Orbitcoin - KSP financials and the rise of the reusable spacecraft

[Progressm]

I have seen the topic mentioned in passing here and there, but only started to think about it since paying around with cargo SSTOs; in stock KSP, what would be the earliest possible tech tree stage to create a reusable spacecraft (I.e. multiple trips without vab / hangar)?

I presume this question will become valid once money is introduced. I guess you need at least a docking port and some kind of wheels for a refuelling / loading vehicle researched.

Anyone given this any thought yet?

[Pecan]

Subject to the number of tankers you station outside the VAB/SPH for refuelling the only question is, what constitutes a 'trip'? If you have a parachute you can go up and back down. If you have docking ports or KAS you can refuel. In real-life the refuelling would be easier, of course, and everything else harder.

[Captain Sierra]

Assuming a reusability system is implemented 'properly', then it will reward you for recovering a complete craft. Now, this of course operates under the assumption that, like a real space program, you bring it into the hangar/VAB to reload a payload, do some routine maintenence, and send it on it's merry way again. By this logic, you won't have to have the ground infrastructure to refuel and reload a payload without going through the VAB/SPH.

Also by this logic, any SSTO spaceplane capable of putting up payloads will do the job. Unfortunately, the stock tech tree has all the parts needed for SSTOs in the latter ~1/2-2/3 of it. Prioritizing that area would require some work (a few good Mun/Minmus runs could probably do the job assuming you unlock nothing but the bare minimums outside of the spaceplane stuffs).

[Progressm]

True. If such VAB/SBH routine maintenance option wasn't implemented, you'd have to wait until some rover wheels and a docking port to make a tanker. Then you could collect all Kerbin biomes with a basic single stage hopper rocket & return between biomes to refuel.

[phoenix_ca]

I trust in no coin other than hatcoin.

[problemecium]

Ordogecoin ;P

Much money. Very space. Wow. Such funding.

[Shivaran]

Very explosions! Such Kerbal! Wow!

[Javster]

Such avoid! Much danger! Very offtopic! Such threadlock! Doge sad!

[Doctor Axel]

My biggest question mark at the moment is what kind of benefit we'll get from Recovering a landed vessel - at the moment it just gives us science, but it will probably also be used to implement vessel reusability.

By my reckoning it could go one of two ways, depending on how 'buying parts' is going to work:

-if you actually have an inventory of parts that you have to draw from to build ships, recovering a vessel could put those parts back in your inventory (maybe a chance you won't get the part back if it has suffered a lot of impacts, I dunno).

-if you just design a vessel in the VAB and pay for it in a lump sum when you spawn it for launch, recovering a vessel would put the value of its constituent parts and resources back in your wallet (minus a small/medium percentage, probably - recovery, refurbishing etc)

I'd be cool with either approach - what do we think?

[Pulstar]

If you tried real hard you could do a two-stage fully recoverable space taxi with a space worthy but still suborbital lifter.

Basic premise is this, the lifter stage gets you close but not quite to orbit, but still into space on a suborbital trajectory. The upper stage burns to insert itself into a preliminary stable orbit before you lose the lifter stage due to atmospheric reentry. Switch back to the lifter stage, land it.

You'd need a probe core, large parachutes and probably landing legs to pull this off.

If Squad adds a feature that allows jettisoned stages to be land safely without them being controlled (a circumvention of the current "atmosphere clears non-controlled vessels in suborbital trajectories" mechanic) I believe you could achieve full re-usability regardless of the number of stages.

The main problem with recovering spent stages is that you encounter the problem of having to be in two (or more) places at the same time to simulate them. With multiplayer this would be easy, but for singleplayer it's trickier. I'm not sure if the engine can simulate two different places with two different spacecraft at the same time on one machine, without needing a significant rewrite of some old eldritch code that handles ingame scenes.

EDIT: as to what Doctor Axel said, I personally think we should get the option to either keep the vessel intact which still allows you to modify the recovered craft in the VAB/SPH (like say you lost a landing leg or goo canister on your way back so you add a new one, then put it on a new lifter stage or something) and one to disassemble it for parts to be re-purposed for something else.

Modifying would yield no additional cost, bar the cost of recovery of the craft, but it would give you less options in changing the design unless you pay a disassembly cost penalty for swapping them around (VAB editor should have a "restore to recovered state" button in such a scenario).

Disassembly would return the parts into your stock but at an additional cost of disassembly, or it would give you a 90% or something discount on buying another version of that part (depending on whether an actual stockpile and storage of parts is used or not).

Unless Kerbal rockets are indeed lego filled with rocket fuel then I guess having dissasembly and assembly costs is pointless.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Pulstar

[Doctor Axel]

as to what Doctor Axel said, ---awesome idea---

I'm a fan. My only ish with that idea is actually related to part 1 of your post - what if two distinct parts of your ship get recovered? Could you put them together again? Would they be treated as a root vessel or a subassembly? I would be absolutely down with stuff like that but I suspect Squad would want it to be more simple.

Even if Kerbal rockets are basically Rocket Fueled Legos there could be costs to assembling/disassembling/refurbishing. Maybe the rockets are Kraglized before launch. =P

[KerbMav]

Copying an old post of me in this post over shamelessly.

