Mk1 Crew Cabin needs a side door

[Foxster]

The Mk1 Crew Cabin is my go-to for a two man capsule/lander/cabin. It is light and compact but it has a major flaw... there's no way to get into it unless you can leave an end open!

This means I often have to use it like this...

 

All it needs is a side hatch like the capsules, lander cans, cockpits, mk2 crew cabin etc. to make it perfect. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Foxster

[Kerbart]

Maybe it's intentional? It's intended as a crew cabin, not a crew pod?

[Foxster]

16 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Maybe it's intentional? It's intended as a crew cabin, not a crew pod?

Could be, but the Mk2 cabin has a side hatch. 

The Mk1 crew cabin has two obvious end attachment points and it's clearly designed for inline use in things like aircraft. Yet, if used like that, you can't get the crew in and out (except with crew transfer and that relies on there being another capsule or such on the craft). 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Foxster

[Rhomphaia]

I like that it has this drawback, It is very light, low tech and cheap, It needs some drawback to balance it.

 

Plus it makes you think outside the box, Your design is pretty cool

[Porkjet]

Mk2 and Mk3 cabins only have a hatch because we didn't have crew transfer when they were made

[Foxster]

1 minute ago, Porkjet said:

Mk2 and Mk3 cabins only have a hatch because we didn't have crew transfer when they were made

Hi PJ. But how about when you don't have somewhere to transfer the crew to i.e. a probe craft?

[Porkjet]

That's the trade-off for skimping on weight.

[Temeter]

I like having hatches in MKII/MKIII sections, makes them more comfortable to use.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Temeter

[Foxster]

38 minutes ago, Porkjet said:

That's the trade-off for skimping on weight.

Why do we have to have a trade-off - can't something just be good?

[passinglurker]

3 hours ago, Porkjet said:

That's the trade-off for skimping on weight.

huzzah! finally an advocate for part ballance! #PJ4BestDev.

I do like what you have done bringing a consistent pattern of balanced stats to the crew'd parts you have revamped. Though what's the tradeoff of the mk1 nose cockpit vs. the mk1 inline? they are a quarter of a ton apart mass wise but thier stats are otherwise the same? is the mk1 nose cockpit being heavier a holdover from the old part that was never rebalanced or is there a reason for it?

anyway back to the crew cabin while I support the skimp weight=no doors policy it would be nice if I didn't have to do a fire drill and toss the pilot outside every time I wanted to eva some one from the cabin. being able to eva a kerbal in and out through the unblocked door of a connected part would make everyone but probe exploiters happy n_n

EDIT: being able to use the crew transfer menu to make two kerbs swap places is another possible solution.

Edited April 7, 2016 by passinglurker

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Hooray for part balance!

Limitations are what makes engineering interesting.

I'm all for removing the side doors on the other cabin's to bring them into line with this balancing concept.

[Foxster]

1 minute ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Limitations are what makes engineering interesting.

...and eliminating limitations is what makes a great engineer. 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Just now, Foxster said:

...and eliminating limitations is what makes a great engineer. 

You need limitations first, otherwise what is there to eliminate?

[Foxster]

Hence we have the current mk1 cabin that has the limitation of having no useable door in it's most-used configuration and the elimination of this issue is, I suggest, that we add a door or else, if weight is a constraint, that one of the existing ones be moved to the side. 

[passinglurker]

1 minute ago, Foxster said:

Hence we have the current mk1 cabin that has the limitation of having no useable door in it's most-used configuration and the elimination of this issue is, I suggest, that we add a door or else, if weight is a constraint, that one of the existing ones be moved to the side. 

most used configuration being a cabin+probe. This is wrong. This should be discouraged from being the go to for every situation.

5 minutes ago, Foxster said:

...and eliminating limitations is what makes a great engineer. 

these kinds of engineers tend to be called modders in kerbal. most of the problems can be solved by making it easier to use command pod hatches with the cabin with less crew shuffling rather than take the cheap way out that encourages exploiting lightweight probes.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

You're talking about engineering KSP in a meta-game sense, from the outside-in.

By doing that you've taken away the opportunity to engineer a solution via KSP game-play, from the inside-out.

I mean by an extension of that logic, why don't we have a 0.01 ton part that has a probe core, infinite RCS/Fuel, and infinite DV/TWR that holds a thousand Kerbals and runs every science test. Boom, all KSP engineering problems solved. Game over. We win? (I realize this sounds sarcastic/snarky but it isn't, promise! Just trying to give an extreme example of streamlining the fun out of a game.) I'm also gonna wager that people's opinion on this varies heavily depending on whether they tend to play career or sandbox. Whichever way it goes with Squad's stock implementation I'm sure a modder will make the other style available to those who want it.

[Foxster]

19 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

most used configuration being a cabin+probe. This is wrong. This should be discouraged from being the go to for every situation.

I'd agree if using a cabin like this was as an exploit over using an heavier mk1 2-man capsule - but there isn't one. 

A mk1 crew cabin is not a complete solution either, you do need to add a probe core (and monopropellant for completeness) and you can't store experiment results. 

