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

[tater]

You think real astronauts wear helmets larger than themselves?

So who cares if their helmets fit?

Astronauts wear helmets big enough for their heads to fit in. When they take them off, they put them someplace. A kerbal cabin has to have room for them to wear the helmet, and if they remove it, requires storage. Period.

In the extant capsules, they are wearing their helmets on IVA, so they need to fit. Any part where they remove them is fine, but then there needs to be room for helmets to lie around.

If you want to play the "real" card, then would a real space program arbitrarily set the diameter of a spacecraft, then require future crafts to match that, regardless of RL needs? Why wan't Gemini exactly the same diameter as Mercury?

[nothingSpecial]

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

And call it Valmobile, because KSP won't have Gusmobile?

[clivman]

If you want to play the "real" card, then would a real space program arbitrarily set the diameter of a spacecraft, then require future crafts to match that, regardless of RL needs? Why wan't Gemini exactly the same diameter as Mercury?

Tantares is 1.5 m Gemini with 1.875 m adapter, point proven.

And you were the first one playing the real card by saying their helmets have to fit

[passinglurker]

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.

Eh as some one who's spent a good deal of time picking apart tantares gemini for a mercury mod I find that debatable the iva could use more refinement as it's pixelated, ram inefficient, doesn't have any indicators besides pitch, yaw, roll, and nav ball, the portrait cameras are in poor spots, and of course it needs either helmets or an airlock... I could go on about how the service module was implemented... It's a great mod and beale is the coolest let's not toss the word "perfect" around so easily lest we forget the junk intern Hugo pushed into the game during his short stay (I'm glad they are revamping the mk1 cockpit again)

- - - Updated - - -

Tantares is 1.5 m Gemini with 1.875 m adapter, point proven.

And you were the first one playing the real card by saying their helmets have to fit

Tantares is not a replica it's gemini alike is not to scale its 1.875m with a 2.5m service module that serves as a size adapter

The real card is something played when practical its not practical to have odd sizes because it makes for poor game play not having helmets meanwhile breaks the suspension of disbelief and overlooking small touches like that makes the game look

Half made.

[tater]

Tantares is 1.5 m Gemini with 1.875 m adapter, point proven.

What possible point are you attempting to make here?

The stock parts are 1.25m, Tantares (some nice parts) has a 1.5m gemini. As my pictures demonstrate, 1.5m is probably big enough, 1.25m is not. I'm saying that the helmets need to fit, if they fit in 1.5m, then use 1.5, if 1.62387m is better, use that (or round up to some even number).

And you were the first one playing the real card by saying their helmets have to fit

Huh? REAL means the real world. Saying KERBAL helmets need to fit in no way calls forth the real world other than the obvious fact that you should not be able to put a 1m diameter object inside a 0.5m diameter object, that's just silly.

If kerbal helmets need not fit, why not have a 7-crew, 1.25m part? What's the difference?

[clivman]

Eh as some one who's spent a good deal of time picking apart tantares gemini for a mercury mod I find that debatable the iva could use more refinement as it's pixelated, ram inefficient, doesn't have any indicators besides pitch, yaw, roll, and nav ball, the portrait cameras are in poor spots, and of course it needs either helmets or an airlock... I could go on about how the service module was implemented... It's a great mod and beale is the coolest let's not toss the word "perfect" around so easily lest we forget the junk intern Hugo pushed into the game during his short stay (I'm glad they are revamping the mk1 cockpit again)

- - - Updated - - -

Tantares is not a replica it's gemini alike is not to scale its 1.875m with a 2.5m service module that serves as a size adapter

The real card is something played when practical its not practical to have odd sizes because it makes for poor game play not having helmets meanwhile breaks the suspension of disbelief and overlooking small touches like that makes the game look

Half made.

Titan is 3.05 m in RL, which is 1.875 m in ksp, so gemini should be 1.25 m.

[tater]

Regarding 1.5m as a minimum, it might work with helmets with the opposing seats (feet facing each other). I don't think 1.5m works side to side.

[passinglurker]

We shouldn't recreate the American space program in ksp either way we need a two man pod yes but with the limits of the game it can't be some sort of perfect replica of gemini

[clivman]

What possible point are you attempting to make here?

The stock parts are 1.25m, Tantares (some nice parts) has a 1.5m gemini. As my pictures demonstrate, 1.5m is probably big enough, 1.25m is not. I'm saying that the helmets need to fit, if they fit in 1.5m, then use 1.5, if 1.62387m is better, use that (or round up to some even number).

If kerbal helmets need not fit, why not have a 7-crew, 1.25m part? What's the difference?

Because there is no equivalent in RL. Gemini has a close diameter to mercury and fit two people. Mercury is 1.25m.

