HarvesteR's First Contract Update Update #3

[Sky_walker]

In another thread talking about recovery mechanics, I suggested that there be a line of tech nodes that grant ever better recovery percentages; this struck me as a good compromise in that players who aren't interested in reusability can still be economically competitive, while players who do want reusability can pursue those techs and recover most or all of their reusable ships' cost.

That would be good. I'd love to see it

[KSK]

Max has confirmed that parts that you don't actually "ride down" will not be counted as recovered and will adhere to the existing deletion rules pertaining to dispelled parts.

Don't want to hijack this thread but I'd be grateful if someone could point me at any good reusability threads. I'm not fussed about full reusability but a lot of my designs use lateral, Shuttle SRB, type boosters and it would be nice to recover those if possible. If nothing else, I'd feel less guilty about littering the landscape around KSC with spent booster stages.

Edit: someone pointed out a mod that would help - that looks good but I'd like to learn how to do this in stock.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Edit: someone pointed out a mod that would help - that looks good but I'd like to learn how to do this in stock.

Aside from keeping your boosters with you all the way, decoupling them on a suborbital trajectory once out of atmo, circularizing your main, switching back to the boosters and riding them down to a landing then switching back your main, there's no way to do it in stock.

[Red Iron Crown]

Don't want to hijack this thread but I'd be grateful if someone could point me at any good reusability threads. I'm not fussed about full reusability but a lot of my designs use lateral, Shuttle SRB, type boosters and it would be nice to recover those if possible. If nothing else, I'd feel less guilty about littering the landscape around KSC with spent booster stages.

Edit: someone pointed out a mod that would help - that looks good but I'd like to learn how to do this in stock.

Mesklin made a clever two stage, fully reusable stock vtol rocket.

[Klingon Admiral]

It'll be fun to see how the new systems in the update interact with all the high-level mods out there.

[Sky_walker]

there's no way to do it in stock.

Uh? Just add command module (one of these flat rings) to the engine stage. You'll be able to switch to it after separation.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Uh? Just add command module (one of these flat rings) to the engine stage. You'll be able to switch to it after separation.

You can switch to debris as well, what exactly would adding a probe core do?

[Sky_walker]

Ability to control it.

You can't land debris in any controllable way.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Ability to control it.

You can't land debris in any controllable way.

As the poster I was replying to was talking about Shuttle-like SRBs, I assumed they would be empty of fuel (thus uncontrollable) and have parachutes on (which means they don't need to be controlled).

a lot of my designs use lateral, Shuttle SRB, type boosters

[Sky_walker]

Oh... and you deploy parachutes at a moment of separation, on a sub-orbital flight? Won't they break in the reentry? (never did stuff like that)

[BudgetHedgehog]

Oh... and you deploy parachutes at a moment of separation, on a sub-orbital flight? Won't they break in the reentry? (never did stuff like that)

Correct - stage the chutes with the decouplers and they deploy as normal. Re-entry has no effect on them (unless you have DRE installed or similar). The only problem comes when, because they're decoupled high up, the separation between them gets over 2.5km in atmosphere which means you lose the other boosters. I suppose you could decouple them one at a time and ride each down individually while keeping your main vessel with a PE of over 25km (I think) so it's unaffeected by atmosphere while on rails (just be sure to get over 2.5km away before you hit atmo), but that PE for your boosters would be enough to deorbit them if they're your active vessel...

But yes, considering the time that would take, you might as well just install FMRS or something. Unless you're so proud of playing stock you'll sit there for 20 minutes babysitting 2 uncontrollable debris while they deorbit and land. Entirely up to the player.

[JimmyAgent007]

I think im just going to come up with a space program name that signifies wastefulness to the extreme and just not worry about any recovery beyond science and command pods.

[Alshain]

I think im just going to come up with a space program name that signifies wastefulness to the extreme and just not worry about any recovery beyond science and command pods.

When I read that, this cartoon popped into my mind.

[Sky_walker]

I think im just going to come up with a space program name that signifies wastefulness to the extreme and just not worry about any recovery beyond science and command pods.

Oh, that's simple:

United States Department of Defense

[Lilleman]

I think im just going to come up with a space program name that signifies wastefulness to the extreme and just not worry about any recovery beyond science and command pods.

