Rocket Boosters? Mk3 Jet Engines? An actually useful rocket engine that isn't as obsolete as the current 1.25m engines (which can lift 1.25m rockets.. but not much else.).

Quite a lot.

Also my point, we need these things. Not some new 1.8m bunch of tanks and other parts just to support a cockpit and a imaginary "gap" filling up the limited memory space.

[tater]

This is exactly my point, the size is arbitrary and therefore you can have a 2 man capsule in 1.25m format.

Then they need to arbitrarily make kerbals smaller.

Assuming the size of kerbals does not change, then they should fit in the capsule with helmets on, or the capsules should be bigger, period.

(BTW, I looked last night, and the mk3 cockpit is a joke, it masses less than the mk1-2, is vastly larger, holds more crew, batter, and mono, and is tougher. There is also room for a lower deck into the bargain, it should probably hold maybe 7 kerbals, and mass 3 times as much as it does. Also, they should make the hatch much bigger, there is no shortage of room on that pod).

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

There is no "Size Gap". Each (rocket) part increments 1.25m above the last one.

3.75 - 2.5 = 1.25

2.5 - 1.25 = 1.25

Exact same. Only part that has a large size gap is 0.625 - 1.25

Edited August 19, 2015 by TheCanadianVendingMachine

[tater]

There is no "Size Gap". Each (rocket) part increments 1.25m above the last one.

3.75 - 2.5 = 1.25

2.5 - 1.25 = 1.25

Exact same. Only part that has a large size gap is 0.625 - 1.25

This post makes no sense whatsoever. In absolute distance, the one you say is the largest, is in fact the smallest change, or no different in % than 1.25-2.5.

There IS a size gap in crew capacity. You cannot put 2 kerbals next to each other with helmets on in 1.25m pod at all, much less inside a cone with 1.25 as the widest possible base. You can do so tandem, that's it.

[nothingSpecial]

2 people that didn't read.

Wow. I... I suppose that's okay. If that's really so important for you, well, there is no size gap. Just calm down.

[Higgs]

There IS a size gap in crew capacity. You cannot put 2 kerbals next to each other with helmets on in 1.25m pod at all, much less inside a cone with 1.25 as the widest possible base. You can do so tandem, that's it.

Love this point. Which, and I can't believe I'm jumping into this, shows alshain clearly has NEVER used IVA in the mk1 cmd pod. Had he ever done so, he'd have never said so foolishly that you can tandem kerbals in a 1.25m pod. It's too bloody small. I've always thought jeb and the gang looked cramped in it.

[Tarmenius]

I think the "gap" people are referring to can be explained as follows:

1.25 +1.25 = 2.5 (+100%)

2.50 +1.25 = 3.75 (+50%)

So, the relationship between small and medium is greater than the relationship between medium and large. This difference creates the sense that there is some unused "space" in the scaling of parts. Apologies if I've misread.

As for the crew capacity issue, I would definitely love to see a 2-Kerbal pod in the smallest standard part size. Sadly, they just wouldn't fit within a 1.25m pod unless one was behind the other (maybe also slightly higher, as Kerbals are very short when seated?). Of course, SQUAD could just decide to do it anyway and leave us laughing about the way Kerbals magically shrink when they enter. That could be fun, too. Another alternative would be to change all 1.25m parts into something large enough to seat 2 helmeted Kerbals side-by-side (would 1.7m do it?). No need to add a whole new part category. I personally think three standard and 1 non-standard (0.625m) is a good balance.

[Alshain]

Love this point. Which, and I can't believe I'm jumping into this, shows alshain clearly has NEVER used IVA in the mk1 cmd pod. Had he ever done so, he'd have never said so foolishly that you can tandem kerbals in a 1.25m pod. It's too bloody small. I've always thought jeb and the gang looked cramped in it.

I didn't say you could tandem anything, I said the game already uses bigger on the inside technology with the Mk2 crew capsule, and there is nothing wrong with that. So maybe you shouldn't so foolishly put words in my mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the "gap" people are referring to can be explained as follows:

1.25 +1.25 = 2.5 (+100%)

2.50 +1.25 = 3.75 (+50%)

So, the relationship between small and medium is greater than the relationship between medium and large. This difference creates the sense that there is some unused "space" in the scaling of parts. Apologies if I've misread.

As for the crew capacity issue, I would definitely love to see a 2-Kerbal pod in the smallest standard part size. Sadly, they just wouldn't fit within a 1.25m pod unless one was behind the other (maybe also slightly higher, as Kerbals are very short when seated?). Of course, SQUAD could just decide to do it anyway and leave us laughing about the way Kerbals magically shrink when they enter. That could be fun, too. Another alternative would be to change all 1.25m parts into something large enough to seat 2 helmeted Kerbals side-by-side (would 1.7m do it?). No need to add a whole new part category. I personally think three standard and 1 non-standard (0.625m) is a good balance.

Strictly a numerical gap, but there is no significant gameplay advantage to having a size in between. It's not like it is real hard to go from 1.25 to 2.5.

[passinglurker]

I didn't say you could tandem anything, I said the game already uses bigger on the inside technology with the Mk2 crew capsule, and there is nothing wrong with that. So maybe you shouldn't so foolishly put words in my mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

Strictly a numerical gap, but there is no significant gameplay advantage to having a size in between. It's not like it is real hard to go from 1.25 to 2.5.

its not bigger on the inside though :/ the only part that might be is the mk1 pod because its so damn old so it wasn't modeled to the scale that the game ultimately wound up as

[Alshain]

its not bigger on the inside though :/ the only part that might be is the mk1 pod because its so damn old so it wasn't modeled to the scale that the game ultimately wound up as

Compare the Mk2 Inline Cockpit to the Mk2 Crew cabin.

