Materials Bay too large?

[Merinsan]

If you think it's hard getting 1 on a lander, try getting 5 or 6 on a lander!

I'm happy with the size, but I tend to build fairly big. Besides, it has lots of science in it, in needs to be big!

[NoMrBond]

What about a science bay in a saddle layout, basically split the science bay so it's still one part with half on each side

Javascript is disabled. View full album

This is a rough, with a few examples no animation/texture to speak of

It would let you have a stack bay without blowing out the height, or needing two radials or one radial then trying to balance it with other guff

[KerbMav]

This looks pretty great. Do you use deadly re-entry? I don't see a heatshield, so if you do, how do you deorbit with your science back to Kerbin?

You do not have to bring back the science equipment (anymore), you can grab the results and store them in the crew pod.

Just keep in mind building/attaching them in a way the kerbonauts are able to reach them(from the front), e.g. a ladder (very close) in front or very low to the ground.

It will drop the two outside mat bays during lift off, and the third one will be dropped once the ship has started reentry. I could have ditched the third goo can on the back of the capsule, but I left it on just in case I try to hit two biomes on Mun since this is my second trip there. Basically I just collect the science out of the bays so I do not mind dropping them off, and letting them smash into the ground is always nice to see.

I always try to leave everything I do not need anymore - or do not plan to reuse (e.g. washing out the science containers at an orbiting lab) - behind on the surface, like fule tanks used during the landing and the landing gear. So my landers - depending on tech level - usually have a base part with a tank for the landing maneuvers, the landing gear, science parts, ladders, parachutes (if needed, I even try to get rid of the main chutes on the top of the vessel after the landing), extra solar panels for transmissions etc. and a return part with crew pod, tanks, engines (if possible I use the same engines for landing and return to orbit, can be difficult though), batteries, solar panels.

The material bay usually goes below everything else, but making sure a Kerbal can reach it is not always easy.

What about a science bay in a saddle layout, basically split the science bay so it's still one part with half on each side

Like it!

Note to self: Make more screenshots!

[macegee]

Here's how I put one materials bay on a lander, beneath the lander can.

(clickable)

[CaptRobau]

I feel that a Materials Bay is something to bring on manned missions and the Mystery Goo sometimes works for both. Besides, a radial Materials Bay would need be huge and heavy or else it would outclass the inline one.

[Seret]

I always struggle with placement of the Materials Bay without having the thing get too tall and/or awkwardly wide.

There's no such thing as awkwardly wide for a lander. Wide is good. Stick your materials bay under your pod/lander can/probe core. Attach as many fuel tanks as you need radially to the mat bay (don't forget fuel lines). If you need more than six FLT-200 tanks something has gone seriously wrong. Engine goes under the mat bay, legs go on the tanks. Job done.

[sgt_flyer]

the only thing i'd change on the material bay, is it's radial attachment point, from the side to the back. - it's not really usable in rotation based symmetry right now because of that

[KerbMav]

I feel that a Materials Bay is something to bring on manned missions and the Mystery Goo sometimes works for both. Besides, a radial Materials Bay would need be huge and heavy or else it would outclass the inline one.

Put it as an upgrade deeper in the tech tree then?

Comparing the old soviet probes and todays rovers ...

the only thing i'd change on the material bay, is it's radial attachment point, from the side to the back. - it's not really usable in rotation based symmetry right now because of that

An apt modder could do this in a minute using ModuleManager I guess?

[WaveFunctionP]

6 biome capable lander. Very wide base, low center of gravity, very good twr, capable of kerbal landing with the use of the stock radial parachutes (realchutes' stackables work even better). Can adapt to different mission profiles as the top two labs can be jettisoned after use (note the upside down decoupler leaves the vehicle as well), and the radial labs and engines can be jettisoned when spent if required.

It's easy to make this layout with 3, 4, or 5 labs. Imagination is really the limit. They are bulky, and I wish they fit with the 1.25 capsules better, but it is workable. Remember part of the game is the design challenges. It wouldn't be so fun if all the holes were round, but the pegs were too. And remember, smaller can be better. This lander is overly capable. I'd personally send just enough get a mobile lab/refuler in orbit, do a 90 degree inclination survey of all the biomes and then hop the rest of the biome landings with a single lab/goo and then transfer science to a capsule and burn back to the pale blue dot.

Edited March 14, 2014 by WaveFunctionP

[Liowen]

You do not have to bring back the science equipment (anymore), you can grab the results and store them in the crew pod.

Just keep in mind building/attaching them in a way the kerbonauts are able to reach them(from the front), e.g. a ladder (very close) in front or very low to the ground.

I always try to leave everything I do not need anymore - or do not plan to reuse (e.g. washing out the science containers at an orbiting lab) - behind on the surface, like fule tanks used during the landing and the landing gear. So my landers - depending on tech level - usually have a base part with a tank for the landing maneuvers, the landing gear, science parts, ladders, parachutes (if needed, I even try to get rid of the main chutes on the top of the vessel after the landing), extra solar panels for transmissions etc. and a return part with crew pod, tanks, engines (if possible I use the same engines for landing and return to orbit, can be difficult though), batteries, solar panels.

The material bay usually goes below everything else, but making sure a Kerbal can reach it is not always easy.

Honestly I found getting them was easy, even with my poor EVA skills. My first version had them under the outside fuel tanks and made getting the data a bit a of chore, it also cause fuel line issue I did not discover until after landing on Mun. I tried to do an idea of the NASA moon lander design of sorts by making the landing gear detach when leaving, and looking back I could actually move the third mat bay to the outside like I did the others and I may do that for the next version to get rid of that goo can on the capsule.

[NecroBones]

the only thing i'd change on the material bay, is it's radial attachment point, from the side to the back. - it's not really usable in rotation based symmetry right now because of that

QFT. I really hate having them rotated in strange directions when I try to attach them with radial symmetry. IMHO, the doors should face outward by default.

[Wallace]

The materials bay is a pain in the butt if you have a big sized rocket. The goo canister is ok, but it would be good if there was another expeiment of the same side, like I dunno, if the atmospheric nosecone was changed for an atmospheric side scoop with the same weight and size as the canister.

The bay and the nosecone are the two most annoying science parts because they aren't designed to mount radially, I guess you can do with the bay, if you want a big ridiculous can sticking out the side of your rocket, but it doesn't mount nicely. I often end up using a cubic strut to mount the nosecone on the side, which also looks terrible, but there's not much to do about that. The fact that the MK1 plane cockpit already has a nose makes the atmospheric cone really useless as a cone. It looks ridiculous on the MK3 cockpit and the MK2 cockpit, which doesn't match any other parts anyway, also looks ridiculous as you need to use an adapter to fit the tiny nose on it, so it ends up like a giant long nose which looks awful. I don't get why it is tiny size, as the only thing it fits on is the MK1 Pod which it doesn't match at all. It's an ok fit on a probe core I guess, but who sends a probe core down to a planet schnooter-first to sample atmosphere? I prefer the top to be free for a parachute, but with the cone on you need 2 radial chutes which is just overkill. I think a radial scoop for atmosphere would be much better.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Wallace