Jump to content

More Multi-Crew Capsules

Monolith12

By Monolith12
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Monolith12

Monolith12

Posted
Posted

Hey there,

just started playing the Beta and I really like the new trait system for my Kerbals. But I do really think that the Career makes it hard to enjoy that feature at the beginning, because there are basically just pods with a crew max of one. To really take advantage of the crew system, more "intermediate" pod steps should be added, so that you can take at least 2 kerbals to orbit very, very early in the game.

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kelderek

Kelderek

Posted
Posted

There are bigger and better pods later on, not to mention the processing lab and hitchhiker storage. I think the progression of these is fine. If you want to take more than one Kerbal to space early on, then just use more than one command pod -- this is how I did my first Mun landings in 0.90, I used 3 command pods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frostiken

Frostiken

Posted
Posted
I think the whole idea of starting manned is mad, let alone starting with larger, heavier, multi-crewed capsules. Probes first!

And aircraft. We have these 'explore this point' contracts and it's basically just 'crash a rocket here' challenges that get old very fast. Also, aircraft would allow you to get more science terrestrially... right now most of my science comes from contracts in the early game, because using manned ballistic missiles to get places (even around the KSC) is tedious and silly.

That said, I agree, we need a 2-man pod. Not only because of the crew specializations, but also because of these 'rescue this moron' missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liowen

Liowen

Posted
Posted

I feel there should be an in between capsule from the single seat version and three man, I know there is the two man can but no pod with the same crew range. While your original post was about career mode I believe this is needed in the game in general, but for career mode it would have to go in between the single and triple manned pods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brotoro

Brotoro

Posted
Posted

I think a two-kerbal capsule is needed, especially with the new crew roles. I don't know if you could fit two kerbals in a 1.25 meter capsule...unless you make it longer and put one kerbal in front of the other. But a capsule that bulges out wider than 1.25 meters (but smaller than 2.5 meters) would be nice... especially if there are also conical adapter parts for adapting down to 1.25 rockets and up to 2.5 meter rockets (so that I can fill the adapters with RCS and batteries and retro rockets to make a Gemini-like spacecraft).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Phil

Bill Phil

Posted
Posted
I think the whole idea of starting manned is mad, let alone starting with larger, heavier, multi-crewed capsules. Probes first!

Hmm...

*dusts off old book, blows on it*

Wright Flyer, 1903. Seems like we started manned...

Although I do think the tech tree should start with a mk1 cockpit, mk1 fuselage, straight wings, jet engines, etc. and then get rockets from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
razark

razark

Posted
Posted (edited)
Wright Flyer, 1903. Seems like we started manned...

Hrm. Wright Flyer. Was that solid or liquid fueled rockets? ;)

I'd love to see a tech tree where we start off firmly grounded in post-WWII level technology. For the runway side of things, propellers rule the skies but jets are starting to become common, and rockets are starting to push the barriers even further back. On the other side, sounding rockets and other suborbital flights are the best that can be done, but crewed rockets should be an early node.

Edited by razark
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SyberSmoke

SyberSmoke

Posted
Posted
Well the gemini pod from the FASA pack is always an option. Add to that it has a nice IVA

Really the first rockets were more in the .625m range. Early space programs were more enthusiast things with Wernher von Braun working with scale models initially (though still rather large). Really if you wanted to argue it, the start of a space program would begin with scale rocketry and then advance to larger more robust designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegrade

Renegrade

Posted
Posted

"Most authorities consider the story apocryphal."

It's quite funny though. :)

Wright Flyer, 1903. Seems like we started manned...

They started off with research, watching birds (unmanned, pre-made airplanes), and then kites (unmanned, self-made airplanes) before proceeding to gliders and powered flight.

...

That being said, why not let the users decide their own path?

Would it kill KSP to put the Stayputnik and Z-100 battery into the first node? That would let users start their space program however they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pecan

Pecan

Posted
Posted
...why do you think starting manned is mad?...

...but seriously - rocket engines are dead simple and were the first mankind invented, long before steam. Guidance problems alone were sufficient that no-one seriously wanted to strap themselves to one though. Glider aircraft had more controllability but it wasn't until the power-to-mass ratio of internal combustion engines that it was possible to make powered flight. "Probe-core" gyroscopes, etc. were developed to test and control rockets before any practical man-carrying one was possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Temeter

Temeter

Posted
Posted (edited)

Idk, starting KSP without kerbals sounds pretty boring. There is so much fun and humor in frantically not trying to kill that poor guy. It's basically a trademark at this point.

Edited by Temeter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs

Higgs

Posted
Posted
...but seriously - rocket engines are dead simple <snip>

sorry. no they are not. if your talking a crude rocket motor with simple black powder, like say a bottle rocket, then, yea, simple. BUT, a Rocket Motor that is designed to lift things into orbit and BEYOND are anything BUT simple. Rocket motors and rocket science in general, is one of the most COMPLEX things humanity has done todate, and even given modern RM's safety and reliability, each and every time you put a rocket motor into action, you risk it flying apart. So, no, dead simple? far from it. Even the motors in THIS game are not "dead simple" so, starting unmanned is about as reasonable as asking you to not drink and drive and wear a seat belt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RCgothic

RCgothic

Posted
Posted

Tbh, I see why they went with manned starts as the default for new players. It's more fun to accidentally kill Kerbals.

But purists certainly have a point regarding unmanned starts. Perhaps an alternate tech tree could be a toggleable difficulty option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superfluous J

Superfluous J

Posted
Posted
Crew specialization has changed the game quite a bit, the desirability of 2+ kerbal pods has gone way up. I would like a 1.25m pod that holds 2 kerbals, or reshape the Mk1 pod so it is cylindrical and stackable without looking foolish.

Actually just an alternate Mk1 capsule that functions similar to the inline Mk1 cockpit would be awesome. Make it a cylinder, maybe half the height of the Mk1 capsule. Then you can make your own 2-seater by just stacking them.

It would make the lander can a bit obsolete but the lander can is light enough that I'd probably still use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superfluous J

Superfluous J

Posted
Posted (edited)
Issue with a stackable 1-man is that allows you to put up as many as you want. A conical 2-man is more limiting, and forces you to continue to choose which Kerbals to send only send Jeb on missions until you unlock probe cores.

There I fixed that for you :D

Also, that's absolutely not true. There is nothing (other than ugliness) that stops you from stacking as many capsules as you'd like right now. I frequently stack 2 to do rescue missions or bring along a second guy so Jeb isn't getting all the experience.

All the inline suggestion does is make our rockets look a little nicer when we do exactly what the setup of the game seems to encourage: Send multiple Kerbals out on missions.

Edited by 5thHorseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wolfedg

wolfedg

Posted
Posted (edited)
Well the gemini pod from the FASA pack is always an option. Add to that it has a nice IVA ~wolfedg(me)
Really the first rockets were more in the .625m range. Early space programs were more enthusiast things with Wernher von Braun working with scale models initially (though still rather large). Really if you wanted to argue it, the start of a space program would begin with scale rocketry and then advance to larger more robust designs.

My post was in response to the op, not the rabbit trail discussion about how the programs should have started out.

PS: Im for a sputnik/explorer start of the space programs, but perhaps they could make it so you have to choose beetween manned/unmanned to start out with and then work into the other

Edited by wolfedg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...