3-Man Command Pod: Why?

[Geschosskopf]

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

Which misses the point. The Mk 1-2 provides no unique function in and of itself so is not a mission-critical component. Therefore, if you design ships by first accounting for all the mission-critical needs, the Mk 1-2 is just optional equipment you can add, or not, as the mood strikes you. From this POV, there are no reasons other than aesthetics and role-play to use the Mk 1-2 because other parts or combinations of parts can do more for less mass, plus have greater practicality in terms of being about to use 2.5m docking ports on both ends and having hatches in more convenient locations.

[RocketBlam]

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

...

http://i.imgur.com/2wjL94M.png

*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.

How did you get THAT into orbit?

[Cerberus738]

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.

you should look at some of the other creations done by wackjob.

as for not having any kerbals die... well that impressive... i'm going for most kerbals killed i'm pretty close to 50 already. Jebediah perished when a giant shockwave ripped through kerbin and blasted his space station out to infinity. i suppose he could be alive out there somewhere. kerbin command decided that, due to processing limitations, all communications with said space station be severed. I lost 16 in one horrible bus accident. i was moving a pile of the little buggers to a base close to ksc when i hit a carelessly discarded land mine and my bus exploded killing all passengers..... that was a sad day.

i support the use of the 3 man command pod. its durable and i always need more than 1 kerbal on a mission..... i just wish the darned hatch wasn't off at weird angle. humbug!

Edited March 7, 2014 by Cerberus738
not finished!

[SpacedCowboy]

I am totally with you on that point! When I was kind of new to KSP had finally gotten to Minmus, landed roughly but without incident, Jeb and the boys were ready to EVA and check out that pale green stuff! But then only to find out some lame engineer had placed a radial chute over the hatch! Jeb cussed a lot.

[RocketBlam]

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

A 1-man pod with the 2-man lander, total weight is 3.3

The 3-man lander total weight is 4.

Radial chutes weigh .15 each.

So to make the 1+2 solution heavier than the 3-man pod, you'd need 5 radial chutes.

Of course it's even worse if you use a 1-man pod and two 1-man lander cans. The difference there is 2 tons, which means you could add 13 chutes to it and STILL be lighter than a 3-man pod.

And don't forget, you need chutes to land the 3-man also. In fact you need more of them because it's heavier.

A lot of people don't seem to get that the weight you add to the top has a cascading, exponential effect all the way down to the bottom. In a 3-stage rocket for example, your 3rd stage has to be beefed up to carry the extra 2 tons. Your 2nd stage has to be beefed up to carry the extra 2 tons AND the extra weight of the 3rd stage, and the 1st stage has to be made a lot bigger to carry the 2 tons, the bigger 3rd stage and the bigger 2nd stage. Adding 2 tons on top of a rocket is a huge amount to have to lift.

Edited March 7, 2014 by RocketBlam

[ArmchairGravy]

A 1-man pod with the 2-man lander, total weight is 3.3

The 3-man lander total weight is 4.

Radial chutes weigh .15 each.

So to make the 1+2 solution heavier than the 3-man pod, you'd need 5 radial chutes.

Of course it's even worse if you use a 1-man pod and two 1-man lander cans. The difference there is 2 tons, which means you could add 13 chutes to it and STILL be lighter than a 3-man pod.

And don't forget, you need chutes to land the 3-man also. In fact you need more of them because it's heavier.

A lot of people don't seem to get that the weight you add to the top has a cascading, exponential effect all the way down to the bottom. In a 3-stage rocket for example, your 3rd stage has to be beefed up to carry the extra 2 tons. Your 2nd stage has to be beefed up to carry the extra 2 tons AND the extra weight of the 3rd stage, and the 1st stage has to be made a lot bigger to carry the 2 tons, the bigger 3rd stage and the bigger 2nd stage. Adding 2 tons on top of a rocket is a huge amount to have to lift.

The tyranny of the rocket equation oppresses us all.

[RocketBlam]

And yeah... I don't get why Kerbals ever have to die. I don't want to seem argumentative, but I really wonder why all your Kerbals are dying!

