Why is...

[Adelaar]

...The MK2 Lander can almost as heavy as the Mk3 capsule? Both are 2,7 tonnes, whilst the MK3 has more functionality and survivability? Shouldn't the Mk2 be rationed in food supplies to have it slim down a bit?

[Zeiss Ikon]

From a real-world perspective, I expect the Mk.2 lander can has significantly more internal volume than the Mk. 1-3 Command Pod -- a (right, circular) cone has 1/3 the volume of a cylinder the same height, as I recall from 8th grade.  Internal volume has a tendency to get filled up with stuff, which always weighs something.

[Adelaar]

Sure, but the ingame description hints that the Mk2 lander can really can't stand much at all, so less heat shielding would be used, the walls itself likely thinner or some alloy, it has no RCS thrusters, nada. So you are handicapped in the sense that you can only take 2 persons, does not have built in RCS, has a smaller monoprop container, it's pretty rubbish.

In all, you're better off just using the Mk3 capsule, which is sad, because there should be a purpose to the lander can but there really isn't one.

[MR L A]

I think this might be fixed later on.

No word on it or anything but as they recently adjusted the weight (amongst other things) of the Mk1-3 capsule I can see them addressing this in the future.

[Adelaar]

Yeah, if the weight went down to about 1,8T, with a max temp resistance of 1200 degrees, I think it's fine. But atm it's worthless.

[Zeiss Ikon]

12 hours ago, Adelaar said:

Sure, but the ingame description hints that the Mk2 lander can really can't stand much at all, so less heat shielding would be used, the walls itself likely thinner or some alloy, it has no RCS thrusters, nada. So you are handicapped in the sense that you can only take 2 persons, does not have built in RCS, has a smaller monoprop container, it's pretty rubbish.

In all, you're better off just using the Mk3 capsule, which is sad, because there should be a purpose to the lander can but there really isn't one.

The proper comparison of the Mk. 2 Lander Can would be against the old Mk. 1-2 Command Pod, not against the newer Mk. 1-3.  The old pod still held three Kerbals, but masses almost twice what the newer one does -- as if NASA had launched an Apollo boilerplate rather than a flight article Command Module.  Before 1.4, the Mk. 2 Lander Can was the preferred component for anything 2.5 m diameter that didn't need to reenter or need Kerbals inside to control the vessel.  If, in the future, it goes through a similar lightening to what the Command Pod did, it might be that again -- but in the meantime, if you have Making History, you have the LM-alike lander which goes very well alongside the Mk. 1-3 pod.

[Kernel Kraken]

Also, the Mk 1-2's description now says it's a less advanced, crummier version. At least there's a canonical reason for crappier stats. I might be thinking of a different pod tho.

[magnemoe]

On 9/7/2018 at 12:14 AM, Zeiss Ikon said:

From a real-world perspective, I expect the Mk.2 lander can has significantly more internal volume than the Mk. 1-3 Command Pod -- a (right, circular) cone has 1/3 the volume of a cylinder the same height, as I recall from 8th grade.  Internal volume has a tendency to get filled up with stuff, which always weighs something.

I use the MK2 lander as bridge for interplanetary ships, also for heavy landers as in +50 ton, the new lander is way better for an light one.