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

[nothingSpecial]

1.5m or so capsule with ablator coverage and double bottom node: in-built adapter for 1.25m service module and one ofr 2.5m service module.

2.5m adapter can just continue conic shape (so we have a lighter mk1-2 version?) or can have overall geminiesque shape (not really because you will need some aftmost part to keep inbuilt adapter, but close enough). 2.5m node is way lower.

1.25m adapter can go reversed so ve have shape like this: aft《> fore. Or it can be nonexistent at all, and lower parts are attached to the bottom of capsule. More mercuryesque overall shape.

Total number of parts added: 1.

The ideal radius should be whatever radius mk1 landing can has (1.75? 1.65? I don't know, but it absolutely smaller than 1.85). The coloration can be similar too, so we would end with black one-crewed capsule, grey two-crewed (with one-crewed grey landing can) and white three-crewed (with white two-crewed landing can).

Mass of capsule per kerbal should be greater (because of ablation integrated into capsule).

Or double-noded odd-sized heatshield under odd-sized capsule, because 1.25m heatshield for small rover or 1.25m land probe can be not enough because of side attached tools and 2.5m heatshield can be an overkill. So total number of parts added: 2, and neither is one-purpose-only.

[Tarmenius]

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.

What we're wanting is something which is a size category smaller than 2.5m and which can hold 2 Kerbals, so this suggestion doesn't address the issue. There's already a 2-Kerbal, 2.5m pod. It's the lander can. Whether that should be suitable for re-entry is another discussion entirely.

[passinglurker]

1.5m or so capsule with ablator coverage and double bottom node: in-built adapter for 1.25m service module and one ofr 2.5m service module.

2.5m adapter can just continue conic shape (so we have a lighter mk1-2 version?) or can have overall geminiesque shape (not really because you will need some aftmost part to keep inbuilt adapter, but close enough). 2.5m node is way lower.

1.25m adapter can go reversed so ve have shape like this: aft《> fore. Or it can be nonexistent at all, and lower parts are attached to the bottom of capsule. More mercuryesque overall shape.

Total number of parts added: 1.

The ideal radius should be whatever radius mk1 landing can has (1.75? 1.65? I don't know, but it absolutely smaller than 1.85). The coloration can be similar too, so we would end with black one-crewed capsule, grey two-crewed (with one-crewed grey landing can) and white three-crewed (with white two-crewed landing can).

Mass of capsule per kerbal should be greater (because of ablation integrated into capsule).

Or double-noded odd-sized heatshield under odd-sized capsule, because 1.25m heatshield for small rover or 1.25m land probe can be not enough because of side attached tools and 2.5m heatshield can be an overkill. So total number of parts added: 2, and neither is one-purpose-only.

this is a hacky solution that is inconsistent with the other stock parts also it won't play well with the aero-model because empty nodes generate a lot of drag. It works well enough for a mod HGR did it before implementing 1.875m parts but in order to do it officially you'd have to implement similar behaviors all over the place to appear consistent, and again lets not bother talking mass until the existing part stats make sense.

What we're wanting is something which is a size category smaller than 2.5m and which can hold 2 Kerbals, so this suggestion doesn't address the issue. There's already a 2-Kerbal, 2.5m pod. It's the lander can. Whether that should be suitable for re-entry is another discussion entirely.

The new mk1 plane parts cover most of these needs assuming the tech tree is balanced properly leaving just the need for a deep space reentry pod which is what the proposed 2.5m pod is for and again if the tree is balanced properly its diameter won't be an issue.

btw the mk2 landercan shouldn't be able to renter kerbin's atmosphere safely if it does it means squad screwed up.

[Tarmenius]

The new mk1 plane parts cover most of these needs assuming the tech tree is balanced properly leaving just the need for a deep space reentry pod which is what the proposed 2.5m pod is for and again if the tree is balanced properly its diameter won't be an issue.

Sorry, allow me to clarify: What we're wanting is a command part which is a size category smaller than 2.5m and which can hold 2 Kerbals. I've been trying to keep up with the news but I may have missed something. Will the new Mk1 Cockpit seat 2 Kerbals? Or does the Mk1 Crew Cabin provide Reaction Wheel torque and allow the ship to be controlled? If either of those is a "yes" then the new plane parts definitely fill that need for me.

btw the mk2 landercan shouldn't be able to renter kerbin's atmosphere safely if it does it means squad screwed up.

