Star Citizen Ironclad Command Module Guide: How It Works
The Drake Command Module is the detachable control craft used by the Ironclad family. It can separate from the main hull, fly independently, make its own quantum journeys, and serve as an escape and personnel-transport option when moving the entire 117-meter parent ship is unnecessary.
It is not a detachable cargo shuttle.
The Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle record identifies the Command Module as a Size 2 transport, with a 2–5 crew field, dimensions of approximately 20 × 16 × 6 meters, 200 m/s SCM speed, 1,100 m/s maximum speed, and 0 SCU cargo capacity.
CIG also confirmed in its DefenseCon 2956 Q&A that the current module is shared between the Ironclad and Caterpillar and retains the intended beds, drop seats, and “life raft” function associated with the older Caterpillar concept.
For Ironclad owners, the practical question is not whether the module can detach. It can.
The more complicated question is what control remains available on the parent hull after separation, because the original design documentation and the later 4.9 implementation no longer align cleanly.
Command Module Specifications
| Specification | Alpha 4.10.0 Vehicle Data |
|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Drake Interplanetary |
| Role | Transport |
| Size | S2 |
| Crew field | 2–5 |
| Dimensions | 20 × 16 × 6 m |
| Cargo capacity | 0 SCU |
| SCM speed | 200 m/s |
| Maximum speed | 1,100 m/s |
| Ship HP | 6,700 |
| Ship-level shield HP | 2,160 |
| Independent quantum travel | Yes |
The version-locked record identifies the module as an independent vehicle rather than merely an interior room attached to the Ironclad.
That distinction explains why it can continue operating after separation.
Its 0 SCU cargo capacity is equally important. The module may transport people, but it cannot take part of the Ironclad's commercial cargo grid with it and complete a delivery on its own.
What Is the Ironclad Command Module For?
CIG's documentation centers the module on three functions:
- controlling the parent ship;
- independent personnel movement after separation;
- acting as an emergency escape craft.
The concept dates back to the Caterpillar, but the implementation used by the Ironclad family is now shared between the two Drake ship lines.
During DefenseCon 2956, CIG said the current Command Module was designed to preserve the older Caterpillar module's purpose, including beds, drop seats, and the ability to function as a “life raft.”
That gives the module a clearer purpose than treating it as a second cockpit attached only for visual interest.
The module can leave the heavy parent ship behind when moving the entire vessel would be inefficient or unnecessary.
For an Ironclad operating as a freight platform, that might mean leaving thousands of SCU of cargo in orbit while personnel travel elsewhere.
For an Ironclad Assault operating as a support base, it can give crew members a smaller independent craft without automatically requiring the entire vehicle-support platform to make the same journey.
The module therefore adds mobility to the crew, not mobility to the cargo.
Can the Command Module Fly Independently?
Yes.
The Alpha 4.10.0 data identifies the Command Module as a standalone Size 2 transport with its own flight performance, while CIG's original Ironclad Q&A confirmed that the module has a quantum drive for independent quantum travel.
The version-locked vehicle data lists:
- 200 m/s SCM speed
- 1,100 m/s maximum speed
- independent quantum-drive equipment
- 2,160 ship-level shield HP
Those characteristics make it much more than an escape pod that can only drift away from a damaged ship.
It is a real small craft with independent travel capability.
Its role remains limited, however. The Command Module does not have the cargo capacity of a dedicated shuttle or freighter, and detaching it should not be treated as receiving a second general-purpose ship with the Ironclad.
What Happens to the Ironclad When the Module Detaches?
This is where the documentation requires a version distinction.
In the original Ironclad design documentation, CIG said the ship was flown exclusively from the Command Module and that, after the module detached, the main hull could not independently fly. The same historical explanation said the remaining hull would retain functions including power, cooling, tractor-beam control, and self-defense.
DefenseCon 2956 later referred back to that design when discussing the intended use of leaving the main hull behind while the Command Module traveled elsewhere.
However, the implementation changed afterward.
During the 4.9 period, pilot controls were added to the Operations area, giving the Ironclad an additional onboard flight-control position. Issue Council report STARC-217393, reproduced on a 4.10.0 PTU build, explicitly describes the Operations room as having been reworked in 4.9 to allow pilot controls. Community reports from the same broader period also describe using the Operations position to fly the ship.
Some post-4.9 player reports go further and describe controlling the parent hull from Operations after the Command Module was detached.
