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?
- Wow you really like your sets ;) I personally think that is to overly complicated. There are command modules with kerbals in them and command modules without kerbals. That would require three. I personally use “command pod”, “probe core” and (for both) “command module”. Sure “command pod” doesn't sound right for the seat, but I'd prefer if we don't have groups which only contain one part. Regarding “habitation module“ and “passenger module”, I'm not sure if those are good. There is no real difference between both parts apart from the “look”. what if now someone puts passenger modules on a space station as a habitation module? They both work exactly the same, by ferrying multiple kerbals of which no one is in command. There is currently (if there ever will be) no real “habitation”. Kerbals will live everywhere fine. Even in EVA.
- Also note that many of the names listed in the article are just synonyms. And one problem is that this is as official as the current one. — xZise [talk] 12:17, 26 February 2015 (CST)
- Apparently I do... Ignoring my aspie love of ordering things, there being so many synonyms does pose a problem — it's hard to know what's being referred to. Sometimes we want to talk about "anything to transport Kerbals in", sometimes "anything with an IVA view", and then other times about the need for anything whatsoever with command capabilities. Squad uses the term “Pod” for all manned or unmanned parts with command capability; this likely predates having probe cores as it sounds more like an Apollo capsule. If you begin to see the need, as I have, then here is an elegantly thought out solution. --Brendan (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2015 (CST)
v 1.11 Changes
Now in version 1.11, Kerbals add mass to a capsule. We might want to update the "dry" mass of the command modules to be the mass without a Kerbal or monoprop. For example, the Mk 1 Command Pod is 840kg with Monoprop + 1 Kerbal + Parachute and Jetpack; 800kg with 1 Kerbal + Parachute and Jetpack; 751kg with 1 Kerbal; 706kg empty. Should we count the dry mass as having a Kerbal with standard inventory, with no inventory, or as unmanned (relevant for rescue missions)? Also, should the wet mass include these? I'm thinking of expressing mass as "<default mass, w/ monoprop+kerbal+jetpack and parachute> (<empty mass, no kerbal or monoprop>)". So for the Mk 1 Command Pod, "0.840 (0.706)". --Electrollama (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- We definitely need to adjust this because we use the values from the .cfg files for the infoboxes and calculations. In the cfg file, the cost is the total WITHOUT the parachute and jetpack, while the mass is the total WITH a Kerbal, parachute and jetpack. So for the default mass we should include the fuels, Kerbals and their equipment, and for the empty mass we should use the value as if it was completely empty.
- Here are the cost and mass from the Mk1 Command Pod:
Monoprop Parachute Jetpack Cost Mass Yes Yes Yes 635 0.840 t (cfg) Yes No No 600 (cfg) 0.746 t No No No 588 0.706 t
- Of course there are some exceptions as the following parts don't include Kerbals when placed in the VAB/SPH:
- EAS-1 External Command Seat
- Mobile Processing Lab MPL-LG-2
- Mk1 Crew Cabin
- MK2 Crew Cabin
- Mk3 Passenger Module
- PPD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container
- --ArnePeirs (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)