Parachutes now destroyed at very low speeds?

[Wingnutt]

Didn't have this issue until today after update. On any kind of launch I now cannot open my mk16 chute above 250m/s without having it instantly destroyed.

I wait as long as I can to slow as much as I can but, even deploying as low as 3000m they get trashed if my speed is above 250..

Am I missing something? This was not a problem before.

[Jouni]

250 m/s is a very high speed for deploying parachutes. In the real world, the Soyuz reentry capsule deploys its drogue chute at 230 m/s, while the Apollo command module deployed the drogue chute at less than 200 m/s. Both spacecraft deploy their main parachutes at speeds less than 100 m/s.

If the atmosphere doesn't slow down your reentry craft enough, you need to reduce mass or increase drag.

[Grumman]

If the atmosphere doesn't slow down your reentry craft enough, you need to reduce mass or increase drag.

Easier said than done, if your rocket was already in orbit when Squad nerfed your parachutes.

It's possible that the problem is being caused by the capsule kludge not being correctly applied to your rocket. There is a ModuleConductionMultiplier which is supposed to be applied to Mk 1 and Mk2-1 capsules now which apparently is not.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Grumman

[Daveroski]

From orbit, set your pe to 30k

As you approach pe burn retrograde any remaining fuel turn 45 deg in any direction and then detach your capsule and quickly go back to retrograde.

Let your heat-shield do it's job. The shallower the decent, the more aero-breaking you will get.

Try setting your chutes to auto deploy at their max setting (lowest altitude). Usually around 2000m.

[Jouni]

I did a quick test with a Mk1 pod, a heat shield, and a Mk16 parachute. I started from a 120 km orbit, and lowered the periapsis to 30 km. The pod slowed down to 250 m/s at 5.3 km, which sounds about right.

[sal_vager]

Yeah normal chutes will break if opened when near to or more than supersonic, this is a deliberate change and the right click menu will show if it's safe to open a parachute.

Droges are designed for high speed use, though it'll pay to check the action menu to avoid opening them too early.

None of the parachutes are designed to withstand being on fire for very long though.

Also, take Daveroski's advice, it'll help a lot.

[Wingnutt]

"set your PE to 30K"

TO be clear I am just starting out in carrier mode and have not unlocked much so when Im coming in its a capsule with no way of slowing or changing much of anything at all other then making sure I come in pointed so the heat shield can do its job.

Keep in mind with what I have available to me, it takes everything Ive got just to get into orbit, Im usually left with just enough fuel to de-orbit and after that Im just along for the ride. Post patch, ffor me the task of re-entry has gone from challenging but fun to all but impossible.

- - - Updated - - -

Followup question, assuming I have any monicum of control over it, what is the best angle to re-enter.. shallower or steeper? 45 degree?

[sal_vager]

Well, you should have enough ablative on the heat shields now to survive a high re-entry periapsis, the blunt shield provides a lot of drag to slow you down, and a low peri just helps keep heating to a minimum, though if you come in too low you can punch through the air, then the ground.

It's going to take a bit of getting used to, but even returning from Minmus is survivable, not sure about trying to aerobrake from Eeloo yet though

[Wingnutt]

I did a quick test with a Mk1 pod, a heat shield, and a Mk16 parachute. I started from a 120 km orbit, and lowered the periapsis to 30 km..

How? How do you change that with just a pod and no propulsion?

[Hcube]

How? How do you change that with just a pod and no propulsion?

It probably had a propulsion stage that got ditched after the burn....

[sal_vager]

Kerbals can also EVA and push with their jetpacks, I've saved a few spaceplanes that way.

[Wingnutt]

It probably had a propulsion stage that got ditched after the burn....

At my current science level getting into orbit and de-orbiting uses everything Ive got, especially if i'm actually trying to take anything up with me. It looks like Im just going to have to drastically scale back on my goals.

Also, am I crazy or can you stop and lower your thrust from orbit view, but not increase it?

When im trying to tweak my orbit, in the rare cases when I actually have the means to do so.. I can be in orbit view and turn my engine off, but I cant turn it back on, I have to switch to staging view, turn it on then switch back to orbit view.

