Should "Lander Cans" be nerfed for 1.0?

[Tex]

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.

I get you, I get you. However, I don't think this is premature, I believe that the new heat model will have more of a Deadly Re-Entry-esque type of killing factor to kapsules and probes. I want to see what people think about these lander cans not being able to re-enter Kerbin's atmosphere as the LM would not have been able to do. However, if SQUAD does decide to make them a craft class all their own, that are lightweight and re-entry capable, then I assume a good move would be to put them even further along the tech tree than they are now.

[stupid_chris]

A nerf?? They need a buff if they need anything. The Mk1 lander can is just fine, but the Mk2 is waaaaay way way too heavy. It makes absolutely no sense that the Cupola with it's heavy glass would be nearly a ton lighter than a can made of fragile materials and barebones instruments on purpose.

[Tex]

A nerf?? They need a buff if they need anything. The Mk1 lander can is just fine, but the Mk2 is waaaaay way way too heavy. It makes absolutely no sense that the Cupola with it's heavy glass would be nearly a ton lighter than a can made of fragile materials and barebones instruments on purpose.

I do agree with that! Space windows are heavy!

Consider their strength, though, a point you yourself brought up. Should they be nerfed in the regard of crash tolerance and heat resistance? I think so.

[Himynameisjake]

make them lighter, flimsier, and less heat tolerant.

[stupid_chris]

I do agree with that! Space windows are heavy!

Consider their strength, though, a point you yourself brought up. Should they be nerfed in the regard of crash tolerance and heat resistance? I think so.

The crash tolerance of the mk2 lander can is 8m/s, against 45m/s for the Mk1-2 pod. I don't think we even need to touch it. As for heat resistance, since heat was pretty much a non-issue until now, it was totally unecessary to touch it. I believe since reentry heat will now be a thing they'll look at it for each part.

[Torquemadus]

I always felt uncomfortable re-entering Kerbin's atmosphere in either lander can. The shape of the window means that it catches lots of re-entry flame effects that flow over it in a way that looks especially scary when viewed from IVA! I'd feel a lot safer if I could hide the thing behind an aeroshield or something similar.

[NoMrBond]

Give them higher drag at least, so they would need to be covered by fairings while appropriate

Perhaps lower thermal resistance if the increased drag doesn't solve this alone (since more drag should mean more heat?)

Since Kerbals can't get cramped, or get cold, and there's no real way to simulate the misery of using a short term capsule for long term occupancy though unless you wanted to do something crazy like limiting timewarp with lander cans so it was only practical to use them for short (ascent/descent) sections but impractical otherwise (but you could timewarp on the ground for example)?

[SorryDave]

I thought that this was going to be addressed in 1.0. It is clear from the in-game description that they were not meant to survive reentry.

I thought only command pods and spaceplane parts were going to have heat shields, and some fairings. But I can't find any post that states this, was it a dream?

[cpast]

Give them higher drag at least, so they would need to be covered by fairings while appropriate

Perhaps lower thermal resistance if the increased drag doesn't solve this alone (since more drag should mean more heat?)

Since Kerbals can't get cramped, or get cold, and there's no real way to simulate the misery of using a short term capsule for long term occupancy though unless you wanted to do something crazy like limiting timewarp with lander cans so it was only practical to use them for short (ascent/descent) sections but impractical otherwise (but you could timewarp on the ground for example)?

The issue with that is I think the Mk 1 lander is bigger than the Mk 1 capsule.

[NoMrBond]

The issue with that is I think the Mk 1 lander is bigger than the Mk 1 capsule.

Heh, yeah, they remind of John Glenn's joke, you didn't so much climb inside a Mercury spacecraft as put it on.

I don't even know how they get their helmets in there

[KSK]

Make them lighter but not heat or impact resistant. So they're no good for atmospheric reentry but are light enough that they have an advantage over a capsule for landing on other celestial bodies.

[Wabbit]

Lighter, weaker, very heat-sensitive is the way to go. They are meant for landers to save weight, which means a lot of cutting back on materials. So it's a trade-off between heavy and strong, or feather-light and paper-thin.

[Whirligig Girl]

I think the most important thing is to make them earlier in the tech tree. How is Jeb supposed to be landing on the Mun in a lander where the windows are pointed upwards? He needs to be able to see the ground! Honestly, I think we need the Mk1-2 earlier as well!

[tater]

They should have a much lower heat tolerance for whatever the reentry system is. In general, I'd prefer a more nuanced impact system. Since we now have "engineers," lets make things break more if repairable. The "part explodes" impact speed could be at X, and the damage value substantially lower for parts based upon what it is. For a lander can, damage might disable the reaction wheels, lose any mono, etc. (again, an engineer can hop out and fix it)

There is no "science" reason to return lander cans to kerbin at all. You can take the science from the can, or any instruments, and transfer to a capsule.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the most important thing is to make them earlier in the tech tree. How is Jeb supposed to be landing on the Mun in a lander where the windows are pointed upwards? He needs to be able to see the ground! Honestly, I think we need the Mk1-2 earlier as well!

Because having them both under a week from your first launch isn't fast enough?

The problem is endemic to the entire tech tree. Buying new stuff is a good reward system, but it doesn't actually make any sense (a mission is picked, and tech is developed to do that mission, in KSP, you do missions to get tech after the fact).

That said, I entirely agree.

[rkman]

Yes lander pods should not be able to survive G-loads of atmospheric reentry. Should fall apart from buffeting forces alone.

[Rath]

I think that they should have their temp tollerance so low that even with a reasonably sized heatsheild that should still nort be able to survive re-entry (If you you have some massive 3.75 metre heatsheild on your mothership you can areobrake and keep your landers intact).

[rkman]

If lander cans' max temperature would be nerfed, and if besides that the mass of lander cans is reduced (as it probably should), then it becomes hard to make it so that a lander can + heat shield is less optimal in terms of mass than a command pod + heat shield.

I'm not sure if stock physics allows for making a lander can unable to withstand reentry G-forces, but i think that would be preferable.

I think there is no way in hell that the LEM ascent stage would survive reentry regardless of how many heat shields are attached to it.