3-Man Command Pod: Why?

[Skorpychan]

Mostly, impact resistance. My first Mun 'landing' was with one of those. I ran out of fuel before landing, and a mere lander-can would not have survived. Instead, the command pod bounced and rolled around, and ended up on it's side but intact.

Mostly, I like it because it's a nice clean shape, and has the different nodes for parts on each end.

[Prime flux]

Well the MK 1-2 capsule are light compared to the copula module which only takes 1 Kerbal but weight 4.5 tonne. Which is becoming a big problem if you want to use it as a rover capsule (for making a SEV look-a-like). Those rovers have a unkind habit to fall over forward if you break to hard...

One suggestion could be that science and research also are used to improve parts. Parts are geting lighter, better and more efficient when you have used them more and gained exprience with the current tech.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Prime flux

[cantab]

I suspect it's heavy because it's tough. You can slam into the ground at 45 m/s and survive.

True, the Mk3 cockpit or 3 Mk2 cockpits would be lighter and comparably durable, but they'll look downright ugly on most rockets, and the Mk1-2 command pod does have more torque.

[SuperBigD60]

I almost always use it on bigger ships when a few extra tons don't make too much difference, or on space stations as a manned 1.25 to 2.5 adapter so as to have lots of room for Kerbals

If you start building stations that make your computer hate you, a feww extra tons doesn't really matter.

But I'm with you, I don't use it unless I'm specifically ignoring efficiency in my design. Although it is one of my favorites alongside the one man lander can.

[SuperBigD60]

Hehe, the only thing I'm opposed to is weight, and the closer it is to the top of the rocket the more I am opposed.

the farther forward the center of mass is, the more stable a rocket will be in atmosphere

[RocketBlam]

I don't usually have problems with stability. I have problems getting heavy payloads into orbit.

[Charzy]

The only issue I have with the 1-2 pod is that the ladder is such an idiotic position compared to every single other crew-containing part. If they would put the hatch at the front (like everything else) and the windows at the back, at 180 degrees to the hatch, I'd use it a lot more often.

As it stands, having it inline with your other parts means having a rotated navball, making it far harder to navigate using it.

[Kerbart]

If I did want to do that, it would be more efficient to either use a Command Pod Mk1 and two Lander Cans (2 total tons) or a Mk1 and one Mk 2 Lander Can (3.3 total tons).

The game allows you safe atmospheric re-entry with the lander-can. That is more a shortcoming of current atmospheric modeling than anything else; the descriptions of the lander cans clearly says that they are too flimsy to survive atmospheric re-entry. So one can argue that while they have a better weight, you do not want to use them for role-playing reasons.

Do you have to use the Mk I and Mk II pods for atmospheric re-entry? Of course not, that's up to you. In fact, you can safely return those lander cans to Kerbin's surface without atmospheric re-entry at all: just use hyper-edit. How far you're willing to go in self-chosen limitations in the game is up to you and don't let anyone else tell you anything different.

But as for a reason why to use the Mk II capsule: well, that's one of them. Because not everyone sees the lander can as an acceptable choice for safe return to Kerbin surface.

[kiwiak]

3-man capsule and service module with 2-man lander and rover. No problem at all.

http://i.imgur.com/VWVco3Z.png

Lander is inside fairing under command module?

Where did you get this interstage fairing? Also, what pack are liquid angines on the bottom from? Boosters seems to be space shuttles.

Edited March 6, 2014 by kiwiak

[RocketBlam]

The game allows you safe atmospheric re-entry with the lander-can. That is more a shortcoming of current atmospheric modeling than anything else; the descriptions of the lander cans clearly says that they are too flimsy to survive atmospheric re-entry. So one can argue that while they have a better weight, you do not want to use them for role-playing reasons.

Agreed, and I suspect that in the future they will change the re-entry physics, and those landers I designed will not survive re-entry. I think that's the reason this doesn't make sense yet: It's not finished.

I also assume they'll have some reason to use the different 5-or-so unmanned modules, which all do basically the same thing right now, making the lightest one the obvious choice.

[Paul Kingtiger]

Contracts in 0.24 could well have missions like "lauch 3 Kerbals into orbit around the Mun" which would be another reason to use the larger craft.

