Move EVA Hatch and Ladder on MK1-2 Command Pod

[Quantum Jim]

The placement of the EVA Hatch and Ladder is confusing. It isn't at a symmetrical position, which makes it cumbersome to use with the Hitchhiker Storage Container, Cupola, Lander-Cans, or Mk1 Command Pod. The ladder also doesn't go all the way down, which means it's cumbersome to go from the command pod to another module even if you align them in the VAB.

The fix for the first issue would be to simply move the Hatch and Ladder to the "middle." A fix for the second issue would be to extend the ladder all the way down.

[astropapi1]

Don't forget it's missing the heatshield.

[wasmic]

I second this. It would be a nice change.

[Whirligig Girl]

I agree. I think it should be in between the windows on the front side. The IVA could use a rework to bring it up to standards, and to make it so that Jebidiah (or whoever is in the center seat) is sitting in-between Bill and Bob.

[astropapi1]

Honestly, it needs a re-work. It was introduced in 0.16, and has been the same since. It's missing the heatshield, the hatch is at a weird angle, and the IVA is useless.

They could simply move the model (however that works) si the hatch is facing the right way, and make a Gemini-like IVA, with much more useful windows.

Again, many of the parts we have ATM are just placeholders, so we shouldn't expect too much at this point in development.

[Quantum Jim]

It also needs to be balance a little bit better. Look at the Mk1 stats:

Crew: 1

Torque: 5

Current Required: 14.4/min

Charge Stored: 50

Mass: 0.8

Impact tolerance: 14

For 3 Mk1s (for 3 Kerbals), you have effectively the following:

Crew: 3

Torque: 15

Current Required: 0.72/sec

Charge Stored: 150

Mass: 2.4

Impact tolerance: 14

Here are the stats for the Mk1-2, though:

Crew: 3

Torque: 15

Current Required: 1.2/sec

Charge Stored: 150

Mass: 4

Impact tolerance: 45

Now the nearly 2x heavier pod makes some sense for the impact tolerance, but not the current required. I think the mass should be reduced a little bit and the charge reduced significantly.

[Awaras]

It also needs to be balance a little bit better. Look at the Mk1 stats:

Crew: 1

Torque: 5

Current Required: 14.

Charge Stored: 50

Mass: 0.8

Impact tolerance: 14

For 3 Mk1s (for 3 Kerbals), you have effectively the following:

Crew: 3

Torque: 15

Current Required: 0.72/sec

Charge Stored: 150

Mass: 2.4

Impact tolerance: 14

Here are the stats for the Mk1-2, though:

Crew: 3

Torque: 15

Current Required: 1.2/sec

Charge Stored: 150

Mass: 4

Impact tolerance: 45

Now the nearly 2x heavier pod makes some sense for the impact tolerance, but not the current required. I think the mass should be reduced a little bit and the charge reduced significantly.

From the role-playing perspective, the increased mass makes sense. The Mk 1 pod is TINY, similar to the RL Mercury capsule, not meant for missions longer than a day or two. The Mk 1-2 is roomier and intended for longer missions, so it probably has a lot more life support equipment.

[xzxvrx]

The hatch is fine where it is. For example, a lot of people use 3x symmetry parachutes, the current placement is completely out of the way from that. If the hatch were to be moved, it would extremely limit your options for radial placement on the pod. The only thing that I don't like about the pod is how the default IVA viewpoint is the Kerbal on the bottom. Other from that I like the pod.

[Tilion]

The placement of the EVA Hatch and Ladder is confusing. It isn't at a symmetrical position, which makes it cumbersome to use with the Hitchhiker Storage Container, Cupola, Lander-Cans, or Mk1 Command Pod. The ladder also doesn't go all the way down, which means it's cumbersome to go from the command pod to another module even if you align them in the VAB.

The fix for the first issue would be to simply move the Hatch and Ladder to the "middle." A fix for the second issue would be to extend the ladder all the way down.

Yes! Yes! A thousand times Yes! God knows how long this has been an issue - it keeps getting raised now and again, hopefully something will be done. The most annoying part is if you line the 1-2 up with the rest of your craft then the entire thing's wonky (or all your ladders/secondary command pods are!). I know it'd be save & craft-file-breaking to just replace it right away but please Squad - introduce another version of the pod that's properly aligned then phase the old one out in the future.

[boomerdog2000]

Agreed. It can really throw off my ship designs or I have to do some weird ladder thing to line it back up again.

[RoboRay]

My main issue with the 1-2 is that the seats are installed too low and too far back, rendering the forward windows useless.

The FASA Gemini pod is a great example of how to position seats and windows, resulting in a fantastic viewing angle from tiny windows. Of course, it's easier to get it right when you use a real-world design with thousands of man hours of engineering behind it.

[mdatspace]

I agree. This is the reason I do not use the pod so much(also, weight concerns).