Mk2 Cargo Bay that can hold a Mk1 Lander Can

[theJesuit]

Hi all,

I'm wondering whether a good artist/ modder would able to get out a hammer and bash some outward dents in the SP+ (now stock Cargo Bay) so that a Mk1 Lander Can is able to fit without pushing through the hull. I'm sure this would be a popular addition!

Thanks in advance! Peace.

[General Rarity]

I've noticed this too, my shuttle cannot carry landers to Station Aurora without looking ugly or lander-y.

I'd very much welcome a 'mk2.5' cargo bay.

[theJesuit]

I'd very much welcome a 'mk2.5' cargo bay.

Thanks General Rarity. Nice idea to call it a 'Mk2.5'.

Just for a quick clarification though I'm not looking for a 2.5m cargo bay, just one slightly more angular than the roundedness of the stock bay that can't cope with the protruding octagonal protuberances of the Mk1 Lander Can - hence the thought to just dent it out!

Maybe call it a Mk2A instead? Or Mk2X for a a slightly modified cross-section.

[SpaceLaunchSystem]

That would be great! But, it would look awkward to have a bulge on the bottom of your spaceplane. Why don't you add a Mk. 2.5 cockpit, crew cabin, adapters, fuel tanks, etc.

EDIT: Maybe that would be a little much.

Edited October 15, 2014 by SpaceLaunchSystem

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Hi, just taken a look at this issue, i'm not a user of spaceplanes but can appreciate the need, loading the two parts into blender shows that the lander can is much bigger than the bay, the only viable way i could see to to it would be to make a one off bay with adapters to standard mk2 parts, But this is likely to lead to issues with take off and landing I think as the bay would stick out a lot further than standard parts. See image for comparison, diameter wise the can is almost twice the size of the bay top to bottom, side on, well it may be possible to re engineer a version that would sit 1 or two can positioned as in image, but as i say some of the trade off's may be unsatisfactory

[Alshain]

Your better off asking for a smaller lander can IMO. I'm kind of hoping that one gets a re-design at some point in the future to be more consistent with the Mk2 lander can which has the same diameter at 2.5m parts.

[lajoswinkler]

Squad will release that stuff for Mk3 parts in v0.26. Soon.

[General Rarity]

I think some people are thinking about the wrong Lander Can...

I'm fairly certain OP was talking about this.

You see, this can is annoying in mk2 bays because its sides stick out, unlike the Mk1 (mercury style) command pod. And the Mk1 command pod doesn't have a great IVA for landing, whilst the lander can does.

[rhoark]

You can create a ModuleManager config to slightly scale up all the mk2 parts. Alternatively, the Kerbin Mini Shuttle will comfortably accommodate 1.25m parts that have small radial attaches as well. B9's S2 fuselage set can hold 2.5m cylinders.

[theJesuit]

, well it may be possible to re engineer a version that would sit 1 or two can positioned as in image, but as i say some of the trade off's may be unsatisfactory

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

I think some people are thinking about the wrong Lander Can...

I'm fairly certain OP was talking about this.

You see, this can is annoying in mk2 bays because its sides stick out, unlike the Mk1 (mercury style) command pod. And the Mk1 command pod doesn't have a great IVA for landing, whilst the lander can does.

Yes indeed General Rarity. A picture does paint a thousand posts! However I think Spanner Monkey has a point with even the Mk1 Can having to be sideways and pushing the 'dents' sideways.

[Whirligig Girl]

Lander cans are actually 1.875m parts. The Mk2 fuselages can support slightly over 1.3m. Of course the sides are more lenient, IIRC they are 2.5m width.

[Alshain]

I think some people are thinking about the wrong Lander Can...

I'm fairly certain OP was talking about this.

You see, this can is annoying in mk2 bays because its sides stick out, unlike the Mk1 (mercury style) command pod. And the Mk1 command pod doesn't have a great IVA for landing, whilst the lander can does.

Nope, that's the exact one I was talking about.