EAS-1 External Command Seat

[Kruleworld]

Should the External Command Seat be upgraded so it' functions like all the other command modules? ie is available as a 1st part (currently not) and controls properly.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't think so. It is overpowered enough as it is.

[Tex_NL]

How is it overpowered? It doesn't have any torque. It doesn't hold and RCS. It doesn't hold any electricity. All it does is offer control as long as a Kerbal sits in it. Seriously, there is nothing overpowered about it.

[Nemrav]

The reason its not a first part thing is that its RADIAL, which makes sense I guess..

What I would like to see is be able to load it up with a Kerbal in the VAB instead of attaching a mk1 command pod with sepatrons and decoupler on it just to get 1 Kerbal on a seat...

[Red Iron Crown]

How is it overpowered? It doesn't have any torque. It doesn't hold and RCS. It doesn't hold any electricity. All it does is offer control as long as a Kerbal sits in it. Seriously, there is nothing overpowered about it.

I consider it overpowered because it is incredibly light. It is less than 10% of the mass of the next lightest kerbal-carrying command pod, the Mk1 Lander Can. Even with adding a reaction wheel, smallest battery and smallest RCS tank, it's still lighter than the lander can, with twice the electricity capacity, ten times the RCS fuel, and over eighteen times the torque.

[sal_vager]

It's just a chair with a few controls, you can add those other parts to any pod.

[Red Iron Crown]

Well, if you're going for a manned mission somewhere, it's illogical to use any command pod other than the seat, because of its low mass. Maybe if you're desperate to keep the part count down, paying the mass penalty to consolidate battery, RCS and pod might be worth it. I would consider any part that is so advantageous that using others makes almost no sense to be overpowered.

I don't use it, as I hate the aesthetics and I guess I'm roleplaying that command seats are not appropriate for long duration occupancy, but those aren't rational reasons. Maybe as the game evolves some shortcoming of it will become apparent (maybe if life support is added or if there was an aerodynamic penalty), but with the game as it is I consider it overpowered.

[Deathsoul097]

Well, if you're going for a manned mission somewhere, it's illogical to use any command pod other than the seat, because of its low mass. Maybe if you're desperate to keep the part count down, paying the mass penalty to consolidate battery, RCS and pod might be worth it. I would consider any part that is so advantageous that using others makes almost no sense to be overpowered.

I don't use it, as I hate the aesthetics and I guess I'm roleplaying that command seats are not appropriate for long duration occupancy, but those aren't rational reasons. Maybe as the game evolves some shortcoming of it will become apparent (maybe if life support is added or if there was an aerodynamic penalty), but with the game as it is I consider it overpowered.

Actually, those are all pretty rational reasons if you ask me. Why use the LV-T45 when the LV-T30 is lighter and has more thrust? Sure the T45 has gimbal, but you can add a reaction wheel for less than a quarter of a tonne, which is the difference between the two. Why use MK-1 pod when the lander-can is lighter, and has better visibility? Why use the MK1-2 pod when the Hitchhiker is lighter and holds more kerbals? Even after adding any parts needed for control, the Hitchhiker is lighter. And yet, I still use the T45, the MK-1 and the MK1-2, even though there are other, possibly better options. The fact is, it isn't just Aesthetics. Every part has a purpose. The seat is for rovers, similar to the Apollo Lunar Rover, the Hitchhiker is for extended period living quarters. You don't see NASA just strapping a seat to a rocket because it's lighter.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Deathsoul097

[Red Iron Crown]

Actually, those are all pretty rational reasons if you ask me.

They are not. That's not to say they aren't good reasons, since this is a game and we're here to have fun making cool spacecraft. But if I were to play totally rationally, by the numbers, to be as efficient as possible, I would never use anything but the command chair for manned missions.

Why use the LV-T45 when the LV-T30 is lighter and has more thrust? Sure the T45 has gimbal, but you can add a reaction wheel for less than a quarter of a tonne, which is the difference between the two. Why use MK-1 pod when the lander-can is lighter, and has better visibility? Why use the MK1-2 pod when the Hitchhiker is lighter and holds more kerbals? Even after adding any parts needed for control, the Hitchhiker is lighter. And yet, I still use the T45, the MK-1 and the MK1-2, even though there are other, possibly better options. The fact is, it isn't just Aesthetics. Every part has a purpose. The seat is for rovers, similar to the Apollo Lunar Rover, the Hitchhiker is for extended period living quarters.

