Craft recovery

[Cavscout74]

How hard would it be to recover all debris within a few meters (say 5 or 10) of your craft when you recover a craft?  I just love landing a craft a little hard, and after recovering it, having to go into the tracking station to recover multiple debris pieces that were sitting right next to the recovered craft.

[The Aziz]

"Clear the area" checkbox would work.

[swjr-swis]

A hard landing right next to a functional base may quickly change your mind, unless this was entirely optional. So yes please, but optional somehow.

[Dfthu]

5 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

A hard landing right next to a functional base may quickly change your mind, unless this was entirely optional. So yes please, but optional somehow.

That could be fixed by only recovering bits with less than 5 or 10 parts. So it would leave out a 200 part base.

[The Aziz]

No, why would anyone want to have a surface base on Kerbin? Because, so far, it's the only place where you can recover vessels from, unless it's modded.

[Pacca]

That could easily be worked around by having it only target debris, so potential bases and other vehicles would be left untouched. I think debris should be subject to more special cases, actually; I once had to sit and watch a shard of antenna slowly sink to the bottom of the ocean, with no way to save, switch off, recover it, or go back to the KSC because it was "moving on the surface". I understand the limit there for vehicles and whatnot, but having physics protections for debris seems silly...

[swjr-swis]

5 hours ago, Dfthu said:

That could be fixed by only recovering bits with less than 5 or 10 parts. So it would leave out a 200 part base.

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

No, why would anyone want to have a surface base on Kerbin?

1 hour ago, Pacca said:

That could easily be worked around by having it only target debris, so potential bases and other vehicles would be left untouched.

Still would want it to be optional, because all of the above cases could still be valid bases/craft/constructs in certain circumstances.

@Dfthu A base needn't be more than 5 parts - all one really needs is a crewed part and a command part... and they may even be the same single part. If we want to be 'realistic' and insist on power generation, antenna, and some form of docking, we're still only at 4 or 5 parts.

@The Aziz Why would anyone want to have a surface base anywhere in KSP? Exactly, but people do anyway. People place surface bases either for roleplay reasons, or to fulfill contracts, and both of those can be just as valid for Kerbin as any other CB. Also, some people like to start their games without the extra groundstations on Kerbin and build/place their own - that would constitute a base too. I did also assume that OP does not strictly mean 'recover' only, since the Tracking Station is mentioned - the Terminate button to get rid of craft/debris works anywhere, even in orbit.

@Pacca KSP and I don't always agree on what constitutes 'debris', so I don't trust it to automatically make the correct decisions in such matters. Sometimes accidentally (unexpected partial disassembly), but sometimes quite on purpose,  a permanent surface structure ended up without a command part, and for what I needed it was not really required. Yet KSP immediately labels it 'debris'.

[Hotel26]

They're all going to have the same name and classification and have been "split" into different "vessels" at the same time...

...the Tracking Station already should group them contiguously.

• ...
• Hapless Debris
• Hapless Debris
• Hapless Debris
• ...

So all it needs is a click (select), shift-click (group select) to select them all at once and then Terminate/Recover, as appropriate.

If Squad wouldn't do it, Haystack is the perfect vehicle for it, especially since it can filter by name...

 

Edited December 25, 2018 by Hotel26

[Gargamel]

7 hours ago, The Aziz said:

No, why would anyone want to have a surface base on Kerbin? Because, so far, it's the only place where you can recover vessels from, unless it's modded.

Aziz.... you've been here long enough to realize that's a silly question.       We're weird and do things just because we can.     So building a 500 part base as the new annex to the R&D building is easily within the mental capacity of our playerbase.  

[Hotel26]

8 hours ago, The Aziz said:

why would anyone want to have a surface base on Kerbin

1. If you build planes, then you might like to fly them on an aviation network and refuel at points, possibly transporting passengers.  Otherwise why build planes?

2. Bases for local exploration on Kerbin.

3. Bases for rescue equipment.  (I play by a rule under which I cannot recover anything on Kerbin unless an Investigation Inspector is present, or on the precincts of KSC or Baikerbanur...)

4. Bases for military surveillance: I run daily overflights of the Kerbean peninsula to keep the peace...

OK, I'll stop at 3... 

Some Kerbals plant flags.  Some build bases.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Hotel26

[TheFlyingKerman]

11 hours ago, The Aziz said:

No, why would anyone want to have a surface base on Kerbin? Because, so far, it's the only place where you can recover vessels from, unless it's modded.

A non-role play reason: I have a large relay station, with 10x the power of the DTS station, parked at KSC.

I am sure someone with a more CPU power would want a even bigger station when sending interplanetary probes.

 

Edited December 25, 2018 by TheFlyingKerman

[The Aziz]

Alright alright, I got it, it just never happened to me. In any case, as @OP stated, a bit too hard landing near whatever you've built, wherever it is, is not a wise idea, flying debris can hit something. Too bad when it's somewhere in space, there is not much you can do about it, but on home planet? If you can maintain a base, you probably can land near it in one piece. Or am I too hopeful?