[sal_vager]

In the orbit or map view X still works to stop the engines, but you need to raise the navball to have any other flight control.

[Wingnutt]

ahh just raise the nav ball, well that was simple

- - - Updated - - -

Just tried a quick test, coming in with capsule/heat shield from 400K at a 45 degree angle

Came in at 2300@70K heat shield pointed towards entry.. nothing showing any damage of any kind.. at around 30K and at 1000m/s ship explodes, report says heat shield overheated failed and exploded.

[Superfluous J]

Came in at 2300@70K heat shield pointed towards entry.. nothing showing any damage of any kind.. at around 30K and at 1000m/s ship explodes, report says heat shield overheated failed and exploded.

Damage is not visible. If you right click the heat shield it will show you how much ablator is left. When that gets to 0, you're nearing explodey time.

[Daveroski]

If you have just started career and can't see pe, the best re-entry is to burn retrograde until your flight path almost touches the ground on the other side of Kerbin. This will give you a good long time in atmosphere even from a higher orbit. But don't forget that while you are in orbit of less than around 200k, every biome you pass over will give you data on EVA. Shores, Mountains, Desert, Badlands, Water, grasslands, Highlands and Tundra are all available on an Equatorial orbit. They are tricky to get and you will have to hang on to the pod all the way through the orbit (without mods.) Each time you get new data go store it in the capsule as a kerbal can only carry one EVA report at a time unless he is taking data from one pod to another.

If you have the fuel, reduce your ap 70K to 150k and get that data before your re-entry burn.

[Roninpawn]

Just wanted to chime in to support you Wingnutt. Sounds like you're doing relatively GREAT with the new version and the difficulties its posing to most of us. I just finished a Munar return using aerobrake at high atmo, going around Kerbin dozens of times to lower my speed and come down safely -- and after my final orbit at about 50k, (yes orbit, yes 50k) I still just barely got my surface speed below 250m/s at 1-2km above sea level! Thank god I aimed for the largest ocean (and hit it) or Val, the science, and several hours of effort would have gone up in a fireball!

I just wanted to say that the trouble you're having with the new heat and aero changes are completely reasonable! Between skin-heat that just about demands a radiator for anything beyond a low Kerbin orbit return, parachutes that fail at a speed above 250m/s, and the extreme difficulty of building a return stage that doesn't turn into the wind, flip over half-way down, and send your ablator pointing retrograde, making it useless, 1.04 is... Well, it isn't so much a game anymore. Fun is taking a backseat to Realism and I don't call that a game; I call it a simulator.

But Wingnutt, you're doing great and I commend you for struggling through it all. I love KSP and I hope you get some enjoyment out of it too. If you get really frustrated with all this, don't hesitate to go back to 1.02. (if you can) There's a better ratio of fun:frustration in that version and I guarantee a lot of what's in 1.04 won't make it to later releases; will be heavily nerfed; or variable depending on the difficulty level you start your career in. I just can't imagine this level of difficulty being brought to a PS4 release.

Just don't forget to have fun, 'cause that's the point. (someone might want to remind Squad of that)

[Jouni]

I just wanted to say that the trouble you're having with the new heat and aero changes are completely reasonable! Between skin-heat that just about demands a radiator for anything beyond a low Kerbin orbit return, parachutes that fail at a speed above 250m/s, and the extreme difficulty of building a return stage that doesn't turn into the wind, flip over half-way down, and send your ablator pointing retrograde, making it useless, 1.04 is... Well, it isn't so much a game anymore. Fun is taking a backseat to Realism and I don't call that a game; I call it a simulator.

Designing reentry capsules that look like reentry capsules (and rockets that look like rockets and planes that look like planes) is a good initial step. Once you've learned how things work in the game, you have a better chance to make other shapes work.

Drop all unnecessary parts before reentry. Add a heat shield, and place all heavy parts as close to it as possible. Let the capsule taper off, and make sure that everything is covered by the heat shield.

