Nerf the Mk1-2 and 2.5m Lander Can?

[tater]

Maybe they did, I have no idea. Spaceplane stuff certainly is, meanwhile, rockets look like junk heaps.

[rkman]

On 7-2-2016 at 6:39 PM, Waxing_Kibbous said:

So my question is, what ideal, balanced weight should they be?

Balance between pods is not only a matter of weigt but also one of purpose.  

It will be unbalanced as long as KSP has a LEM equivalent that can survive atmospheric reentry - and for that matter, atmospheric ascent.

[Nich]

 Are there any mods that address the pod issues? Or that allow you to put stuff inside a pods? 

[swjr-swis]

26 minutes ago, Nich said:

Are there any mods that address the pod issues? Or that allow you to put stuff inside a pods?

Other than Module Manager you mean?

[Hannu2]

In my opinion current balance between Mk-1 and Mk1-2 is good. Larger capsule is intended to longer trips and have more room, equipment and life support per kerbal. However, lander cans, especially larger one, does not fit very well. They should be lighter but have very low heat tolerance and weak structural strength. They could be used to land on low of medium gravity bodies. You should pack them during ascent so that they are not structural parts of the launch stack. There could also be life support issues in mods.

 

[Reactordrone]

If you take into account the surface area of the Mk1 compared to the Mk1-2, the larger pod should come out at about 3.4t for the same thickness of metal. Add in the extra seats, batteries, reaction wheels and monopropellant and it comes up to nearly 3.7t. Given that larger volumes need to be built heavier to withstand the same pressures as smaller containers and the higher impact tolerance of the Mk 1-2 I don't think an extra half tonne is too much of a weight penalty.

It's equivalent to a Mk1 being made from 4mm thick metal and a Mk 1-2 being made from 5mm.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Reactordrone

[jwbrase]

On Sunday February 07, 2016 at 3:13 PM, 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.

The raw masses on Wikipedia include extra stuff that would require extra parts in KSP. Taking the listed masses and subtracting heatshield, recovery equipment, and telemetry equipment (no antenna built into the stock KSP pods) gives a mass ratio between the two even more unfavorable to the Apollo CM than the KSP ratio is to the Mk1-2. OTOH, Apollo included a docking port, but I don't have any mass data on that to subtract it out. The masses of the pods, with the aforementioned systems subtracted, in KSP are quite close to the real-life masses of the corresponding pods, with Apollo being a bit heavier than the Mk1-2, and Mercury being a bit lighter than the Mk1.

 

The problem is, about the only thing the Mk1-2 gains over the Mk1 in KSP is crash tolerance, which is probably over-the-top (45 m/s is 90 mph!) and the ability to hold three Kerbals, whereas Apollo was significantly better than Mercury in other ways. So in KSP the benefits don't really justify the extra mass (as most users will just savescum in the event of a crash and the mass ratio is more than the Kerbal capacity ratio).
 

[tater]

6 hours ago, jwbrase said:

The problem is, about the only thing the Mk1-2 gains over the Mk1 in KSP is crash tolerance, which is probably over-the-top (45 m/s is 90 mph!) and the ability to hold three Kerbals, whereas Apollo was significantly better than Mercury in other ways. So in KSP the benefits don't really justify the extra mass (as most users will just savescum in the event of a crash and the mass ratio is more than the Kerbal capacity ratio).
 

Crash tolerance of 45 m/s is pretty high, but the pod could survive and the crew not... that said, why is the mk3 cockpit 60 m/s? And it's lighter. And it has more monoprop and a bigger flywheel. Talk about needing to be nerfed. Oh, I forgot, it's a spaceplane part