MAJOR DOWNSIDES OF THE GAME: Debries recovery and multiple space ships launch

[Mipe]

Maybe KSP will teach you what your mothers failed to: tidy up after yourself.

Or at least orbital mechanics.

[KAP1985]

that's terrible advice

[mikegarrison]

True, but by then I would think we would be using something like an advanced version of Spaceship One or realized versions of the many canceled SSTOs rather than chemical rockets, which are coming close to reaching their maximum potential (part of the reason Space X abandoned a recoverable upper-stage). Since we can create SSTOs with space-planes in the hanger, I don't see why this is an issue.

Besides, stage reuse is way more expensive and annoying than engineers care to admit. The Space Shuttle was supposed to launch once a week according to spec, but launched maybe every six months at the height of launch frequency and cost way more per refurbishment period. The Redstone rockets in Project Mercury were designed to be recoverable, but this was never implemented because the cost of refurbishing engines damaged by salt-water corrosion was more expensive than just building a new rocket.

The only reason Space X may make this work is because they are sacrificing significant payload fractions to land their first stages under power on dry land rather than letting them splash down into the ocean.

Stage recovery is quite difficult, but engines are expensive enough that many private launch systems are working on the problem. SpaceX and Blue Origins both are testing powered return, and both are pricing their launches based on the assumption that they will be able to reuse their launch engines. Virgin Galactic has as their first stage a winged airplane, which they "recover".

One of the main reasons why people don't try to recover stages is that multi-launch rocket engines are very, very expensive. You can build a lot of one-shot engines for the price of one reusable engine.

[Gerandar]

you dont need stage recovery play hard mode career I never try and recover worthless stages(boosters/lifter parts) and I have well over 10million kerbucks and 78% rep if I recalll correctly I'd have to load up the game and double check but recovering dropped stages/debris is never a must.

[Torquemadus]

While the Space Shuttle SRBs were recovered by parachute, SpaceX have demonstrated that recovering a liquid fuelled first stage is not as straightforward as simply sticking a few parachutes on it!

In KSP, empty SRBs are really cheap, so adding parachutes in order to recover part of their value downrange is not necessarily worth the trouble.

KSP should not allow us to recover liquid fuelled stages by simply adding a few parachutes to them. Usually when players call for this feature, it's because they want to recover the cost of their asparagus lifters. Allowing players to do this would remove the incentive to design re-useable vehicles.

[Pax Kerbana]

You have the whole game to work with and those are what you call downsides? Those aren't even issues.

Well I guess you're right about the recovery aspect... It's done all the time IRLâ€â€easy, cheap, and cost effective. I mean, it's probably the main reason I can afford to vaca at Clavius in the winter.

[Archgeek]

Maybe KSP will teach you what your mothers failed to: tidy up after yourself.

Or at least orbital mechanics.

But what if one's mother taught them orbital mechanics?

[Beowolf]

This is exactly why KSP is a moddable game, and there are several mods addressing your specific complaints.

I understand you believe it's vital those details be in stock, but they aren't so deal with it. I have my own set of KSP issues I'm just as passionate about.

The catch is, there are 10,000 different conflicting opinions involved. In fact, In two years I can't recall a single issue people didn't argue both sides of.

So, use mods.

[Red Iron Crown]

It becomes natural after playing at the hard level in carreer mode, but also for a matter of simulating reality, to try to recover the initial stages of the rocket, commonly defined debries. In theory after the last update the engine is supposed to be able to take care of whatever is detaching from your rocket in a range of 20km>, at the same time multiple mods addressed the issue.

My question is then, why the developers didn't take it seriously and didn't address the problem? Even a simple solution like the one present in the mods would have been enough... and if it is possible to track the debries (when they have a parachute) down to the launch pad, why then they have to disappear without recovering some of their value?

I gotta say that this one doesn't affect me much, as I recover nothing but pods and spaceplanes, generally speaking. I just don't feel enough financial pressure in career mode to bother with recovering spent stages. That and it costs time to design and test recoverability strategies. That's more of a playstyle choice though, I know other players feel differently.

The second major concern is about how the launch of multiple "space ships" is managed. Here I may miss something, but I'm having troubles tracking and managing 2 or more vehicles when they are detaching from the same rocket (manned pods).

I'm not 100% clear what you mean by this one, can you clarify it a bit?

[DarkGravity]

Trying to recover of every discarded stage is a distraction... But I don't think that's a required or even encouraged activity - even if it's somewhat supported.

I find that the best games are designed such that the player is never given an incentive to engage in unpleasant distractions.

Edited May 22, 2015 by DarkGravity

[merendel]

Real Kerbals play hard mode career without stage recovery.

My only issue with hardmode is how obnoxious building upgrades become. I can easily budget launches, crew hireings and even haveing to purchase science entry's and "Normal" upgrade costs from hardmode income but trying to aford T3 science in particular just becomes a tedious grind when its expense is ramped up. I dont really feel like spending several days of real time doing nothing but grinding sat launch and station/base construction missions just to get all the parts.

Back to the OP though I dont find designing craft that the primary booster core is recoverable all that difficult if I can be bothered. Yes theres no automated system (unless you mod) but I dont find it hard to design a lifter where everything but the solids is able to make it up to at least a 70km AP with enough kick in the upper stage to reach orbit before the booster falls into the kill zone. plenty of time to switch back to it and guide it down asumeing I even bothered. Honestly its harder to design a booster that goes up nicely and does not break up/burn off important bits on the way back down or lawndart itself. I'm actualy half tempted to try a design with the engiens offset from the tanks on girders with the chutes attached to the girders so it can safely follow the same aerodynamic profile comeing down as going up