This example craft returned safely from 20000 km by lowering the periapsis to 32 km. The drogue parachute could have been safely deployed at 10 km, but I waited until 5 km, just because it made more sense.

[Theysen]

30k to 22k as reentry periapsis worked for me on almost everything which was in orbit and had to come back. The reentry is now somewhat spectacular and you kind of get a better immersion of the whole process.

It doesn't allow you to burst a ship up to outer space for the early science grind as in version 1.0.2, and I think this is what the OP is trying to say. I had the same problem that when you just drop like a stone you don't burn up but you just dont drop speed low enough to deploy the chutes. You have to go onto a shallower trajectory as the others mentioned even for your little one shot pods to gather science so you spend more time bleeding off speed in the atmosphere than just boosting to space and fall back, the new atmosphere is very unforgiving to this aspect. c

[Roninpawn]

This example craft returned safely from 20000 km by lowering the periapsis to 32 km. The drogue parachute could have been safely deployed at 10 km, but I waited until 5 km, just because it made more sense.

That's a great design. I'm going to build like that in my Hardcore Pawn series on Youtube when I hit the tech level for it! Thanks for the idea.

[mcirish3]

Ok I get wanting to add some realisim, though, I do have my questions about the realisim of the current stock settings, and it doesn't phase me much since I have been playing for nearly 3 years and know the game well enough to adjust to almost any change. But I am not sure it is the best choice for this GAME. The new setting make the GAME extraordinarily difficult for the beginner. If you make it very difficult for the new player guess what!... they don't like the game, and guess who does not buy the game!... their friends, and the friends of their friends. It is simply bad for the GAME. If I want i simulator quality there are mods for that (I am a fan of actually, thank Nathankell Ferram and Egg and all the others i missed) but it should not be stock.

Also, the current discussion may be missing the mark a bit. Should this not be more about the fact that things now heat up a lot easier in atmo, but clearly they made the Atmo much less dense since it is much much harder to slow down enough to pull your parachute before impact. This means they increased the Heat from compression caused by air particles by at least a factor of 4 or more while decreasing the atmo density even further. It really is not about the parachute at all. Is this realistic perhaps but this it is a GAME not a simulator. I would bet most new players will walk away in frustration. As a huge fan of the GAME I hate to see bad things happen to it.

EDITED: For scientific accuracy.

Edited June 27, 2015 by mcirish3

[Jouni]

Ok I get wanting to add some realisim, though, I do have my questions about the realisim of the current stock settings, and it doesn't phase me much since I have been playing for nearly 3 years and know the game well enough to adjust to almost any change. But I am not sure it is the best choice for this GAME. The new setting make the GAME extraordinarily difficult for the beginner.

KSP isn't a difficult game. You need some real-world knowledge to play it, but not that much game-specific knowledge or player skills. If you find something in the game hard, the best solution is usually to read something about physics and spaceflight. The Wikipedia is a useful resource.

For some people, KSP may look harder than it is, because it's a sandbox game. There are very few hard limits around. In a normal game, such limits are everywhere. If you can try something, and the game doesn't clearly indicate that you're doing something stupid, then it's fair to assume that the challenge is appropriate and you're going to succeed after a few tries. Not so in KSP. You're free to try insanely difficult and even practically impossible things from day 1, and it's up to you to determine whether there's a reasonable chance of success.

Also, the current discussion may be missing the mark a bit. Should this not be more about the fact that things now heat up a lot easier in atmo, but clearly they made the Atmo much less dense since it is much much harder to slow down enough to pull your parachute before impact.

Slowing down isn't too hard, as long as you apply a bit of common sense. On the way up, the rocket should be tall and narrow, so drag won't slow it down. On the way down, the capsule should be short and wide, in order for drag to slow it down. It's only the game-specific knowledge of what used to work in the earlier versions that makes reentry hard.

[mcirish3]

KSP isn't a difficult game. You need some real-world knowledge to play it, but not that much game-specific knowledge or player skills. If you find something in the game hard, the best solution is usually to read something about physics and spaceflight. The Wikipedia is a useful resource.

