Recovery Factor

[Leafbaron]

Was just thinking today about how much each recovered parts were worth and found some information on the wiki. Recovery factor = .98 - distance from KSC(Km)/2150, unless you are on the launchpad or runway in which case recovery factor is 1. This got me thinking how far away would you need to be to get 0 funds back on recovery and the answer is 2107 km. The problem with this is that the equatorial circumference of kerbin is less that 4214Km, Meaning that at the complete opposite side of KSC on Kerbin you are only 1884.96 Km from KSC, which plugging into our equation would net a recovery factor of .22. However, If KSP solves the equation by direct distance from KSC by measuring through the planet. Being on the opposite side of Kerbin from KSC is only 1200 km. The short of it is, that no matter where you land on Kerbin, you will get funds from recovered parts!

[SkyHook]

This is a good thing! If on Earth, you would still get back the thing that you recovered, even though it might cost a fortune to recover. This, coupled with the fact that Kerbin is much smaller than earth, I think it's a solid mechanic that you get SOME funds back as a reward. After all, landing at KSC doesn't mean that you land in one piece

[Guest]

What about the poles? Or high latitudes?

[Leafbaron]

as far as I know, Kerbin is modeled as a perfect. so going 1884 km north would put you in the same place as going 1884 km east or west. 

[Snark]

Personally, I've found that the recovery value is pretty much irrelevant.

If it only costs me 30K funds to launch a rocket that can satisfy a contract that pays off more than 300K funds... I don't really care about whether I recover 10K versus 5K worth of rocket.  It makes the difference between a net profit of 290K versus 295K on the mission, i.e. it's chicken feed, not worth bothering about.

It's the same reason why I don't bother with SSTO's, or any stage-recovery mods.  It's just not worth the bother to me; the actual cost of the rocket itself is simply not that big a deal.

[Opus_723]

It sure helps when you launch a 200 ton payload on a single stage and recovery of the lifter gets you 400,000 funds back.

Especially when it's not for a contract.

Of course a disposable lifter would've been lighter and cheaper, so who knows. But I'm not sure I could have shaved off half a million funds.

[fourfa]

In my experience recovery factor matters a lot in Hard games with reduced payout, at least at certain bottleneck points in the game (like after ruinously expensive building upgrades).  Recovery can mean I have cash to run another mission, rather than wait weeks for the one I just launched to pay out.

Even in Hard, there does come a point where funds hardly matter any more.  I like to delay that point as much as possible.  To that point, there ought to be a recovery factor slider in the game difficulty settings.  I'd like a mechanic that rewards having to manually pick up and recover hardware/kerbals with planes, ships, VTOLs, etc.

[Snark]

34 minutes ago, Opus_723 said:

It sure helps when you launch a 200 ton payload on a single stage and recovery of the lifter gets you 400,000 funds back.

...except that you can loft a 200-ton payload using a whole lot less than 400K funds with a multi-stage rocket.  Just now did a quick "launch big thing cheap" test with pure stock parts.  I put 219 tons in 88 km circular orbit, for a vehicle whose cost breaks down as follows:

• 71,204 funds:  payload
• 98,280 funds:  throwaway booster hardware
• 74,406 funds:  fuel for the launch

...so, basically, I'm throwing away under 100K worth of hardware to loft that 200+ ton payload.  Maybe I could recover a chunk of that, if I bothered... except that would take quite a bit more of my time (I'd have to engineer it to be recoverable, and I'd have to take the time to babysit it back to earth, and I'd have to try to come reasonably close to KSC), and honestly, if I actually care about the cash that much, it would be quicker and easier to use that time to dash off another quickie contract instead.

Not that there's anything wrong with the SSTO-and-recovery approach; different people have all kinds of reasons for doing things (including role-playing reasons, or just-coz-it-looks-cool, or whatever else).  Just saying that, mathematically and financially speaking, it's really not necessary.

[Opus_723]

Haha! Well, I guess recovering funds is helpful for rookies like me who spend way too much money, at least.

Good to see just how much room for improvement I've got, though.

[Curveball Anders]

I try to land (or splash) as close to KSC as possible, mainly out of personal pride

With my standard Up-Down vehicle I set a 72x72 orbit, lock retrograde and then I eyeball 165E and retro burn to a pe at 32.

Then I just stay retro, drop the retro stage when it's heat is hitting 3/4, and pop chutes at 10k.

Best so far has been splash down 350m off KSC

[suicidejunkie]

Try adding some basic fins to the CoM of the return capsule and you may be able to set it down on the runway's dotted line!

[LordKael]

4 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

I try to land (or splash) as close to KSC as possible, mainly out of personal pride

With my standard Up-Down vehicle I set a 72x72 orbit, lock retrograde and then I eyeball 165E and retro burn to a pe at 32.

