Two Dead Kerbals

[GrantHenninger]

Here's a toast to my two tourists, who died for unexplained reasons. I'm hopeful that you might be able to provide some insight into why they died.

After a successful tour of the moons of Kerbin with stops on the surface of both Minmus and the Mun (as well as an emergency refueling in Kerbin orbit on the way home), my six tourists and one pilot were doing well under parachutes coming in for a nice splashdown right next to KSC. Descending at a rate of 8.0 m/s, the Large Tourist Ferry (clever name, eh?) splashed down and the ship survived intact. Unfortunately, two of the tourists in the PPD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container (which took the brunt of the splashdown) were killed, while two others survived.

As you might imagine, this was a traumatic experience for the two surviving tourists, and not great for the two dead ones either. While this hasn't seemed to decrease the demand for space tourism, I'm wondering how to avoid such a fate in the future. (Although maybe the simple solution is to just add more Mk2-R Radial-Mount Parachutes, perhaps four isn't enough.)

[Plusck]

The Hitchhiker can is very, very flimsy. It has one of the lowest impact tolerances of all the parts in the game.  On the plus side, I've never had a problem with the Hitchhiker can's joints - it seems to do ok in a stack (though someone else may have more definitive info on that).

So basically, you don't want to bring a Hitchhiker can down to the ground if there is any significant gravity. I've lost a whole hitchhiker can splashing down at very reasonable speeds - and I had thought that it would help cushion the impact.

As far as I'm aware, and with the exception of the fuel tanks, there are only four significant parts in the game which have an impact tolerance of only 6 m/s: the Lab (MPL), the Science Jr. materials bay, the command seat, and the Hitchhiker Storage Container.

However, I've never had tourists killed inside a part that itself survived. That's new to me.

 

edit: having realised that my post basically helps not at all... I took a look through a couple of savegames trying to see if there could be any explanation.

I don't see anything that would make any one tourist weaker than another.

However, I did discover a horrible fact: it would seem that all those fresh-faced applicants in the astronaut complex, the ones who cost a fortune to hire... well, if you don't hire them, they die.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Plusck

[James Kerman]

I use the weight of the returning vehicle to estimate how many chutes will be required.  My general rule is 1 radial chute per ton plus an XL on top.  Also you can add a strong lithobraking system (i.e. some cubic struts) on the bottom of the return vehicle.  I have seen video of 100m/s landings that survive using this method.

[bewing]

1 hour ago, Plusck said:

However, I did discover a horrible fact: it would seem that all those fresh-faced applicants in the astronaut complex, the ones who cost a fortune to hire... well, if you don't hire them, they die.

AHAHAHAHAHA! Ooops, I mean, Oh, dear.

@OP: I bring my tourist ships down on the runway (vertically, with parachutes and no landing legs) at 10.5 m/s. That includes my suborbital ships that are made with a pair of hitchhiker cans. I have never had a single tourist die from the impact. So something wacko happened to you. Are you running mods? Perhaps it was the water, somehow. I always try to land on the runway for full funds recovery, of course. It's been quite a while (an understatement) since I landed a hitchhiker can in the water.

[Hodari]

4 hours ago, Plusck said:

However, I did discover a horrible fact: it would seem that all those fresh-faced applicants in the astronaut complex, the ones who cost a fortune to hire... well, if you don't hire them, they die.

Apparently it's some sort of Kerbal extortion operation.  On the other hand, usually if I DO hire them, they die anyway. 

[Harry Rhodan]

7 hours ago, Plusck said:

However, I did discover a horrible fact: it would seem that all those fresh-faced applicants in the astronaut complex, the ones who cost a fortune to hire... well, if you don't hire them, they die.

A reference to the current economic situation?

[GrantHenninger]

11 hours ago, Plusck said:

edit: having realised that my post basically helps not at all... I took a look through a couple of savegames trying to see if there could be any explanation.

I don't see anything that would make any one tourist weaker than another.

However, I did discover a horrible fact: it would seem that all those fresh-faced applicants in the astronaut complex, the ones who cost a fortune to hire... well, if you don't hire them, they die.

It seemed odd that the lander can would survive but half the tourists in it would die. Oh well, on to Duna!

[GrantHenninger]

11 hours ago, James Kerman said:

I use the weight of the returning vehicle to estimate how many chutes will be required.  My general rule is 1 radial chute per ton plus an XL on top.  Also you can add a strong lithobraking system (i.e. some cubic struts) on the bottom of the return vehicle.  I have seen video of 100m/s landings that survive using this method.

That's a good rule of thumb, thanks!