[SuperBigD60]

If you used FAR, you'd find it more useful than it is in stock.

You oughta try it out. You might like it. You seem like the sort of person who would enjoy the initial challenge of figuring out aerodynamic instability and fixing it.

Unless that's your day job and you don't want to have to do that in your free time.

[RocketBlam]

No, if that were my day job I'd probably avoid Kerbal altogether.

I am a little hesitant to use mods because in a lot of other games, the mods can just totally unbalance things. But it's pretty clear that in Kerbal, a lot of things are totally unbalanced anyway. So I use MechJeb to automate the boring parts, and Kethane, and now I'm fiddling with Infernal Robotics, which is a lot of fun and adds a lot to the game without mucking anything up.

[CalculusWarrior]

I agree with you with that I've found the usefulness of the MK 1-2 pod waning recently. I used to utilize Orion-styled capsules a lot, but came to the realization that for missions beyond the Kerbin system (i.e. which require a separate transfer stage) lugging around a 4 tonne spacecraft on top of a interplanetary mission doesn't really make a lot of engineering sense, as its engine is not enough to get home in case of an emergency (besides, cramming 3 kerbals inside a tiny pod for months seems a little cruel). As such, I've generally used it for missions to the Mun or Minmus where the pod itself is the return vehicle, or crew return from the interplanetary spacecraft. However, ever since I developed my reusable crew transfer shuttle (see my signature) I've found myself leaning towards such economical methods of crew transport.

The pod does look pretty cool though, I'll give it that. I've used it in a couple of base designs as a 'command centre'.

[SuperBigD60]

No, if that were my day job I'd probably avoid Kerbal altogether.

I am a little hesitant to use mods because in a lot of other games, the mods can just totally unbalance things. But it's pretty clear that in Kerbal, a lot of things are totally unbalanced anyway. So I use MechJeb to automate the boring parts, and Kethane, and now I'm fiddling with Infernal Robotics, which is a lot of fun and adds a lot to the game without mucking anything up.

Last little off topic bit, along the vein (vane?) of Kethane, Extraplanetary Launchpads is super cool too, if a little unpolished right now.

Plus, I guess and orbital construction dock would negate the aerodynamic concerns of the lighter pods. (whew, saved it)

[Merinsan]

I guess the first problem is I don't know why I would want to land 3 Kerbals on a planet or moon.

To build a 3 Kerbal tower.

To do an Apollo style mission.

To restock Kerbals at a base (they have a habit of driving rovers too fast)

My second problem is, if I did want to do that, it would be more efficient to either use a Command Pod Mk1 and two Lander Cans (2 total tons) or a Mk1 and one Mk 2 Lander Can (3.3 total tons).

I want my ship to look cool, not like some one stuck a crew can on for extra space. Besides, it's much easier to land a single 2 man pod than 2 lander cans, when returning to Kerbin.

[LethalDose]

I'm not sure I understand your response. It seems to support what I said. You can fly the 2 Kerbals in the science lab. If you fly the Mk1-2, you're just including two seats that are empty, either in the pod or the science lab.

• 1 Kerbal in the Command Pod Mk1, 2 in the Science Lab: Total Weight: 3.3 tons.
  
• 3 Kerbals in the Command Pod Mk1-2, none in the Science Lab: Total Weight: 6.5 tons.
  

In fact even if you wanted to detach the Command Pod and re-enter without the Science Lab, it would still weigh more. Re-enter with Mk1 and Science Lab: 3.3 tons re-entry weight. Re-enter with Mk 1-2 and leave Science Lab behind: 4 tons re-entry weight.

Man, I feel bad for your Kerbonauts and any science you try to bring back to Kerbin...

The Mk 1-2 command pod has a crash tolerance of 45 m/s.

The science lab's survivability is rated at 6 m/s...

Which would you rather be sitting in when the chutes are deployed and Kerbin's surface is coming straight at your face? Honestly, I can't remember the last time I had an unpowered landing on Kerbin's surface going < 6.0 m/s.