Then I just stay retro, drop the retro stage when it's heat is hitting 3/4, and pop chutes at 10k.

Best so far has been splash down 350m off KSC

Placing a maker or ship out in the waters East of KSC might be especially helpful for aiming. 

[Snark]

5 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

I try to land (or splash) as close to KSC as possible, mainly out of personal pride

^ ...now, that right there is a reason I can get behind! 

Really, just about everything in this game is a matter of personal pride-- I mean, it's not as though we're playing KSP for the cash, right?  So, doing a thing not because it is easy but because it is hard-- now, that makes perfect sense to me.

For example, in early career-- when I'm enjoying the simplicity of not having umpteen missions en route at once, with a very simple mission profile-- then I pick up quite a few of the "rescue a kerbal from LKO" contracts.  (It's how I populate my space program.)  I have a standard ship I use for that task, and the reentry vehicle is just Mk1 pod atop a 2-ton tank atop a Terrier, with a chute up top.  It re-enters engine-first, but makes good use of body lift.  It's astonishingly steerable.  (To the point that, when it gets down to 9 km or so, I can actually manage to halt the dive and climb a kilometer or so before it runs out of steam.)

So, since it's early career and I don't have much else going on, and I'm taking pleasure in the simple things, I like to use KSC for target practice on reentry-- purely as an enjoyment, personal-pride thing.  (Certainly not for the cash; the recovered value is negligible  With the reentry vehicle so steerable, it makes it quite doable to come down on KSC itself.  My personal target is to try to land on the roof of the VAB, which I've managed once or twice.

...However, once I get to mid-career and later, I've got so many missions going on that babysitting the reentry of every ship becomes less interesting, so that's when I tend to just ignore the splashdown location and go for the quickest, most convenient reentry so I can get back to doing other stuff.

 

[monstah]

10 minutes ago, Snark said:

(To the point that, when it gets down to 9 km or so, I can actually manage to halt the dive and climb a kilometer or so before it runs out of steam.)

Hey there - Super Mario flying!

[Red Iron Crown]

On 11/21/2016 at 2:30 PM, Leafbaron said:

The short of it is, that no matter where you land on Kerbin, you will get funds from recovered parts!

I am fairly sure that was the intent of the recovery factor formula.

[Leafbaron]

@Red Iron CrownI imagine you are right!

20 hours ago, fourfa said:

In my experience recovery factor matters a lot in Hard games with reduced payout, at least at certain bottleneck points in the game (like after ruinously expensive building upgrades).  Recovery can mean I have cash to run another mission, rather than wait weeks for the one I just launched to pay out.

Even in Hard, there does come a point where funds hardly matter any more.  I like to delay that point as much as possible.  To that point, there ought to be a recovery factor slider in the game difficulty settings.  I'd like a mechanic that rewards having to manually pick up and recover hardware/kerbals with planes, ships, VTOLs, etc.

I like this response as well! 

[GoSlash27]

20 hours ago, Opus_723 said:

It sure helps when you launch a 200 ton payload on a single stage and recovery of the lifter gets you 400,000 funds back.

Especially when it's not for a contract.

Of course a disposable lifter would've been lighter and cheaper, so who knows. But I'm not sure I could have shaved off half a million funds.

Pretty much what Snark said. It shouldn't cost anywhere near $2,000 per tonne total for a large launcher, let alone $2,000 just for the recovery value.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

[Red Iron Crown]

Just now, GoSlash27 said:

Pretty much what Snark said. It shouldn't cost anywhere near $2,000 per tonne total for a large launcher, let alone $2,000 just for the recovery value.

You might consider that newer players haven't figured out how to be as efficient as old hands like you are, for them overbuilding is pretty common and recovery is a much more important factor.  

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

21 hours ago, Snark said:

Personally, I've found that the recovery value is pretty much irrelevant.

If it only costs me 30K funds to launch a rocket that can satisfy a contract that pays off more than 300K funds... I don't really care about whether I recover 10K versus 5K worth of rocket.  It makes the difference between a net profit of 290K versus 295K on the mission, i.e. it's chicken feed, not worth bothering about.

It's the same reason why I don't bother with SSTO's, or any stage-recovery mods.  It's just not worth the bother to me; the actual cost of the rocket itself is simply not that big a deal.

This. Pretty much after I've landed on either Mun or Minmus, I stop worrying about it. That's why I've set it at 30% career payout for this career. Not sure if this effects world-firsts though. Either way, I've spent more time in planes this time around. KAX + Historic tree helps. 

