Nerf the Mk1-2 and 2.5m Lander Can?

[Waxing_Kibbous]

A common theme that I see from more experienced players is that the Mk1-2 command pod is too heavy and to use different hardware if possible. It also seems the big lander can is a bit overweight in some people's minds as well.  So my question is, what ideal, balanced weight should they be? I've been mulling over a MM file to change the pod to 3.5T and the can to 2.25T, but I am torn between feeling like a cheater or never using them because it's a bad idea. Are they really that bad?

[Nightside]

If you are trying to make the lightest, most efficient vehicles, then an extra half ton will make a big difference for most missions.

But because planet sizes are so small in KSP, delta-V requirements are also pretty small. If weight was a major limiting factor then spaceplanes and massive mining landers wouldn't be so popular.

I think it depends on what limitations make for fun design for you. Don't let a little extra weight keep you from making the awesome looking rockets you want.

My solution though, was to use a Module Manager config to add a bunch of life support equipment and supplies to the 1-2 pod to justify the extra weight.

[Sovek]

SETI Rebalance mod actually fixes this somewhat. The Mk1 pod is essentially limited in supplies and controlled re-entry is difficult without extra RCS, also if you have a Life Support mod (and not Real Fuels or something with which to alter whats in your tanks), no room for extra life support, that would have to be tacked on. Yemo is also looking at making it work with KAS/KIS. The Mk1-2 pod contains a massive amount of storage for whatever you need, AND can be controlled without a pilot, which is handy in certain situations. The Mk2 Lander Can also provides something to tune of 200L of space allowing for increased fuel for an ascent stage so may be more capable than the Mk 1.

As for stock... well... yeah, they might be a bit on the heavy side, but unless you start getting into 3-4x scale systems, its not gonna matter too much.

[GoSlash27]

I'd say we keep the little can as- is and reduce the mass of the big can to 1.2t. Both would have very poor heat and stress tolerance, owing to their "pop can" structures.

The Mk1-2 command pod also needs it's mass reduced to about 2.4t. There should be a slight economy of scale for using parts with higher crew capacity.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by GoSlash27

[swjr-swis]

Just a comment: the word 'nerf' in the title gives a rather wrong impression of what this thread is actually about.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

36 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

I'd say we keep the little can as- is and reduce the mass of the big can to 1.2t. Both would have very poor heat and stress tolerance, owing to their "pop can" structures.

The Mk1-2 command pod also needs it's mass reduced to about 2.4t. There should be a slight economy of scale for using parts with higher crew capacity.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

Wow that's a lot of reduction! Even though that could be more accurate I'd feel like I was disrupting the original balance a bit too much. Looking at the stats of the bigger units, what you gain in terms of EC etc. and the cost (which is very high, so therefore more exotic materials involved), I think I will reduce them in my game, but to 3.15t and 1.85t, based on the totally arbitrary value derived by 1.25m part equivalent * # of Kerbals supported * 1.25.

[GoSlash27]

30 minutes ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

Wow that's a lot of reduction! Even though that could be more accurate I'd feel like I was disrupting the original balance a bit too much. Looking at the stats of the bigger units, what you gain in terms of EC etc. and the cost (which is very high, so therefore more exotic materials involved), I think I will reduce them in my game, but to 3.15t and 1.85t, based on the totally arbitrary value derived by 1.25m part equivalent * # of Kerbals supported * 1.25.

Waxing_Kibbous,

 As the old saying goes, "It's your world, Squirrel"

Best,
-Slashy

 

[sal_vager]

A quick look on Wikipedia shows the heaviest Mercury (Mercury-Atlas 9) was about 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg), while the Apollo command module was 12,250 lb (5,560 kg).

The Apollo capsule was more advanced, contained more equipment, and due to its size it had to be built stronger both to support its own mass and to withstand the forces that would act on it.

The Apollo pod was about 4.0833 times the mass of the Mercury.

Applying this to Kerbal tech we get a Mk1-2 weighing in at about 3.43 tons.