I don't know what others are using these for, but I just use them to shift a couple of Kerbins about on a craft with mk1 parts. I'd just like to be able to get the crew in and out. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.  

Edited April 7, 2016 by Foxster

[passinglurker]

24 minutes ago, Foxster said:

I'd agree if using a cabin like this was as an exploit over using an heavier mk1 2-man capsule - but there isn't one. 

A mk1 crew cabin is not a complete solution either, you do need to add a probe core (and monopropellant for completeness) and you can't store experiment results. 

I don't know what others are using these for, but I just use them to shift a couple of Kerbins about on a craft with mk1 parts. I'd just like to be able to get the crew in and out. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.  

The absence of a part is not a valid excuse in the long run because porkjet hasn't revamped the rocket parts yet.

Also the mass of stand alone probe, monoprop, electric charge and reaction wheels is nothing compared to the mass penalty incurred by a full command pod so saying you need to add things to make it like a command pod is not a valid excuse either. 

There are solutions to the door problem that doesn't involve cutting a new door into the side, but I'm afraid you are just ignoring them because all you want to do is exploit how overpoweringly low mass the probe/cabin combo is to the fullest.

EDIT: on the last part. then make your mk1 craft with a command pod. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

Edited April 7, 2016 by passinglurker

[Alshain]

9 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

There are solutions to the door problem that doesn't involve cutting a new door into the side, but I'm afraid you are just ignoring them because all you want to do is exploit how overpoweringly low mass the probe/cabin combo is to the fullest.

 

What solutions?  Personally I don't care about the cabin + probe configuration, I want a crew cabin I can perform early game rescues with.  This fails at that because I have to annoyingly get the pilot out of the craft just to board the rescuee then transfer the rescuee back, and then reset all of my controls because I EVA'ed the pilot.  It's annoying, and for each one you rescue, it's worse.  That annoyance adds no value to the game at all.  This part gets deleted from my install to save memory, it ultimately has no function and therfore never gets used.  I think I use the micro node more.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Alshain

[Pthigrivi]

Hmm. I know this has been discussed before and I get the rationale, but I will say Im with Foxster on this one. I'd rather see its mass and cost increased a tiny fraction and have at least an escape hatch on the roof. Its not a huge deal, but people do use these things in unexpected ways, and Im just not so sure the added rigamarole of crew transferring before being able to eva is exactly the best solution for balance. 

[passinglurker]

Just now, Alshain said:

 

What solutions?  Personally I don't care about the cabin + probe configuration, I want a crew cabin I can perform early game rescues with.  This fails at that because I have to annoyingly get the pilot out of the craft just to board the rescuee then transfer the rescuee back, and then reset all of my controls because I EVA'ed the pilot.  It's annoying, and for each one you rescue, it's worse.  This part gets deleted from my install to save memory, it ultimately has no function.

The solution is through the implementation and refinement of new features for example when a kerbal attempts to board through a hatch of a part with no open seats you could be prompted if you want them to automatically transfer to the next open seat elsewhere on the vessel no need for shuffling.

[Kerbart]

 

54 minutes ago, Foxster said:

Hence we have the current mk1 cabin that has the limitation of having no useable door in it's most-used configuration and the elimination of this issue is, I suggest, that we add a door or else, if weight is a constraint, that one of the existing ones be moved to the side. 

You could turn on unlimited fuel in the Alt-F12 menu and leave all your fuel tanks empty. It's a great way to make light-weight spacecraft. That should more than compensate for adding a lander can as "airlock" to your contraption. Not only that, but the benefits would spread through your entire fleet. Brilliant engineering, if I might say so.

[Alshain]

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

The solution is through the implementation and refinement of new features for example when a kerbal attempts to board through a hatch of a part with no open seats you could be prompted if you want them to automatically transfer to the next open seat elsewhere on the vessel no need for shuffling.

That would be a fine solution, however if the command module(s) is full, there should just be no prompt though, just automatically board them into the crew cabin.  Basically set a boarding priority... Module Where Hatch is located -> CM -> Science Bay -> Crew Cabin, that way you could use any door on the craft.

I would support that implementation in lieu of a hatch on the crew cabins.  Of course if they did that I'd almost want them to take the doors off the other crew cabins, lol.  If they did implement this they should make it versatile enough to in the future have 'airlock' modules.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Alshain

[Foxster]

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

 

You could turn on unlimited fuel in the Alt-F12 menu and leave all your fuel tanks empty. It's a great way to make light-weight spacecraft. That should more than compensate for adding a lander can as "airlock" to your contraption. Not only that, but the benefits would spread through your entire fleet. Brilliant engineering, if I might say so.

Your sarcasm has certainly moved this discussion on in leaps and bounds. Thank you. 

[passinglurker]

Just now, Alshain said:

That would be a fine solution, however if the command module(s) is full, there should just be no prompt though, just automatically board them into the crew cabin.  Basically set a boarding priority... CM -> Science Bay -> Crew Cabin, that way you could use any door on the craft.

like I said once implemented such a feature would need some refinement for example if the system was entirely unprompted some would complain about not knowing where it sends the kerbal since it is clearly not in the pod they tried to board. but these sort of things are probably best worked out through practical experience.