Mk 1-2 Pod versus Mk3 Cockpit

[Wcmille]

Quick quiz

Which pod of the Mk 1-2 Pod and the Mk3 Cockpit:

• Weighs less?
• Has a higher max temp?
• Has a higher crew capacity?
• Has more electric charge?
• Holds more mono propellant?
• Has a higher crash tolerance?
• Has more SAS torque?

Thoughts on that?

 

[Snark]

I'm actually fine (as in, "don't care") about every single one of those, except this one:

On 8/19/2016 at 9:00 PM, Wcmille said:

• Weighs less?

...The Mk1-2 is a great pod, I'm happy with all of its stats... except the mass.  It's extraordinarily overweight.  Weighs FIVE TIMES as much as the lower-tech, single-kerbal Mk1 pod?  Really?

Reduce the mass to, say, 2.4 tons, so it's the same mass-per-kerbal as the Mk1... or heck, even 2.7 tons... and I'm fine with it.

And, in fact, a while back I modded it to do just that.  I realized one day that the only reason I hadn't done it before was because it felt like "cheating"... until I realized that not doing it meant that I never, ever used the pod, for any purpose, ever, simply because it was so ridiculously overweight.  So I modded it to a more reasonable value and now it's fun again, and I use it as much as I use any of the other pods.

Ditto with the Mk2 lander can, which is similarly ridiculously overweight.  Has over FOUR TIMES the mass of the Mk1 can, to hold two kerbals.  I modded it down to 1.4 tons and now it's playable.

[Wcmille]

I tried to calculate the "discounted weight" of all the pods, by accounting for their onboard battery, reaction wheels, and monopropellant. I estimate the discounted weight of the Mk1 Pod at .74125, so my feeling is that the Mk1-2 weight/crew should be a little higher than that, to account for it's higher max temp. At 2.4 it's better than the Mk1, at 2.6 its worse than the Mk III, so I think you've convinced me it should be exactly 2.5.

[Wcmille]

On 8/19/2016 at 9:16 PM, Snark said:

I'm actually fine (as in, "don't care") about every single one of those, except this one:

...The Mk1-2 is a great pod, I'm happy with all of its stats... except the mass.  It's extraordinarily overweight.  Weighs FIVE TIMES as much as the lower-tech, single-kerbal Mk1 pod?  Really?

Reduce the mass to, say, 2.4 tons, so it's the same mass-per-kerbal as the Mk1... or heck, even 2.7 tons... and I'm fine with it.

And, in fact, a while back I modded it to do just that.  I realized one day that the only reason I hadn't done it before was because it felt like "cheating"... until I realized that not doing it meant that I never, ever used the pod, for any purpose, ever, simply because it was so ridiculously overweight.  So I modded it to a more reasonable value and now it's fun again, and I use it as much as I use any of the other pods.

Ditto with the Mk2 lander can, which is similarly ridiculously overweight.  Has over FOUR TIMES the mass of the Mk1 can, to hold two kerbals.  I modded it down to 1.4 tons and now it's playable.

Do you know anything about the design decisions/reasoning behind the mass of these pods?

[fourfa]

Sounds like you're playing sandbox mode.  In career there is a cost, and a progression of available parts over time.  Makes more sense that way

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

I just hate the way the Mk3 pod LOOKS.

Everything you put it on immediately looks like a Space Shuttle or a 747. I find a lot of design flexibility w/ the Mk 1 Inline.  I really wish there was a Mk3 Inline (it would look like the Mk3 crew pod w/ more windows and a door

4 hours ago, Wcmille said:

Ditto with the Mk2 lander can, which is similarly ridiculously overweight.  Has over FOUR TIMES the mass of the Mk1 can, to hold two kerbals.  I modded it down to 1.4 tons and now it's playable.

AFAIK: The Mk1 can is supposed to be the LEM. Very light and very fragile.
The Mk2 can (i believe) was stolen from this heavy lander design for the Orion Nuclear Pulse ship.

The lander in the lower right. That one was to be made of steel and MUCH heavier.  

Edited August 20, 2016 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[Red Iron Crown]

Yeah, the Mk1-2 is foolishly heavy for what it provides. Maybe if life support was a thing and it provided a lot of them it would make more sense. I suppose it might get changed, the stock cupola part was in a similar situation for many versions (4.5t for one kerbal!) and it later got its mass greatly reduced.

[mk1980]

the crew parts aren't "balanced".

both the mk1-2 pod and the mk3 cockpit are much heavier than a simple mk2 crew cabin. it doesn't count as a control pod and doesn't have reaction wheels, batteries or built in monoprop tanks, but frankly, all of that stuff can easily be added as external parts if necessary and all of that combined will still be much lighter than the cockpits. 

the mk2 passenger cabin is also heavier (per seat) than the mk3 passenger cabin, but in practice 16 seats are a bit "overkill" for most applications.

