Recovery Factor

[StahnAileron]

The problem in my eyes is the fact career doesn't have ongoing costs associated with it. All funds do is "limit" your progression and launch capabilities/capacities at the time of launch. So in the end, it just a matter of real-time efficiency rather than game-time efficiency. It's faster and easier to build cheap, throwaway launchers because it only costs you when you launch them. You can squeeze more contracts into a given real-world time frame instead of spending part of that time recovering parts for negligible return. (Even more so since craft aren't persistent between recovery and the next launch of the "same" craft.) How much in-game time goes by doesn't really matter much. You only lose money when you launch something or a contract you accepted expires before you complete it. Monetary gains and losses are wholly in the players' hands.

If KSP had ongoing costs (via mechanics like Research funding, personnel salaries, whatever else others can think of) and permanent investment for building crafts (i.e. persistent crafts; think Kerbal Construction Time-like), then actual recovery factors might matter. (It'd be more "Recover Costs" though.)

...Yeah, this goes back to my spiel about KSP Career having gameplay mechanics that don't do much or make much sense. I only play career for the contracts to give me something to do/aim for. I attempt reusable SSTOs/Spaceplanes because I like the idea of reusable spacecraft and the engineering puzzle they pose.

Hopefully I didn't derail the thread.

[AeroGav]

On 22/11/2016 at 1:36 AM, Snark said:

...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.

SSTO, recovery etc makes more sense if re-entry and landing is an unavoidable requirement of the mission.

Eg. a Tourism or Rescue contract, doesn't take significantly more time with a spaceplane.   The main time saving with a  disposable rocket is not having to re-enter and land the thing. 

Something that takes even more time is rendez vous and docking.   If you can fly your exploration missions as single launch with no in-orbit assembly, brilliant.    Otherwise I guess your options are

• SSTO to LKO , rendez vous with interplanetary explorer in orbit.  Minimum two RDV between the SSTO and the interplanetary ship, in addition to the launch and recovery of the SSTO.    If the SSTO can't also bring fuel for the interplanetary ship, then you're looking at an additional launch and RDV for each fuel mission (if using a rocket tanker) or  launch, RDV and recovery for SSTO tanker. In career mode I'm forced into this for much of the game, lacking tech for more direct options.
• SSTAnywhere.    SSTO with ISRU gear.   May need to stop on Minmus or Duna to refuel, but it's still quicker than a RDV especially when you don't need to worry about launch and recovery of the tanker craft.  Only problem is if you can do this you probably already unlocked the tech tree.
• Long Range Spaceplane - putting the jet engines, intakes and auxiliary fuel tanks on decouplers can give you the delta V to go a lot of places nonstop, and still works out cheaper than disposable rocket, most of the time.
• SSTO refuelled.  Refuel your SSTO in LKO so it can go interplanetary. This is like the first option, but it cuts down on one of the RDV since you're only doing it once on the outbound trip.  You could save still more time by making the fuel tanker a disposable rocket and not have to worry about landing.    The expensive bit is the SSTO after all, with its jet engines, nukes, crew pods and science instruments.  The drawback is that the spaceplane has excess dry mass compared with an upper stage, so you need more fuel brought to LKO to reach your destination.  In fact your refuelling rocket might end up larger and more expensive than a traditional capsule style mission. .   

A lot depends where you're going really.   Somewhere like Duna, the plane's wings are useful.  Minmus, it's wheels are useful.   Otherwise go Apollo style.

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

@AeroGav

Not discounting your suggestion. And I can't think of an exploit just off hand, just inciting others to find one. 

Why not fly some fuel out to the plane? Of course, in the same breath, you might hear me suggest the same for ACTUAL splashed-down capsule recovery: I don't do it. Too time consuming. But I have. And if I were in the business of keeping my career as realistic as possible, or recovering every last Speso I would be doing just that. 

Might I suggest that instead of simulating self recovery, we do actual recovery? 

If landed=true then measure distance from KSC in km. Then km /300 = how many days you wait for fuel delivery, and at cost. Then self recover. Possibly add a surcharge per day for logistical expenses. 

Or just recover like we always have. I wonder which is easier on the wallet?

[AeroGav]

1 minute ago, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:

@AeroGav

Not discounting your suggestion. And I can't think of an exploit just off hand, just inciting others to find one. 

Why not fly some fuel out to the plane? Of course, in the same breath, you might hear me suggest the same for ACTUAL splashed-down capsule recovery: I don't do it. Too time consuming. But I have. And if I were in the business of keeping my career as realistic as possible, or recovering every last Speso I would be doing just that. 