That creates a genuine tension between the older official design documentation and the later implementation evidence.
Newer official documentation has not clearly reconciled the fully detached-hull behavior in a way that lets this guide establish either state as an independently verified Alpha 4.10.1 rule.
The safest current interpretation is therefore:
CIG's original design said a detached Ironclad hull could not fly independently, but the later addition of Operations pilot controls changed the implemented control architecture. Community evidence suggests detached-hull behavior may also have changed, while newer official documentation has not clearly confirmed the final Alpha 4.10.1 rule.
Why Leave the Main Ironclad in Orbit?
The original Command Module concept was particularly suited to leaving the much larger Ironclad above a planet while a smaller craft handled the atmospheric portion of the journey.
DefenseCon 2956 explicitly described this kind of use case when discussing why a crew might separate the module from the parent ship.
That logic still makes sense regardless of the unresolved current detached-hull control state.
The Ironclad is a very large vessel. Moving the full hull into atmosphere means taking its cargo, crew infrastructure, and physical footprint along even when only a few players need to reach the surface.
The Command Module gives a crew another option: detach the smaller craft and use it for personnel movement while the parent ship remains where the group wants its primary cargo or support platform.
For the standard Ironclad, that can leave the heavy freight platform in orbit.
For the Assault, it can leave the larger vehicle-support platform at an operating location while selected personnel travel elsewhere.
Whether another crew member can currently reposition the fully detached parent hull from Operations remains a separate implementation question. Historical CIG documentation said no; later 4.9+ implementation and community evidence suggest the control model changed. This guide does not treat either detached-hull behavior as an independently verified Alpha 4.10.1 rule.
What Happens if the Command Module Is Lost?
CIG clarified Command Module insurance behavior in the DefenseCon 2956 Q&A.
If the main ship is lost or destroyed, claiming it returns the host ship with a new Command Module attached.
CIG also stated that any previously detached or stored Command Module associated with that ship becomes bricked when the host is claimed. The unusable module can then be removed through the Fleet Manager's scrap option.
The Command Module can also be claimed separately without claiming the host ship.
This is an important clarification compared with the early concept period.
The insurance system is not intended to let an owner create permanent duplicate Command Modules by detaching one, storing it, and then claiming another complete host ship.
For owners planning to separate the module regularly, this claim behavior is more important than treating the feature as a novelty.
Is the Command Module the Same on Ironclad and Ironclad Assault?
Yes.
The standard Ironclad and Ironclad Assault use the same Command Module.
CIG also confirmed that the current Ironclad and Caterpillar modules are identical and interchangeable between the two ship families.
The current design retains the module's personnel-oriented features, including beds, drop seats, and its emergency “life raft” role.
This means the Command Module itself is not a reason to choose the Assault over the standard Ironclad.
Both Ironclad variants receive the same fundamental independent personnel craft. The broader variant decision remains elsewhere:
- the standard Ironclad prioritizes heavy freight;
- the Assault trades cargo capacity for vehicle support and a more specialized operating role.
The Ironclad vs Ironclad Assault comparison covers that broader choice, while the Ironclad Assault Guide focuses on the specialized variant.
Can the Command Module Carry Cargo?
No dedicated cargo grid is listed.
The Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle record reports 0 SCU.
This is one of the most important limitations to understand before planning around the system.
You cannot fill the Ironclad, detach the Command Module, load part of the standardized freight grid into the module, and use it as a small last-mile cargo ship based on the current vehicle data.
It is a personnel transport and command craft.
The data does list internal stowage, but personal-item storage is not the same thing as a standardized SCU cargo grid.
For actual freight delivery, the Ironclad's cargo remains associated with the parent ship.
Does the Command Module Have Weapons?
The current Alpha 4.10.0 equipment record supports one remote weapon turret with two Size 3 weapon ports on the Command Module.
That gives the module a measure of defensive capability.
It should not change how the craft is classified.
A small detachable transport with a remote turret is still not a dedicated fighter, and its armament is better understood as self-protection during personnel movement than as evidence of a combat-focused role.
Its 6,700 ship HP and 2,160 ship-level shield HP also place it in a very different survivability category from the large parent vessel.
The value of the module comes primarily from mobility and separation, not prolonged combat.
The Command Module's Biggest Ownership Problem Has Been Reliability
The module's concept is straightforward.
Its early implementation was not.