[Hodari]

49 minutes ago, mk1980 said:

the crew parts aren't "balanced".

And that's the problem.  They SHOULD be.  Doesn't need to be perfect, but if the balance is so off that no one wants to use a part at all, then it needs to be adjusted a bit.  Especially since the fix in this case seems pretty obvious and easy to do.  Just drop the mass to something more reasonable.

 

[Guest]

Ven's Stock Revamp does at least make the RCS ports function, but that still doesn't justify the full weight.

Pods that accommodate more crew members should actually be lighter per seat since they've got one aeroshell and life support setup common to the entire crew.

[Wcmille]

6 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Yeah, the Mk1-2 is foolishly heavy for what it provides. Maybe if life support was a thing and it provided a lot of them it would make more sense. I suppose it might get changed, the stock cupola part was in a similar situation for many versions (4.5t for one kerbal!) and it later got its mass greatly reduced.

Are they based on real world masses?

[Red Iron Crown]

Just now, Wcmille said:

Are they based on real world masses?

Sort of. The cupola in real life would have a lot of heavy glass and radiation/thermal covers like ISS'. The Mk1-2 pod is roughly based on the Apollo pod, which has a lot more life support systems than the Mercury pod on which the Mk1 pod is largely based.

Those concerns don't matter for stock KSP though, so you get pods that are too heavy to be competitive against the alternatives.

[magnemoe]

8 hours ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

I just hate the way the Mk3 pod LOOKS.

Everything you put it on immediately looks like a Space Shuttle or a 747. I find a lot of design flexibility w/ the Mk 1 Inline.  I really wish there was a Mk3 Inline (it would look like the Mk3 crew pod w/ more windows and a door

AFAIK: The Mk1 can is supposed to be the LEM. Very light and very fragile.
The Mk2 can (i believe) was stolen from this heavy lander design for the Orion Nuclear Pulse ship.

The lander in the lower right. That one was to be made of steel and MUCH heavier.  

It looks larger than the MK2 landing can, and if its solid build the MK2 can should have decent crash tolerance, currently its horrible. 
Parts should be fairly balanced, exception is some bonus to parts late in the tech tree, I also think larger parts should get an bonus at least outside of engines. An larger fuel tank can have better fuel / dry mass fraction because of the inverse square law, an larger pod for more kerbals would be lighter as many functions would be required anyway. 
 

[Alshain]

If anybody is interested I just added a patch similar to the one @Snark mentioned to my database.

I agree, the thing is silly.

[foamyesque]

55 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Sort of. The cupola in real life would have a lot of heavy glass and radiation/thermal covers like ISS'. The Mk1-2 pod is roughly based on the Apollo pod, which has a lot more life support systems than the Mercury pod on which the Mk1 pod is largely based.

Those concerns don't matter for stock KSP though, so you get pods that are too heavy to be competitive against the alternatives.

 

It's also worth noting that you run into square-cube issues. The pod masses are scaled closer to realistically when you realize the 2.5m pod is something like eight times the volume of the 1.25m one. The problem is that some other parts do not scale like that -- reaction wheels come to mind -- and that the Mk3 cockpit is massively undermassed for its size and capabilities.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by foamyesque

[eddiew]

I agree. I've been using the kerbal r&d mod to lighten mine. At 2.9t, it gets very compelling

[Wjolcz]

Mk1-2 Pod? What's tha... Oooooooh!

I never use it.

[Xavven]

8 hours ago, foamyesque said:

 

It's also worth noting that you run into square-cube issues. The pod masses are scaled closer to realistically when you realize the 2.5m pod is something like eight times the volume of the 1.25m one. The problem is that some other parts do not scale like that -- reaction wheels come to mind -- and that the Mk3 cockpit is massively undermassed for its size and capabilities.

 

 

But the mass shouldn't be based on the volume of the part... It should be based on the materials used and the complexity of the systems in it. This means that going on material use alone, the square cube law should work in favor of bigger pods, decreasing the mass used per kerbal as you increase the pod capacity. In other words, the Mk1-2 should be more mass efficient and therefore be lighter on a per-kerbal basis. Heavier than a Mk-1 pod overall, yes, but lighter than 3 Mk-1 pods put together.

[foamyesque]

10 minutes ago, Xavven said:

But the mass shouldn't be based on the volume of the part... It should be based on the materials used and the complexity of the systems in it. This means that going on material use alone, the square cube law should work in favor of bigger pods, decreasing the mass used per kerbal as you increase the pod capacity. In other words, the Mk1-2 should be more mass efficient and therefore be lighter on a per-kerbal basis. Heavier than a Mk-1 pod overall, yes, but lighter than 3 Mk-1 pods put together.

