Talk:Command module

From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
Revision as of 08:28, 26 February 2015 by Brendan (talk | contribs) (Simple quadrant of rules for naming command modules and crew modules!)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Manned vs. Probe; Command vs. Habitation; Enclosed vs. External

We have a Venn Diagram]-type problem with our part terminology. We also have lots of synonyms thrown around on the wiki and in Squad's own part naming: probe core, drone core, capsule, command pod, cockpit, storage container, crew cabin, passenger module, and command module.
Here's my way of working it all out, and clearing it up.

In the universe of all KSP parts

  • is the set of parts with command capabilities: Command Modules
  • and the set of parts with crew capacity: Crew Modules.

There is an intersection between the sets. In all such cases, these parts also require a Kerbal to pilot them. Thus, I propose calling their intersection Pilot Modules. This is further broken down into Cockpits, Command Pods, Lander Cans, the PPD-12 Cupola, and also the EAS-1 Command Seat. But that's fine-grain.

The set of Command Modules minus the set of Crew Modules are Probe Cores — a term commonly used in official Probodobodyne product descriptions and on this wiki. Simple.

The set of Crew Modules... is tricky. Why? The EAS-1 External Command Seat. Though currently unique, it shows the set of Crew Modules is divided not just in two by having command or not, but four by having internal space or not.

Our Infobox/Part classes Crew Modules without command capabilities as "Habitation Modules". Currently this only includes the HSC, Mk2 Crew Cabin, and Mk3 Passenger Module. If there is ever an external bench seat without command functionality, "Habitation" won't sound right. It also sounds like a space station component, not a Mk2 or Mk3 vehicle. So, I propose the Mk3's term Passenger Module. In contrast with Pilot Module, Passenger Module conveys the essential difference of not being in command.

As for enclosed versus external, I propose layering the basic "Pilot / Passenger" Module distinction with calling the enclosed Crew Modules Crew Compartments. It doesn't sound like a seat, though "Crew Container" might also work.
Otherwise, if it's not enclosed, the Crew Module is still either a Pilot Module or a Passenger Module — no need for additional terms like "Pilot Station" or "Passenger Seat".

My whole proposal goes like this:

  • If the part has command capability, it's a Command Module
  • If the part has crew capacity, it's a Crew Module
  • Does the Command Module have crew capacity?
    • If yes, it's a Pilot Module
    • If no, it's a Probe Core
  • Does the Crew Module have command capabilities?
    • If yes, it's a Pilot Module
    • If no, it's a Passenger Module
  • Does the Crew Module have internal/enclosed space?
    • If yes, it's a Crew Compartment
      • Does the Crew Compartment have command capabilities?
        • If yes, it's a Pilot Compartment
        • If no, it's a Passenger Compartment
    • If no, default to Pilot Module or Passenger Module