- - - Updated - - -

We shouldn't recreate the American space program in ksp either way we need a two man pod yes but with the limits of the game it can't be some sort of perfect replica of gemini

Why not? As long as its stockalike

[passinglurker]

Regarding 1.5m as a minimum, it might work with helmets with the opposing seats (feet facing each other). I don't think 1.5m works side to side.

Remember acceleration the kerbal must face forward

[tater]

Titan is 3.05 m in RL, which is 1.875 m in ksp, so gemini should be 1.25 m.

Doesn't work for crew cabins, as the crew needs to actually fit. Including their gear. I don;t care what scale metric you arbitrarily chose, in the end, the crew parts need to hold crew, and kerbals have utterly different conformation than humans. They are little green men, not people.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember acceleration the kerbal must face forward

Yeah, look at my 2d picture, the seats have the back down.

- - - Updated - - -

The first image shows the seats the wrong way, which I corrected, leaving the rest the same. This is looking down through the docking port.

- - - Updated - - -

I will add for clarity. Rational people don't care what the diameter of the part is as long as the kerbals actually fit inside. If it is a part without an airlock, then all crew need to be able to wear helmets. (and it should have some space for them when off).

It's jarring to see a kerbal on EVA, then be utterly stunned that they fit inside. It's also a peeve about hatches in KSP. All that art needs to be redone such that when your kerbal is clinging to the door in orbit, it is clear he can fit though it. The game forces you to see them superimposed in a way that makes the wrong-sized hatches leap out at you.

[clivman]

Doesn't work for crew cabins, as the crew needs to actually fit. Including their gear. I don;t care what scale metric you arbitrarily chose, in the end, the crew parts need to hold crew, and kerbals have utterly different conformation than humans. They are little green men, not people.

Then we should just try and put 10m giants on kerbal rockets. Kerbal rockets are to scale, so should their capsules. If anything shrink the Kerbals.

[tater]

Then we should just try and put 10m giants on kerbal rockets. Kerbal rockets are to scale, so should their capsules. If anything shrink the Kerbals.

I don't care in the least as long as they fit. Assuming kerbals are not going to be made 10-20% smaller (or more), then 2 in a 1.25m pod is pretty much impossible, except as a tandem. I think something along the lines of the shape I posted as a tandem would be fine, it need not be a side-by side gemini-like thing, it just needs to FIT 2 kerbals,

[Tarmenius]

If their helmets could be slimmed down a little (and maybe shortened slightly), they'd totally fit:

That's an overturned Mk1 Command Pod, by the way...

[tater]

That's awfully tight, though. I honestly don't see squad redoing the characters at this point. A slightly larger pod would do. 1 heatshield for it, and 2 decouplers that work as adaptors. 1 from 1.X to 1.25, and another from 1.X to 2.5. The latter would make it look like a gemini of sorts, the former would have no historical analog, but would be vaguely Ares like.

[clivman]

That's awfully tight, though.

Real spacecraft are. Just because they are little green men doesn't mean they get an apartment in space.

[passinglurker]

On the tandem capsule idea I did some arranging of objects in blender and despite my initial support I have drawn this conclusion...

It will be so tight you will have either a facefull of wall or a facefull of "the back of jebs head" as your view. Its good enough for a mod but its not the sort of standards people want to hold stock too so for me the only way a 1.25m officially stock part could seat two would be if it was meant for plane. incidentally the recently announce airplane cabin may solve all the early game problems if they balance the tech tree right (not holding my breath) then we'd only need a two man 2.5m pod for deep space exploration before we unlock the three man pod.

As for the idea of adding a new size pod and a couple of size adapters. NO! a million times no its all or nothing for me when adding new part sizes I hate kit craft parts that only have one use.

[Whirligig Girl]

On the tandem capsule idea I did some arranging of objects in blender and despite my initial support I have drawn this conclusion...

It will be so tight you will have either a facefull of wall or a facefull of "the back of jebs head" as your view. Its good enough for a mod but its not the sort of standards people want to hold stock too so for me the only way a 1.25m officially stock part could seat two would be if it was meant for plane. incidentally the recently announce airplane cabin may solve all the early game problems if they balance the tech tree right (not holding my breath) then we'd only need a two man 2.5m pod for deep space exploration before we unlock the three man pod.

As for the idea of adding a new size pod and a couple of size adapters. NO! a million times no its all or nothing for me when adding new part sizes I hate kit craft parts that only have one use.

