Should "Lander Cans" be nerfed for 1.0?

[Tex]

Something that I've been wondering about for a couple of releases now, actually.

Apart from the standard capsule-type spacecraft, such as the Command Pod Mk-1 or Mk1-2 Command Pod, which model the American Mercury and Apollo capsules (or rather, are analogous to the respective spacecraft), there are a seperate class of command pod known as the Lander Cans.

These lander cans, namely the Mk1 and Mk2 Lander Cans, are both lighter than the capsule command pods, and in the case of the Mk2 Can, seats one less, more closely fitting with the American LM.

My proposal, or question, is that these lightweight lander vehicles might deserve some nerfing for 1.0.

The American LM was designed to be as light as possible, to conserve fuel that would be required for selecting a more precise landing site than the computers could account for (Apollo 11 was a perfect example of this). Following suit, the Lander Cans are lightweight and have a much lower impact tolerance rating. For example, the Mk1-2 Command Pod, the three-seater, can tolerate impacts of 45 m/s, according to the wiki. The 2.5m Mk2 Lander Can can survive an impact of only 8 m/s. Even the pod's in-game description states: This cozy capsule seats two, and is very lightweight. However, don't expect it to survive atmospheric entry or even a sneeze.

And yet these lander cans have the exact same max. temperature rating (3400 degrees K) as the regular heat-shielded* command pods, and in fact I use the Mk1 Lander Can as a very useful lightweight capsule for completing contracts and performing Munar and Minmus landings, complete with parachute. From a gameplay standpoint, sure, it's a fun element, and I will admit that the Mk1 Lander Can can be used to create a much cooler-looking manned spacecraft than the Mk-1 Command Pod can (don't even get me started on the IVA views from the lander can... ), but from a realism standpoint it's horribly out of whack. Jim McDivitt, an Apollo astronaut, said of the LM: "When I saw a model of the Lunar Model, it had these rigid sides, and really looked strong. Turns out, that external portion of the Lunar Module was made up of mylar and cellophane, held together with Scotch tape and staples. You had to have pads in the floor 'cause if you dropped a screwdriver it'd go right through the floor. Holy Christmas- And we were gonna try to fly this thing?!"

I just thought I'd throw that out there. What do you think?

Edited February 17, 2015 by Maximus97

[Xavven]

Before I vote, I would ask the OP - in what way would you have them nerfed?

[Tex]

Mmf, yeah, I guess I didn't quite cover that- I suggest lowering the max. temperature rating so they would become unable to survive re-entry in the new re-entry system.

There we go! Discuss amongst yourselves!

Edited February 17, 2015 by Maximus97
Whoopsie-daisy.

[Thomas988]

I voted other, mainly because I'm not in favor of nerfing the lander cans nor leaving them be as is. I really don't know why, but they've always seemed a little "bland" to me. I'd like to see more practicality for these pods someday, perhaps advantages when landing on planets/moons as opposed to straight-out command pods.

[PDCWolf]

From a "what it is supposed to be" perspective, they should be nerfed as to not survive reentry on Kerbin (by themselves, if you add heatshields then sure, whatever).

[BagelRabbit]

I would drop the impact tolerance to 5 m/s or so, drop the maximum temperature to a mere 1,000 degrees K, and decrease the weight to 0.4 tons on the Small Lander-Can.

In short, this would allow people to fly Kerbals to airless worlds really easily, but they would need to transfer the Kerbals back to the regular command pod for any hope of surviving atmospheric re-entry. It would add a little more complexity to the game, and it would provide an intermediary step between regular cockpits and the external command seats (which, IMHO, need to be nerfed as well.)

[sdj64]

My vote would be to make the small lander can smaller to fit on 1.25m rockets better, and the large one lighter. I rarely use multi-Kerbal pods unless I'm trying for a certain visual look, because they are all worse than the one kerbal Mk1 pod and can or Hitchhikers. The large command pod should be lightened too, so that it weighs about the same as three Mk1 pods. Both "Apollo" crew modules are more than twice the weight of their equivalent in single seat pods.