I did not say it was hard for me, I said it would be very hard for the new player. I have a degree in astrophysics and like I said above I have been playing along time and can figure it out and did. But when my first suborbital flight disintegrated from an 80 km altitude from the heat of reentry I am going to go ahead and say a new player is not even going to have a clue on how to fix that problem or even really where to start. If it can't pass the 10 year old test it probably isn't accomplishing what one of the early game slogans was "rocket science, how hard can it". Yes, 10 year olds should find the game fun, and NO they should not be expected to read a wiki page on atmospheric compression dynamics during reentry in order to successfully launch and land their second rocket. Yes the game should inspire them and encourage them to look up space flight info and even eventually guide them to building proper re entry capsules, but not before they have even got their feet wet.

Edited: for scientific acuracy.

Slowing down isn't too hard, as long as you apply a bit of common sense. On the way up, the rocket should be tall and narrow, so drag won't slow it down. On the way down, the capsule should be short and wide, in order for drag to slow it down. It's only the game-specific knowledge of what used to work in the earlier versions that makes reentry hard.

It is too hard for a new player. THink about this for a second. you finally get past the hurdle of not burning up on reentry from a low suborbital (if you stick around that long to keep playing), only to have your parachutes ripped off because you deployed them too early, or to simply smash into the ground because it is now possible to have a velocity above parachute deployment speed all the way to the ground even from a low suborbital. It is not too hard for me I enjoy the challenge. But it is bad for the game and therefore bad for me if new players just walk away from the game in sheer frustration.

Edited June 27, 2015 by mcirish3

[Superfluous J]

KSP is like the final boss in most video games. You need to work out a technique to defeat it, and as soon as you do there's a new wrinkle. After about 3-5 layers of this, you finally win.

Only in KSP you have to go through that to get off the launchpad. Then again to get into orbit. Then again to land. Then again to get to Mun. Then again to land there. Etc for all time.

I personally love it, but yeah a few in-game tips would not be bad. I'd love the "you failed" screen to be a bit more verbose. "Your chutes ripped off because you were going too fast. Don't pull them until you're under 250m/s. You were going 342 m/s when you hit the ground, try coming in at a shallower angle so you bleed off more speed."

[Jouni]

I did not say it was hard for me, I said it would be very hard for the new player. I have a degree in astrophysics and like I said above I have been playing along time and can figure it out and did. But when my first suborbital flight disintegrated from an 80 km altitude from the heat of reentry I am going to go ahead and say a new player is not even going to have a clue on how to fix that problem or even really where to start.

Why do you assume that the new player neither has the relevant real-world knowledge nor the willingness to learn it? And why do you assume that KSP has ever been meant for people like that?

If it can't pass the 10 year old test it probably isn't accomplishing what one of the early game slogans was "rocket science, how hard can it". Yes, 10 year olds should find the game fun, and NO they should not be expected to read a wiki page on atmospheric frictional dynamics during reentry in order to successfully launch and land their second rocket.

That makes no sense at all. There are Lego sets not intended for people younger than 16 years, because younger kids usually don't have the patience and/or the abstract reasoning ability to build stuff with them. If limiting the target audience like that works for Lego, surely it can work for a computer game that aims to be more realistic than the vast majority of games.

Back when I grew up, it was common knowledge among kids that if the reentry is too steep, the capsule burns, and if it's too shallow, the capsule bounces back to space. Kids who were particularly interested about space learned from books how rockets get to orbit, why reentry capsules are shaped as they are, and similar stuff. These days learning is much easier than it used to be due to the Wikipedia and other online resources. Unless kids have become more stupid over the past 20-30 years, we should assume even more background knowledge from them. (At least from those interested in mostly realistic spaceflight games.)

But it is bad for the game and therefore bad for me if new players just walk away from the game in sheer frustration.

Trying to please everyone just makes the game mediocre, because there are too many compromises nobody really likes. It's always better to pick a narrow enough target audience, and assume it an unexpected bonus, if someone clearly outside the audience enjoys the game.