3-Man Command Pod: Why?

[LethalDose]

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.

Sounds like you have a different play style than I do, which is fine. In your play-style, you don't need a Mk1-2. Other play-styles, like mine, benefit greatly from it. Neither style is better than the other, they're just different.

So, to answer your original question "3-Man Command Pod: Why?", to support play-styles like mine.

There are now 5 pages responding to your question discussing the validity of this style and how the Mk1-2 supports it.

Beyond "it looks nice".

[boomerdog2000]

Mine's more a role-playing reason. For any long term mission (interplanetary, permanent bases/stations, etc.) I must have at least twice as much crew capacity as I have kerbals. After my first Laythe landing and return where I believe Jeb spent near a year in a mk.1 pod, and 1m lander can, I decided they needed more space. Also all long term missions must have at least 3 crew members in case of emergencies.

[Jouni]

I use the Mk1-2 Command Pod in landers and crew shuttles, because I don't have to add separate reaction wheels, batteries, and RCS fuel tanks to the ship with it. This saves my time by simplifying the design, and reduces the part count, which are both much bigger efficiency issues to me than fuel requirements.

Of course, there is not much point in sending more than one kerbal anywhere, if you consider KSP a game you play to win. But in that case, there is not much point in doing manned interplanetary missions either, because there are easier and quicker ways to get the science required to unlock the entire tech tree.

[StrandedonEarth]

Lifeboats!

I launched this set into a very low orbit (75km) to de-staff my space stations and to pick up my returning interplanetary crews after they aerobrake into orbit. I still have one more in orbit, waiting for my rescue mission to return from Tylo. Of course, it has to leave first

[magnemoe]

Looks. It looks like the Apollo command pod, also Orion and most other capsules. Since I do Apollo and Constellation type missions frequently, it comes in handy.

yes, add that then going far you use it as an bridge with an secondary escape pod function 1-2 hitchhiker for living space on the long trek out to Jool or Eeloo.

Plenty of my missions uses the one man landing can for bridge, here I can usually jettison the lander and bridge in an emergency.

[Brofessional]

If/when they ever add re-entry heat then you will need the 3-man capsule because the lander won't be able to survive re-entry.

[Geschosskopf]

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 only thing I worry about impact tolerance on is landing gear. If I have to worry about that for command pods, then either I designed a very poor rocket or was too drunk to fly it. If you can't land on Kerbin without engines at less than 5m/s, you need MOAR chutes. Or just put some landing gear on the bottom of the Lab.

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 role-play a bit differently. I imagine I have 2 distinct types of Mobile Labs. Type I rearms Goos and Materials, and buffs transmissions. Type II is nothing but a return vehicle for experimental data and 2 Kerbals. Type I isn't re-entry approved, Type II is. So I always send 2 Mobile Labs, 1 that stays there as the core of a permanent station doing imaginary Science! in orbit, the other brings home the loot and the Kerbals chosen for dissection after exposure to some new environment. So, my typical expedition is already lugging 2 labs and a Hitchhiker for 4 Kerbals, 2 to stay and 2 to be dissected. Thus, I really don't want to add a 3-seat can to the mix .

[Vanamonde]

My suspicion is that the Mk 1 and I-2 pods are the ones intended to include re-entry heat shields when that factor is added to the game. After all, they're the ones that actually look like capsules and have aerodynamic shapes for falling backwards through atmospheres. So I always assumed that the weight of the 1-2 was, in part, due to it having a built-in heat shield and being built to keep a crew alive during re-entry. But this is just my assumption.

[RocketBlam]

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.

Incidentally, I found a solution to this. What you do is put a diagonal ladder between the Mk 1-2 ladder and another ladder that is 90 degrees to the crew hatch, like so:

Works like a charm.

[TerLoki]

Or, y'know, just rotate the part below to line up with the capsule's ladder.

[RocketBlam]

Well, yeah, I guess that could work too. If you want to get complicated.

[Corw]

Happy to help! Hope that vision comes back into focus.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dirt_Merchant again.

[Tripzter]

I'm trying to figure out why you would need to use the 3-man command module (the Mk1-2).

Pluses: It carries 3 Kerbals.

Minuses: It weighs 4 tons.

I guess the first problem is I don't know why I would want to land 3 Kerbals on a planet or moon. If I was carrying the Mobile Processing Lab I would want two Kerbals for that, but it can launch with the Kerbals in it.

You cannot control the ship with your kerbals inside the mobile processing lab as the lab is not a control unit so you still need a cabin.

Reasons why i use it? I actually dont use it in my normal ships unless the design fits better. Personally i like the cupola.

Fact is once you learn how to fly/design stuff, the beauty and style of the ship ends up winning over having as hip thats most efficient.

[Daze]

The only thing I worry about impact tolerance on is landing gear. If I have to worry about that for command pods, then either I designed a very poor rocket or was too drunk to fly it. If you can't land on Kerbin without engines at less than 5m/s, you need MOAR chutes. Or just put some landing gear on the bottom of the Lab.

I role-play a bit differently. I imagine I have 2 distinct types of Mobile Labs. Type I rearms Goos and Materials, and buffs transmissions. Type II is nothing but a return vehicle for experimental data and 2 Kerbals. Type I isn't re-entry approved, Type II is. So I always send 2 Mobile Labs, 1 that stays there as the core of a permanent station doing imaginary Science! in orbit, the other brings home the loot and the Kerbals chosen for dissection after exposure to some new environment. So, my typical expedition is already lugging 2 labs and a Hitchhiker for 4 Kerbals, 2 to stay and 2 to be dissected. Thus, I really don't want to add a 3-seat can to the mix .