I agree that both lander cans should not be given the heat shields that the command pods have.

[DuoDex]

Punted to correct subforum, and didn't actually break the poll!

I think they need a nerf, however my opinion is worth very little.

[Tex]

however my opinion is worth very little.

Poppycock, everybody's opinion is valuable! Also, thanks for the move!

[Brotoro]

Nerf them by making them less heat resistant? Sure. Their descriptions indicate that this was the original intent. I assume whoever is in charge of the Great Rebalancing will take care of this.

BUT, I don't think these cabins should be made equivalent to a Lunar Module by making them more susceptible to crash damage. The Lunar Module had walls legendarily "as thick as three layers of heavy duty aluminum foil". Yeow! We need general purpose lander cans in KSP that are built for much tougher duty than that because we have to use them on all sorts of improvised ships, landers, and rovers...not just minimum-mass Moon landers.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Brotoro

[mattinoz]

I'd say the Torque rating should be dropped lower as well so that it really is only enough for a lander.

Like the Cockpits* it could be biased in the most useful direction for a lander as a further distinction between it and a capsule.

*Then checks the wiki and thinks I must be going insane as I was sure all the cockpits had biased reaction wheels but it's only the Mk3 and Mk2 drone core.

Still may be they should.

[Xavven]

Mmf, yeah, I guess I didn't quite cover that- I suggest lowering the max. temperature rating so they would become unable to survive re-entry in the new re-entry system.

There we go! Discuss amongst yourselves!

Hm, that sounds like the right nerf. I'm voting yes.

I wonder, though, if it would still be possible to keep the lander can intact during re-entry with a 1000 Kelvin max temp (that's about the melting temperature of aluminum) if you put a few oversized heat shields in front of it.

[Caelib]

I'm hoping this will be automatically addressed with the re-entry heat addition that is planned for 1.0.

[Pthigrivi]

Importantly the MK2 is much heavier per-occupant than several other capsules. I don't think this is so much demands a nerf as it does a general careful rebalance of all capsules.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I assume they'll be rebalanced in 1.0, the max temp will mean something due to re-entry heat and (big assumption here), they won't have a heatshield on the bottom so actually won't survive normal re-entry.

[Wallygator]

Removing crash tolerance, weight and thermal protection are all valid adjustments.

Let's also remember there is still reasonable science benefit to returning these "cans" to Kerbin. Any rebalance should also comprehend any wider impact.

Also, our current paradigm regarding actual RL landers is based entirely on Apollo (manned - airless) and a plethora of probes (unmanned - various environments).

My suspicion is that is that if in RL we were to develop a manned lander for an atmospheric world it would be more aerodynamic, have heat shielding and be quite sturdy. Most of the Mars designs we see so far demonstrate much of this.

SO... I agree a bit of nerving can be considered, but currently these two cans are entirely multi-purpose at the moment and the science retrieval construct is biased towards getting them back to Kerbin. A serious nerf might only be considered if there were also a few more landing system options to choose from based on more specific parameters - including thermal shields, pressurised or not, more resilient landing legs, etc, etc, etc, (say that last bit out loud with a Yul Brenner accent)

Edited February 17, 2015 by Wallygator

[PlonioFludrasco]

IMO, the current temperarure tolerances aren't reflective of what it will be in 1.0, like the cost before career mode.

This and a SAS rework would be enough to prevent overpowered landers.

[cicatrix]

Since we do not yet know just how exactly the new reentry heat model will be implemented I think this discussion is a bit premature. SQUAD plans a grandiose re-balance of everything. Perhaps heat resistance will be re-balanced as well. Besides, I don't think that we should immediately assume that all KSP parts have inherited properties of their real-life prototypes. While they may look similar their characteristics can differ and I can live with that.

