Help me get my Kerbals out of this capsule

[Foxster]

This is, IMHO, the best 2-man capsule (almost) in the game...

This is three parts: a Mk1 Crew Cabin + RC-001S RGU + a Circular Intake. 

This gives you a very low drag and weight (1.15t) 2-man capsule. The lightest one-piece 2 man capsule is the Mk2 Cockpit and that weighs twice as much. 

Now, two Kerbals are often the ideal number of crew. The right number for an MPL, for mining, to keep each company. Mk1 is also a very handy size capsule for lots of missions, such as an Eve surface return vehicle.

But there is a big catch. Once you put something on the bottom you can't get your crew in or out as there are no lateral doors! 

That's a pretty major problem with this Crew Cabin. But there must be a way around it, right? 

So, come on guys, get your thinking caps on and help me figure out a low-weight, low drag fix for this. I don't mind if it involves the exploitive use of rotation and clipping, just as long as access can be gained to one of the end doors, things can be attached to the top and bottom and the drag doesn't go through the roof like happens here...

and the same here...

Edited January 13, 2016 by Foxster

[Foxster]

Update...

Even though I thought about this on and off for a couple of days, it wasn't until I posted here that I started to come up with some partial solutions.

This is kinda fun...

Sort of a solution in that you can get the Kerbals in and out. The tiny downside being that they can only get as far as the inside of the fairing! That can be deployed of course. Adds a bit of weight too. 

[fourfa]

What happens with a 1.25m cargo bay attached to the bottom?

[katateochi]

If it's for use on a lander you could put it right at the bottom, fuel above it and use radial engines.  Then with some legs to keep it off the ground you should have enough clearance to exit from under the lander.

[Foxster]

This works very well. It is rotating the intake through 180°...

Looks pretty brutal with the blunt nose but the overall drag of the craft is actually less due to a known "feature" of rotating nose cones or intakes like this. 

16 minutes ago, fourfa said:

What happens with a 1.25m cargo bay attached to the bottom?

It works...

...but looks pretty poor and adds a lot of mass. 

13 minutes ago, katateochi said:

If it's for use on a lander you could put it right at the bottom, fuel above it and use radial engines.  Then with some legs to keep it off the ground you should have enough clearance to exit from under the lander.

That's interesting but it would limit its usefulness to just certain applications. Good idea though. 

Edited January 13, 2016 by Foxster

[Guest]

Get Connected Living Space, and get a mod with an airlock part.  You can just go out of that one.  Just make sure you have the CLS module.

[Foxster]

3 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

Get Connected Living Space, and get a mod with an airlock part.  You can just go out of that one.  Just make sure you have the CLS module.

Ah, i don't do modded parts. I share craft and also do challenges; modded parts make that difficult. 

I kinda also don't like modded parts because you can achieve anything too easily that way. Whereas using stock parts in clever ways is more satisfying for me. 

[tater]

You won't do modded parts, but you'll use a part that is not really what you're using it for, or you're willing to clip part to get the drag benefit even though it looks dead flat on top?

Put a fairing below it, then blow the fairing once in orbit.

[Fearless Son]

While cool, I am not sure that this method is particularly practical.  In order to get rotational torque, electrical storage, monopropellant storage, and actual control, you would need to add at least four separate parts dedicated to that task in addition to this crew cabin anyway.  At that point, you might find the gain in mass savings is not that great compared to using a proper cockpit or capsule, and there is certainly additional part count.  That said, if you were intending to add those kinds of parts anyway, then go ahead, it might still be worthwhile.  

I am with katateochi: I would recommend using it at the rear of the craft, so the exit is facing the retrograde direction when thrusting.  There might still be some minimal drag going on in atmosphere, but you could get around that with a rear-facing nosecone on a decoupler to cover it up and discard when out of atmosphere.  

[bewing]

My version is to add an MK1 command pod on top, instead of the (useless) air intake. The command pod has even lower drag, you get a 3rd crew member for free if you want (or you can pick up a hitchhiker in space), it only weighs 3/4 of a ton, you can store twice as much science data, you get the reaction wheels, and you can use the "Transfer Crew" feature to rotate each crew member into the MK1 pod and use its better-positioned airlock for EVAs.

 

[FlyingPete]

14 hours ago, Foxster said:

Update...