After the Ironclad became flyable, historical community reports described problems involving unexpected Command Module separation, travel interruptions, docking, doors, and boarding.
A May 21, 2026 player report described the module separating unexpectedly during travel, while other launch-period discussions reported quantum and docking-related problems.
A July 17, 2026 Alpha 4.9 report described the Ironclad as improved from launch but continued to report Command Module door and boarding problems alongside broader usability concerns.
These May–July reports are historical community evidence from earlier builds. They do not establish that the same separation, door, boarding, or quantum problems remain reproducible in Alpha 4.10.1.
Current Alpha 4.10.1 official known issue
RSI's current Star Citizen Alpha 4.10.1 Known Issues page separately lists “Drake Command Module Radar is Not Functioning.”
RSI states that the radar MFD can sometimes refuse to work. Its documented workaround is to undock the Command Module from the host ship and then redock it, after which the radar should function again.
This is different evidence from the earlier community reports.
The separation, door, boarding, and early travel problems above are historical player reports from previous builds. The radar MFD problem is a current official Alpha 4.10.1 Known Issue.
The presence of that specific current issue does not justify a broader claim that the Command Module as a whole is currently unreliable.
Why the Operations Control Change Matters
The addition of Operations-area pilot controls was a meaningful implementation change.
Before that change, CIG's published Ironclad design was built around the idea that the Command Module was the ship's exclusive flight-control location.
During the 4.9 period, community reports documented a new pilot position in Operations. More importantly, Issue Council STARC-217393 states in its 4.10.0 PTU reproduction notes that the Ironclad Operations room was reworked in 4.9 to allow pilot controls.
The report itself concerns remote-turret keybind behavior, not detached-hull flight capability. Its relevance here is narrower: it directly documents that the Operations seat's implementation changed from the earlier exclusive-Command-Module control design.
This later implementation evidence is in tension with the older official design documentation.
The older documentation said the parent hull could not fly independently after module separation. The later implementation added a second flight-control location, and some post-4.9 players have reported using Operations controls with the module detached.
That does not justify replacing the old rule with the opposite absolute statement.
Instead, it means the original documentation no longer cleanly describes every aspect of the implemented ship.
For Alpha 4.10.1, this guide therefore distinguishes three things:
- Historical official design: the Command Module was the exclusive flight-control location, and the detached hull was described as unable to fly independently.
- Later implementation: Operations received pilot controls during the 4.9 period, a change documented by both community evidence and Issue Council STARC-217393.
- Current detached-hull behavior: post-4.9 community evidence suggests the implementation may now allow more control than the original design described, but newer official documentation has not clearly reconciled the fully detached state.
This distinction avoids turning either an old design document or individual current player reports into a stronger claim than the evidence supports.
Command Module on the Standard Ironclad
On the standard Ironclad, the Command Module fits naturally into a freight operation.
The parent ship is built around a roughly 2,200-SCU cargo workload, while the module gives crew members a smaller craft for personnel movement.
That can be useful when moving the entire freighter would create unnecessary inconvenience or risk.
The limitation is that the cargo stays with the main ship.
An Ironclad carrying valuable freight cannot use the module to complete the freight portion of a delivery because the module has no standardized cargo grid.
The main Star Citizen Ironclad Guide covers the freight workflow in more detail.
Command Module on the Ironclad Assault
The Assault gives the Command Module a slightly different operational context.
The parent vessel is more likely to remain at an operating area as a vehicle-support platform while personnel or small teams have reasons to travel elsewhere without relocating the entire ship.
That can make independent crew transport more relevant.
However, the Command Module does not inherit the Assault's support facilities.
It has no 1,440-SCU hold, does not take the parent ship's vehicle-support space with it, and has no dedicated SCU cargo grid.
Separating the module therefore does not create a miniature mobile FOB.
It creates a smaller independent personnel craft while the actual support platform remains with the parent Ironclad Assault.
Is the Command Module Useful for Solo Players?
It can be useful, but it does not solve the Ironclad family's solo-crew problem.
A solo pilot can use the module for independent travel and later return to the parent vessel.
But once the player leaves in the module, the same person cannot simultaneously occupy the Ironclad and perform other crew-dependent tasks there.
The later Operations pilot controls are more meaningful to multicrew groups because they introduce an additional ship-control position.
Exactly what flight control remains available after the Command Module is fully detached is still the version-sensitive point described above.
For a solo owner, the module therefore adds flexibility rather than automation.
