Hitchiker Can Vs Mk2 Crew Cabin

[SpecialSpock]

So, I've been designing a station, and I've been awfully curious about these two crew cabins. They both hold 4. The mk2 is thinner and lighter, and only costs 200 funds more. So, what reasons are there to use the hitchhiker container, disregarding roleplaying (it does look better IMO)?

[WanderingKid]

Drag from shape, convenience of a big round cylinder to stick things to with not much other purpose, fits the 2.5m rockets nicely.

[fourfa]

If you use RoverDude's USI Life Support, the hitchhiker has a special ability to provide extra long habitation tolerance.  In stock, not much.

[monstah]

27 minutes ago, SpecialSpock said:

So, I've been designing a station, and I've been awfully curious about these two crew cabins. They both hold 4. The mk2 is thinner and lighter, and only costs 200 funds more. So, what reasons are there to use the hitchhiker container, disregarding roleplaying (it does look better IMO)?

If you're building a station, the mk2 cabin not only looks weird, but the size of the nodes don't line up, and you can't surface attach RCS in a logical position.

[GluttonyReaper]

It's also worth adding that two Mk1 crew cabins are actually even better than both in some regards - same weight as a Mk2 cabin, but just over a quarter of the price, with slightly lower temperature / crash tolerances. They don't even take up much more space either, if you put them side-by-side instead of end-to-end.

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, GluttonyReaper said:

It's also worth adding that two Mk1 crew cabins are actually even better than both in some regards - same weight as a Mk2 cabin, but just over a quarter of the price, with slightly lower temperature / crash tolerances. They don't even take up much more space either, if you put them side-by-side instead of end-to-end.

And I thought a Mk2 station would look goofy, now you're suggestion side by side mk1's!?  But that is good info to know, I'll have to keep that in mind. 

I know dropping the dreaded "Well if you just use this mod" line is sometimes frowned upon, but.... sigh.... the MK2 Expansion mod (Link needed, thank you, I'm horrible about bookmarking and linking mods) has 4 way junctions and 90' rotation parts for the Mk2 form factor, along with docking ports I believe.  Artistic application of these parts could lead to some pretty cool looking stations. 

[GluttonyReaper]

7 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

And I thought a Mk2 station would look goofy, now you're suggestion side by side mk1's!?  But that is good info to know, I'll have to keep that in mind. 

I know dropping the dreaded "Well if you just use this mod" line is sometimes frowned upon, but.... sigh.... the MK2 Expansion mod (Link needed, thank you, I'm horrible about bookmarking and linking mods) has 4 way junctions and 90' rotation parts for the Mk2 form factor, along with docking ports I believe.  Artistic application of these parts could lead to some pretty cool looking stations. 

Oh, I wouldn't do it either, but if you want to be efficient about it...

I personally find stock station building a little unsatisfying, so I tend to use mods like Stock Station Expansion, just to add a bit more visual variety to things.  I've also seen some pretty good looking toridial stations in the past that primarily use Mk2 parts, so there's definitely ways to utilize them outside of planes.

[Gargamel]

Yes, a toroidal mk2 ring is a very impressive sight! 

[SpecialSpock]

Thanks for the tips everyone! I can't do mods, due to the fact that I'm a console player, but you all make great points!

[Gargamel]

2 minutes ago, SpecialSpock said:

Thanks for the tips everyone! I can't do mods, due to the fact that I'm a console player, but you all make great points!

If you get crafty with your part placement and rotation, then a mk2 station might work out in stock. 

[SpecialSpock]

1 minute ago, Gargamel said:

If you get crafty with your part placement and rotation, then a mk2 station might work out in stock. 

From my experience, with enough offset and rotation, ANYTHING can work in stock!

[qzgy]

Another idea - Use the tri or quad 2.5m adapters with the mk1 crew cabin for lots of kerbals in the same space.

[Jarin]

Quad-attached Mk1 cabins is how I do my orbital tourist shuttles (Tourists are brought to orbit in bulk by SSTO in Mk3 crew cabin). Slap a probe core in a service bay with solar/etc; push with a poodle, or nukes, as you like.

[magnemoe]

8 hours ago, Jarin said:

Quad-attached Mk1 cabins is how I do my orbital tourist shuttles (Tourists are brought to orbit in bulk by SSTO in Mk3 crew cabin). Slap a probe core in a service bay with solar/etc; push with a poodle, or nukes, as you like.

Yes, the hitchhiker has to added downside of being too flimsy for landings. 
Its nice for stations or interplanetary. 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

It's a little annoying that some parts unlocked later in the tree that should be an upgrade are often downgrades or newb traps when compared to just stacking multiples of the more basic parts.

The 3 seat Command Module is a perfect example, as well as the Hitchhiker. I mean...I don't let that stop me from using them but still...shouldn't the higher tech parts at least be equal to stacking earlier parts if not an outright upgrade?

The only honest to goodness upside to the Hitchhiker I can see (besides what others have pointed out already) is keeping part count low.

[wumpus]

16 hours ago, GluttonyReaper said:

It's also worth adding that two Mk1 crew cabins are actually even better than both in some regards - same weight as a Mk2 cabin, but just over a quarter of the price, with slightly lower temperature / crash tolerances. They don't even take up much more space either, if you put them side-by-side instead of end-to-end.

One real problem with a Mk1 cabin is that it doesn't have exterior doors.  This isn't an issue with tourists, but if you want to change crew or do an EVA report or reset sensors, you will need some other capsule/cabin that has a door.

Did they fix the mass of the hitchhiker cabin?  I've been avoiding it for some time, thinking it was far heavier than two Mk1s.  Obviously the cost is there, but that shouldn't matter once you take the drag issues into account (possibly I started avoiding it before 1.0).

[Jarin]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

One real problem with a Mk1 cabin is that it doesn't have exterior doors.

They actually have doors on the end. They're completely closed if in a stack, yes, but if you're using them in a vaccuum, it's easy to leave a front or rear node open for access.

[NSEP]

The Mk2 cabin is more crammed. if you plan to make a spacestation with these, you are bassicly making a humid and smelly prison vessel where everyone farts in a compact space.

[Xyphos]

Mk2 is best used on planes due to it's lifting surface(s), and the hitchhiker doesn't have lifting surfaces because it wouldn't need them in the vacuum of space.

it's quite obvious here...

[septemberWaves]

I generally get an idea of what sort of appearance I'm aiming for before doing any design work, and then pick the parts to use based on that. But I put aesthetics on about the same level of priority as practicality with spacecraft design, and I know that a lot of people do not.

From a purely aesthetic perspective, the Hitchhiker looks great on most space stations. But Mk2 parts don't necessarily look out-of-place if you're clever about how you use them.

Edited August 10, 2017 by eloquentJane