Mk 1-2 Capsule... Completely Pointless?

[strigon]

So, I realize that it's not exactly news that the command pods' weight needs rebalancing. However, I had assumed that, provided you were willing to haul up that extra mass, there are some times where the Mk 1-2 happens to have what you need, from a mechanics standpoint.

This assumption was flat-out wrong, as it turns out; with the exception of cost, the Mk 3 Cockpit outperforms the 3-man capsule in every way. It has more room, more torque - and requires less electricity to run the torque[!], it's lighter, holds more monoprop, has a higher crash and temperature resistance, holds more EC... it costs ~7,000 more, but that's nothing; there's a good chance you'll save that on fuel/monoprop costs!

Now, to some of you, I have no doubt this is old news, but I'm sure to some it isn't. I was surprised to learn this while I was experimenting in the VAB - I always knew there were significant downsides to any capsule that help more than 1 kerbal, but for convenience' sake, I used them anyway. Now what seemed like a minor annoyance suddenly seems like a gaping flaw. Anyone else have any input? I realize you unlock the Mk 1-2 earlier, and it's cheaper, but

A) Neither of those affect sandbox, and , The cash difference is miniscule compared to the cost of hauling up a command pod that big; as I pointed out earlier, you might end up saving money on the reduced mass.

What do you guys think of this?

[netbumbler]

I like the aesthetics of the Mk1-2 so I use it for immersion purposes. The Mk3 looks weird on certain arrangements. Doesn't keep me from using it sometimes, though:

[selfish_meme]

Its quite well known and there have been a lot of threads asking for a rebalance and a much needed 2 man capsule.

[klesh]

Never use the Mk3, and only recently did I notice the Mk1-2 is 4 tons. I use it all the time but never bothered to look. Needs fixing for sure.

[Rath]

so true (why is this in italics)

[Pax Kerbana]

Do not insult my Mk1-2! I lovingly haul that thing around the Kerbol system!

[Wjolcz]

I want a DragonV2 alike with 4 crew, built-in engines, RCS and all that jazz. It could be high tier pod and the MK1-2 could be a low tier one.

[strigon]

I like the aesthetics of the Mk1-2 so I use it for immersion purposes. The Mk3 looks weird on certain arrangements. Doesn't keep me from using it sometimes, though:

Do not insult my Mk1-2! I lovingly haul that thing around the Kerbol system!

Oh, I never meant to imply that I don't like the Mk 1-2, and most certainly not that the cockpit looks better in every place; just that, as it stands, it's beyond ridiculous.

Honestly, I think the reason it's getting to me now is that they just rebalanced the engines; I had this idea that the game was balanced enough that every part had a place in terms of functionality, not just aesthetics; this comes along and blows that idea right out of the sky.

[FlyingPete]

I'd be in favour of reducing its mass considerably, and maybe downgrading it to a 2-Kerb capacity. The lander can is all well and good, but not very suitably for a reentry vehicle.

[Sidereus]

I like the aesthetics of the Mk1-2...

I'm kind of the opposite. I'm not sure why, but when you have 1/8th resolution textures going (as I do, in order to keep the game from crashing constantly), it looks absolutely terrible, far worse than just about any other part at that resolution, save maybe the Mk1 cockpit.

Then there's the alignment of the hatch, which is ~125 degrees off of everything else...

[razark]

Sometimes, decisions are made on something besides which number is bigger than another.

[Sidereus]

I'd be in favour of reducing its mass considerably, and maybe downgrading it to a 2-Kerb capacity. The lander can is all well and good, but not very suitably for a reentry vehicle.

I use the lander cans for reentry all the time. The trick is to either use enough parachutes to get your velocity down below 6m/s, or use legs or another to keep the pod from hitting directly. Hell, if you have a heat shield on it, the heat shield will take the brunt of the force and leave the lander can intact.

They should probably make the 2 man can lighter and have them easily overheat in reentry regardless of whether or not you have a heat shield.

[FancyMouse]

I hate the weird hatch position of this capsule. Even if I occasionally want to use it, I just got so annoyed when I surface-attach parts with symmetry and then found a symmetric part on the other side blocks the hatch.

[MKI]

Besides the looks (seriously a huge shuttle cockpit?) and the actual significant price tag difference (wiki says 10k vs 3.8k)

the MK3 is superior.

But this sort of item is literally at the end of the tech tree. Yes you are going to scream that "its not balance in sandbox" but in all seriousness balance in sandbox is moot. A good portion of the tech tree is rendered less efficient once everything is unlocked. Thats why you want to get the whole tech tree to help you on your missions. So yes the MK3 is superior, because it represents the future, its investment of upfront costs makes it worth using in the endgame. Besides worrying about the looks of the item, the MK1-2 falls off stat wise, but not by much.