[GoSlash27]

2 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

You might consider that newer players haven't figured out how to be as efficient as old hands like you are, for them overbuilding is pretty common and recovery is a much more important factor.  

RIC,

 Absolutely true, and the converse is also true. Efficient builders often don't bother with reusable launchers because the savings are so minor.
 Having said that, there are some cases where recovery costs are a factor. The savings from reusability are pretty minor *per launch*, but over the course of an entire program they can make a difference, especially if you're not fulfilling contracts at the time.

 I try to go reusable for "housekeeping" missions (ones I execute regularly) vs disposable for launches I'm only going to need to do once.

Best,
-Slashy 

[James Kerman]

I prefer modular as opposed to reusable systems. 

If I am building an interplanetary drive module for a mother-ship going to Duna then I will leave that module in orbit on return.  Any other missions returning to Kerbin will de-fuel into the IP module before de-orbiting on RCS.

Base and station contracts are built in the same way to add habitation and science modules.

Reuse is better than recovery IMHO.

[AeroGav]

 

There should also be a difference between spaceplane and capsule recovery.  If your SSTO has jet engines and has landed somewhere without damage, all it really needs is refuelling and it can take itself home.    A rocket needs more than just a tanker of jet A,  so there should be a higher fee based on difference.

But how will the game know whether your vessel is capable of flying itself back or if it needs a flat bed ?

After landing, the game could offer the player a standard recovery (flat bed truck) which works the same as it does now,  or the game could offer you a tanker truck option,  where you get your LF refilled (but not your OX or any other resource) at only the cost of the fuel itself, and you are given the opportunity to take off.    Should you do so and succeed in climbing to 500m above the altitude you landed at, the game considers your flight home successful and recovers the parts value as per a landing at KSC.  The only cost of your bush landing was a refuel.

 

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

1 hour ago, AeroGav said:

 

There should also be a difference between spaceplane and capsule recovery.  If your SSTO has jet engines and has landed somewhere without damage, all it really needs is refuelling and it can take itself home.    A rocket needs more than just a tanker of jet A,  so there should be a higher fee based on difference.

But how will the game know whether your vessel is capable of flying itself back or if it needs a flat bed ?

After landing, the game could offer the player a standard recovery (flat bed truck) which works the same as it does now,  or the game could offer you a tanker truck option,  where you get your LF refilled (but not your OX or any other resource) at only the cost of the fuel itself, and you are given the opportunity to take off.    Should you do so and succeed in climbing to 500m above the altitude you landed at, the game considers your flight home successful and recovers the parts value as per a landing at KSC.  The only cost of your bush landing was a refuel.

 

This makes my exploit spidey sense tingle. 

[AeroGav]

22 minutes ago, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:

This makes my exploit spidey sense tingle. 

How would you cheat it?

Put a Panther engine on a capsule that lands via parachute so it can take off again on LF only and climb 500m to get the "airplane recovery" bonus?   Congrats, you get 100% recovery from landing anywhere on Kerbin...  except that the disposable rocket that launched it needs to be 3x the size because not only is it sending a 600kg mk1 capsule to space it's also carrying a 1200kg panther, plus intake, fuel etc.  Then you got to figure a way to mount the panther and hardware that doesn't compromise re-entry profile of your capsule.  Or you could just aim to put it down near KSC like before.

I am not proposing this to help people who haven't learned how to re-enter their spaceplanes properly, that's why i did this tutorial -

The reason I'm suggesting this -

This career mode aerotug can put a mobile processing lab in orbit.  The pictured version can get itself into a stable orbit before separating from the lab,  which uses its own engine to rendez vous with the rest of the station.

But, an earlier version was less powerful and the launcher was only able to get on a sub orbital trajectory.  Transferred all my remaining fuel to the lab, which after separation was able to stabilize its own orbit.   The airplane ended up coming down almost on the other side of Kerbin however, even though it landed without damage i got almost no recovery value.  Is that fair?  All it needed was some jet fuel and it could have flown back.

It's bad enough that you can't do air launch to orbit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket))   because the carrier plane gets deleted as soon as it flies out of physics range, without this limitation as well.

Edited November 23, 2016 by AeroGav

[Jonfliesgoats]

I find big projects justify disposable lifters.  If you want to pick up satellite deployment contracts, you can accrue projects until you launch a cluster of payloads on a disposable lifter.  That said cost per payload- ton to orbit is something I take some pride in.  Disposing of lifters, I can't seem to get below about 3000/payload ton to orbit.  With recoverable boosters and only pushing for accuracy of .95 ship value on recovery, I can easily stay below 700/payload ton to orbit.

 

I will say my recoverable lifters can only get 20t to orbit economically.  My disposable monsters can get nearly unlimited mass to orbit.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats