Poll: monopropellant in the pod

[numerobis]

For the last year or so, there's been monopropellant in the kerbaled pods. Initially this was intended for refueling the Kerbals' EVA packs, but that feature was deemed to not be fun, and never made it out to the public.

Hence this poll. How do you feel about the monopropellant?

[steve_v]

Who cares? if you don't want it, tweak it out. I'd vote but there's no option for "nice to have but no big deal".

IMO, the EVA packs have plenty of fuel but the monoprop is handy for docking small landers.

[problemecium]

It annoys me occasionally when I forget to take it out for missions wherein I don't need it and am short on dV (and planes), but it sure comes in handy for when my Mun lander needs to dock at the station. Those 15 units are just enough to do the job so I don't have to add RCS tanks and make the whole thing bigger and heavier.

[Superfluous J]

I don't love or hate it, but I do wish there was a mod that would automatically take it out of all pods on launch unless the ship had at least one monoprop-using thruster.

[Sovek]

All my ships use RCS to turn around in space, actually its the reaction wheels I'd like to see removed.

[numerobis]

Who cares? if you don't want it, tweak it out. I'd vote but there's no option for "nice to have but no big deal".

IMO, the EVA packs have plenty of fuel but the monoprop is handy for docking small landers.

The EVA packs have *infinite* fuel since you can go back in the pod and refuel for free. That's what the mono prop tank was intended to fix -- but they reverted that because it wasn't fun (seems reasonable to me).

The mono prop is useless unless you have RCS thrusters, it's just dead mass. In career mode, it's a while before you have access to those thrusters. In the meanwhile, you've got a bar of a useless resource in your resources tab -- and extra mass to cart around if you forget to tweak it out.

[hazarada]

Imo, either go through with the plan of EVA's using mono propellant (makes sense to me) or put tiny thrusters on pods. Otherwise take it out.

[cantab]

It's about right for a few dockings of a small ship, so it's nice to not need a dedicated RCS tank.

[Captain Sierra]

I find it invaluable at times when I need to dock and there's no good way to tack on a monoprop tank. Most of my disposable lander designs take advantage of that so I can save on part count, cost, launch mass, etc.

Now, outside of the lander cans, it is rare I actually end up needing or using it, so its almost always tweaked out. While it is a nuisance to have to remember to remove, its also extremely handy on occasion.

[numerobis]

Imo, either go through with the plan of EVA's using mono propellant (makes sense to me) or put tiny thrusters on pods. Otherwise take it out.

Oh, I like the idea of thrusters integrated into the pods.

[Boomerang]

Someone made a simple plugin that follows through on Squad's original idea:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94396-0-24-2-EvaFuel-0-0-1

That's what I think about MP in pods, anyway.

And it works fine in both .25 and .90

[Reactordrone]

I don't bother putting RCS tanks on orbital taxis since there's enough in the pod for multiple dockings so i find it nice and handy.

[Xavven]

I usually need somewhere between 2 and 20 monopropellant for docking, depending on the size of the vehicle(s) and how many times they are designed to dock in a given mission. Without having fuel in the pod, I would have to haul around another 0.15 worth of dry mass in Stratus-V Roundified Monopropellant Tanks (one on each side to keep the ship balanced since they are radially attached). I guess it's not a big hit to my delta-v on my 2-man landers, but still it's a step backwards. I like having it built into the pod.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

My only issue with the Monoprop is, that the pods do not have built-in Thrusters

[FlyingPete]

It's useful for docking small craft, as previously mentioned. Also with the monopropellant engines it's just enough fuel for an emergency abort system when a launch goes wrong.

[Frank_G]

When building monoprop fueled landers, the small amount in the capsule is really useful. I like it that way, but using it as propellant for EVA packs would also be cool in my opinion. That feature should at least make it into hard mode.

[Uncle Mort]

Not that much bothered either way, although I agree with the post above EVA packs should have to have their fuel topped up from a finite supply of fuel.

[maltesh]

I usually need somewhere between 2 and 20 monopropellant for docking, depending on the size of the vehicle(s) and how many times they are designed to dock in a given mission. Without having fuel in the pod, I would have to haul around another 0.15 worth of dry mass in Stratus-V Roundified Monopropellant Tanks (one on each side to keep the ship balanced since they are radially attached). I guess it's not a big hit to my delta-v on my 2-man landers, but still it's a step backwards. I like having it built into the pod.