Add a heatshield and it should be perfectly capable of re-entry without breaking any kind of logical consistency. But that's a whole other discussion.

[passinglurker]

Sorry, allow me to clarify: What we're wanting is a command part which is a size category smaller than 2.5m and which can hold 2 Kerbals. I've been trying to keep up with the news but I may have missed something. Will the new Mk1 Cockpit seat 2 Kerbals? Or does the Mk1 Crew Cabin provide Reaction Wheel torque? If either of those is a "yes" then the new plane parts definitely fill that need for me.

I'm not saying the solution is perfect. Perfect would be a useful set of 1.875m parts. but if you use the new cockpit in combination with the new crew cabin and some arrangement of wings wheels and chutes to land it and you'd have an early game means to do early tourist and rescue missions without ugly stacking, shoddy stayputnik flying, or other unreasonable methods. Then if it's all balanced properly you'd have the 2man 2.5m reentry capsule by the time you are ready to go to the moon

Add a heatshield and it should be perfectly capable of re-entry without breaking any kind of logical consistency. But that's a whole other discussion.

Yeah that shouldn't be allowed to happen it's not a reentry capsule its seats are not oriented properly for the G-load I can let it slide somewhere thin like duna but it shouldn't be able to do that on kerbin :/ (dang it squad balance your damn parts you're setting a bad example)

[tater]

Yeah that shouldn't be allowed to happen it's not a reentry capsule its seats are not oriented properly for the G-load I can let it slide somewhere thin like duna but it shouldn't be able to do that on kerbin :/ (dang it squad balance your damn parts you're setting a bad example)

This. That's aside from the part description saying it cannot possibly survive reentry.

I have no issue with it being between 1.25 and 2.5, with no other parts:

Another analog would be Orion and its smaller diameter SM. KSP parts need not be analogs of US craft in historical context. The conical shape is in keeping with extant pods, though. A goal IS for such a part to be early, though. Heck, it could have an appropriate heat shield (its own diameter), and no other parts whatsoever. Throw a fairing over it.

[passinglurker]

I had a thought. What if a pod had an inflatable air lock sort of arrangement where you have to deploy an animation to go on eva? No need for helmets because there is space for an airlock via inflation and it all fits in a 1.25m space

[clivman]

Just for a sense of scale

1.25 m mercury equivalent (Mk-1) 1.25-1.875m SM Gemini Equivalent ( I guess Mk2) 2.5 m Apollo equivalent (Mk 1-2)

[passinglurker]

Just for a sense of scale

1.25 m mercury equivalent (Mk-1) 1.25-1.875m SM Gemini Equivalent ( I guess Mk2) 2.5 m Apollo equivalent (Mk 1-2)

https://vintagespace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/spacecraftcompnasa.jpg

doesn't matter kerbals aren't human scaled

[clivman]

doesn't matter kerbals aren't human scaled

Yeah they are 50% scale of humans while capsules are between 55 and 60%.

They actually have more space than real capsules.

[passinglurker]

Yeah they are 50% scale of humans while capsules are between 55 and 60%.

They actually have more space than real capsules.

We've been over this their body proportions are completely different you can't fit them in the same way humans fit in gemini and there is no way odd sized puzzle piece craft are gonna fly with the general community no one wants to waste ram on size adapter parts with only one use no matter how optimized the game is we horde ram like misers because it's ingrained in us now. What is most likely to fly is a single standard diameter part to fill the gap either 2.5m or 1.25m. In the 1.25m case it might work if they are helmetless, side by side, and porkjet works his inflatable magic on the hatch so that we have a believable space for one to go and put on an eva helmet.

[clivman]

We've been over this their body proportions are completely different you can't fit them in the same way humans fit in gemini and there is no way odd sized puzzle piece craft are gonna fly with the general community no one wants to waste ram on size adapter parts with only one use no matter how optimized the game is we horde ram like misers because it's ingrained in us now. What is most likely to fly is a single standard diameter part to fill the gap either 2.5m or 1.25m. In the 1.25m case it might work if they are helmetless, side by side, and porkjet works his inflatable magic on the hatch so that we have a believable space for one to go and put on an eva helmet.

