Pea, Onion and Pomegranate pods overhaul

[desert]

I understand that these parts copy Vostok and Voskhod pods, but outside historical recreations they are very strange to play with. There is no reason why you would use Pea instead of mk1 capsule. Its decoupler and heatshield don't give any significant advantage over small and controllable mk1. Same with Onion compared to mk2. Pomegranate is quite light for 3-seat pod, so it is useful for 3-crew landers. It's decoupler and heatshield are useless for this application though.

My idea is to include ejection mechanism for Pea, just like Vostoks had. It will make the part more historical and at the same time more useful and interesting to play with. Other pods shouldn't feature this ejection mechanism, as their historical counterparts didn't. This will make Pea somewhat unique.

Onion should probably have more distinctive mounting for airlock module. It can also have solid motors for softer touchdown, which in reality were introduced on Voskhods for the first time.

While Voskhod 1 with 3-crew was a great achievement, I don't think that it is a very interesting mission to recreate. Thats why my idea is to completely redesign Pomegranate and make it resemble Soyuz pod instead. It will add more posibilities for historical mission recreations as well as alternate history N-1 moon landings and modern missions to ISS. With some lifting surface, solid motors for touchdown and iconic look in general, it will be a great pod to use.

All in all, I can see that many people ask for changes in these pods and their properties. Now it just looks like laziness, three different parts with almost the same look and the only difference is the amount of Kerbals inside. Come on, Squad, it was a paid DLC, while we bought it to support you in the first place, we expect some visible updates in it too.

[NiL]

Would be REALLY cool IMO. That pods are pretty much useless right now, and players use fairings and part clipping to make Soyuz pods. And with your idea they can keep the old-shaped round pod (Pea) for Vostoks and Soyuz orbital modules. Ejection seats could also be added to Gemini pod, because a real Gemini had ones - and it will partly fix the problem with LES tower beeing too big for all the pods exept the MK1-3. In fact, maybe ejection seats are too new of a game mechanics, so maybe Squad can left Pea just with ablator and decoupler, re-making other pods as you said. For me personally your idea sounds so great, that i think there should be at least a mod to do this (just change models and add support for Landertrons and Ejection seats mods).

[NiL]

I've been researching that idea for a past couple of days. 
1. Landertron mod is less used than Comfortable Landing mod, but anyway both is just a couple kb of code, so i think own code for SRB-assisted landing could be included - to have less dependencies and remain more stockalike.

 

2.  Pea could be slightly revamped to have a 1.25m mount on the top, decouler part should be changed to be 0.625m, and togglable 1.25m shroud should be added to the decoupler part. It would enable a couple of things:

A. Normal parachute usage - 1.25m one would fit perfectly, returning the capsule it's original round shape for Vostok replicas. 

B. Clamp-o-tron docking port would also fit - can your MK1 pod do this™? BTW, MK1 would still be useful because of being a lot more modular. 

C. In that form and with the dumped ablator it could be used as a Soyuz orbital module with Pomegranate. 

D. And also it woud enable usage of LES both as a separate pod and as a part of a Soyuz. 

 

3. Onion could be changed to resemble a LK lander cabin by adding a slight bulges on both sides - one for entry hatch and one for attaching an inflatable airlock. They should not be too large so Onion could still be used as a Vostok pod. Also decoupler bit at the bottom could be made more light (sorry for that phrasing - english is, obv, not my first language). I mean, all Squad landers have a crew of two, it's just logical to dedicate a two-kerbal pod to be a lander (i personally hate that, but it's just my personal opinion). 

 

4. Soyuz pod probably could be resized to a 1.85m bottom and 0.625 top dimensions - to both enable usage of Making History parts for Soyuz SM, making Zond-style crafts with Clamp-O-Tron Jr. on top (coz now it's not wery useful) and to continue MH theme with Clamp-O-Tron Jr. compartible pods (new adapter to MK1-3 for it, Gemini pod, LEM pod - it should've been called "Making uses for C-o-T Jr."). Also for gameplay balance reasons maybe it shoudn't have a hatch - that would prevent MK1-3 from being useless compared to a new lightweight 3-crew pod and also create a reason for Orbital Module to exist - i mean, kerbals don't suffer from lack of space in thir pods, so 1.25m Clamp-o-Tron adapter and airlock is a good reason for OM to exist. And you'll still be able to use Soyuz pod without OM in a Zond configuration, but also without ability to EVA (early career missions and stations resupply?). 

 

5. Retro-rockets probably should be added to all the pods, because they are useful. Perhaps they should be activated with staging (like normal SRBs), but could also have activation settings in right mouse button menu - like being fired "X seconds before touchdown" or "at Z altitude" (after staging, of course). I think altitude activation is better, because it's simpler of a game mechanic and does not need trajectory calculations, just altitude readings. With standart SRB thrust and fuel level settings it will allow full customisation of a landing assist burn, while remaining simple and user-friendly. Also it should have a "toggle instant fire" button (the name is self-explanatory) wich hides "fire altitude" bar, or instant fire should be set automatically when "fire altitude" bar is set to max. The bar probably should have a logarhytmic scale - like first santimeter of the bar is "0.1-1m", second - "1-10m", third - "10-100m", 4th - "100m-1km" and 5th sets "instant fire". Instant fire option is for use built-in motors as separatrons for Soyuz OM or as a 2nd stage kick-motors on a Onion lander. They would probably need to have a dV of ~5-10 m/s and atmo TWR of ~1.25 on Kerbin - to alow landing assist of a pod with extensions (players are creative), but not function as LES of some veird sort. 