Maybe you don't know but more chutes weight A LOT. So the weight that you gain from not using 3 man pod you will gain it by chute

[Akinesis]

I use the Mk1-2 Command Pod purely because I don't like sending a Kerbal beyond Kerbin orbit on thier own. It seems cruel. And it's this same reason that I never use the Mk1 Lander can. Imagine descending to the Mun for the first time on your own... it would be intimidating (in my view) and pretty pants as there is no one with you to share the excitement (yes, I know this was what the Soviats were going to do). So I will happily go through the extra burden of creating a LV that can deliver the necessary hardware. And I still play in Sandbox only, so parts are not the issue.

Anyway, that's my reasons. Perhaps I'm too soft on the little guys!

[Whackjob]

Hrm... am I concerned enough with lander weight, as to discriminate against the three man can?

...

*hysterical laughter, followed by coughing, choking*

#EDIT: Just to clarify, OP, I am not laughing at you or anyone else here. I am laughing at myself. For I spent ten whole minutes considering the advantages and disadvantages of the three man can before I realized that by my own nature, I had already rendered such consideration rather moot.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Whackjob

[rkman]

> Command Pod Mk1 and two Lander Cans (2 total tons) or a Mk1 and one Mk 2 Lander Can (3.3 total tons).

Which are much less durable, have less torque, less monoprop storage, and are a different form factor which may be an issue in mating them to a rocket.

All of which is in practice rarely a problem.

Also, the mass you're carrying down and back doesn't matter so much on the smaller moons.

It does matter when lifting it from kerbin.

I hope the differences in stats between those pods mean that at some point in the future there will be a game mechanic that is an incentive to use the heavy 3 man pod for reasons other than looks - a game mechanic such as reentry heat.

Otoh it is possible that the current stats of various pods are just place holders until Squad does a part balance overhaul.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't get the hate for the 3-man pod. Sure, if all you look at is kerbals/ton, it's a loser, but who cares? It's aesthetically pleasing on some rockets, and it's a one part battery/reaction wheel/3-crew space.

There are several engines that, by the numbers, are outperformed by others in every aspect, but I still see them being used in some designs because they suit the builder's fancy.

[SSSPutnik]

Hitchhiker for the win. Best Kerbals to mass ratio.

However it depends what you want, how much realism, do you need SAS in your pod, how many crew do you want/need etc.

Also where you're going. Interplanetary mass is a serious issue.

Going to Mun or Minimus? Mass not such a big deal.

[Red Iron Crown]

Hitchhiker for the win. Best Kerbals to mass ratio. *snip*

I think the Lander Can Mk1 very slightly beats it, and gives you a reaction wheel and battery to boot. Also lets you take exactly the number of Kerbals you want without any wasted mass if you don't want a multiple of four.

That said, I use hitchhikers for large numbers of kerbals to keep part count down and not look like a kerbal prison.

[LordQ]

Why the Mk1-2 Command Pod? Because it's a challenge.

[FREEFALL1984]

To answer this question we must ask ourselves "Why are we playing KSP in the first place?" KSP is one of those games where what you get out of it is directly proportionate to what you put in. I find that the people who enjoy this game the most are the people who are prepared to use their imagination to build scenarios, create missions, storys and plot lines in order to further enjoy the game. Imagine its like playing with action figures as a kid, sometimes it doesn't make perfect sense, but we do it because it's fun, People send large scale missions to Laythe, such as this fascinating read by Brotoro

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/27552-Long-term-Laythe-Mission-%28pic-heavy%29-_-With-Part-28-_

This being said you need to ask yourself, is the MK1-2 lander pod really useless? or could it serve as a command and control point for a Munbase, or a cockpit for an interplanetary voyage, or could it be to a command pod for a single Kerbal and ton of imaginary provisions for a long voyage.

My point is, feed your imagination

[Jouni]

Also where you're going. Interplanetary mass is a serious issue.

Going to Mun or Minimus? Mass not such a big deal.

That changes once you have a rocket that can reliably launch a jumbo tank, a couple of nuclear engines, and a big docking port into orbit. After that, mass becomes an issue only when landing on planets with high gravity. Kerbin doesn't count, because you have infinite amounts of things there. Even Laythe is a borderline case, because jet engines work there.

In my current sandbox game, the biggest issue in interplanetary missions is reusability. If I can complete a mission with the hardware I already have nearby, I can try that mission today. Otherwise I may have to wait for weeks of real time for the new ship to get there. I can't just warp to the next launch window and then to the arrival, because there are so many other things going on.

[SSSPutnik]

Um not really... If you are on an extended mission fuel becomes an issue. Boosting an extra few tons to say Jool intercept, voyage around, it all adds up. Saving a few tons at departure makes a huge difference after a while.

My heavy launcher can lift 320+ tons in one go. But start adding landers, probes etc...

That said some people have done Jool 5 at 50t on the pad..

[Jouni]

If you are on an extended mission, you can have a constant flow of fuel tankers between Kerbin and the destination. Or if you are lazy, like me, you use kethane instead.

A rocket is just an uninteresting mechanism for launching stuff to LKO. Once you can lift that jumbo fuel tank with nuclear engines, you rarely have any need for bigger rockets, no matter how huge missions you are planning to do.