Either the rule will be players get only scrap value for recovered parts, as the materials would be deemed unsafe for reuse due to wear and tear or a real storage system will have to be introduced or Kerbals are a throw-away society and everything is lost once it is on the launchpad.

Circumventing part storage by refunding the costs for a part looks like a solution, but:

1. Refunding the full value (for a used part even) makes an economy system arbitrary.

Bill does not have enough Kesetas for a new Mainsail, but he still has 20 burned solid boosters fished out of the bay in the barn. He sells these to buy a new Mainsail.

This at least simulates the storage of the monetary value of recovered parts, but it is not really storing anything, simply exchanging parts arbitraily, as you could not end up with the realistic situation of having not enough money to built a Mainsail if you bought 20 boosters the day before.

2. Refunding at a reduced value does no longer simulate "real" storage.

Bob landed a pod softly in the bay. Bill sells it at a reduced value - and buys a new one for full price.

Even perfectly reusable parts would have to be bought back at full price. Everything the player does not manually park at KSC (like a spaceplane) would be sold at a loss, rebuying it no longer simulates having in storage.

So, if reusability were to be a thing in KSP - besides parking a spaceplane next to the hangar or building a huge crane to dock a pod onto a new rocket - it would have to go all the way really:

Scrapped parts would have to be stored as a numerical value in the VAB. As soon as the player presses launch this value would be reduced as would be the budget by the costs of the parts newly bought to assembe the rocket.

This would also open the possibility to introduce "mission parts" from contracts, special payload put into the players storage to be rocketed to its destination.

[magnemoe]

If you tried real hard you could do a two-stage fully recoverable space taxi with a space worthy but still suborbital lifter.

Basic premise is this, the lifter stage gets you close but not quite to orbit, but still into space on a suborbital trajectory. The upper stage burns to insert itself into a preliminary stable orbit before you lose the lifter stage due to atmospheric reentry. Switch back to the lifter stage, land it.

You'd need a probe core, large parachutes and probably landing legs to pull this off.

If Squad adds a feature that allows jettisoned stages to be land safely without them being controlled (a circumvention of the current "atmosphere clears non-controlled vessels in suborbital trajectories" mechanic) I believe you could achieve full re-usability regardless of the number of stages.

The main problem with recovering spent stages is that you encounter the problem of having to be in two (or more) places at the same time to simulate them. With multiplayer this would be easy, but for singleplayer it's trickier. I'm not sure if the engine can simulate two different places with two different spacecraft at the same time on one machine, without needing a significant rewrite of some old eldritch code that handles ingame scenes.

EDIT: as to what Doctor Axel said, I personally think we should get the option to either keep the vessel intact which still allows you to modify the recovered craft in the VAB/SPH (like say you lost a landing leg or goo canister on your way back so you add a new one, then put it on a new lifter stage or something) and one to disassemble it for parts to be re-purposed for something else.

Modifying would yield no additional cost, bar the cost of recovery of the craft, but it would give you less options in changing the design unless you pay a disassembly cost penalty for swapping them around (VAB editor should have a "restore to recovered state" button in such a scenario).

Disassembly would return the parts into your stock but at an additional cost of disassembly, or it would give you a 90% or something discount on buying another version of that part (depending on whether an actual stockpile and storage of parts is used or not).

Unless Kerbal rockets are indeed lego filled with rocket fuel then I guess having dissasembly and assembly costs is pointless.

This is plausible, you will need an upper stage on the payload who has good TWR because of the time restrain, however it don't need much dV 700-400 m/s you can also land the upper stage after use.

First stage will have to land either on the peninsula a bit north of equator or reach the next continent, here you will have to refuel it with some fuel and fly it back to pad.

[Pulstar]

This would also open the possibility to introduce "mission parts" from contracts, special payload put into the players storage to be rocketed to its destination.

Oh this is great, you could for example get an Ion Engine testing mission before you research it with one xenon tank and a single engine added to the part stockpile. Also the VAB already displays "in stock" values (or used to), so I guess that a stockpile will be used anyway. I just hope that parts get auto-bought on launch.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

A third option could be to have a store of "used" parts. These could be refurbish for something like 10% of their value. Assume the Kerbals take it apart and replace the most damaged/used parts. They would sit in the inventory and be useless until refurbished, meaning they cost nothing till you want to reuse them

In terms of a lifter it might be best to launch the first stage straight up. 2300 of Delta-V is needed to add sideways velocity and this takes you away from KSC. Launch straight up to say 70k, you have 47k up and 47k down to add 23k sideways velocity with the second stage before the first auto de-orbits. 70k straight up is much easier to achieve and you might have the fuel left to land at KSC though I would use a parachute for the last 500m if it was me. This is sort of the space-X's F9R idea but they don't have to deal with auto deletion or only being able to control one craft at a time.

This would require Basic Rocketry, survivability (for a parachute) and Flight control (for a Stayputnik). Yea the Stayputnik is not ideal but this seems about minimum. I also realise that getting 23k Delta-V is still going to drain a ship at an early stage but even if you have to dump some tanks you could still save 50% of your ships cost.