 

As i understand, it's not too hard - to slightly change models in Blender and add .cfg's. However, my skills in both modeling and cfg-wrighting are non-existent. If someone with that skills would do that - it will be a great mod. In fact, i have a couple of ideas about revmping other Making History parts to make them both useful and cool-looking - idea of a shiny metal 1.875m Atlas/Titan tanks bothers me so much, also with new "remove from symmetry" feature togglable ladders on a landing legs could be added (even through they are not MH parts). As soon as i will have my computer in reach, i will try to do something with models (some time ago, btw, i could't pull out even a fuel tank, so idk...). Maybe we should turn that into some sort of community project like ReStock and stuff? Maybe first step could be changing thread's name to something like "ReMaking history: community MH parts revamp", lol. 

 

 

[The Dressian Exploder]

I don't know about Pea and Onion, but I think that the Pomegranate could have a variant with a green texture.

[Space Nerd]

I actually use mk2 command pod+a mk1 lander can for a soyuz return moudle XD

edit: My 50th post!

Edited August 29, 2019 by Space Nerd

[Guest]

Good suggestions. 

My main issue with them is that they're really subassemblies, not pods -- I don't like the fact that they come with a built-in decoupler. The heat shield I can live with, it's just a consumable like monoprop or electricity.

That said, I use the Pomegranate for all kinds of things, not just landers -- it's my go-to command module for crew rotations. It's light, seats three, and can survive re-entry from a near interplanetary transfer, what's not to like? 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Guest

[Fraktal]

On 9/19/2019 at 11:46 AM, Brikoleur said:

It's light, seats three, and can survive re-entry from a near interplanetary transfer, what's not to like? 

The aero drag on takeoff. Being awesome at reentry doesn't quite mean anything if you can't get it up there in the first place. The only workable configuration I can think of that does not require a fairing is using the stage carrying the pod as the core of a short but wide asparagus configuration.

My questions about these three pods:

• If all three are supposed to be launched exclusively inside fairings, then why put two of them before the first fairing in the tech tree?
• Why make the Onion require an external reaction wheel, then put the Pea on the same tech tree node as the first RW so that by the time you actually have what you need to use the Onion, it's already obsolete?

In order for these to be properly usable, I feel the Onion should be moved to the same node as the Pea (where the first reaction wheel is), the Pea should be moved to the same node as the Mk1 Lander Can (available around the same time as the first fairing so that aero is no longer a problem) and the Pomegranate should move to the same node as the Mk1-3 pod.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Fraktal

[Fraktal]

On 9/25/2019 at 1:51 AM, Fraktal said:

The only workable configuration I can think of that does not require a fairing is using the stage carrying the pod as the core of a short but wide asparagus configuration.

Update to this: I've been experimenting with the Onion and I might be closing in on how to use these pods.

First off, forget launching the Onion prior to getting the Swivel. You won't have any control whatsoever.

Second off, forget doing the sensible thing of mounting the fuel tanks of the final stage on top of the pod and the engine on the bottom, so that the pod is at the rear of the final stage and thus self-stabilizes with its drag.  The engine won't get any fuel because the game treats the pod as a decoupler and disables crossfeed, but unlike any regular decoupler the pod's PAW doesn't let you manually enable crossfeed either.

F
F
F
F
O	<- doesn't crossfeed, so
E	<- this won't fire
D

F = Fuel
E = Engine
O = Onion/Pea/Pomegranate
D = decoupler to bottom stage

So option no.1 is to mount a small fuel tank on the decoupler, radially attach two girders to this tank, then radially attach the rest of the final stage's fuel plus two Swivels to the girders. This looks stupid, but it works. The girders are needed because if you just attach the radial fuel tanks directly to the centerline tank, the radial tanks will clip into the pod and prevent it from properly separating.

F				F
F		P		F
F		O		F
F	G	F	G	F
E		D		E

F = Fuel
E = Engine
O = Onion/Pea/Pomegranate
P = Parachute
G = Girder
D = decoupler to bottom stage

Option no.2 is to flip the Onion upside down (set the controls in the PAW to Reversed as well), attach the fuel to the decoupler with two radially-mounted Swivels, then attach a regular decoupler to the non-decoupler node of the Onion and attach the bottom/middle stage to that. You need radially-attached parachutes researched for this because with both of the Onion's nodes covered, the regular parachute has nowhere to attach to.

F		F
F		F
F	F	F
F	O	F
E	D	E

F = Fuel
E = Engine
O = Onion/Pea/Pomegranate (upside down and controls set to Reversed)
D = decoupler to bottom stage

Option no.3 is overpowering your first stage in terms of delta-V so that said first stage - and most importantly, the tailfins on the first stage - lasts until about 40-50 km altitude, at which point the Onion's drag becomes minuscule and you can safely lose your rocket's tailfins. Of course, this is inefficient enough that you won't have enough delta-V to achieve orbit in less than 30 parts and 18 tons prior to developing the Terrier (you can with the Mk1 pod, but just barely).

