Mercury vs Mk-1 about rp-0 HOT 3 CLOSED

I'm of the opinion that there should be tradeoffs. Perhaps Mk1 has more
room for life support, or some other benefit that justifies the cost and
weight.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Paul Fenwick [email protected]
wrote:

If the player has FASA installed, the Mercury capsule is available for
3,730, a decent chunk less than the Mk 1 at 4,400. The Mercury also weighs
less (by about 100kg), and can withstand higher temperatures, although it's
less crash tolerant.

This is mainly an "are we sure?" check. It seems more fair for the Mercury
and Mk 1 to be the same cost and weight.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#50.

from rp-0.

I will port back the cost changes from the Mercury to the MK1 at the least. The issue here (I thought I wrote this in comments) is that we know the cost of the Mercury spacecraft, not the cost of individual components. The total cost of the spacecraft is 4.4mil, with research at 88mil, so I parceled that out amongst the various parts that make the spacecraft. I will lower the Mk1's cost such that you get the same amount of spacecraft for the money, for now.

Longer term, I agree there should be some tradeoffs...although we duplicate some FASA engines with stock parts, so it wouldn't be unheardof to duplicate a FASA pod...

from rp-0.

At least as of 2f51628 and f3ed9bb the costs are harmonised, so I'm happy to call this closed! :)

from rp-0.