Exactly, as you said, it's the practicality that matters, and having a 1.25 m two kerbal command pod is practical.

[passinglurker]

Exactly, as you said, it's the practicality that matters, and having a 1.25 m two kerbal command pod is practical.

which you can't do with their helmets on unless you have enough space for an airlock but there isn't enough space for that and two kerbals in a normal 1.25m command pod hence my talking about an inflatable one similar in function to the airlock on voskhod

[richfiles]

You know... For me, I'm just running K2 for now, and will hope that once KSP makes that official transition to 64 bits and unity 5, that we can just forget all this silly nonsense about limiting part counts, and see new complete diameter part sets in KSP 1.1+

I think it'd be also quite wise to have a "part limiter" in the configuration menu. Basically, a listing of every part in the game (it could be accessible from the main menu, not the in game limited config menu). It'd have a reload button to reload all parts (in the case that some are previously unchecked). It'd require a restart to implement (as it would not load unchecked parts). The basic premise, is you would have a simple graphical interface to restrict part and texture loading for parts you don't regularly use. I realize that 64 bit solves this issue, so it'll soon be a non issue, but where it DOES come into play, is that some people may still be limited to 32 bit systems, or may only have 4 GB RAM. It'd simply provide a means to keep KSP's bottom end from rising up, when the top end advances. Just a consideration for lower end users.

It also makes it feasible to add things like a 1.8ish meter part lineup. I'd be totally supportive of that.

[clivman]

You know... For me, I'm just running K2 for now, and will hope that once KSP makes that official transition to 64 bits and unity 5, that we can just forget all this silly nonsense about limiting part counts, and see new complete diameter part sets in KSP 1.1+

I think it'd be also quite wise to have a "part limiter" in the configuration menu. Basically, a listing of every part in the game (it could be accessible from the main menu, not the in game limited config menu). It'd have a reload button to reload all parts (in the case that some are previously unchecked). It'd require a restart to implement (as it would not load unchecked parts). The basic premise, is you would have a simple graphical interface to restrict part and texture loading for parts you don't regularly use. I realize that 64 bit solves this issue, so it'll soon be a non issue, but where it DOES come into play, is that some people may still be limited to 32 bit systems, or may only have 4 GB RAM. It'd simply provide a means to keep KSP's bottom end from rising up, when the top end advances. Just a consideration for lower end users.

It also makes it feasible to add things like a 1.8ish meter part lineup. I'd be totally supportive of that.

A three kerbal 1.875 m capsule modeled after the ISRO orbital vehicle would be so cool.

[passinglurker]

You know... For me, I'm just running K2 for now, and will hope that once KSP makes that official transition to 64 bits and unity 5, that we can just forget all this silly nonsense about limiting part counts, and see new complete diameter part sets in KSP 1.1+

I think it'd be also quite wise to have a "part limiter" in the configuration menu. Basically, a listing of every part in the game (it could be accessible from the main menu, not the in game limited config menu). It'd have a reload button to reload all parts (in the case that some are previously unchecked). It'd require a restart to implement (as it would not load unchecked parts). The basic premise, is you would have a simple graphical interface to restrict part and texture loading for parts you don't regularly use. I realize that 64 bit solves this issue, so it'll soon be a non issue, but where it DOES come into play, is that some people may still be limited to 32 bit systems, or may only have 4 GB RAM. It'd simply provide a means to keep KSP's bottom end from rising up, when the top end advances. Just a consideration for lower end users.

It also makes it feasible to add things like a 1.8ish meter part lineup. I'd be totally supportive of that.

64bit is not a panacea it's like congress voting itself a higher spending limit you'll start spending even worse and hit the new ceiling eventually. We will only be free when we get dynamic loading

[tater]

An inflatable airlock would be possible, certainly. The real problem would be where to put it on a stock-like capsule vs a sphere. The obvious choice would be on top, where docking should go, but that only works with a top node that is the right size to get a helmet through (not impossible).