"We do what we must, because we can."

[Zipmafia]

Uh? Just add command module (one of these flat rings) to the engine stage. You'll be able to switch to it after separation.

I have tried this alot while getting ready for .24, it doesn't work. The only way this seems to work is if the piece makes it into orbit, anything dumped before then (with or without a core) disappears. I'm currently trying to figure out if it is height dependent, or part dependent (it could be that solid boosters are the only ones affected).

[cpast]

I have tried this alot while getting ready for .24, it doesn't work. The only way this seems to work is if the piece makes it into orbit, anything dumped before then (with or without a core) disappears. I'm currently trying to figure out if it is height dependent, or part dependent (it could be that solid boosters are the only ones affected).

Anything on-rails that falls below a certain atmospheric pressure (~20km on Kerbin) is automatically deleted. As soon as any part is both more than 2.5 km away from the focused craft and under 20km on Kerbin, it's removed.

[kujuman]

I think im just going to come up with a space program name that signifies wastefulness to the extreme and just not worry about any recovery beyond science and command pods.

EverySpaceProgramThatHasEverExistedForEverAndAlways?

Pork Barrel Rockets: We'll save your bacon, not much else

Mass Fractions

Sports Utility Vessels: Allowing soccer moms to pick up the team...from Gilly

Asparagus Launchers: Drop'n stages like its the wild wild west

[KSK]

Mesklin made a clever two stage, fully reusable stock vtol rocket.

That is indeed a very clever design * tips hat to Mesklin*. It does rely on having quite a bit of the tech tree unlocked though. Thanks everyone for the replies - looks like modding is the way forward for recovering early tech tree craft. I'm guessing that part costs and available funds will be balanced for largely disposable boosters, so hopefully there won't be any need (other than personal goals / roleplaying) for stringent recovery of hardware.

[raziel420]

Anything on-rails that falls below a certain atmospheric pressure (~20km on Kerbin) is automatically deleted. As soon as any part is both more than 2.5 km away from the focused craft and under 20km on Kerbin, it's removed.

Really wish that is changed for .24 (at least for x64 enabled with greater ram)to 0m + damaged (or maybe auto recover at 0m?)

[cpast]

Really wish that is changed for .24 (at least for x64 enabled with greater ram)to 0m + damaged (or maybe auto recover at 0m?)

It has nothing to do with RAM; it's because KSP can't do drag on rails, and instead has to simulate it step-by-step (above the threshold, it has *no* drag for on-rails parts; there's no middle ground). That takes up CPU time, which 64-bit does nothing to change.

[Linear]

Really wish that is changed for .24 (at least for x64 enabled with greater ram)to 0m + damaged (or maybe auto recover at 0m?)

it's not the extra ram usage, it's the extra strain on the physics.

[horndgmium]

Oh, that's simple:

United States Department of Defense

Too narrow: try the US Government

[Xrave]

I think there's mods that extend physics distance, and it shows that as long as you don't have a lot of crafts, you should still have reasonable performance.

Of course, there's a third issue of floating point accuracy. Say you turn up physics to simulate 400KM, and have some sort of autolanding on Kerbin. I think Kerbin won't load its full meshframe until you get close to it (at least the Graphics mesh is determined by Camera position, donno about the collision mesh), so even if it touches down it explode when you get close, or fall down 30m, or even fail to collide properly with the ground, etc.

[Bilfr3d]

I think there's mods that extend physics distance, and it shows that as long as you don't have a lot of crafts, you should still have reasonable performance.

Of course, there's a third issue of floating point accuracy. Say you turn up physics to simulate 400KM, and have some sort of autolanding on Kerbin. I think Kerbin won't load its full meshframe until you get close to it (at least the Graphics mesh is determined by Camera position, donno about the collision mesh), so even if it touches down it explode when you get close, or fall down 30m, or even fail to collide properly with the ground, etc.

That is a good point. Because the update has come to include the (assumed) extra distance, it might even change the current distance collision meshes are rendered and brought into the game (if they even went out at all). We'll just have to wait and see, but I'm sure the devs have figured something out.