Regardless of which way you use, your first stage must have at least two Swivels. One is enough for pitch/yaw control, but it will not stop the rocket from rolling due to KSP's aero calculations introducing sideways force when you try pitching beyond maximum AoA and you cannot stop the rotation by momentarily engaging timewarp while you're still in the atmosphere.

[betaking]

lot of stuff in Making history is perplexing to me.

overall I find the lack of a soyuz kind of surprising given they've also got a Salyut stock craft.

 

 

[Fraktal]

Did more experimentation and I think I was knocking on the wrong door all along. These pods can be launched into orbit fairly easily on a properly engineered booster and a proper flight profile.

• Pack a bit more fuel than necessary as per the delta-V map. You're going to lose more to drag during takeoff.
• If you're bringing a service bay, mount it above the pod and add a nosecone. It'll help a lot and the pod will self-stabilize during reentry.
• Begin gravity turn upon reaching 100m/s. If you're still experiencing flipping, start the gravity turn later. The higher up you are when you start turning, the less stability problems you're going to have.
• Once the prograde marker catches up with your heading, lock SAS to prograde (use the Mk1 pod to get Jeb into orbit once to train him up to one-star experience) and do not steer. Leave the AoA at zero.
• Throttle down to keep time-to-apoapse in the vicinity of 45s and let SAS complete the gravity turn for you. Again, do not touch the steering controls until about 60 km altitude.
• Whatever stage you have your fins on, do not drop it until you're AT LEAST 50 km high. Those fins are what's keeping your AoA low enough for the Swivel's gimbaling to keep drag torque under control. The second you lose those fins while still in the atmosphere, you'll flip instantly regardless of AoA. Adding a second set of fins to your upper stage will NOT work because the CoL is not far enough away from the pod to keep it stable, even if you're using six or eight fins.

Using this, I successfully sent the KV-2 to the Mun and back to Kerbin several times in a row, without a fairing. Even the Onion can be launched onto a suborbital trajectory with one Swivel and enough fuel to reach the Kerman line, you just won't have any roll control. Once you have steerable fins, you have a bit more wiggle room AoA-wise during takeoff and once you start using 1.875m fuel tanks for your boosters, you're pretty much in the clear because their drag at high AoA is higher than the KV pods' so the rocket will actively self-stabilize.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

I honestly didn't even realize these things were so unstable in stock aero, the only thing that annoyed me was the odd sized mounting points. But i used them pretty commonly on light, cheap and dirty early career craft since a basic reaction wheel took care of most of this stuff. Though one rather inexplicable bug i found was the 1.25M Heatshield doesn't perfectly fit, so on hotter reentry profiles the seam causes explosions. But using a 1.25 to 1.875M adapter and putting a 1.875M HS on the end worked wonders there.

[Fraktal]

On default 100% aero heating, the KV pods' built-in heatshield is more than enough to survive a munar return. It's not nearly as effective as standard heatshields because for some reason the ablator cooks off very slowly (reentry from a munar trajectory uses barely more than 1 ablator at most) and thus it doesn't cool nearly as well, but it still makes a difference.

I'll try a Minmus return soon. Might even experiment with 120% aero heating to see if the pods can still take it.

[Fraktal]

Tested out the KV-3 on reentry from Minmus today. Used slightly more than 1.5 ablator at a 5g reentry and returned just fine.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

On 10/11/2020 at 12:56 PM, Fraktal said:

On default 100% aero heating, the KV pods' built-in heatshield is more than enough to survive a munar return. It's not nearly as effective as standard heatshields because for some reason the ablator cooks off very slowly (reentry from a munar trajectory uses barely more than 1 ablator at most) and thus it doesn't cool nearly as well, but it still makes a difference.

I'll try a Minmus return soon. Might even experiment with 120% aero heating to see if the pods can still take it.

If it was just the pods heatshield exploding, then you're absolutely correct. But very, very rarely do i only reenter with a heat shield only (I normally try to keep whatever is left attached until at least ~50,000km), so the heatshield explosion often destroys the mission by causing the rest of the stack to collide with it.

Also I rarely try to get the best reentry profiles, mostly because i dislike waiting for the craft to swing back to the right position, burn and then come around again. So most of it I'll fully admit is a product of my own impatience xD

The KV's just seemed to hit a sweet spot for mass, aerodynamic area and nodes that made them more vulnerable to this than a MK1 or MK3 pod.  The surface-mounted ablator does make them extremely durable just by themselves, and capable of surviving things that would absolutely destroy a MK1, MK2 or MK3 pod.  Which is actually why at first i began using them, since heating of the surrounding surface attached parts on more intense reentries would pop other pods.

I'll see if i can actually replicate my edgecase in stock now, because the one variable i haven't considered is that i use FAR which would reduce the drag. So it's far less capable of bleeding off speed in FAR than Stock aero, and more speed is more heat.