Even though I thought about this on and off for a couple of days, it wasn't until I posted here that I started to come up with some partial solutions.

This is kinda fun...

Sort of a solution in that you can get the Kerbals in and out. The tiny downside being that they can only get as far as the inside of the fairing! That can be deployed of course. Adds a bit of weight too. 

The fairing idea would work well if you positioned it, plus the probe core, at the bottom of the crew cabin. So the fairing initially encompasses the whole cabin and tapers to a neat nose cone on top. Once you're out of the atmosphere, jettison the fairing to uncover the hatch.

Obviously this only works if you're exploring airless bodies though.

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

Hm... I don't know about that cockpit being the best... It's useful, sure, but I think its use is more intended for planes and tourist ferries. I'm pretty sure it doesn't have electriccharge or monopropellant, and the hatches are weird. I have seen an interesting lander design that used it fairly well, but other than that it doesn't seem too practical.  If you want more Kerbals on missions, you can use that as well as a Mk1 Command Pod, like bewing suggested. 

[Nefrums]

adding a decoupler below the intake would do the same thing as the fairing and would probably be lighter

[Foxster]

4 hours ago, bewing said:

My version is to add an MK1 command pod on top, instead of the (useless) air intake. The command pod has even lower drag, you get a 3rd crew member for free if you want (or you can pick up a hitchhiker in space), it only weighs 3/4 of a ton, you can store twice as much science data, you get the reaction wheels, and you can use the "Transfer Crew" feature to rotate each crew member into the MK1 pod and use its better-positioned airlock for EVAs.

 

The air intake is far from useless. It is the lightest and lowest drag part you can put on top of a Mk1 stack. It is better than a nosecone.  

Edited January 14, 2016 by Foxster

[pandaman]

Put a decoupler on top of the cabin , but upside down (arrows pointing at the cabin),  and add the intake or nosecone to that. 

When out of the atmosphere decouple it and the decoupler will stay attached to the nose cone and fall away leaving the hatch exposed. 

[Foxster]

Yup, that's pretty much what I have been using. Like on this Mun lander I designed for someone...

Works if going somewhere with no atmosphere. Not so good otherwise. 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Foxster

[Wjolcz]

Just smash the capsule open. You know, like a tin can full of sardines.

[Guest]

Two options popped in my mind:

a) Remove probe core, put a Mk1 Lander Can below Mk1 Crew Cabin and use it as spacecraft control and airlock. 1.60 tons.

b) Remove probe core and Mk1 Crew Cabin, put two Mk1 Lander Cans in line instead. Total mass 1.20 tons.

 

B would be 0.1 tons heavier than your current design, but hey, both of your kerbals can get out that way. Using A you have to transfer crew, but you can also fit an extra kerbal in there. A scientist, engineer or pilot, perhaps?

Edited January 14, 2016 by Guest

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Try a service bay above or below the door.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Or offset the part below it far enough away that the lower hatch is not obstructed.

[MagicFireCaster]

I would use a fairing behind it, nothing else

[Dfthu]

15 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Try a service bay above or below the door.

Tried that with 1m service bay. It didn't work.

[Alshain]

I agree with the OP, this part should be wonderful but I don't even bother using it because of it's lack of door.

[problemecium]

Why not just stick a structural fuselage on one end? Kerbals will, admittedly, not be able to get out while landed, but in space if you hop out and then enter non-physical timewarp, the Kerbal will drift away due to tidal forces and in a minute or two should pass through the wall and be outside.

As for me, I just don't consider this part a crew cabin. It's more like a crew cabin expansion (to augment an actual pod); or a crew tunnel for stations and bases (more believably than a fuel tank or unpressurized fuselage), in which case the fact that it has chairs is just a bonus feature.

[Foxster]

To answer my own appeal...

This two-man craft has the same measured drag as if the nosecone was directly attached. The couple of clipped-in ladders below the nosecone are cosmetic, to make it look better from a structural point of view, they having negligible drag and mass.  

The "secret" was to use the taller nosecone part. Because it's a bit taller, it can be offset further when rotated. The process is simple: Place the nosecone on top, rotate it 180°, offset it vertically the desired distance, rotate it back to upright. 

OK, it might not suit the aesthetic tastes of everyone but I'm just glad to get a solution and I'm now determined to use it and damn the consequences! (). 

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Foxster