Why is the cupola so *heavy*?

[kahlzun]

The cupola is a nice-looking part. I would like to get some use out of it.

However, it is WAY too heavy for me to even consider using it, especially as it only seats the one kerb.

Comparisons:

As you can see, while the Cupola performs slightly better in power/ton than some of the pods, it is by far the poorest of the kerb/ton ratio.

Interestingly, the lightest pod (the Mk1 lander-can) has the best stats in kerbs/ton and power/ton (ignoring the seat)

Am i missing something, or is there no real point to this over-weight lump?

[Canopus]

Because of all the glass in the windows?

[Wjolcz]

Batteries and glass weight a lot.

[zzz]

Am i missing something, or is there no real point to this over-weight lump?

It have good ton\prettiness ratio

[rodion_herrera]

Maybe to discourage people from "overusing" it in their designs? *shrugs* I mean if it was lighter, maybe everyone would be using it in their landers. But yeah the glass idea has historical proof--the original design made by Grumman for the Lunar Module had huge glass windows, because they expected the astronauts to be seated near the CoG of the LM. But later, when they realized they can make the astronauts stand up and look out of the windows, they could get rid of all the extra, heavy glass, and so the LM got lighter, and so Apollo made history.

[nothke]

Not only is it heavy, it's the most expensive pod.

It's a piece that allows you to see 180 degrees (from IVA) and that's why it's so valuable, it looks much nicer than other pieces.. It's like a gem of your space station.. It's pretty good this way IMO.

In reality big windowed parts are one of the most complicated to make so production cost I guess is much higher

[Godot]

It was taken from a Tie Fighter ...

the special laser proof military grade glass and hardened frame it uses weights more than the other materials Kerbals use

[Sᴄɪɴᴛɪʟʟᴀᴛᴏʀ]

Probably to keep the Mk.1 pod relevant as the cupola is an alternative not a replacement. You get better IVA visibility and more electric charge at the cost of additional mass, its balance.

[Temstar]

Glass is a pretty weak structural material so to get a layer with the same strength as the ship's hull you have to use a very thick piece. The extra strong structure around the glass is also pretty heavy.

Mercury capsule was originally designed with no window because of weight concern and the astronauts had to fight tooth and nails to get that tiny window installed. The Soviet's circumlunar Zond spacecraft also had no windows so the Cosmonauts would have spent 6 days going to the moon and then back without ever seeing the outside.

[rodion_herrera]

Mercury capsule was originally designed with no window because of weight concern and the astronauts had to fight tooth and nails to get that tiny window installed.

[Wjolcz]

It was taken from a Tie Fighter ...

the special laser proof military grade glass and hardened frame it uses weights more than the other materials Kerbals use

That. That explains everything.

[RoboRay]

Even with a very justified increase in weight for all that glass, 4.5 tons is rather much for a one-kerbal cockpit.

[kahlzun]

-snip-

What was that from? Looked kinda interesting.

[joppiesaus]

Pretty pod, Pretty much weight.

[Trux]

What was that from? Looked kinda interesting.

The Right Stuff, 1983

[rodion_herrera]

The Right Stuff, 1983

Quite some "Kerbalistic" moments in that movie. Loved the book too. And here's the bit on the windows (but I do like how the problem was depicted in the HBO miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon: SPIDER"):

Edited June 4, 2013 by rodion_herrera

[bulletrhli]

Rodion, here is that video as told by Scott Manley.

[rodion_herrera]

They say the Mercury is a spacecraft you wear, instead of ride. And they also say the A7L (moon suit) is spacesuit that you ride, instead of wear. Anyways, I'm only 5'3" so I'll be cozy in a Mercury capsule

[Neomatt]

Yeah, glass is heavy, very heavy.

In "From the Earth to the Moon", they explained in the episode when they designed the LM that the astronauts were supposed to sit during landing, with huge glass bays to see where they land.

To reduce weight drastically, the standing position + mini-window was found as good and saved a lot of weight.

[magnemoe]

Probably to keep the Mk.1 pod relevant as the cupola is an alternative not a replacement. You get better IVA visibility and more electric charge at the cost of additional mass, its balance.

Had they made it three man the 4.5 ton weight would be ok, but not for one kerbal.

I use the cupola as bridge for large ships, having room for three and I can send on on eva and still have it manned.

[Johno]

One other irritation of the cupola is this - I originally wanted it to be used in a station (like the real thing), but I ended up with the rocket spawning with Jeb inside! This was awkward, because I really wasn't sure if the flight was survivable . .

[Rage097]

I didn't actually notice the weight of the cupola pod until I began making and testing my War Mechs:

This is Rage016.

All versions including 014-017 have a nasty habit of face planting or backflipping.because the Cupola's weight makes it very top heavy. The weapons racks probably don't help.

[RoboRay]

Yeah, glass is heavy, very heavy.

In "From the Earth to the Moon", they explained in the episode when they designed the LM that the astronauts were supposed to sit during landing, with huge glass bays to see where they land.

To reduce weight drastically, the standing position + mini-window was found as good and saved a lot of weight.

The relevant scene:

"Spider" is one of the top three episodes of the series, which is a must-see for anyone interested in spaceflight.

[Mihara]

I still think it could lose a ton, though.

[Landge]

While I'm all for fixing the coupola's weight let's scale down the "in your face" navball too.