Gameplay wise you really can't just shove in a MK3 where you have a MK1-2 can, so they do hold different jobs even in end game. The price difference is also significant enough you can say thats a huge selling point for the capsule, and a huge negative for the MK3. Hell the 6k can be used for another booster or two!

[Highguard]

There is a good reason for the imbalance of the Mk3:

Lots and lots of people have wanted to make spaceplanes and shuttles in KSP, whether they make sense or not, so ever since 0.22 we've had updates focussed more and more on aircraft than spacecraft.

That seems reasonable - if you want to make "go faster gimmick" you can; and it will look pretty cool. If you want to "engineer to space" you can; and it will function effectively.

On the other hand, if you want to build "cool engineering" you're out of luck - the pretty parts don't make sense and the functional parts aren't pretty.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

IMO, the Mk.1-2 should have the buff of being able to survive a 90° aerobraking from an interplanetary trajectory. So high max. temp and high crash tolerance. Also, if life support's included, it should definitely excel.

[strigon]

Sometimes, decisions are made on something besides which number is bigger than another.

Certainly, that argument has a place here. But the facts are that - for any scenario - the cockpit is objectively better. If you don't think it fits the aesthetic of your design, then you are free to change it, but quite literally everything the capsule does, the cockpit does better.

Besides the looks (seriously a huge shuttle cockpit?) and the actual significant price tag difference (wiki says 10k vs 3.8k)

the MK3 is superior.

But this sort of item is literally at the end of the tech tree. Yes you are going to scream that "its not balance in sandbox" but in all seriousness balance in sandbox is moot. A good portion of the tech tree is rendered less efficient once everything is unlocked. Thats why you want to get the whole tech tree to help you on your missions. So yes the MK3 is superior, because it represents the future, its investment of upfront costs makes it worth using in the endgame. Besides worrying about the looks of the item, the MK1-2 falls off stat wise, but not by much.

Gameplay wise you really can't just shove in a MK3 where you have a MK1-2 can, so they do hold different jobs even in end game. The price difference is also significant enough you can say thats a huge selling point for the capsule, and a huge negative for the MK3. Hell the 6k can be used for another booster or two!

This is exactly the problem I'm pointing out; a good portion of the tech tree is rendered less efficient, but not totally obsolete. Depending on what you want, to my knowledge every item has something over the other options - one specific circumstance in which it shines. Even if it fills a small niche purpose, it still fills a purpose. Every engine now has an area where it has a significant advantage, and another where it has significant drawbacks. Even if one engine, for example, has more thrust and ISP, it will counter that by being heavier; if you have a light, efficient engine, it'll be very weak.

And, I disagree with you in saying that the difference is "not that much"; sure, the mass shaved off isn't all that much, but look what you get in addition to that.

Actually, I'll put the differences right here in numbers, so that nobody has to go searching to get the facts in this debate.

Cockpit:

Cost - 10,000

Mass - 3.9

Crew - 4

Crash Tolerance - 60 m/s

Heat Tolerance - 2700

Monoprop - 100

EC - 500

Torque - 40 (Pitch/Yaw), 20 (Roll), cost 1/sec.

Capsule:

Cost - 3800 (-6200)

Mass - 4.12 (+0.22)

Crew - 3 (-1)

Crash Tolerance - 45 (-15)

Heat Tolerance - 2400 (-300)

Monoprop - 30 (-70)

EC - 150 (-350)

Torque - 15 (all) (-25, Yaw & Pitch; - 5 Roll), cost 1.2/sec (+0.2).

As you can see, it's not just a minor improvement in one or two stats, it's large improvements across the board; look at the reaction wheels! The monopropellant! The EC capacity! The crash tolerance!

The cost is significantly more, yes, but not when compared to the cost of a rocket. This gets escalated when you account for reduced fuel costs to orbit and the fact that - with it being a crew cabin - it's very likely to be recovered (and it's actually easier to recover, too!)

The cockpit outshines its counterpart in every conceivable way - it only looks different, and marginally increases the cost of your rocket.

[Red Iron Crown]

The 2.5m profile parts need some attention in general, IMO. There is no decent pod specwise, the Mk1-2 capsule, Mk2 Lander Can, and Cupola are all way heavy for their capacities. There are no LF-only tanks for airbreathers or nuclear rockets. The Hitchhiker is 25% heavier than the Mk2 Crew Cabin while having the same capacity and being less heat resistant. There are no airbreathing engines or intakes (and the big airbreather that is coming has a huge pylon stuck to it and will likely not be all that suitable for getting to orbit). There are no nuclear engines or SRBs.