I think that reducing the mass of the Mk1-2 below this would not reflect the more advanced nature of the part.

[GoSlash27]

sal,

 I'd be inclined to agree with that... if the Mk1-2 was actually more advanced than the Mk.1. When you throw in the 'chute and heat shield (plus a docking port for the "Apollo CM"), the weights are, respectively, 1.2 tonnes vs. 5.9 tonnes.

Best,
-Slashy

 

[tater]

The masses of many such parts make no sense, frankly. Look at the Shuttle command/crew part. It's substantially better in every respect than the Mk1-2, and masses less. The part descriptions claim that lander cans are fragile... but they are not. The parts need to be altered to make sense. Less mass in some cases, or more or less capability. 

As was mentioned above, if LS was a thing, then you could give different standard values for mission duration based upon capsule type as well.

 

[Starhawk]

I may be crazy, but I love the Mk 1-2 Command Pod.  I always RP that it has extra crash protection and radiation shielding and use it on almost all my long distance missions including my Jool 5 mission and my Eve return mission.

45 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 When you throw in the 'chute and heat shield (plus a docking port for the "Apollo CM"), the weights are, respectively, 1.2 tonnes vs. 5.9 tonnes.

Yeah, but you can adjust the amount of ablator in the VAB which significantly reduces the mass.  And the default amount is way more than is necessary for a direct Kerbin return/reentry from almost anywhere.

Happy landings!

eta: Also, I prefer to send my Kerbals on long-distance missions with companionship to prevent space madness.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Starhawk

[tater]

I use the Mk1-2 as well, but on actually long missions I also include multiple Hitchhikers, and a science lab. Of course in my current game Minmus is 45 days away, so I need habs even for that.

[GoSlash27]

3 minutes ago, Starhawk said:

Yeah, but you can adjust the amount of ablator in the VAB which significantly reduces the mass.  And the default amount is way more than is necessary for a direct Kerbin return/reentry from almost anywhere.

Starhawk,

 True, but comparing apples to apples, the "Mercury" needs very little ablator (technically none in KSP) while the "Apollo" needs more for a Munar reentry. This makes the disparity worse.

5 minutes ago, Starhawk said:

eta: Also, I prefer to send my Kerbals on long-distance missions with companionship to prevent space madness.

 

5 minutes ago, Starhawk said:

Also, I prefer to send my Kerbals on long-distance missions with companionship to prevent space madness.

As do I. That's why I use hitch hiker cans. But as it sits now... I just never use the multi- crew pods because they're so far out of balance.

Happy Super Bowl Day!
-Slashy

[Temeter]

2 hours ago, sal_vager said:

A quick look on Wikipedia shows the heaviest Mercury (Mercury-Atlas 9) was about 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg), while the Apollo command module was 12,250 lb (5,560 kg).

The Apollo capsule was more advanced, contained more equipment, and due to its size it had to be built stronger both to support its own mass and to withstand the forces that would act on it.

The Apollo pod was about 4.0833 times the mass of the Mercury.

Applying this to Kerbal tech we get a Mk1-2 weighing in at about 3.43 tons.

I think that reducing the mass of the Mk1-2 below this would not reflect the more advanced nature of the part.

Usually, I'd say a more advanced capsule should be either more capable or lighter. KSP's 3 man capsule isn't either.

Also, wasn't the weight of the empty gemini crew capsule (ofc lacking some equipment mercury had built in) only 1.4 tons?

Edited February 8, 2016 by Temeter

[RocketSquid]

I use mk1-2 pods because cramming extra mk1 pods on is:

1. Aesthetically awful
2. Annoying to attach things to.
3. Obnoxious to fly, due to a weird navball (sometimes)

Also, the mk1-2 is more durable. The lander can and Mk3 cockpit, however, make no sense.

[numerobis]

Reducing the small lander can's thermal characteristics would make a lot of sense to me: right now I can re-enter with it completely unshielded, no problem -- doesn't even get a heat bar on it. The large can should take 4 Kerbals: it's got 4x the space.

