More than one astronauts

[Jestersage]

One of the problem with KSP is that many solutions offered here can be summed up with "require only one Kerbal". As a personal rule, I always insist on two at least, but I do have to admit it's definitely a correct answer. As long as you have a scientist and a remote controll core, you are good to go on anything.

But here's my question: why does IRL manned flight require a crew of 2, except for basic testings? Even PRC just do one single-taikonaut mission (Shenzhou 5) before they go with 2 then 3 taikonauts.

And are there mods that pretty much force you to go "2 or more" in order to be successful? Really dislike all these single kerbalnauts solutions.

[magnemoe]

Well you have scientists, engines and pilots each with different skills. 
The science lab need 2 scientists for full capacity. 
KIS give engines a lots of new capacities in adding and removing parts in eva,  
Planetary bases adds greenhouses who need to be manned with one kerbal, 2 for max capacity. 

Also kerbals get experience going on missions so its smart to bring more just for the training. 

[AlamoVampire]

KIS/KAS make engineers soo much more fun  

[suicidejunkie]

I suggest:

1) Make Pilots useful with "Skynet mode" - Do not allow probe cores to be in control of engines.  (Satellites for contracts or RT-comms can be placed by crewed vehicles)

2) Make Engineers useful with KIS/KAS - Tinkering in space and building your own rescue ship from the debris is awesome.

3) Make Scientists useful with Career (or science) mode.  If 1&2 are in action, then scientists are also useful for muscle when an engineer needs to lift heavy parts and you can't afford to take an extra engineer or pilot off their task.

[Fearless Son]

15 hours ago, Jestersage said:

But here's my question: why does IRL manned flight require a crew of 2, except for basic testings? Even PRC just do one single-taikonaut mission (Shenzhou 5) before they go with 2 then 3 taikonauts.

Redundancy.  If one person, for whatever reason, becomes incapable of fulfilling the mission, then the other person can take over for them.  If you only have a crew of one, then that is a single critical point of failure for the mission.  Humans in real life, unlike Kerbals, are usually the weakest link in a mission, while also being the most adaptable component of a ship.  Having more than one on a crew substantially increases the odds of mission success.  

[AlamoVampire]

@suicidejunkie Manning a satellite completely goes against the point and purpose of an unmanned device and drastically reduces service life and exponentially increases cost and risk. 

Imagine Earths GPS satellite system or our communications satellites, let alone Voyagers 1 & 2. Imagine the cost to have a human, just 1 human on each.  And thats not including any probe beyond Earth. Now picture every probe thats left Earths SOI. The cost in Human life alone would be extreme. Its bad and tragic enough we lost all those brave souls to tragic accidents, but can you imagine the moral and ethical cost of deliberately sending people on a mission that ultimately will kill them? 

No. Probes are perfect as is. Low cost (relatively speaking compared to an intentionally manned mission with a return home) and basically fatality free. 

Edited July 14, 2016 by AlamoVampire

[Jestersage]

37 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@suicidejunkie Manning a satellite completely goes against the point and purpose of an unmanned device and drastically reduces service life and exponentially increases cost and risk. 

Imagine Earths GPS satellite system or our communications satellites, let alone Voyagers 1 & 2. Imagine the cost to have a human, just 1 human on each.  And thats not including any probe beyond Earth. Now picture every probe thats left Earths SOI. The cost in Human life alone would be extreme. Its bad and tragic enough we lost all those brave souls to tragic accidents, but can you imagine the moral and ethical cost of deliberately sending people on a mission that ultimately will kill them? 

No. Probes are perfect as is. Low cost (relatively speaking compared to an intentionally manned mission with a return home) and basically fatality free. 

On the other hand, the fact that most career contracts/farming just need one person pretty much proved how OP probe is.

However, TBH, in real life Probe / Satelliates is pretty much OP. In practicality, there are really no reason to have manned flights except for prestige. Hell, MOL and Almaz was dropped precisely because probe can do better than having humans.