The image above of Ares shows that it's not really odd to have the capsule slightly larger than the booster. With strap-on boosters, it's even more normal looking. So you could have a 1.Xm 2-kerbal pod with heat shield. It uses the stock 1.25m decoupler to a 1.25m tank and engine. That separates from a large SRB, or perhaps that with 2 strapped on laterally.

Tried it with the HGR 2-man pod.

This looks like it has enough to get to LKO in stock (can't remember stock dv for that). With another SRB on each side (with decouplers and nosecones), it makes orbit in my current 365 game (3.2X planets, 6.4X distance between worlds) easily.

Yes, it would look better with more parts that match. Add a decoupler that goes to 2.5m for that use. It's still WAY better looking than stacked mk1s.

[passinglurker]

An inflatable airlock would be possible, certainly. The real problem would be where to put it on a stock-like capsule vs a sphere. The obvious choice would be on top, where docking should go, but that only works with a top node that is the right size to get a helmet through (not impossible).

If the inflatable hatch is on top then the size of node won't matter because there won't be one. the game can't handle moving the nodes as the inflatable expands so in a top mounted inflatable hatch arrangement you would essentially have a nose cone pod where you are trading design practicality for crew capacity, but on the plus side you can line the sides with ladder colliers so no one will complain about the hatch not lining up like the mk1-2 pod.

The next logical place to put it is under the kerbals feet in order to save them head room this keeps your top node, but it makes ladders trickier unless it expands far enough to line up with the edge of 2.5m parts and no farther (not sure if this is big enough for airlock space)

As for the shape a nose hatch would be as conical as possible to maximize shielding for radial parachutes while the backside hatch would likely be a headlamp shape like soyuz or shenzhou to maximize internal space while still fitting a standard head shield.

The image above of Ares shows that it's not really odd to have the capsule slightly larger than the booster. With strap-on boosters, it's even more normal looking. So you could have a 1.Xm 2-kerbal pod with heat shield. It uses the stock 1.25m decoupler to a 1.25m tank and engine. That separates from a large SRB, or perhaps that with 2 strapped on laterally.

Tried it with the HGR 2-man pod.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o222/tatersw/KSP/Keres.jpg

This looks like it has enough to get to LKO in stock (can't remember stock dv for that). With another SRB on each side (with decouplers and nosecones), it makes orbit in my current 365 game (3.2X planets, 6.4X distance between worlds) easily.

Yes, it would look better with more parts that match. Add a decoupler that goes to 2.5m for that use. It's still WAY better looking than stacked mk1s.

my concern here is I don't want a special sized heat shield part. Aesthetically the pod could pass in much the same way the mk1 lander can would being slightly bigger than 1.25m but only if the heating model doesn't kill it as a result cause its lip is poking out over the edge of the heat shield (imagine a 1.25 sized flat spot on the bottom textured as a hatch or other end of part structure where a 1.25 heat shield "slots in" and lines up with the lip of the pod that has been textured to look shielded. If that arrangement is still shielded by the heat shield just as well as a mk1 pod without getting all hacky like adding ablator to the pod itself I would find the idea to be workable.)

[tater]

1 extra heat shield would not be a bad thing, and a wider than 1.25m shield might actually be really useful for small landers on some worlds so the legs and other radial parts are protected.

[passinglurker]

1 extra heat shield would not be a bad thing, and a wider than 1.25m shield might actually be really useful for small landers on some worlds so the legs and other radial parts are protected.

We just dropping the discussion on inflatable airlocks? Ok then...

The problem with a special size of shield is you would need a pair of size adapter which would only have one use. Kit craft is a bad thing.

[tater]

There are loads of parts with few uses. You don't need a size adaptor, either. Put a 1.25m decoupler on, or give it 2 nodes as some mods do to adjust. You can always throw a fairing around it, and it looks like Orion with its SM attached (horrors!).

Inflatable doesn't solve the problem of kerbal morphology. Jeb will EVA, Bill will hang inside. Jeb will use inflatable airlock. Great, that works---except that his helmet must be conjured out of the ether, since the least volume-intensive way to store it in the tiny capsule is on his head.

The inflatable concept requires room for 2 kerbals sans helmet, PLUS 2 helmets alone. Given that a helmet is like half the size of a kerbal (and a larger % than that of their body volume, approaching 100%), that means any capsule/part with helmets off in IVA really needs about 2X the volume required for the same number of seats with helmets on (if fitting X kerbals is tight).