The larger and heavier pod is one of the toughest crew modules in the game (tied with Mk 1 cockpit and beat by the Mk 3 cockpit). This by itself is enough, but also the Mk 1-2 is incredibly convenient because you don't have to manually load the little green twerps into the lab every launch!. I think the game only auto-crews one part (not sure how it assigns priority), and even when I've made the science lab the first part on the ship, I've never seen the game auto load it.

Besides, I would never launch kerbals into space in the lab, because in my mind, the lab is strapped down and packed on the pad and doesn't include appropriate restraints for atmospheric ascent or descent... or any acceleration, for that matter. This is, of course, a play-style issue and doesn't address your concern, but is included to elucidate my thoughts on the matter. You refer to "two empty seats" in your response above, but when I picture it, those are actually two empty lab stools.

I'll also point out that it has a decent-to-good reaction wheel system (15.0 (units? kNm?) in each axis) and sits well at interfaces between small and large rocket parts.

Finally, the tone of your post seems... hypothetical? Like you've never actually launched the lab before. It makes me curious about your experience playing the game. If you've only played unmodded sandbox mode or only very early unmodded career, I can see why launching several kerbals in a single module would seem useless. In most other situations, the Mk1-2 is frequently a great choice for a command module. The purpose of bringing up your experience isn't intended to denigrate your post, just to provide some context. It looks like you have ~ 30 forum posts and many of them are in this thread, so it seems reasonable to ask about your experience.

[problemecium]

I don't use it often myself. Now that my Career save is near the end of the tech tree and I have the capability to launch basically whatever I want, I use it now and then for aesthetics. But generally when I want to bring a lot of Kerbals somewhere I use the Hitchhiker container.

[Parallax]

I like the 3 man pod, except for the crooked ladder, why couldn't it be centered?

[LethalDose]

I like the 3 man pod, except for the crooked ladder, why couldn't it be centered?

I think the typical/general explanation is that the skewed ladder location allows for more easily placed RCS, which needs symmetry, especially on the 90's. I tend to agree with you though, it can be pretty inconvenient.

[EndOfTheEarth]

Because of the kind of docking port.

Really, that's usually the only deciding factor for what kind of capsule I use. Jr docking port means a small capsule, normal docking port means the 3-man, and large docking port is the 2-man lander can. Maybe this will change as I try to conquer higher-gravity locations, but, for now, it's just a matter of structure.

[Dispatcher]

I use the 3 crew command pod most of the time. If you want to carry 3 Kerbals in a single part, its good for that. But I like the look of it and the interior views out the windows are nice too.

For a single occupant, I prefer a lander can since the view looking out is much better than from the single capsule, and it is less massive. It also has more surface area to attach other parts.

[ArmchairGravy]

It takes 3x less launches to find the badasses.

[RocketBlam]

Finally, the tone of your post seems... hypothetical? Like you've never actually launched the lab before. It makes me curious about your experience playing the game. If you've only played unmodded sandbox mode or only very early unmodded career, I can see why launching several kerbals in a single module would seem useless. In most other situations, the Mk1-2 is frequently a great choice for a command module. The purpose of bringing up your experience isn't intended to denigrate your post, just to provide some context. It looks like you have ~ 30 forum posts and many of them are in this thread, so it seems reasonable to ask about your experience.

Actually my experience is that I just finished the tech tree, and I've put probes on most of the planets/moons and have returned manned missions from Mun, Minmus, Gilly and Pol. As I recall, last night I had 40+ active missions, and this isn't even my first career game (although I didn't get as far in the previous one).

I haven't used the processing lab yet, but that's also a sketchy part, in my opinion. I haven't ever needed to reset my experiments in the field. It has always just seemed more efficient to use multiple probes.

So it is hypothetical in some regard, since I've never launched a Mk1-2. But I've never done that because I can't see why I would. I don't see the benefit, and honestly I don't think the benefit exists at this stage of the game, except for aesthetics.

Also, for those who say to send 3 Kerbals in case two of them die in accidents... I've never had a Kerbal die in an accident. I did delete one though. I feel kind of bad about him.

Edited March 7, 2014 by RocketBlam

[NASAFanboy]

I use a 3-man pod, why?

I want my Kerbals to have companionship and each other while on long deep space missions...