What they really need is to make prestige useful; that will in turn make having a manned Kerbal program useful. For example, maybe make having science / prestige point grow exponentially instead of multiply/additive with more Kerbals on it.

[Zargg]

Yea I admit, I'm a 1 Kerbal kind of person, no matter how long or far he has to travel. He must get lonely sometimes...

But I do like the idea of some sort of multiplier for if you do a mission manned as opposed to a probe core. Doing the explore contracts with a probe and just leaving it there feels incomplete to me and shouldn't be worth as much as if you actually sent someone there to experience it. Then even more bonus multipliers when you bring the Kerbal back. 

Think of it like the moon landing, no one remembers the first satellite sent there, but everyone remembers Apollo 11!

[OhioBob]

2 hours ago, Fearless Son said:

Redundancy.  If one person, for whatever reason, becomes incapable of fulfilling the mission, then the other person can take over for them.  If you only have a crew of one, then that is a single critical point of failure for the mission.  Humans in real life, unlike Kerbals, are usually the weakest link in a mission, while also being the most adaptable component of a ship.  Having more than one on a crew substantially increases the odds of mission success.  

Furthermore, some of the missions are just too complex for one person to handle it all.  For example, the Apollo LM took two people to fly.  The commander actually piloted the LM while the lunar module pilot monitored the condition of the spacecraft and feed important information to the commander, such as altitude and relative velocity.  That way the commander could keep his hand on the controls, watch out the window, and not get distracted by having to look over at the instrument panel.  Also the earlier Gemini were considered too complex for just one person.  Those missions included rendezvous, docking, and spacewalks.  Having a second person during spacewalks was also a safety precaution.  In case the astronaut on EVA had a problem, the second astronaut could help get him safely back into the spacecraft.  Also having more than one person means that astronauts can specialize and not have to worry about learning everything.  For example, during Apollo the lunar module pilot would study up and become fully acquainted with the LM's systems, while the command module pilot could focus on learning everything he needed to know about the CM's systems.

[Fearless Son]

2 hours ago, Zargg said:

But I do like the idea of some sort of multiplier for if you do a mission manned as opposed to a probe core. Doing the explore contracts with a probe and just leaving it there feels incomplete to me and shouldn't be worth as much as if you actually sent someone there to experience it. Then even more bonus multipliers when you bring the Kerbal back. 

Assuming you are playing in science or career mode, there is benefit to running a mission crewed as opposed to a purely probe situation.  Crew can conduct crew reports, EVA reports, and collect surface samples, all of which means more science than you could ever get with a purely uncrewed mission.  

That having been said, the only crew you need to maximize all that is a scientist (hence the one Kerbal missions.)  However, there are benefits to bringing other Kerbals with different roles along.  A good engineer is useful if you are using a rover (and need to repair a busted wheel) or are doing ore drilling (they speed the process up) or are doing multiple parachute uses (like if you are using them for landing on an atmospheric body and later using those same chutes for returning to Kerbin.)  Likewise, a pilot might not seem necessary, but you need to be pretty far down the tech tree (and willing to shell out the funds) to get probe cores that do half of what a good pilot can do, and the presence of a good pilot gives you bonus turning torque and stability correction over what you might get with a purely electrical solution, even on top of whatever a core is giving you.  You could argue that a well-designed craft will not need that extra stability, but it helps if the craft is ever damaged and the center of mass is shifted just a little off the center of thrust, or the atmospheric drag becomes asymmetric.  A pilot will help you make it back down safely where a probe might not.  

[Corona688]

21 hours ago, Jestersage said:

One of the problem with KSP is that many solutions offered here can be summed up with "require only one Kerbal". As a personal rule, I always insist on two at least, but I do have to admit it's definitely a correct answer. As long as you have a scientist and a remote controll core, you are good to go on anything.

