HarvesteR's First Contract Update Update #3

[Superfluous J]

Cool update, thanks HarvesteR. Can't wait to try these contracts out. And new engines were unexpected (at least by me) so bonus!

[Kerano]

Sounds good!

* New MonoPropellant-Powered Engine and LFO-Powered RCS Thrusters:

The O-10 MonoPropellant Engine is a standard engine linked to main throttle controls, but powered by MonoProp. The Vernier Engine, conversely, is a Liquid Fuel+Oxidizer powered RCS unit. These should be interesting new additions to the stock parts set.

Very interesting! This will certainly bring a few new options to craft design. I hope that the LFO-Powered RCS Thrusters in particular will be balanced though (i.e. relatively expensive/heavy compared to the other RCS thrusters), or else they might render regular monopropellant a bit redundant, especially for larger vessels.

I'd still like to know whether contracts will be fixed and finite, or infinite and prodedurally generated. I hope the latter, at least after the set contracts are finished - it'd be a shame if there was a point in the game where there were suddenly no more missions.

I was having fun so added some more potential procedural contracts for the endgame to my post from yesterday, in case the devs want some inspiration.

Click here for the whole list!

12. "An experiment on the [spacecraft] orbiting [planet/moon] has gone horribly wrong, generating extremely hazardous waste. [Contractor] is convinced that the only way to save Kerbalkind from impending doom is to eject the barely contained waste into the sun. Design a craft with a detachable [container] capable of docking with the [spacecraft] to collect the waste, then undock and achieve an orbit intersecting Kerbol. Choose to eject the [container] on this collision course, or allow the entire craft to be incinerated by the star."

13. "Dubya Kerman, the president of [contractor], wishes to set a new record for the longest golfing drive. Pick him up from [location], transport him to the surface of Minmus to take his shot, and return him to Kerbin."

14. "The head honcho at [contractor] is planning a spectacular fireworks display as an engagement surprise for her partner. Design a craft capable of staging at least [number] impressive aerial explosions while the central pod remains intact. Trigger the explosive stages in the air above [location], and land the central pod safely."

15. "The bosses at [contractor] have decided to reward their employees with a company outing to [planet/moon]. Design a craft capable of transporting [number] Kerbals to the destination, and returning them safely to Kerbin."

16. "Important figureheads from [contractors] have arranged to hold a secret meeting on the dark side of the Mun. Pick them up from [locations] and transport them to their destination."

17. "The chief officer at [contractor], an avid golfer with notoriously bad aim, wants for once in his life to score the ultimate hole in one. Pick him up from [location] and take him to the north pole of Moho."

18. "A daredevil manager at [contractor] is determined to ride an asteroid down through Kerbin's atmosphere for his next stunt. Design a craft to take the thrill seeker to an asteroid, nudge it into a path intersecting Kerbin, and ride the asteroid down to an altitude of [number] km. Detach the craft from the asteroid below this altitude, and land safely."

19. "An executive at [contractor] wants to take her family on a skiing holiday. Design a craft which can take [number] Kerbals to a snowy peak above an altitude of [number] km on Kerbin, and land them safely on the mountain."

20. "Someone has eaten all the snacks aboard the [spacecraft] orbiting [planet/moon], making the resident Kerbonauts grumpy. Send a craft from Kerbin to dock with the station and resupply it with delicious treats."

Incidentally, I had the idea that instead of giving coordinates for these missions, rebranded flags (perhaps labelled "checkpoints") might work equally well as mission location indicators.

Just some thoughts anyway.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Kerano

[Brucey]

I'm getting excited about this update! In particular I'm looking forward to seeing what the modding community comes up with from the contracts mechanics. One example I'm really hoping to see eventually, is some real story driven contracts. That is, some missions/contracts which go beyond the vanilla "Land on the mun and collect samples" contract, but which add some lore and science fictiony type stuff as well. I can imagine it would be easy to create an over-arching series of contracts which give the game a story-line as well as an actual long-term goal. Very promising.

[Brickyard]

On vessel recovery: I noticed in previous versions all parts burns up (are deleted) when they goes into reentry if you are not focused on it. Has this been changed for the current versions? I'd like to be able to add shutes on all my sections.

[NoMrBond]

On vessel recovery: I noticed in previous versions all parts burns up (are deleted) when they goes into reentry if you are not focused on it. Has this been changed for the current versions? I'd like to be able to add shutes on all my sections.

Going to be a lot of focus on Falcon-9 style monolithic fully landable/recoverable lower stages otherwise

[Superfluous J]

Going to be a lot of focus on Falcon-9 style monolithic fully landable/recoverable lower stages otherwise

You forgot "that can make it all the way to orbit (or close) without disconnecting anything" because you can't control the descending ascent stage if you're still ascending your rocket.

If there is no way to recover parachuted parts in atmosphere > 2.5km I'm going to be making a lot of SSTO rockets with lots of parachutes, I think

[NoMrBond]

You forgot "that can make it all the way to orbit (or close) without disconnecting anything" because you can't control the descending ascent stage if you're still ascending your rocket.