Might I suggest that instead of simulating self recovery, we do actual recovery? 

If landed=true then measure distance from KSC in km. Then km /300 = how many days you wait for fuel delivery, and at cost. Then self recover. Possibly add a surcharge per day for logistical expenses. 

Or just recover like we always have. I wonder which is easier on the wallet?

The thing is, it shouldn't really be necessary to fly a tanker plane out to the other side of Kerbin.   Earth is actually covered in airports and military bases, the crossrange glide you have coming down from suborbital means you can reach about 25% of the planet, just not all the way back to home.     So really you would have been able to land some place that will sell you some jet fuel and see you on your way, just hope Jeb's credit card isn't maxed.     As for a capsule recovery, well i guess if you can land in the water right next to a major port, then it shouldn't cost too much to get it home either.

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

@AeroGav 

Oh, for sure! I would love an airport every 20* near equator. As it is, In my science save I keep a fuel tanker at the island airport just in case. A big orange full of LF on (counting) 16 ruggedized rover wheels. 

And seaports would be cool for that reason. Probably the only reason I would get behind a maritime expansion in vanilla. 

[Leafbaron]

I like the responses! I'm gonna have to make a tanker to refuel spaceplanes that come in shy of KSC and a flatbed truck with an AGU to fit inside a cargo plane for picking up capsules. What an excellent way to add some realism to the game while also milking it for all the fun! In my current career, it is all space plane/ space glider driven. so nothing is launched on a conventional rocket and my funds depend on being able to recover full amounts for parts. Even the deep interplanetary missions are being planned to be launched to LKO via space plane, then either assembled or launched from there. I've been able to get a vessel in orbit this way that had 2300 m/s of dv with all the science equipment i had available. That's enough d/v to do quite a lot! I was able to explore 4 biomes on minmus with it. I'm sure with the right piloting it could make it Duna orbit and back. 

I would love to see more space centers around kerbin. It would be nice for those inclines orbits as well. I know RSS and RO have something like that where you can choose your launchpad.

[Red Iron Crown]

2 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:

I would love to see more space centers around kerbin. It would be nice for those inclines orbits as well. I know RSS and RO have something like that where you can choose your launchpad.

Kerbinside does this for stock Kerbin, not sure if it is updated for 1.2 yet though.

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

11 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:

...I'm gonna have to make a tanker to refuel spaceplanes...

Watch the weight. Or go dually. You can attach wheels to other wheels hubs, or at least in 1.1.3 you can. From what I understand, it would prob work even better now, without the wheel blocked issues. 

[Leafbaron]

Just now, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:

Watch the weight. Or go dually. You can attach wheels to other wheels hubs, or at least in 1.1.3 you can. From what I understand, it would prob work even better now, without the wheel blocked issues. 

Thanks! If a dually will fit in the cargo Mk3, I will do dually. Always liked the look. I can land my giant cargo plane in a safe place near by the target. Roll out the tank/tow truck to pick up or refuel. I'm stoked to try this tonight!

[AeroGav]

1 hour ago, Leafbaron said:

I like the responses! I'm gonna have to make a tanker to refuel spaceplanes that come in shy of KSC and a flatbed truck with an AGU to fit inside a cargo plane for picking up capsules. What an excellent way to add some realism to the game while also milking it for all the fun! In my current career, it is all space plane/ space glider driven. so nothing is launched on a conventional rocket and my funds depend on being able to recover full amounts for parts. Even the deep interplanetary missions are being planned to be launched to LKO via space plane, then either assembled or launched from there. I've been able to get a vessel in orbit this way that had 2300 m/s of dv with all the science equipment i had available. That's enough d/v to do quite a lot! I was able to explore 4 biomes on minmus with it. I'm sure with the right piloting it could make it Duna orbit and back. 

I would love to see more space centers around kerbin. It would be nice for those inclines orbits as well. I know RSS and RO have something like that where you can choose your launchpad.

Well for spaceplane recovery, if you want to go the whole hog,  you'd set up some IRSU refuelling stations around the planet.  You'd beeline this in career mode, if not downright use the cheat menu to give it as starting tech because after all, the oil industry came before the aerospace industry.  You could make them purely static if there was enough of them, and rely on gliding to a nearby one to tank up.  You could add a tank truck in case the plane really is out of fuel and can't even taxy a few feet to the claw / docking port of the refinery.    If you want to really add insurance in case you muff things , a tanker plane would cut down the time to reach aircraft stranded much further afield.        Recovering capsules sounds like a lot of effort.  Perhaps an upside down mk3 cargo bay can scoop it off the ground?  Though fragile parts will break off.