[KerbonautInTraining]

15 hours ago, numerobis said:

The large can should take 4 Kerbals: it's got 4x the space.

I second this. Higher capacity & lower weight at the cost of durability. 

My two cents on the topic: I think reaction wheel strength could be another useful tool for balancing pods. (Lander can should be weaker than the command pod IMO)

[sal_vager]

I'm going to play with numbers again.

The Mk1 with a 1.25m heatshield and M16 parachute has a mass of 1.2 according to the engineers report.

4.0833 times that gives me 4.9 tons.

The Mk1-2 with a 2.5m heat shield, MK16-XL chute and a clamp-o-tron docking port has a mass of 5.8 tons.

So without changing any other parts, to get the Mk1-2 down to Mercury/Apollo ratios it needs to lose 0.9 tons.

Giving us a final mass of 3.22, that's heavier than people think it should be but I think it'd be about right

[tater]

3.22 is at least lighter than the Mk3 cockpit, though the latter would still have 15 m/s better impact tolerance, 25 kN*m better torque (about 0.5 tons to add that on), 350 more EC (0.015t) and 70 more mono propellant (which masses 0.28 or so). So the Mk3 cockpit is then 0.68 heavier but the excess stuff it has masses 0.795, and that's not accounting for impact tolerance (we can say that comes out in the wash vs the lower heat tolerance it has).

So just to make the mk1-2 fair vs the mk3, it would then be 3.105, and that's assuming that with the same "stuff" they should be equal (and the mk3 is far larger, so that actually still seems goofy. Maybe better to add a couple tons to the mk3.

[Nich]

I never use the three man capsule or the two man Lander can as there are just way too heavy compared to the one seat counterparts. Personally I would love to see customizable command pods where a one-man pod has 10 units open to put science experiments batteries and mono or supplies if you're playing with life support and the three men pods have more room for more stuff but you can also leave it empty and get very close to the weight per Kerbal of the one man pods empty or possibly less if you want to argue the efficiency of volume. Also the lander cans need to have something done so they can't do atmospheric entry unfortunately if you drop the heat tolerance too much it makes Moho impossible but that might be valid as any Lander from Moho he would probably require insulation

[Kerbart]

While we're at it, ever noticed that the Mk 2 Lander Can doesn't spin around its central axis when you select it from the part panel in the VAB?

And yes, in full agreement with @GoSlash27; they need to be fragile. As their description says, the lander cans should not survive any atmospheric re-entry. Or ascent, actually. That's why we have fairings now. Then reduce their weight a lot (they're made of glorified tinfoil, after all) and we're cooking with gas and the game stays balanced as they're not a lightweight alternative for the normal pods.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I changed the mass of the MK1-2 to 3.15t using a MM file, with monoprop added in the VAB it goes up to 3.27t, which IMO is close enough.

[Wjolcz]

I never use that thing, because I hate it. Too heavy, ugly and the hatch is offset and it doesn't match the style of other parts. I wouldn't cry if it got remodelled after Dragon V2 instead of Apollo's module. The style of the game was always meant to be near future technology and looks, so I don't understand what's the deal with that 3-man pod.

That's also a reason why I hate the argument behind adding a Gemini pod to the game. It was always meant to be near future tech. Apollo module is nowhere near that and 2.5m Dragon V2 (with 4 seats instead of 7 just so to make sure it's not OP) would make much more sense.

Maybe if life support went stock it could come with water purification, air conditioning, or whatever, but we don't have that so the pod itself is just bad and useless for now.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Veeltch

[tater]

How is Mercury and junk looking parts "near future?"

I don't think the base KSP rocket aesthetic is "near future" at all, it screams 1960s to me.

 

[Wjolcz]

12 minutes ago, tater said:

How is Mercury and junk looking parts "near future?"

I don't think the base KSP rocket aesthetic is "near future" at all, it screams 1960s to me.

 

I'm curious myself. I remember a long time ago SQUAD stating the parts are meant to be near future-ish.