[passinglurker]

There are loads of parts with few uses. You don't need a size adaptor, either. Put a 1.25m decoupler on, or give it 2 nodes as some mods do to adjust. You can always throw a fairing around it, and it looks like Orion with its SM attached (horrors!).

Inflatable doesn't solve the problem of kerbal morphology. Jeb will EVA, Bill will hang inside. Jeb will use inflatable airlock. Great, that works---except that his helmet must be conjured out of the ether, since the least volume-intensive way to store it in the tiny capsule is on his head.

The inflatable concept requires room for 2 kerbals sans helmet, PLUS 2 helmets alone. Given that a helmet is like half the size of a kerbal (and a larger % than that of their body volume, approaching 100%), that means any capsule/part with helmets off in IVA really needs about 2X the volume required for the same number of seats with helmets on (if fitting X kerbals is tight).

aside from jet engines and intakes I can't think of any part that's anywhere near as limited.

but you make a good point about the inflatables leaving a 2.5m pod the most likely to be agreed on.

[tater]

2.5m pod doesn't fill the desired role, except as a mini-Orion. Whatever the pod is, it needs to come early in the tree.

Honestly, it doesn't matter much. I think in terms of career, and the stock career is so trivial anyway, that it doesn't matter, Day 1 you launch a suborbital rocket. A month later you are building bases on the Mun, off to Duna, whatever. The perceived need for a 2-kerbal pod isn't really a thing unless you are using a modded career (like an expanded size system). You do a few direct to Mun/Minmus missions, then unlock everything needed for multiple crew.

That's the major fail of the tiny Kerbol system, IMHO. The massive reduction in gameplay it presents.

Anyone can make a stock KSP munar mission (landing) with hardly any parts. Any choices about how you do it are really roleplaying, not necessity at all. I like to do them with munar orbit rendezvous, "because." I end up dumping stock after an update quickly, and moving on to upscaled kerbol system mods. 3.2X actually starts requiring bigger parts to have rockets not look like contraptions. I can still do stuff with 1.25m parts alone, but it's not as trivial as stock. The 365 mod that has 3.2X, plus 6.4X distances requires real decisions. Kerrin Orbit Rendezvous munar missions actually start looking attractive. It's not bad to get single craft to the Mun, but return ends up requiring a transfer vehicle (CSM). Single stage landers work, but they are tight on dv margins. 64K (6.4X system) starts needing some bigger parts. Landers require staging, often, and real choices start to crop up, just like Apollo mission choices that were hashed out (Kerbin Orbit Rendezvous, Direct Ascent, Munar Orbit Rendezvous). In these scaled up systems, having 2 pilots becomes a thing since gyros don't work without a pilot (for reasons).

[Tarmenius]

We just dropping the discussion on inflatable airlocks? Ok then...

The problem with a special size of shield is you would need a pair of size adapter which would only have one use. Kit craft is a bad thing.

I think the inflatable airlock is a great idea, as long as the pod is made long enough for us to imagine that their helmets could be stored somewhere. As for the "one use" argument, any adapter has only one use: Adapting from one size to another. If you're referring to limited use, what about the antennas? They're only used for "one thing" (at the moment). A very necessary thing, of course, but it's still just one. Or how about solar panels? They only do "one thing." But perhaps I'm not understanding the nature of that argument. Feel free to explain if I've got it wrong.

[passinglurker]

I think the inflatable airlock is a great idea, as long as the pod is made long enough for us to imagine that their helmets could be stored somewhere. As for the "one use" argument, any adapter has only one use: Adapting from one size to another. If you're referring to limited use, what about the antennas? They're only used for "one thing" (at the moment). A very necessary thing, of course, but it's still just one. Or how about solar panels? They only do "one thing." But perhaps I'm not understanding the nature of that argument. Feel free to explain if I've got it wrong.

I mean it's meant to only be used with one other part.

Anyway about the inflatable the problem is in order to make the pod long enough for helmet storage you might as well use the space for a physical airlock or just seet them helmeted in tandem, but either way it would look to tall to look like a viable reentry pod so the inflatable idea is unfortunately a bust