The trouble is if you go too far with this it's going to turn into a game of Civilization V

Edited November 23, 2016 by AeroGav

[Leafbaron]

36 minutes ago, AeroGav said:

Well for spaceplane recovery, if you want to go the whole hog,  you'd set up some IRSU refuelling stations around the planet.  You'd beeline this in career mode, if not downright use the cheat menu to give it as starting tech because after all, the oil industry came before the aerospace industry.  You could make them purely static if there was enough of them, and rely on gliding to a nearby one to tank up.  You could add a tank truck in case the plane really is out of fuel and can't even taxy a few feet to the claw / docking port of the refinery.    If you want to really add insurance in case you muff things , a tanker plane would cut down the time to reach aircraft stranded much further afield.        Recovering capsules sounds like a lot of effort.  Perhaps an upside down mk3 cargo bay can scoop it off the ground?  Though fragile parts will break off.

The trouble is if you go too far with this it's going to turn into a game of Civilization V

I LOVE this idea!

[DunaRocketeer]

I've had similar thoughts as others on this thread - even though I can recover vehicles at KSC and get a good recovery bonus, it's the fuel cost that weighs heaviest on me. The problem is that when I create refueling facilities at KSC, I spend most of my time messing around with that, rather than flying.

I've realised that for me, if I have a really large vehicle to deliver into orbit, reusability and perfect recovery don't outweigh the fuel costs if I have to send up three or four flights to assemble that large vehicle. Disposable starts to look more attractive.

My solution is to compromise on reusability for the heaviest payloads - keep the core booster reusable, but hitch on some cheap solids, and a disposable upper stage, and you've got a decent affordable lifter. For anything over 30 tons, I use one of these:

Edited November 24, 2016 by DunaRocketeer

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

2 hours ago, DunaRocketeer said:

I've had similar thoughts as others on this thread - even though I can recover vehicles at KSC and get a good recovery bonus, it's the fuel cost that weighs heaviest on me. The problem is that when I create refueling facilities at KSC, I spend most of my time messing around with that, rather than flying.

I've realised that for me, if I have a really large vehicle to deliver into orbit, reusability and perfect recovery don't outweigh the fuel costs if I have to send up three or four flights to assemble that large vehicle. Disposable starts to look more attractive.

My solution is to compromise on reusability for the heaviest payloads - keep the core booster reusable, but hitch on some cheap solids, and a disposable upper stage, and you've got a decent affordable lifter. For anything over 30 tons, I use one of these:

I think the closest thing to a happy medium I've found, between RP and utilizing real world time is a vertical launch shuttle. But instead of an external liquid tank, just use a metric butt-load of solids on the wings, dropping in groups of four. Final ~300m/s of orbital insertion uses a "Dart" or "NERV". Shallow re-entry with some combo of wings/heat shields/'chutes. I think I'll base my next career on this idea. 

Happy Holidays. 

[suicidejunkie]

I made a MK1 ISRU plane in 0.95.  Incredibly bad speed and fuel economy due to the 2.5m ISRU module comprising the main body, but it could burn a mix of 98% ore + 2% LF, during the night, or 100% ore during the day with a bit of solar panel assistance.

It was designed to parachute in and become a semi-mobile fuel refinery to service returning spaceplanes that had to land short in the desert.

[Kermanzooming]

On 22 de noviembre de 2016 at 1:05 AM, 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.

Exactly my experience; on hard mode KSC upgrades really break the bank, so every cent counts

[AeroGav]

On 24/11/2016 at 8:52 PM, suicidejunkie said:

I made a MK1 ISRU plane in 0.95.  Incredibly bad speed and fuel economy due to the 2.5m ISRU module comprising the main body, but it could burn a mix of 98% ore + 2% LF, during the night, or 100% ore during the day with a bit of solar panel assistance.

It was designed to parachute in and become a semi-mobile fuel refinery to service returning spaceplanes that had to land short in the desert.

Actually the 2.5m converter has very low drag, like most 2.5m parts - despite appearances !

However, you'd need to use  1.25m to 2.5m adapters when transitioning to the mk1 fuselage ahead of and behind it. It is much lower drag than a mk3 cargo bay big enouigh to carry a converter, for example.

[sardia]

I use Stage recovery mod because it really stretches your funds in the early stages of the game and let's you spend more time with the non monetary parts of the game. Though I do feel SR mod encourages bad flight profiles. 

The added costs and weight mean the recovery percentage is important. That encourages you to fly mostly straight up and delay your gravity turn. 

