Mark 1-2 Command Pod

[KerbMav]

Change the standard orientation of the Mark 1-2 Command Pod while building in the VAB - the hatch is at an odd angle and although one could just rotate it until the hatch faces one of the "standard" directions (north, east, ...) it would just be easier that way.

[AncientAstronaut]

Agreed. I have always hated the hatch placement since its debut in version .16. I don't know what the devs were thinking, but they certainly weren't in any logical state of mind, that's for sure. The hatch placement on the pod makes NO logical sense for symmetrical attachment of parts.

[chaos_forge]

Thirded. The hatch is at a really awkward angle.

[purpletarget]

The hatch is perfectly situated for symmetrical placement, as it doesn't interfere with thrusters, chutes or any other bobbles being placed on cardinal directions.

It also make spacial and logical sense with how the IVA is arranged as well, you don't want a hatch right under the foot pedals of the command position. There is precedent as well. Check out the forward hatch placements on a B-17 sometime. It might be familiar.

[Tw1]

It's alright, but it does mean you must do some funny twisting in the VAB. But purpletarget's IVA comments make sense.

[Whirligig Girl]

I think the hatch should be between the windows, like on the Apollo C/SM.

[KerbMav]

Weeeell, I wasnt talking about the positioning of the hatch on the pod - as some seem to think - I meant the initial orientation of the part when selected in the VAB.

[AncientAstronaut]

The hatch is perfectly situated for symmetrical placement, as it doesn't interfere with thrusters, chutes or any other bobbles being placed on cardinal directions.

It also make spacial and logical sense with how the IVA is arranged as well, you don't want a hatch right under the foot pedals of the command position. There is precedent as well. Check out the forward hatch placements on a B-17 sometime. It might be familiar.

Wrong. No further input is needed.

For verification, consult photographs of the Apollo hatch.

Herpderp

[LeadMagnet]

Weeeell, I wasnt talking about the positioning of the hatch on the pod - as some seem to think - I meant the initial orientation of the part when selected in the VAB.

I concur! (and pad out my reply to the required 10 characters!!)

[Kegereneku]

I can understand those who want a change for the hatch.

Things is : You can change the position of parachute and RCS without changing the attitude of reference and ladder don't disturb the RCS, while a non-90° orientation make it harder if you need to orient solar panel.

On the other hand, once you know how to deal with angle-increment and use another part as the reference, things get easier.

Myself I would vote for a change or a new command pod, though I don't see how it could be different from the original.