If I were to play strictly by the numbers I wouldn't use the T45, Mk1, or Mk1-2, unless some other factor were important (impact resistance for the pods maybe). There is nothing in the game that makes those parts any more suitable for the roles you lay out for them, so your reasons for using them are not based on efficiency. That's not a criticism, we all use parts because they fit together better, they look more like we imagine real spacecraft would, or we just like them better.

You don't see NASA just strapping a seat to a rocket because it's lighter.

I'm fairly sure they would if the real world worked like in KSP but every kilogram into orbit still meant serious money.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

Should the External Command Seat be upgraded so it' functions like all the other command modules? ie is available as a 1st part (currently not) and controls properly.

I'm not sure it would work very well to have the command seat as a root part; it's a chair. Nothing structural can attach to it any more than to an RCS block. As for "controls properly," do you mean giving it torque? Once again, it's a chair with some joysticks, there's no real place for reaction wheels, and there aren't any situations I can think of where you couldn't just add a probe core or reaction wheel. I definitely agree that it should be possible to add crew in the VAB though. It would make testing rovers much less obnoxious. We don't have to make our kerbals walk from the Astronaut Complex to the launch pad, do we?

For those saying it's overpowered, I agree with a major qualification: it's only overpowered because we don't have life support or proper aerodynamics yet. When a kerbal in an EVA suit can't survive more than a day, or when the airflow rips him out of his seat belt when you try to launch from Kerbin, it should be fine.

Even then, the EVA seat might be viable for some lander ascent stages.

[Justin Kerbice]

Trying to stick to real world is a failure in advance, and what Deathsoul097 wrote (NASA/seat) is so funny !

Real world have drag (which is very very strong, have you try to unfold an arm on a bike at > 250 km/h, try this and you'll know what I mean), heat, cold, (very) deadly radiations, and more than everything and worth, money.

Let's have fun in KSP world and if anyone want to play real, don't use parts which might "offend" your need of accuracy, you should even delete them.

I really would like to be abe to put a kerbal into the seat without having any other pod, dunno why it has not made this way already :/.

[Dodgey]

They are not. That's not to say they aren't good reasons, since this is a game and we're here to have fun making cool spacecraft. But if I were to play totally rationally, by the numbers, to be as efficient as possible, I would never use anything but the command chair for manned missions.

If I were to play strictly by the numbers I wouldn't use the T45, Mk1, or Mk1-2, unless some other factor were important (impact resistance for the pods maybe). There is nothing in the game that makes those parts any more suitable for the roles you lay out for them, so your reasons for using them are not based on efficiency. That's not a criticism, we all use parts because they fit together better, they look more like we imagine real spacecraft would, or we just like them better.

I'm fairly sure they would if the real world worked like in KSP but every kilogram into orbit still meant serious money.

Some of us like to imagine and pretend that the differences matter.....

[Red Iron Crown]

Some of us like to imagine and pretend that the differences matter.....

I do, too. I don't use the command chair for aesthetic and realism reasons. Doesn't make the chair any less overpowered, which is purely a numbers thing.

A good example would be designing an Eve manned return lander. It is much easier to do so when using the command chair instead of any other pod, with the whole lander being much smaller and lighter. Have a look at some of the designs on the forum, a lander based on the Mk1 Lander Can is likely to be 150 tons or more, while I've seen command seat based landers weighing in at under 50 tons. Saving all that mass in the uppermost stage has a ripple effect on all the stages below it.

[Red Iron Crown]

I really would like to be abe to put a kerbal into the seat without having any other pod, dunno why it has not made this way already :/.

AFAIK you can, just that the seat cannot be the root part. Use something other than a pod as the root part and you're golden.

Edit: Oops, I see you meant having the seat occupied, not just building a craft with the seat only. My bad.

[Nuke]

at least fix it so you can put a kerbal in it at launch. first person view and working displays would be nice, but id be happy if i could put a kerbal in it without having to build a crew loading gantry into my ship.

[AlexinTokyo]

Agree with being able to have it manned at launch - that way I wouldn't have to launch/recover a command pod every time I want to test a manned rover on Kerbin.

[Las-pen]

Would be handy. It would allow building smaller crafts (rovers and stuff) without having to add a huge cockpit on it with a separator.

[Joonatan1998]

The main disadvantage of the chair at the moment is that it doesn't allow you to make crew reports. (But it does make getting EVA reports much easier)

But because the contract rewards science doesn't really matter anymore.