My launcher that can do perfect gravity turns ends up on the other side of the planet (25%)while my crap launcher returns almost 90% because it mostly launched straight up. 

Maybe I should redesign my launchers so the second stage cuts off while I'm still close to KSC. Or I could ignore stage recovery now most of my big expenses are taken care of. But that mission to jool looks so pricy. Shrugs

[suicidejunkie]

On 12/3/2016 at 7:18 AM, AeroGav said:

Actually the 2.5m converter has very low drag, like most 2.5m parts - despite appearances !

However, you'd need to use  1.25m to 2.5m adapters when transitioning to the mk1 fuselage ahead of and behind it. It is much lower drag than a mk3 cargo bay big enouigh to carry a converter, for example.

Good to know that it is possible to make it aerodynamic. 

This was bumblebee shaped; short and boxy and not intended to land properly or ever take off again.  Just bumble over to someone that needs help, plop down on parachutes and be a gas station.

[RentedTritium]

I just use the stagerecovery mod, which gives me an incentive to design my tanks with parachutes. Back before I was using it, I would generally make everything disposable except for my main lifting engine which was typically the most expensive. I would ride that down with parachutes to save 1/5 of the cost or so. Radial boosters and whatnot I would just drop. 

But with the mod I can save all of them for typically 50-60% of dry value, which can knock a good chunk of the launch costs off. 

[Leafbaron]

I just use spaceplanes and land them back at KSC. Just developed one capable of taking 40 tons to orbit. The plane costs around 120K funds. The 40 ton payload if equipped with a poodle and a 75% fuel ratio would reach Dv capabilites of around 4700 m/s, 10879 with a NERV. Landing back at KSC returns full funds minus the payload that left. The profit margins are crazy. All said and done its like 250 funds per ton to launch after recovery.

[wumpus]

On 11/22/2016 at 3:21 PM, 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.  

I've taken a multi-month vacation after dealing with the extra time of landing orange tanks.  I was aware that it didn't change the game at all (there was plenty of money for each  stage), I just wanted to keep costs minimal.  The catch was that taking all the time to shepherd the first stages to KSC meant I didn't have any time to go to Duna, so it was a poor choice.  If I get that itch again, I suspect I'll go for stage recovery mods.

[AeroGav]

Not mine but jeez...   that's doing it properly !

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

I love that video. Dude is an inspiration, and I've stolen some ideas from him. 

[Leafbaron]

24 minutes ago, AeroGav said:

Not mine but jeez...   that's doing it properly !

Watched this a few days ago, It is simply amazing! I am recovering capsule and sending refueling missions for spaceplanes that don't make it back to KSC in much the same manner but nothing to the extent of this video!

[wumpus]

One big problem with recovery is the "physics bubble".  I think this has been enlarged, but it still gets tricky.

Stage 1 gets to 70k.  Note that if you aren't interested in going back to KSC (or you are as bad at hitting KSC as I am), using kickers (the largest SRBs) as a "stage .5" is probably a good idea.

Stage 2 circularizes.  Depending on your recovery strategy, this may require more thrust then otherwise economical.

The catch is that if you think spacex has the right idea by recovering the lower stages first (which are the most expensive [not the kickbacks, don't recover them] and will hit the atmosphere with vastly lower reentry speeds), then KSP's physics bubble will work against you.

At this point you have to pilot two ships.  One option is flight manager http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/72605-110-flight-manager-for-reusable-stages-fmrs-x110-experimental/  This lets you sit back and relax.  Land the expensive stage and then go back and circularize from back when you staged.

With stock KSP things get hairier.  You can circularize fast and then switch back to your recovered vehicle.  One of the more effective tricks is to circularize fast with the spent stage.  Since it no longer has the mass of the upper stages on it (and little fuel) it can get into orbit (and deorbit) with not so much fuel.  This helps even more when you de-orbit it right down on KSC (well maybe you can, I never really got the hang of precision targeting from [very] low orbit).

WARNING: while I did practice this after deadly reentry came to stock, reentry has become even harder.  One trick I used was heat shield on top of the fuel tank and airbrakes at the bottom to point it forward.  Airbrakes are supposed to be nerfed for reentry, so don't count on this working.

FURTHER WARNING: this burned me out on KSC.  Don't miss the rest of your game in a driving need to optimize the start.

final note: One of the times the physics bubble enlarged, I tried to recover SRBs fired "close to straight up".  Presumably it is possible with fleas mounted on top of your SRBs to drive them back toward the ground, and parachutes auto opening at the right pressure and speed, but it looked like very little delta-v for much work.