For a multicrew group, separating personnel between the Command Module and parent ship can create a genuine division of roles.
Is the Command Module Worth Using Regularly?
Yes—when the mission benefits from separating personnel from the parent Ironclad.
The feature has several clear purposes:
- independent personnel movement;
- atmospheric trips without necessarily taking the full parent vessel;
- emergency escape;
- retaining the main cargo or support platform at another location while part of the crew leaves.
It is much less valuable when every participant and every mission objective already need the entire Ironclad to travel together.
The module also adds complexity.
A detachable command craft introduces docking, separation, recovery, and claim considerations that a conventional fixed cockpit does not have. Its early reliability history shows the downside of that complexity, although those dated reports should not be treated as confirmed Alpha 4.10.1 defects.
The Command Module is therefore best understood as a situational logistics and personnel tool, not a mandatory step in every Ironclad flight.
Final Verdict
The Ironclad Command Module is one of the most distinctive features of the Ironclad family, but its value comes from crew mobility rather than cargo capacity.
It can fly independently, quantum travel on its own, transport personnel, serve as an emergency escape craft, and be claimed separately from the parent ship. The current module is also shared with the Caterpillar and retains the beds, drop seats, and “life raft” purpose CIG describes for the design.
Its limitations remain important.
It carries 0 SCU, and using it effectively requires the crew to think about where both the module and parent ship need to be.
The parent-hull control question must remain version-sensitive. CIG's original design documentation described the Command Module as the exclusive flight-control location and said the detached parent hull could not fly independently. Operations-area pilot controls were then added during the 4.9 implementation, and post-4.9 community evidence suggests the detached-hull behavior may have changed.
Newer official documentation has not clearly reconciled those two states.
This guide therefore does not assert either “the detached Ironclad cannot fly” or “the detached Ironclad definitely can fly from Operations” as an independently verified Alpha 4.10.1 rule.
For standard Ironclad owners, the module remains a useful way to separate personnel movement from a large freight platform.
For Assault crews, it can allow personnel to leave while the larger support platform remains focused on the main operation.
That makes the Command Module genuinely useful—but primarily when the mission has a reason to separate the crew from the parent ship.
FAQ
Can the Ironclad Command Module fly by itself?
Yes. The Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle record identifies it as an independent Size 2 transport, and CIG's Ironclad documentation confirms independent quantum capability.
How much cargo does the Command Module carry?
The Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle record lists 0 SCU. It has personal stowage, but no standardized cargo-grid capacity.
Can the Ironclad fly without the Command Module?
CIG's original Ironclad design documentation said the main hull could not independently fly after the Command Module detached, although it retained systems such as power, cooling, tractor-beam control, and self-defense.
The implementation later changed when Operations-area pilot controls were added during the 4.9 period. Issue Council STARC-217393 explicitly describes that Operations-room rework, while post-4.9 community reports suggest the control implementation may extend beyond the original design.
Because newer official documentation has not clearly reconciled the fully detached-hull behavior, this guide does not claim either state as an independently verified Alpha 4.10.1 rule.
Can the Command Module quantum travel?
Yes. CIG's Ironclad documentation explicitly confirms an onboard quantum drive, and the Alpha 4.10.0 vehicle record models the module as an independent ship.
Is there a current Alpha 4.10.1 Command Module known issue?
Yes. RSI currently lists Drake Command Module Radar is Not Functioning as an Alpha 4.10.1 Known Issue. The radar MFD may sometimes fail to work. RSI's workaround is to undock the Command Module from the host ship and then redock it.
This specific radar issue should not be generalized into a claim that every Command Module system is currently unreliable.
Can you claim the Command Module separately?
Yes. CIG's DefenseCon 2956 Q&A states that the Command Module can be claimed separately without triggering a claim for the parent ship.
What happens if the main Ironclad is claimed while a detached module still exists?
CIG says the replacement host ship arrives with a new Command Module. The older detached or stored module associated with that ship becomes bricked and can be removed through the Fleet Manager scrap option.
Do Ironclad and Ironclad Assault use the same Command Module?
Yes. Both Ironclad variants use the same module, and CIG states that the current Ironclad and Caterpillar Command Modules are identical and interchangeable.
Is the Command Module mainly an escape pod?
Emergency escape is one of its intended roles, but it is more capable than a conventional escape pod. It is an independent Size 2 transport with its own flight and quantum capability, beds, drop seats, and a defensive remote turret.
