"This is either madness or brilliance"

[Sovek]

"You'd be surprised how often those two traits coincide"

So, been working on a new, lighter lander than the Mk2 Lander can, and pretty much halved its weight. It involves taking 1 1.25m fuel tank, placing 2 cubic struts underneath (double sym), then taking two Mk1 Lander cans (with part clipping) and placing them on the top node of the cubic strut. The result is this

Thats sitting on a 2.5m rocket bound for Mun right now, for testing purposes.

In order to get an ascent stage (and it needs one) I had to build a frame, which is this

Then place the two cans on the top cubic strut node.

This abomination actually halves the weight, uses roughly the same amount of parts as the Mk 2 landercan, with the same Delta-V, and it includes RCS, something the first one didnt. Seriously, the Mk2 is too heavy.

Thoughts on this? And yes, I spend WAY too much time in the VAB coming up with semi-realistic looking stuff, and weight saving options.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Sovek

[WillHop]

I've never thought of clipping command pods together before - makes for interesting looking designs, like yours, which I like a lot! Will have to try it

[SkyRender]

I do enjoy non-standard lander designs. Here's one of my own that has recently gotten a lot of favor from me.

A bit heavier, perhaps, than the original poster's. But also feasible as a reusable lander.

[Whackjob]

I want to see how this affects the inside-the-can view.

[GusTurbo]

I always love solutions like this. I tried something similar, and it worked great, but the Kerbals inside were also clipped into each other in the camera at the bottom right. Does that happen with yours? I found it a bit too unnerving.

[Specialist290]

I want to see how this affects the inside-the-can view.

Seconded. I want to see if it actually clips the view as well, or if some other form of silliness happens.

That said, it's an incredibly clever design.

[Adam Novagen]

I propose that the lander-can on the left be christened "Madness" and the one on the right "Brilliance."

[Sovek]

IVA seems fine, but yes, their thumbnails are in fact clipped. How odd. Squad should fix that.

[Skyrunner27]

Your already breaking the game why should squad fix that.

[Geschosskopf]

It's long been known that 2x 1-man cans are lighter than 1x 2-man cans. This is something Squad should address in an update because it makes no sense. But for the nonce, go with it.

Just be aware that unless you stack the 1-man cans vertically on the centerline of the rocket, you really don't end up saving any weight. That's because any other configuration will require a probe core on the centerline to be the "control from here" part, and the weight of this eats up what you save by using 2x 1-man cans. If you don't have the centerline control module, your rocket won't fly straight.

[Gristle]

I did something similar for a rescue lander.

...That's because any other configuration will require a probe core on the centerline to be the "control from here" part, and the weight of this eats up what you save by using 2x 1-man cans. If you don't have the centerline control module, your rocket won't fly straight.

I used the CDP as my "control from here part" in this configuration.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Gristle

[CalculusWarrior]

It's long been known that 2x 1-man cans are lighter than 1x 2-man cans. This is something Squad should address in an update because it makes no sense. But for the nonce, go with it.

Just be aware that unless you stack the 1-man cans vertically on the centerline of the rocket, you really don't end up saving any weight. That's because any other configuration will require a probe core on the centerline to be the "control from here" part, and the weight of this eats up what you save by using 2x 1-man cans. If you don't have the centerline control module, your rocket won't fly straight.

I believe on the IVA of the larger can, there is storage for rocks, while the 1-man cans have no such storage. Rocks are heavy, ya know

[Urban_K]

That's because any other configuration will require a probe core on the centerline to be the "control from here" part, and the weight of this eats up what you save by using 2x 1-man cans. If you don't have the centerline control module, your rocket won't fly straight.

The smallest probe is only 0.04 and even if you use a larger it's 0.6+0.6+0.1 vs 2.5, so even if you include 2 x TVR-200s you save 1.0.

As for control my Luun MK4 (see .sig) doesn't seem to have that problem.

[magnemoe]

It's long been known that 2x 1-man cans are lighter than 1x 2-man cans. This is something Squad should address in an update because it makes no sense. But for the nonce, go with it.

Just be aware that unless you stack the 1-man cans vertically on the centerline of the rocket, you really don't end up saving any weight. That's because any other configuration will require a probe core on the centerline to be the "control from here" part, and the weight of this eats up what you save by using 2x 1-man cans. If you don't have the centerline control module, your rocket won't fly straight.

I have controlled ships from off center modules a lot with no issue.

Think its more an issue that asymmetric ships tend to be unbalanced and this makes them hard to fly with the new asas.

[VaporTrail]

Only problems I've had with off-center control modules has been docking... and forgetting to set the docking port as the control point. Mechjeb occasionally sets the mechjeb module as the control point on launch deployment without being obvious. and on a large diameter rocket the offset from the docking port is enough to completely ruin even an automatic docking, much less a manual one.

[Sovek]

It's long been known that 2x 1-man cans are lighter than 1x 2-man cans. This is something Squad should address in an update because it makes no sense. But for the nonce, go with it.

Just be aware that unless you stack the 1-man cans vertically on the centerline of the rocket, you really don't end up saving any weight. That's because any other configuration will require a probe core on the centerline to be the "control from here" part, and the weight of this eats up what you save by using 2x 1-man cans. If you don't have the centerline control module, your rocket won't fly straight.

While I agree with your first sentence, I dont with your second. Even with the frame, RCS fuel, RCS jets, docking port, a probe for working it out, and enough fuel to RV with an orbiting CSM around Mun, the weight is 2.5t EXACTLY. So in other words, I have my ascent stage by the time I hit the same weight as just the Mk2 lander. I havnt figured out why the the decent stage+ascent stage comes out to 4.3t.... 2t for the decent does not seem right.