I can only think of one instance where a Kerbal might reasonably die: His space ship crashed into the target. But if that happened I would just reload and try again. No point in flying all the way to Laythe just to watch poor Jeb die in a fireball.

As far as dying from EVA... what are you doing on EVA that is so risky? My EVA missions go like this: I leave the capsule, go down to the ground, walk about 20 feet, plant a flag, grab a soil sample and do an EVA report. If someone can explain why they would need to do more than that, I'm ready to listen. Flying around a planet in your EVA pack might be kind of fun the first time, but... I don't see the point. You're probably not going to fly far enough to get to another biome and do more science.

The one Kerbal I deleted was because he was in such a crappy orbit around Jool that I just couldn't bring myself to launch a rescue mission all that way to retrieve him.

Sadly Jeb is in a close Jool orbit at a 90-degree inclination (North-South), and getting him out of that is going to take unholy amounts of DV, but I will, someday.

[iStickyDuck]

The simple answer to this question is "Why not?". Okay, it may weigh a ton (4 tonnes to be precise) but other than that what other reason is there to not send 3 kerbals to space in one go?

[Cerberus738]

And yeah... I don't get why Kerbals ever have to die. I don't want to seem argumentative, but I really wonder why all your Kerbals are dying!

I can only think of one instance where a Kerbal might reasonably die: His space ship crashed into the target. But if that happened I would just reload and try again. No point in flying all the way to Laythe just to watch poor Jeb die in a fireball.

As far as dying from EVA... what are you doing on EVA that is so risky? My EVA missions go like this: I leave the capsule, go down to the ground, walk about 20 feet, plant a flag, grab a soil sample and do an EVA report. If someone can explain why they would need to do more than that, I'm ready to listen. Flying around a planet in your EVA pack might be kind of fun the first time, but... I don't see the point. You're probably not going to fly far enough to get to another biome and do more science.

The one Kerbal I deleted was because he was in such a crappy orbit around Jool that I just couldn't bring myself to launch a rescue mission all that way to retrieve him.

Sadly Jeb is in a close Jool orbit at a 90-degree inclination (North-South), and getting him out of that is going to take unholy amounts of DV, but I will, someday.

ha ha... yeah. remembering to save is hard for me. i have a lot of missions going on and i hop back and forth between them. so a reload would require me to go back through all the ships again and that seems like waaaaay to much work for one dead kerbal. as for eva.... well... lots of random events happen in eva which send your kerbal flying off in a fun direction. then they come crashing back down and go splat. try eva when you're flying through the atmosphere. it's funny. boats are pretty deadly for kerbals as well. my games aren't really about collecting science.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Cerberus738

[Daze]

And yeah... I don't get why Kerbals ever have to die. I don't want to seem argumentative, but I really wonder why all your Kerbals are dying!

I can only think of one instance where a Kerbal might reasonably die: His space ship crashed into the target. But if that happened I would just reload and try again. No point in flying all the way to Laythe just to watch poor Jeb die in a fireball.

As far as dying from EVA... what are you doing on EVA that is so risky? My EVA missions go like this: I leave the capsule, go down to the ground, walk about 20 feet, plant a flag, grab a soil sample and do an EVA report. If someone can explain why they would need to do more than that, I'm ready to listen. Flying around a planet in your EVA pack might be kind of fun the first time, but... I don't see the point. You're probably not going to fly far enough to get to another biome and do more science.

The one Kerbal I deleted was because he was in such a crappy orbit around Jool that I just couldn't bring myself to launch a rescue mission all that way to retrieve him.

Sadly Jeb is in a close Jool orbit at a 90-degree inclination (North-South), and getting him out of that is going to take unholy amounts of DV, but I will, someday.

Man, you don't see any point for all.

2 ton in KSP is nothing, and by your message it looks that you play only for land-plant flag-return-repeat...

[Kerbart]

A lot of people don't seem to get that the weight you add to the top has a cascading, exponential effect all the way down to the bottom. In a 3-stage rocket for example, your 3rd stage has to be beefed up to carry the extra 2 tons. Your 2nd stage has to be beefed up to carry the extra 2 tons AND the extra weight of the 3rd stage, and the 1st stage has to be made a lot bigger to carry the 2 tons, the bigger 3rd stage and the bigger 2nd stage. Adding 2 tons on top of a rocket is a huge amount to have to lift.