[GrantHenninger]

10 hours ago, bewing said:

@OP: I bring my tourist ships down on the runway (vertically, with parachutes and no landing legs) at 10.5 m/s. That includes my suborbital ships that are made with a pair of hitchhiker cans. I have never had a single tourist die from the impact. So something wacko happened to you. Are you running mods? Perhaps it was the water, somehow. I always try to land on the runway for full funds recovery, of course. It's been quite a while (an understatement) since I landed a hitchhiker can in the water.

I guess that means I should start getting more accurate with my unpowered landings. 

[Plusck]

11 hours ago, bewing said:

I bring my tourist ships down on the runway (vertically, with parachutes and no landing legs) at 10.5 m/s.

I'm on medium difficulty, so maybe that changes something, but in 1.1.1 / 1.1.2 I've had a lot of parts blow up or simply disappear on landing/splashing down at around 8-9 m/s - specifically the hitchhiker can, plenty of heatshields, engines, etc.

Landing legs help - I just managed to get two nearly-full ore tanks landed on Kerbin (using 10 radial parachutes) in my 1.0.5 save at slightly over 10.5 m/s. Took five tries before they managed to stay stuck together after landing though.

[BLB263]

  I have noticed that landing an MK2 Command Pod, a Hitchhiker and a heat shield, with chutes slowing it down to 8 point something-or-other will destroy the Hitchhiker if it falls in the water. If it falls on solid ground, the Hitchhiker survives. It doesn't make sense to me, but I guess the heat shield keeps the container from touching the ground, but doesn't prevent it from entering the water at speed.
 
   GrantHenninger, are you sure that it wasn't the four tourists in the hitchhiker that survived, and Jeb just straight up murdered the other two in the pod with him, grinning maniacally all the while.

[GrantHenninger]

1 minute ago, BLB263 said:

   GrantHenninger, are you sure that it wasn't the four tourists in the hitchhiker that survived, and Jeb just straight up murdered the other two in the pod with him, grinning maniacally all the while.

No, I'm not sure of that at all. It could be, maybe I should stop having Jeb pilot tourist missions.

[KocLobster]

Have you ever successfully replicated this event? I think it was a total annomally, and you won't be able to.

That can is only good for 6m/s. I've noticed that landing in the water makes it even less stable and more inclined to explode, I generally land at 5m/s if I have a hitchhiker.

[Vanamonde]

There is no way for a KSP part to partially fail.* Either the cabin survives with all occupants alive, or it's destroyed with all occupants killed. What exactly are the circumstances you are reporting? 

* Apart from broken solar panels and flat rover tires, anyway. 

[Loren Pechtel]

On 5/3/2016 at 6:20 PM, James Kerman said:

I use the weight of the returning vehicle to estimate how many chutes will be required.  My general rule is 1 radial chute per ton plus an XL on top.  Also you can add a strong lithobraking system (i.e. some cubic struts) on the bottom of the return vehicle.  I have seen video of 100m/s landings that survive using this method.

Another thing to do:  Install the Stage Recovery mod.  Even if you don't use it to recover stages it comes with a calculator that tells you the expected landing speed.

[weregamer]

I just had the exact same thing happen to me. Two tourist cans, total of 7 tourists in them. I splashed down carefully, leaving SAS and RCS on "straight up". The vehicle was intact, but two tourists died. Totally reproducible from a quicksave right before reentry.

I can buy the "water reached the can while still splashing down" idea an explanation, I think. Changes my entire understanding of touchdown simulation mechanics.

[weregamer]

On 5/3/2016 at 8:51 PM, Vanamonde said:

There is no way for a KSP part to partially fail.* Either the cabin survives with all occupants alive, or it's destroyed with all occupants killed. What exactly are the circumstances you are reporting? 

* Apart from broken solar panels and flat rover tires, anyway. 

How can I down-vote this proven-false answer?

[Vanamonde]

weregamer, it was true when I posted it. In the latest update to the game, however, Kerbals can pass out from excessive Gs. I don't know if they can die from it now, though. 

[GDJ]

21 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

weregamer, it was true when I posted it. In the latest update to the game, however, Kerbals can pass out from excessive Gs. I don't know if they can die from it now, though. 

So far no death from 15+G's. Had a capsule re-enter with a 10m inflatable heat shield and the 3 Kerbals were exposed to at least 19G deceleration for a good 15 seconds. No death.

As for passing out......they should have.

Edited September 26, 2016 by GDJ

[Mikki]

... Since i can`t handle anymore losing Kerbals my careergame is stuck.
Maybe i should visit a nerveplumber.