It's a shame, as two of the unique utility parts are 2.5m, the ISRU converter and the Mobile Science Lab, and it would be nice to build spacecraft around them in that profile but it is almost always better to put them in a Mk3 bay or adapt to another profile as quickly as possible.

[Korizan]

There is no reason all parts should be equally useful in all parts of the game.

Like all technology as better options come into play, you use them.

Re balancing is not the answer, keep in mind the MK1 is a Mercury capsule.

There is no Gemini Capsule (2 person), that one could be added into the game.

And then we have an Apollo Capsule (3 person)

There are no Modern Capsules in the game either which would also be welcome additions.

[Pthigrivi]

I think the overall capsule balance is close, but both the 1-2 and Mk2 lander can are much too heavy. The 1-2 should be closer to 2.6t, and the lander can should be like 1.4t. The weight of the latter should really shine. I could also see the 1-2 get bumps in impact rating and torque. It would also be cool to see a 2 kerbal capsule, but I'd be more interested in a 2.5-3.75m 6 kerbal pod sloped to match the C7 adapter. We don't have anything in this size range and it would be really great for larger planetary missions. I'm thinking it should be about 5t, expensive, and have high heat and impact ratings. That would about fill things out.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[passinglurker]

There is no reason all parts should be equally useful in all parts of the game.

Like all technology as better options come into play, you use them.

Re balancing is not the answer, keep in mind the MK1 is a Mercury capsule.

There is no Gemini Capsule (2 person), that one could be added into the game.

And then we have an Apollo Capsule (3 person)

There are no Modern Capsules in the game either which would also be welcome additions.

No.

Gemini is evil.

Forget about Gemini is a pain and impossible to replicate in a stock alike fashion.

Squad should make something original for a 2 man capsule that isn't based on any specific real world craft, and ditch "mk1=mercury" while they are at it that part is dated and doesn't fit the standard diameters

[Vermil]

There is no reason all parts should be equally useful in all parts of the game.

Like all technology as better options come into play, you use them.

Re balancing is not the answer, keep in mind the MK1 is a Mercury capsule.

There is no Gemini Capsule (2 person), that one could be added into the game.

And then we have an Apollo Capsule (3 person)

There are no Modern Capsules in the game either which would also be welcome additions.

Exactly my feelings as well.

I play the Science Sandbox game (100% stock) and only getting access to more and better technology successively, as you progress, makes a lot of sense to me.

"Rebalancing" rarely does. It comes with a lot of problems for many people.

So logically, what the game needs is the addition of a 'modern' 2.5m Mk3 pod, and a modern 3.75m Mk4 pod. IMO, any modern command pod should also feature a rear-facing door (unless you choose to close it off with a heat shield) for access to other spacecraft crew modules, such as habitat modules, labs etc.

I also note that with the exception of sub-orbital Virgin Galactic, all other Earthly space agencies all agree that reusable pods is the way to go for future manned space vessels. Safer, stronger, lighter, cheaper, more flexible.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Vermil
insertion of lost word

[NWM]

The main thing: the whole Mk3 set is overrated - not only the cabint, but the fuel tanks too. The ultimate rocket now bases on the Mk3 parts... That's the main problem - the Mk3 parts should be a bit heavier...

[Alshain]

I kind of agree the Mk1-2 should not be so blatantly underbalanced. Stronger hear, weaker there would be fine but as the OP demonstrated, it's weaker in all regards and there is no point in using it. If there is no reason to use it, it needs to be fixed or removed from the game (I say fixed).

I also agree the Mk1 and it's parachute need a redo. That node on top makes no sense, it's not 0.625, it's not 1.25, it's not anything in the game except on that pod. I know WHY it's that way, because the command pod existed prior to the 0.625 parts, but it's time for an update.

[Vermil]

I kind of agree the Mk1-2 should not be so blatantly underbalanced. Stronger hear, weaker there would be fine but as the OP demonstrated, it's weaker in all regards and there is no point in using it. If there is no reason to use it, it needs to be fixed or removed from the game (I say fixed).

In both the Career Mode and Science Sandbox gameplay modes, it makes a lot of gameplay sense with a gradual technology progression. That is, more advanced technology becomes available as you progress. Like more modern and capable pods or engines. So there is a point in using the older, weaker components: It's what you have to make do with, early in the game until you make better become available. That means that components become obsolete in the game, yes. And that, IMO, is also a gameplay purpose for components - or at least some components -, to actually become obsolete.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Vermil