Mercury capsule mass was 1.4t; Apollo was 5.6t. That's an increase of roughly 4, on a dimensional increase of 1.06x1.06x2.17=2.14. Significantly more internal space per person, but on a mass/total volume and a mass/person ratio the Apollo capsule is noticeably worse. And KSP's capsules are very clearly based on those two.

Edited August 21, 2016 by foamyesque

[Xavven]

Oh, ok. I stand corrected. The Apollo capsule was designed for a longer and more complex mission, so perhaps the real problem is that we're not comparing apples to apples. In other words, the KSP Mk-1 can take a Kerbal much farther than the Mercury capsule it was based on could.

[foamyesque]

13 minutes ago, Xavven said:

Oh, ok. I stand corrected. The Apollo capsule was designed for a longer and more complex mission, so perhaps the real problem is that we're not comparing apples to apples. In other words, the KSP Mk-1 can take a Kerbal much farther than the Mercury capsule it was based on could.

 

Yes. This is largely because Kerbals require no lifesupport and are immune to claustrophobia. Some alterations to both would swing things around quite a bit...

 

But the real problem is that the Mk3 pod and the Mk3 passenger module are just ridiculously more efficient than they ought to be.

[Alshain]

The KSP parts can be inspired by the Apollo/Mercury parts but shouldn't be bound by their specs.  Gameplay is first and foremost.  The only thing the Mk1-2 has over the Mk3 is cost, but it is going to cost you in other places and probably more.  With the Mk1-2 you have a lot more to lift, you have one less Kerbal, you have to include more batteries, you have to include more reaction wheels.  Cost is just not enough of a balance.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Alshain

[foamyesque]

48 minutes ago, Alshain said:

The KSP parts can be inspired by the Apollo/Mercury parts but shouldn't be bound by their specs.  Gameplay is first and foremost.  The only thing the Mk1-2 has over the Mk3 is cost, but it is going to cost you in other places and probably more.  With the Mk1-2 you have a lot more to lift, you have one less Kerbal, you have to include more batteries, you have to include more reaction wheels.  Cost is just not enough of a balance.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with that at all, but I think the problem lies more with the Mk3 than it does with the Mk1-2, you know?

[samstarman5]

On 8/19/2016 at 10:16 PM, Snark said:

I'm actually fine (as in, "don't care") about every single one of those, except this one:

...The Mk1-2 is a great pod, I'm happy with all of its stats... except the mass.  It's crazy-cuckoo overweight.  Weighs FIVE TIMES as much as the lower-tech, single-kerbal Mk1 pod?  Really?

Reduce the mass to, say, 2.4 tons, so it's the same mass-per-kerbal as the Mk1... or heck, even 2.7 tons... and I'm fine with it.

And, in fact, a while back I modded it to do just that.  I realized one day that the only reason I hadn't done it before was because it felt like "cheating"... until I realized that not doing it meant that I never, ever used the pod, for any purpose, ever, simply because it was so ridiculously overweight.  So I modded it to a more reasonable value and now it's fun again, and I use it as much as I use any of the other pods.

Ditto with the Mk2 lander can, which is similarly ridiculously overweight.  Has over FOUR TIMES the mass of the Mk1 can, to hold two kerbals.  I modded it down to 1.4 tons and now it's playable.

Just throwing in a sidenote to this, as it is a fine idea even to me who is quite hesitant in modding parts. Always, always, save a backup copy of the config file that you edit before making the changes.  It's far easier to have a local backup than to have to download a new copy of the game if things go bad for you.  Even the best websites, and Squad's is up there, will decide to do maintenance on their servers when you suddenly need to get a new copy.  Always be prepared.

On 8/20/2016 at 4:15 AM, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

I just hate the way the Mk3 pod LOOKS.

Everything you put it on immediately looks like a Space Shuttle or a 747. I find a lot of design flexibility w/ the Mk 1 Inline.  I really wish there was a Mk3 Inline (it would look like the Mk3 crew pod w/ more windows and a door

AFAIK: The Mk1 can is supposed to be the LEM. Very light and very fragile.
The Mk2 can (i believe) was stolen from this heavy lander design for the Orion Nuclear Pulse ship.

The lander in the lower right. That one was to be made of steel and MUCH heavier.  

 

Saying it was stolen is a bit overboard, especially as it is not an exact copy.  'Inspired by' is more appropriate and fair. Otherwise you are being very accusatory and inflammatory. Things that shouldn't be jumped to lightly.  This is the KSP Forums, not Fox News or CNN.

[RocketBlam]

As things get bigger and hold more people, they tend to get lighter per person, not heavier.

That's why big planes are more profitable than smaller planes. 

 

Edited August 22, 2016 by RocketBlam