I'm fine with the amount of monoprop in the pods. Most of my spacecraft are in about the 12-ton range, and using 2-5 units of monoprop on docking is fairly normal for me, so the 40 units my Cheddar-class landers wind up with is plenty for multiple dockings.

I did find the 75 units of monoprop in the Mk2 Clamp-O-Tron to be way too much for my purposes, so on my Zephyr-class spaceplanes, I wound up eschewing it for a cargo bay and a ventral Clamp-o-tron..

[sal_vager]

I find the little bit of fuel to be useful as I don't need a lot anyway, and the "EVA packs use monoprop" was pretty cool as you had to manage your resources but RCS drain could leave you stranded.

Depends on your definition of fun I guess

Also, moving to dev discussion.

[Madrias]

The fart's worth of monopropellant in the pods is a convenient thing to have for when I've added RCS thrusters and forgot to add an RCS tank on a ship that was only meant to transfer two Kerbals to a space station. The way I build transfer vessels is so that they transfer their entire crew to the station and return empty, controlled by a probe core. Admittedly, this is more because I tend to break ships on landing. Returning Kerbals to the ground is usually done by spaceplane, and again, the monoprop is nice to have.

So I'd have to admit that I like the monoprop in the pods and cockpits.

[MKI]

The best long term and short term solution to this is as followed:

1. by default make the propellant in the pod NON EXISTENT. Where every pod, by default is tweaked to have no monopropelent. This would allow players to still use the in pod propellant, but only if they tweak it themselves. For the most part there are far more circumstances where you wont need the in-pod propellant, compared to actually needing it.

2. Add the EVA uses Monopropelent gameplay. I really don't understand why the Dev's didn't keep pushing this idea. Yes it can cause your Kerbals to get stranded with almost no hope. But at the same time the Claw and the new crew transfer system allows players to rescue any stranded ship regardless of where it is or how its designed.

Its not a huge game breaking features, but the ability to give Kerbals infinite RCS packs as long as they return to a capsule can be abused. Really the biggest problem with adding in the feature, which is probably one of the main reasons why it hasn't happened yet. Is because its a hidden feature that can screw up your missions. The fact your Kerbals use up some of the ships "fuel" every time they EVA isn't very clear cut. Since they also directly impact the capabilities of the Rocket without any real notification is kind of a big deal.

But we will just have to wait and see. There really is no reason to remove it unless Squad totally scraps the EVA- monopropellent idea since it is a VERY tiny feature that wont be missed.

[CaptRobau]

Having thrusters built into pods themselves, as some have suggested, is a terrible idea. That would make thruster placement even less intuitive, since you would always need to either disable those thrusters or build around the built-in thrusters.

[numerobis]

Thruster placement could indeed benefit from some nicer UI to balance them properly. I forget the name of the mod that provides that capability.

I don't see the extra difficulty from pod thrusters compared to putting thrusters on whatever other craft you have. On most spacecraft, the front/back thrusters on the pod would be fine. You'd just need thrusters to balance left/right and up/down, if the pod isn't at the center of mass.

- - - Updated - - -

1. by default make the propellant in the pod NON EXISTENT. Where every pod, by default is tweaked to have no monopropelent. This would allow players to still use the in pod propellant, but only if they tweak it themselves. For the most part there are far more circumstances where you wont need the in-pod propellant, compared to actually needing it.

What I did in previous versions was edit the cfg files to remove the mono prop tank entirely from the pods. If I add RCS thrusters, I can think to add a mono prop tank.

What I might do in the future is as you suggest: edit the cfg files to set the amount to zero by default. But that still leaves a bar in the resources tab when it's empty. Might be nice for the resources tab to remove zero-quantity lines by default (maybe with a checkbox to optionally display them, like with the stage-only checkbox).

[klgraham1013]

Implement it's intended purpose. EVA fuel should not be infinite. Saying finite EVA fuel isn't fun is like saying finite Oxidizer isn't fun. Of course, it sucks when you run out of either, but that doesn't mean they should be infinite. The fun in KSP comes from the challenge. Sometimes I think me and Squad disagree on that.

[numerobis]

In career mode, even EVA fuel doesn't make sense to carry to orbit before you unlock EVAs.