Profitability of propulsive landing in KSP

[Yamiko Hikari]

I got really inspired by SpaceX to use propulsive landing in KSP and so far it's been quite a fun experience. But pretty much from the start I wondered if it's more economical to use propulsive landing in KSP rather than parachutes. I understand the reasons why SpaceX uses enginess for landing but KSP is a whole different story. The biggest question I have and I am already trying to figure it out with math and tests is whether using propulsive landing becomes profitable with much bigger boosters. So perhaps if you're trying to land an 8t booster it's effective to bring and use parachutes, but landing a 25t booster (that's what mine weighs without fuel) would require too many parachutes to land it safely. I'm not even completely sure how to effectively use parachutes in KSP so that's a bit of a problem for me ;D

I'm also currently playing in career mode so spending 44000 on a booster is not very pleasant. That's another reason why I'm so eager to recover them.

Maybe when I figure this out in non-RO KSP I will move to Realism Overhaul and RSS and try to figure this there. That will be real hell but at least I suppose in RO propulsive landing will have more reasons to be used 

[VoidSquid]

Not sure if you'll like my answer, but with a single and fast tourist contract, or a satellite contract, I make way more money in way less real time than by recovering spent boosters or other parts. Why would I want to go through all the hassle then?

In real life, e.g. those space shuttles (talking about reusability here), while the basic idea was good, didn't keep their promise, neither regarding costs, nor security wise.

Sure, if that's something you like to do / your own self imposed game rules, that's your choice then. As long as you enjoy it, it's perfect  

[Yamiko Hikari]

5 minutes ago, VoidSquid said:

Not sure if you'll like my answer, but with a single and fast tourist contract, or a satellite contract, I make way more money in way less real time than by recovering spent boosters or other parts. Why would I want to go through all the hassle then?

In real life, e.g. those space shuttles (talking about reusability here), while the basic idea was good, didn't keep their promise, neither regarding costs, nor security wise.

Sure, if that's something you like to do / your own self imposed game rules, that's your choice then. As long as you enjoy it, it's perfect  

Hmm, I see your point and that's one of the factors I'm involving when I think on this topic but I'm not sure if such contracts are really that profitable and for me they are quite boring as well  Also, I'm going to send out quite a lot of heavy huge crafts for extraplanetary bases and such. That doesn't give me much money back and requires heavy boosters
But anyway, you're right, overall it's something I enjoy so of course I will keep doing it regardless of how effecient it is  

(And I liked your answer)

[Geonovast]

It's probably not terribly worth it unless you're using specific mods to make building boosters harder, like Kerbal Construction Time.  Although I've never used it, so I'm not sure to what extent it deals with recovered rockets.

As @VoidSquid pointed out, a high mission cadence is likely going to get you more money per hour playing than spending the time to land the boosters.  I try to recover as much as possible.  I fly a lot of Falcon 9 style rockets and do what I can to land and recover every one of them... because I like landing them.  I may actually like that more than carrying out the missions they're doing.  But I don't think it's worth it, time-wise.  Both in landing them and the complexity to build landable ones.

Luckily there's a mod that meets you half way, called Stage Recovery.  It'll let you recover dropped stages as if you'd let them parachute down without the hassle of actually doing it.

 

 

[Yamiko Hikari]

2 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

It's probably not terribly worth it unless you're using specific mods to make building boosters harder, like Kerbal Construction Time.  Although I've never used it, so I'm not sure to what extent it deals with recovered rockets.

As @VoidSquid pointed out, a high mission cadence is likely going to get you more money per hour playing than spending the time to land the boosters.  I try to recover as much as possible.  I fly a lot of Falcon 9 style rockets and do what I can to land and recover every one of them... because I like landing them.  I may actually like that more than carrying out the missions they're doing.  But I don't think it's worth it, time-wise.  Both in landing them and the complexity to build landable ones.

Luckily there's a mod that meets you half way, called Stage Recovery.  It'll let you recover dropped stages as if you'd let them parachute down without the hassle of actually doing it.

 

 

Now that I think of it, Kerbal Construction Time might make it even more interesting. I might try it in the future and maybe recovering boosters will be more logical there. When it comes to a recovery mod, I use FMRS, but I suppose StageRecovery is used for parachutes

[linuxgurugamer]

12 minutes ago, Yamiko Hikari said:

Now that I think of it, Kerbal Construction Time might make it even more interesting. I might try it in the future and maybe recovering boosters will be more logical there. When it comes to a recovery mod, I use FMRS, but I suppose StageRecovery is used for parachutes

Stage Recovery works with liquid propulsive landings.  The difference between the two is that Stage Recovery does it for you, FMRS you do it yourself

[VoidSquid]

11 minutes ago, Yamiko Hikari said:

Now that I think of it, Kerbal Construction Time might make it even more interesting

Self imposed rules (I've my own rules too, ofc, hehe) , or in other words: playing as YOU like it. That's for me exactly the point of KSP, we do have a common frame work, but everyone chooses his own way to play.  

What a wonderful game it is, oh yes! 

[Yamiko Hikari]

Just now, linuxgurugamer said:

Stage Recovery works with liquid propulsive landings.  The difference between the two is that Stage Recovery does it for you, FMRS you do it yourself

oh wow, I didn't think about that. I wonder how accurate it is. As in, how can it calculate if a stage will be able to perform a propulsive landing. Now I will definitely try this mod

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, Yamiko Hikari said:

oh wow, I didn't think about that. I wonder how accurate it is. As in, how can it calculate if a stage will be able to perform a propulsive landing. Now I will definitely try this mod

Pretty accurate, but it is only an estimate 

[bewing]

Also note that SpaceX uses airbrakes on the boosters they recover. Which is pretty much the same thing as using parachutes. So they use a hybrid combo scheme, and I think that would be best in KSP also. Both propulsive and a few parachutes. That'll help keep your booster oriented retrograde, too. That's my biggest problem on propulsive landings is that my vehicle wants to flip prograde if the airspeed is too high.

[Yamiko Hikari]

Just now, bewing said:

Also note that SpaceX uses airbrakes on the boosters they recover. Which is pretty much the same thing as using parachutes. So they use a hybrid combo scheme, and I think that would be best in KSP also. Both propulsive and a few parachutes. That'll help keep your booster oriented retrograde, too. That's my biggest problem on propulsive landings is that my vehicle wants to flip prograde if the airspeed is too high.

Yeah I'm using grid fins for that. I don't think using both parachutes and engines would be effective though that's just my guess (and it's not as fun for me). Quite a strong SAS and RCS keep my boosters oriented prograde

[Cavscout74]

2 hours ago, Yamiko Hikari said:

Now that I think of it, Kerbal Construction Time might make it even more interesting

Another option - either as a mod (KVASS) or just using a calculator - which has been my approach the last few careers - works also.