If there is no way to recover parachuted parts in atmosphere > 2.5km I'm going to be making a lot of SSTO rockets with lots of parachutes, I think

Isn't that what the Falcon-9 is intended to do anyway? (the F9 1st stage does one orbit then lands at/near the launch site), well that's why I brought it up as behaviour example anyway.

For KSP you'd need it to top out high enough past 70Km that you can swap over to s2 and circ, then switch back and land with s1

Or even circ with s1 disconnect the payload in a stable orbit, then s1 does its own deorbit burn and lands

Either way, going to be a lot of budgetary gymnastics for an efficient space program now!

Edited July 10, 2014 by NoMrBond
I get it, S1 doesn't it's S2 that does the orbit.

[Alshain]

Going to be a lot of focus on Falcon-9 style monolithic fully landable/recoverable lower stages otherwise

This would be incredibly limiting IMO. I think it would stifle the sandbox creativity I hope this is not the case.

[Moss]

I'm glad it's coming soon. I have a feeling that players are getting a little bit irritable. (See the "it's in alpha excuse" thread)

[NoMrBond]

This would be incredibly limiting IMO. I think it would stifle the sandbox creativity I hope this is not the case.

The most efficient everrrrr would be 'fun' for some people (or people looking for a challenge, again, their fun), but I wouldn't think it'd be balanced around that almost OCD level of play

[Superfluous J]

Isn't that what the Falcon-9 is intended to do anyway? (the F9 1st stage does one orbit then lands at/near the launch site), well that's why I brought it up as behaviour example anyway.

I did not know that (aka you learn something every day!). I assumed a stage separated in atmosphere. Seems uneconomical though who am I to second guess them

Either way, going to be a lot of budgetary gymnastics for an efficient space program now!

I'm looking forward to it. Been wanting to see how efficient I am (and can be) for a while now.

[NoMrBond]

I did not know that (aka you learn something every day!). I assumed a stage separated in atmosphere. Seems uneconomical though who am I to second guess them

I'm pretty sure it does separate in the atmosphere, just really high up (90ish Km / Thermosphere level?), very tenuous at that height anyway

It would still be an unstable and decaying orbit, but enough to make one loop with only a small retro burn required to bring it down

[Semmel]

Isn't that what the Falcon-9 is intended to do anyway? (the F9 1st stage does one orbit then lands at/near the launch site), well that's why I brought it up as behaviour example anyway.

Are you sure you are talking about the 1st and not the 2nd stage? I thought the first stage is lifting the rocket, seperates at some high altitude, turns around, descends and lands on the launch pad. It doesnt have a heat shield, it uses its rockets to slow down sufficiently to not burn up. But it doesnt do a full orbit. The second stage on the other hand delivers the payload to an orbit, seperates and deorbits heatshield in front and lands near the launch pad if everything goes well. At least thats the plan. SpaceX is far away from getting there.

Other questions: Why is the update called "First Contact"?

[KerbMav]

@Recovery/Refund

The wish for a full refund mainly stems from builders of spaceplanes I guess and I can understand the wish to be able to "recycle" a plane by getting a full refund and launching it again "for free" - as long as we cannot (easily) refuel them in the unmodded game nor put a new payload on.

BUT: Recovering them for 100% to simulate reusing them means you can put that money into something completely different, too.

(Basically instead of wearing the same pants after washing them, you would return them to the shop for the full price and have the option to walk home with new shoes.)

If there was a way to store such crafts by taxing them next to a hangar and/or retrieving (new button/option for a recovery popup) them for storage and re-launch (via VAB/SPH for refueling and adding payload) ...

Other questions: Why is the update called "First Contact"?

It is not.

Reference to the 8th Star Trek movie's title.

[Semmel]

Ohh stupid me.. cant read any more.. forgot to see the 'r'!

[Sky_walker]

First of all, thanks to Harvester for the update and the hard work in getting the game to this point. I'm really excited to finally see the implementation of economics and management and strategy added to the stock game.

Like ObsessedWithKSP, I am also concerned with partial refunds for parts that are returned to KSC after a mission that are still fully functional. It makes sense to me to have costs associated with transportation of parts based on distance from KSC, or even more extra costs if it's a splash landing. However,i f I land my plane on the runway or my rocket on the VAB or launch pad, I feel I should be rewarded with a full refund for reusable parts.

+1. It'd make sense from gameplay balance.

Otherwise it'll force people to land on a runway and then spawn small, cheap tanker, refuel, attach new cargo (mobile crane), and fly again.

Incredibly grindy and time-taking mechanic.

What they are doing would make sense if parts would degrade over time - then you'd probably even want reclaim a ship and get a new one, just like it happens in real life, but as everything in KSP got infinite life span - it only introduces tedious mechanic into the game.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Sky_walker

[marach]

I'm pretty sure it does separate in the atmosphere, just really high up (90ish Km / Thermosphere level?), very tenuous at that height anyway

It would still be an unstable and decaying orbit, but enough to make one loop with only a small retro burn required to bring it down

Actually 1st stage detaches in atmosphere and does a Uie. They believe that it'll only cost them a couple of % of the total fuel.