I am in complete agreement that kit craft parts are sacky. However, if we instead had a full new range of rocket parts (fuel tanks, decouplers, engines, batteries, etc.) then it would add more variety to rocket construction. They could use it as an excuse to bring in soviet-like parts, and also bring in some Soyuz and Vostok like pods as well. The launch vehicle for your Gemini capsule will probably be a 2.5m shinytank Rockomax rocket, so a Gemini pod still makes sense with a 1.875m system. Or just not have soviet-inspired parts.

[passinglurker]

I'd say a 1.875 set would be a good appeasement to the rocket fans after all the attention planes have gotten but being more realistic early game LKO work could be covered by mini shuttles using the new mk1 cockpit and crew cabins while mid game a 2.5m pod with no ties to real world counterparts could be used to cover deep space exploration around the mun and possibly beyond all that would be needed is one more part and a balance pass instead of a whole set of new parts to plug the holes that were caused by the imbalance squad has failed to address.

[tater]

I am in complete agreement that kit craft parts are sacky. However, if we instead had a full new range of rocket parts (fuel tanks, decouplers, engines, batteries, etc.) then it would add more variety to rocket construction. They could use it as an excuse to bring in soviet-like parts, and also bring in some Soyuz and Vostok like pods as well. The launch vehicle for your Gemini capsule will probably be a 2.5m shinytank Rockomax rocket, so a Gemini pod still makes sense with a 1.875m system. Or just not have soviet-inspired parts.

Assuming the 1.1 hype train is not off the rails, part counts (total parts in the game) might not really matter. In that case, 1.875 would be nice. The idea of Soviet analogs is also pretty cool, as it would be fun to see some ability (multiplayer?) to do a space race of sorts.

- - - Updated - - -

Real spacecraft are. Just because they are little green men doesn't mean they get an apartment in space.

Yeah, but I mean helmets touching each other, and the side walls of the spacecraft, not "tight" like Gemini was tight (it was).

[Tarmenius]

A slightly larger pod would do. 1 heatshield for it, and 2 decouplers that work as adaptors. 1 from 1.X to 1.25, and another from 1.X to 2.5.

I agree that this is probably the solution that stands the best chance of being implemented. Though personally, I'd prefer the 1.25m series be increased to 1.7 or 1.8m instead. Ever since EVA was introduced, I've always felt it was a little thin anyway.

[FishInferno]

I personally think that a 2-man pod is needed only as a bridge between the 1-man and 3-man pods in career mode. I don't really like it when people say "Because we had one in real life and MURICA so we need one in KSP."

[passinglurker]

I personally think that a 2-man pod is needed only as a bridge between the 1-man and 3-man pods in career mode. I don't really like it when people say "Because we had one in real life and MURICA so we need one in KSP."

here here! A balance pass on the tech tree and 2.5m 2 man pod and this would all be over very simply. Tantares mod's polaris pod is a good example. Flying saucer references anyone?

[tater]

An arbitrarily large enough 2-man pod (1.whatever meters) with a service module to 2.5m would also work. Adding a decoupler and heatshield part is presumably no big deal with 1.1 memory fixes.

It's hard to make a 2-person 2.5m pod without loads of extra volume.

Basically, you get a shape that is like the mk-1-2, but it ends at the height of the mk2 landercan. You could make the top node exactly 1.25m.

Mk1 is 0.84t

Mk 1-2 is 4.12t

Mk2 lander can is 2.66t.

I'd expect a 2.5m 2-man to be a similar mass to the lander can, I guess. Perhaps it could use some of the excess volume for increased battery and mono?

[passinglurker]

An arbitrarily large enough 2-man pod (1.whatever meters) with a service module to 2.5m would also work. Adding a decoupler and heatshield part is presumably no big deal with 1.1 memory fixes.

It's hard to make a 2-person 2.5m pod without loads of extra volume.

Basically, you get a shape that is like the mk-1-2, but it ends at the height of the mk2 landercan. You could make the top node exactly 1.25m.

Mk1 is 0.84t

Mk 1-2 is 4.12t

Mk2 lander can is 2.66t.

I'd expect a 2.5m 2-man to be a similar mass to the lander can, I guess. Perhaps it could use some of the excess volume for increased battery and mono?

lets not talk about crewed part mass its broken on several levels and needs a serious balance pass which is a separate issue.

meanwhile about size I hate situational parts more that excess volume not that I think it would be an issue if you take a look at polaris as an example. For me its either 2.5m pod or a whole set of new sized parts which is welcome rocket parts are always useful, but a 2.5m reentry pod is much a more practical suggestion.

As for what to fill the excess space with battery and mono are good idea possibly they could also do some sort of integrated service bay door or just a well detailed IVA "look jeb this one comes with bunkbeds! and a toilet!" not every space ship needs to stuff you in like sardines it's a quirky little game after all.