[tater]

I did, what's the issue?

[passinglurker]

looking... measuring... nope its not bigger on the inside... the mk2 cockpit is a terrible comparison by the way because of that bulge and the fact its used for both cockpits

[tater]

I just checked again by superimposing the 2 mk2 parts. They look about the same size internally from the instrument panel back, which is where they overlap. There is more than enough room in the cockpit for 2 more seats---or the 2 helmets of the crew. The internal props in the crew cabin (those bundles), plus some of the room under the windows that is blocked off easily has enough room that they could have shown stowed helmets there.

Nominally, the open space width in the crew cabin (the short, vertical walls that the "bundles" are attached to over 1.5m. It looks like the space from window armrest to window armrest is close to that 1.5m, number, with another fair bit available laterally. They'd easily fit with helmets, IMO (height might be the only issue laterally). But again, at least there is room inside for the helmets.

[clivman]

Tantares Gemini (1.5m) with a 1.875 m titan-alike should be made stock. And to everyone referencing how two Kerbals can't fit in a 1.25/1.5 m pod, I have made a thread on the broken scale of the IVA's, but it was closed. Two Kerbals can fit in a 1.25 m pod, and 7 can actually fit in a 2.5 m pod. Just look at real life capsules for example. Kerbal capsules are 5/8 the size, and Kerbals are just over half the size. The IVA scale just makes it look like Kerbals grow 50% inside a capsule.

[Darnok]

For all people saying two kerbals won't fit 1.25m...

They can be placed closer.

I suck bulding fairings, but IMO they would fit in it.

[tater]

Another reason why life support is needed in game (or even considered in Squad's design of parts, if not in actual play)... I would like to see some rough "rules" fleshed out for creating parts even without stock LS. By this I mean a LOOSE set of "best practices" for making stock-alike, crewed parts.

For example:

Short duration flight cabins should have some minimum dimensions for the pilot seat and controls. Miscellaneous equipment and structure = ~X m^3 (slop, basically, might be expressed as a percentage of total volume). Note that this might also be linked to crash strength and heat tolerance. Life support for spacecraft should be ~Y m^3 per seat minimally, and Z m^3 for any part considered "long duration." I'd also include a volume requirement (might vary by tech node level) for batteries/electronic, and the density of mono.

Note that this might be fractional m^3 in most cases. Again, no LS actually specified, just the idea that a "habitat" module should dedicate some part of the volume to LS equipment/supplies. Then you might look at the mk1-2 pod, and see that the crew is seated far forward, and the rear contains some volume for the other stuff.

VERY simple here, with the idea being that you don't make a new part that "just fits" X kerbals, but it might fit them, plus mono, plus some room for supplies, etc, etc.

The facing together seating arraignment had not occurred to me, nice job, Darnok!

[passinglurker]

That isn't a good what to sit during launch unfortunately. Look the modders have been over this extensively there are at least 3 mods that have 2 man 1.25 pods none of them could fit the helmets

[Darnok]

That isn't a good what to sit during launch unfortunately. Look the modders have been over this extensively there are at least 3 mods that have 2 man 1.25 pods none of them could fit the helmets

What?

[nothingSpecial]

What?

[tater]

What?

Ah, right, he's right. They need to be on their backs.

- - - Updated - - -

So I made this (sorry, Ven installed, not stock). It could have been shorter, I wanted to give as much vertical room as possible near the seats to be safe. My external walls of the fairing are actually larger (slightly) than 1.25m, as well. Sue me

Here are the guys inside:

I tried sliding them closer together, then their bodies clip, and they still fit like sardines, touching the walls.

Working so hard to try and cram them into a 1.25m pod seems really dumb, when in the real world, they'd just make it slightly larger.

Now, if you want tandem, they easily fit in the same design, above. Make a single, large hatch that goes from the back, to the front of the pilot (top seat, with forward-facing window notch like Gemini).

Edited August 22, 2015 by tater

[clivman]

Maybe we shouldn't care about how many Kerbals can fit and do it from a history/gameplay perspective. Besides, those are EVA helmets they wouldn't wear in flight.

[passinglurker]

Maybe we shouldn't care about how many Kerbals can fit and do it from a history/gameplay perspective. Besides, those are EVA helmets they wouldn't wear in flight.

People argue the helmets need to fit because the kerbal's need room to put them on or a separate airlock space.

By that logic tantares Soyuz would be the best choice because it has an orbital module part that can be used as an airlock allowing the two in the pod top go helmetless

[clivman]

People argue the helmets need to fit because the kerbal's need room to put them on or a separate airlock space.

By that logic tantares Soyuz would be the best choice because it has an orbital module part that can be used as an airlock allowing the two in the pod top go helmetless

By logic we should add an American craft since all the other ones are American? By logic they shouldn't have large helmets?

Tantares Gemini is perfect as is.

[tater]

Maybe we shouldn't care about how many Kerbals can fit and do it from a history/gameplay perspective. Besides, those are EVA helmets they wouldn't wear in flight.

That is wrong for two reasons.

One, the pod would actually have to be larger since you'd need to also store the helmets when removed. Two, the entire craft needs to be depressurized since there is no airlock, so if one goes on eva, the other must be helmeted.

[clivman]

You think real astronauts wear helmets larger than themselves?

So who cares if their helmets fit?