[Torquemadus]

A logical question would be whether the recovery value of a spacecraft is affected by where I recover it from. It would make sense that a space plane landed on the runway at KSC is much more cost effective to recover than a capsule floating in the middle of the ocean, or in some remote wilderness somewhere.

I made some somewhat ungraceful attempts at adding parachutes to my spent stages. I've now replaced them with piloted fly-back boosters that launch in a vertical stack and are then flown back to the KSC runway after separation. Because of the need to control them during re-entry, it is only possible to recover stages that get at least as far as LKO. Therefore I use a disposable all-solid rocket first stage.

Some players have speculated that we will get money back from boosters that are deleted when they fall back into the atmosphere, provided that they have parachutes attached to them. My personal suspicion is that ships and debris will be recovered exactly the same way we recover them now: that they have to be landed somewhere on the surface of Kerbin.

Given that solids are currently described as "trash bins full of boom", recovering them might not be a good idea anyway. It may well turn out that the empty "trash bin" is worth less than the parachute that would be needed to recover it. If solid fuel turns out to be cheaper than liquid fuel (as I suspect it will), and if boosters that are deleted in the atmosphere are not recovered, then the fact that the solid fuel is stored in disposable "trash bins" could make them very attractive for use in first stages.

It is also worth bearing in mind that depending on how much the cost of fuel compares to the recovery value of parts, SSTOs could either be very attractive, or a complete false economy.

[KBMODIGITY]

OMG I SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cant wait. I wasn't even expecting rep to put into it.

I expect this to be the biggest and best update ever. It would make the game pretty much complete in my eyes. ( I'm sure contracts will be limited, we still need biomes for planets and moons other than the kerbin SOI, rework of the tech tree cause of it, etc,,, But all that is so minor compared to such a major update!!!!!!!!!!!!!) OMG plz devs plz deliver asap and put out minor patches for bug fixes maybe weekly.. I NEED THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[blizzy78]

I wonder if the toolbar Harvester is referring will replace the toolbar mod

[Monger]

I know that I'd be getting more of a refund than if it were an equivalent rocket-based mission (expensive jets and stuff, they're all recovered with the SSTO) considering the recovery and partial refund of just the command pod (or if it's a probe mission, maybe nothing) so I suppose the pertinent question is: how much is 'partial'? 25%? 80%?

I guess recovery should easily depend on the biome. The rest is a balancing issue, I guess. So, recovering on the runway maybe -> 99%, recovering from the ocean -> 50%, recovering from one of the poles -> 70% , recovering from the moon -> 0% .

This would it make it more interesting to choose your landing spot more carefully, as well.

Give SQUAD a chance to implement this first and balance it later on. Technically, it should be not that complicated.

[CaptRobau]

Why biome dependent? Distance to KSC is far more accurate. There's mountain biomes 10 km from the KSC and 1000 km.

About automatic vessel recovery for unfocused parts with parachutes: not a good idea in my book. If you can get money back on every stage that has a parachute then people will just put a parachute on every stage and just get money back for no effort. The money reward for vessel recovery should be based on skill. Getting just a command pod back to Kerbin requires a little bit of skill (engines to deorbit, press for parachute), but also wouldn't get you much money back. Safely landing your SSTO or a Falcon-like first stage would be very challenging and thus should get you a big reward.

[Alshain]

Why biome dependent? Distance to KSC is far more accurate. There's mountain biomes 10 km from the KSC and 1000 km.

I think the idea was that it's hard to retrieve something from high in the mountains, but pretty easy to get it off a beach. Either way would make sense really.

[cpast]

+1. It'd make sense from gameplay balance.

Otherwise it'll force people to land on a runway and then spawn small, cheap tanker, refuel, attach new cargo (mobile crane), and fly again.

The alternative would be to produce something under which spaceplanes have no cost besides fuel, which to me feels WAY more broken than what you're saying, and with absolutely no basis in reality. With ground crews, you save some money on recovery at the cost of frustration, which feels legitimate to me.

[BudgetHedgehog]

The alternative would be to produce something under which spaceplanes have no cost besides fuel, which to me feels WAY more broken than what you're saying, and with absolutely no basis in reality. With ground crews, you save some money on recovery at the cost of frustration, which feels legitimate to me.

Reality, smheality. KSP is a game where parts don't degrade over time, there's no reason for partial refunds on reusable spaceplanes (call it maintence, ground crew wages, whatever) except to force real life into a game where real life has no bearing. It's realism for realism's sake, there's no gameplay mechanic behind it - the parts are already there, I've already bought them, they're in perfect working order, but because I have no other option (aside from building a payload sapper/refueller truck), I'm forced to lose money if I recover it.