[Jouni]

I rarely use multi-Kerbal pods unless I'm trying for a certain visual look, because they are all worse than the one kerbal Mk1 pod and can or Hitchhikers. The large command pod should be lightened too, so that it weighs about the same as three Mk1 pods. Both "Apollo" crew modules are more than twice the weight of their equivalent in single seat pods.

A better idea is to add some kind of life support to the game. The heavy pods could then be more suitable for long-term missions than the small one-kerbal pods. The small pods are essentially just tin cans that store kerbals, while the larger pods feel more like command pods of actual spaceships.

[Renegrade]

I voted other, mainly because I'm not in favor of nerfing the lander cans nor leaving them be as is. I really don't know why, but they've always seemed a little "bland" to me. I'd like to see more practicality for these pods someday, perhaps advantages when landing on planets/moons as opposed to straight-out command pods.

They have a fair mass advantage over the re-entry pods - dry mass is UBER critical. This could be exaggerated by increasing the mass of the re-entry pods or decreasing the mass of the cans further (the 2-man can is particularly heavy...).

Nerf them by making them less heat resistant? Sure. Their descriptions indicate that this was the original intent. I assume whoever is in charge of the Great Rebalancing will take care of this.

Yeah, they do say not for use in those situations. I hope that does get looked at.

BUT, I don't think these cabins should be made equivalent to a Lunar Module by making them more susceptible to crash damage. The Lunar Module had walls legendarily "as thick as three layers of heavy duty aluminum foil". Yeow! We need general purpose lander cans in KSP that are built for much tougher duty than that because we have to use them on all sorts of improvised ships, landers, and rovers...not just minimum-mass Moon landers.

Well, you could use regular command pods for those duties...

A better idea is to add some kind of life support to the game. The heavy pods could then be more suitable for long-term missions than the small one-kerbal pods. The small pods are essentially just tin cans that store kerbals, while the larger pods feel more like command pods of actual spaceships.

This works well in BTSM, but to be effective there has to either be a) no external life support tanks or variable life support drain, or some variation therein (ex. a variation on A might be that the tanks are too heavy, and that it's less mass penalty to simply use the proper pod). Well, then there's the question of whether or not we get life support (I'd like there to be, personally, but not sure if Squad/the community would support that position)

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah looking more closely at the MK2, Im totally cool with re-entry heat as a nerf, meaning it would require using a heat shield if you wanted to use it, but the MK2 is currently the 3rd heaviest module per occupant behind only the cupola and the MK1-2, making it easily the most overweight module in the game. You can stack four MK1 cans for the same weight. If anything it should be drastically lighter.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Jouni]

This works well in BTSM, but to be effective there has to either be a) no external life support tanks or variable life support drain, or some variation therein (ex. a variation on A might be that the tanks are too heavy, and that it's less mass penalty to simply use the proper pod).

Maybe the small pods don't have a snack dispenser, so they can't access the snacks stored in external containers.

[Renegrade]

Maybe the small pods don't have a snack dispenser, so they can't access the snacks stored in external containers.

So um, no resource transfer to those pods? That would solve the issue but uh, might not be too popular..

Of course we could always just go with 'b' and say that being in the small pod makes the kerbals nervous, so they eat more snacks?

[Norpo]

I'd say buff the mk2 landing pod as well while you're at it, it's heavier than two one seater command pods, as I recall. Make it lighter.

But yeah, I agree, there's no way in hail those things should be able to survive re-entry. (Would make an Eve landing quite a bit harder...)

[John FX]

So there seems to be a few people who say 'turn down the heat resistance so they cannot re-enter without a heatshield'

This seems to assume a couple of things.

One being something like deadly re-entry in the stock game and another is stock heatshields (which the first point sort of implies)

I'm in favour of both of these so I voted to nerf the lander cans although to be honest, in DRE they don't survive re-entry anyway.