You, on the other hand, seemed to have forgotten the great words of the late John Fitzgerald Kerman:

We choose to (...) do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

[Ravenchant]

Adding 2 tons on top of a rocket is a huge amount to have to lift.

Ah well, fuel tanks are relatively cheap. I have to wonder: how much mass do you usually lift to orbit?

[maccollo]

When I use the Mk1-2 command pod it's simply because I want something that resembles the apollo CSM. It's 'a payload' I decided to ferry from A to B and back to challenge myself.

If I wanted to do things with maximum efficiency I wouldn't even use the lander can. I would use seats.

Ah well, fuel tanks are relatively cheap. I have to wonder: how much mass do you usually lift to orbit?

Fuel tanks are cheap until you have rockets that weigh in at several 1000 tons. All of a sudden it takes a lot of effort to add a few extra tanks :/

[Jouni]

I'll link to a reply I just posted to another thread.

In short, fuel is just a number with no intrinsic value. When talking about fuel efficiency, we should really be talking about mission efficiency. How much player time, how many parts, and what other real resources are needed to achieve mission goals, and what are the risks associated with the mission?

[Space_Meerkat]

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.

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 realize this game is still in alpha, but I just can't envision why I would need to put something that huge and heavy on the top of my rocket.

Hey give your Kerbals some room to stretch. Why i don't use the command pod Mk1 : Im pretty sure 2-5 Kerbals sneak on every trip, I don't want the Kerbal Interplanetary Society cutting are budget and making us fund their families for the rest of their lives and funding the burial.

[RocketBlam]

Ah well, fuel tanks are relatively cheap. I have to wonder: how much mass do you usually lift to orbit?

There is no usual amount, it varies, but less weight at the top is always easier than more.

[LethalDose]

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 can land on kerbin unpowered (i.e. no rocket thrust) at <5 m/s with more chutes and live or I can land on Kerbin unpowered at 8 m/s and live...

So why add chutes if I don't need them? Actually, I don't care why you think I should add more chutes because [DEEEEEP BREATH]

Your play style is not my my play style but, your play style is okay.

aka "YPSINMPSBYPSIO".

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 .

That's cool, because YPSINMPSBYPSIO

Edited March 12, 2014 by LethalDose

[LethalDose]

And yeah... I don't get why Kerbals ever have to die. I don't want to seem argumentative, but I really wonder why all your Kerbals are dying!

Well, using M1-2 Command pods is one way to keep kerbals from dying... Sooo... yeah

If you don't want to seem argumentative, then stop. Plenty of other players have responded with valid reasons to use the pod and your only responses have been counter-argumentsThere's no sign that you've even tried to see things from an alternative PoV and accept there are valid uses for this pod that you address in different ways.

No one is telling you that you should use the Mk1-2 if you don't want to (clearly, you don't, and we really really get that), but by the same token you don't have any grounds to argue to state others shouldn't use it, or that it's pointless.

You asked why players use it, you were told why players use it.

The end.

[Pockrtplanesairways]

Redundancy. They can be fragile creatures.

While, when you think of it, They are Exponentially stronger than humans. Seriously, could you fall from a large rocket and survive? I don't think so.

[Cerberus738]

While, when you think of it, They are Exponentially stronger than humans. Seriously, could you fall from a large rocket and survive? I don't think so.

I just need a really nice helmet and i should be fine right? weeeeee!

[AlamoVampire]

its useful. honest. BUT, it is also not big enough! I was forced to launch a beast with 5 of them bolted on just to hurl 12 Kerbonauts into orbit. proof you say? why sure, here you go! its on my kerbal orbital science complex:

[KerbMav]

I too would like to see a bigger crew compartment option in variable sizes (1 and 2m parts at least).

Would do wonders for space planes as crew taxis and no need to launch multiple capsules or metallic abominations to bring up/home the crew of an interstellar flight or space station.