Originally the plan was for pilots to have more of an affect on what the craft does to the point of losing control if every kerbal you're carrying flips out.  Fortunately HarvestR realized how annoying this mechanic would be and did nothing of the sort, and 'stupidity' now only determines how often they make funny faces.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I try to use probe cores only for satellites/probes, and I play with KER so I *try* to use the engineering chip only with sats/probes, giving engineers a bit more use. One addon that makes it easier to have multi-kerbal missions is:

 

[suicidejunkie]

8 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

@suicidejunkie Manning a satellite completely goes against the point and purpose of an unmanned device and drastically reduces service life and exponentially increases cost and risk. 

Imagine Earths GPS satellite system or our communications satellites, let alone Voyagers 1 & 2. Imagine the cost to have a human, just 1 human on each.  And thats not including any probe beyond Earth. Now picture every probe thats left Earths SOI. The cost in Human life alone would be extreme. Its bad and tragic enough we lost all those brave souls to tragic accidents, but can you imagine the moral and ethical cost of deliberately sending people on a mission that ultimately will kill them? 

No. Probes are perfect as is. Low cost (relatively speaking compared to an intentionally manned mission with a return home) and basically fatality free. 

You've misread my intention.  Also, humans are not involved in this.

 

The *launch vehicle* must be crewed.  Meanwhile a satellite does not need engines to float in space

The satellite itself is in fact required by contract to be just a probe core, solar panel and transmitter and whatever else is demanded, but you don't have to let it drive.

 

-

For examples from my current career game:

Initial RT network is deployed from primitive aircraft with parachutes onto mountain peaks for extended link angles and range.  Jeb drives, Bill assembles relays and repacks parachutes upon landing, Bob carries spares and does science at the first few stops.  Val does contract missions to fund the operation.

Science probes to Mun and Minmus are crewed for maximum science.  Additional Mun landings are done by rescued engineers who can assemble radio reflectors on the surface while collecting samples and jury-rigging launch solutions after inevitably tipping their craft.

An orbital tourister rocket with the tourist capsules removed and an ore scanner bolted to the top with a separator.  Upon reaching space, the pilot stages off the booster and the payload.  Hijinks ensue as the Kerbal bumps and nudges the accidentally-loosed satellite into a semi-decent inclination orbit, which is good enough to cover the useful latitudes thanks to scansat.  (later a contract to adjust the satellite's orbit is completed by nudging the engine-less satellite half a degree with an EVA suit)

Multi-crew, fancy mining/science hoppers keep all classes gainfully employed during the later tech rampup and Minmus colonization.

Recently: SSTO spaceplane launches with the required pilot for the SAS to reach space.  Fly to designated mun orbit.  Engineer gets out and assembles the contracted satellite in situ from the parts in the storage bin.  Money and success.  Tourists in the back seat applaud and snap pictures.

Soon: A self-sufficient mining/science/EL constuction mothership will be heading out to Dres.  Initial interplanetary kick will be provided by a crewed booster that will return to Minmus base afterwards.

-

What is the goal of your space program?  To fling chunks of lifeless metal around for fame and riches, or to realize the dreams of your Kerbals?

If, as per the OP, you want multiple Kerbals to remain important, doing something like I suggested will help immensely.

[samstarman5]

Yes, you can simplify things down to the bare bones to get a mission done.  But have you asked yourself if you even want to?  Just because you can do a thing it doesn't mean you have to do it.  In a way, that's one of the points of tourist and VIP contracts, so as to have someone along on missions.  And they are a lot of nice funds to boot.

Leaving control of a mission merely to one kerbal and an AI core, as stated earlier, leaves a lot of chance for mission failure. Taking this to the real life standpoint, one big reason you see so many successes and really no utmost failures with NASA has been their mantra of redundancy. One thing goes bad, there is a backup.  There are no service stations in the solar system beyond Earth. Anything you send out there has to take care of itself. Your rover probe blows a tire, without an engineer along that tire stays blown.  Your probe-piloted lander loses power because of an unexpected shadow, without a kerbal along to deploy a solar panel out into the light(if you have a deployable one included), you are stuck there for a while.

You can choose to fly your missions with a skeleton crew.  But why would you?

[Corona688]

Weight.  The rocket equation is a tyrant and multi-kerbal command pods are horrendously heavy.