Is Kerbal Safety a Top Priority For You?

[dudester28]

It's not that I take precautions for the kerbals, it's that I design rockets that work on the first try. I pride myself with being able to make a rocket properly on my first try.

[Meltro]

Lots and lots of unmanned missions. I generally will not send a Kerbal on any platform that hasn't at least been tried once. Everything in the inventory is also pilotable remotely. All missions require sufficient fuel to return with the exception of unmanned probes or rovers.

That being said....Jebediah has been known to push the envelope on occasion against the advice of mission control:

(Craft is safely in Duna orbit, lander achieved touchdown safely, craft is currently awaiting refueling)

[The Jedi Master]

My only safety system is the OGPSLC system, or "OH GOD PRESS SPACE LIKE CRAZY".

[Titan Space Agency]

I just add abort systems so I dont loose Jeb

[Drunkrobot]

Why not just use the "Abort" action group? It has the added benefit of the Backspace key being about a 50% larger target for a panic button.

If I did everything at the same time (detach from rest of rocket, activate tower boosters, detach tower, deploy chutes) then the tower would just fly away uselessly (pretty bad) and the chutes would keep me glued to what was until very recently a fully-functional rocket (even worse). It makes more sense to split the abort sequence between two keys-that lovely big backspace to reach for when there is a RUD (Rapid Unplanned Disassembly), and the nearby 0 for when you are at a place of comparative safety, and you have time to think.

[Excalibur]

It's not that I take precautions for the kerbals, it's that I design rockets that work on the first try. I pride myself with being able to make a rocket properly on my first try.

This. I've been playing KSP for quite some time now and especially with things like the Engineer plugin I can get the little green fellas into LKO every time. That said if I'm sending Kerbals beyond Kerbin's SOI I try to build in as much redundancy/extra delta-v in to my designs as possible lest I make any kind of 'piloting error'. Unless I'm trying to build a rocket that places a 300ton+ payload into orbit. Those usually explode quite a lot for me....

[Geschosskopf]

You can only do 5 things with Kerbals that you can't do with probes alone. In decreasing order of importance, these are:

1. Pump gas with KAS

2. Fix flats

3. Repack parachutes

4. Be converted into Kethane

5. Plant flags

In the early days of my space program, before such a high degree of automation was realized, Kerbals were highly trained professionals and the space program made great efforts to preserve its investment in them. So it was all about having enough fuel to get home, parachutes, escape towers, rescue missions, etc. Such complication, such waste...

But nowadays, with automated spacecraft, this is all a thing of the past. With the possible exception of repacking parachutes, all these tasks all together require no more than a few minutes training. So in my universe, probes do all the real work and the Kerbals are just along to provide occasional menial labor if there's no way to do the mission without it.

Thus, my recruiting program consists of sending the press gang to sweep the gutters. By the time the "recruits" wake up, they're already outward-bound on transfer orbits. They have no control over the ship, but they have months to study and restudy the brief instructional videos on how to do the trivial tasks very occasionally expected of them. If they do their jobs in a timely and correct manner, they get food and air.

So in my space program, we don't have "astronauts" anymore, we have "galley slaves". But most of them do end up with a pretty good retirement plan. They often get lifetime use of a company car, sometimes a private jet if available, a safer place to live than under the bridges where we found them, and most of a planet to call their own. In return, instead of being a drag on society, they help with its progress. So it's a win-win situation.

This is all to say that Kerbal lives are not of too great a concern. If they're on the trip, it's because I need them for something so I'd prefer they not die. But it doesn't break my heart if they do.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Geschosskopf

[TheDarkStar]

If a Kerbal is on a serious mission (i.e. interplanetary or to one of Kerbin's moons), I try to keep them safe and rescue them. If I am testing things, their life is forfeit. Testing claims Kerbal lives by the dozens.

[Apollo13]

I will launch rescue missions to help stranded Kerbals.

[Rainbowtrout]

I try to keep Jeb, Bob and Bill alive, but the others? Launching the LLL centrifuge into orbit on a poorly constructed rocket? Yep.

[M.Wolfy]

all of my rockets have escape towers, never leave home without one! though the only reasons my kerbals die is because of poorly planned shuttle landings.

[The Error]

Because I suck at IP stuff and normally build planes, I lose a fair few Kerbals. I try not to (if there's no "X" in the plane's designation, it has an ejection system), but when you mash space and watch the ejection seat slam into the deck, well...

[Jackissimus]

I don't ever put kerbals inside anything that doesn't have a launch escape system with the abort button properly setup. I mostly man my different ships, tugs and stations only after they have been safely lifted to orbit.

That said I have to also say that I always put a kerbal module on every craft, because I don't enjoy flying only with robots.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Jackissimus

[T-Pilot395]

I don't bother with escape towers...chutes for landing...abort system? Meh. EVA before crashing? Nada. If anything goes wrong on the launchpad I pray the command pod survives, or I immediately revert to the VAB. In orbit though? I'd send a rescue craft. That's about it.

Although I love Jeb, so I always make sure he's safe.

[Kerbart]

Keeping Kerbals alive is for me part of the fun. Wondering what to do in KSP? There's always a stranded Kerbal somewhere that needs rescuing!

Yesterday was a great example. I'm sending my Space Tug prototype into orbit. The launch is kind-of botched, shearing of the 2.5m docking port in the process, making the tug basically useless. Oh, and since it's a space-only vehicle there's no return option. So now Jeb is stuck in orbit.

No problem. We send up number two, with a few design improvements (most importantly the escape "tower" - basically a mkI capsule for the pilot used for take-off. Once in space the pilot transfers to the *real* capsule and jettisons the mkI "safety cabin". This is a super simple setup that I can highly recommend. But I digress).

After some picture worthy (I promise!) launch failures where I really got to appreciate that rescue tower (and I'm sure Bob appreciated it a lot more!) I got Tug #2 in orbit, and with some creative "docking" (without real docking points) I managed to push the old tug (transferring Jeb first of course) into a safe decaying orbit (no junk left behind!). Great. Now I have two crackerjack test pilots stuck on that tug!

Time to send up #3, with yet another launch vehicle redesign. This time I can drag crap with me at launch, so the tug drags a Mk1-2 pod with it. I can transfer everyone in the capsule and safely deorbit them!

...except that there's too much mass and not enough (atomic) thrust to make it into orbit after reaching apoapsis after launch. Well... given that the capsule is mounted upside down at the bottom of the launcher (yes, it's quite the design! ) I simply mount a booster on top of the capsule. Problem solved! (the attentive reader will ask "what did you mount on top of the capsule in the first place?" and yes, that is quite the relevant question...)

So, Tug #3 (not counting the failures) meets up with #2, Bob & Jeb unite with Bill and Orvid (the designated driver for the next few weeks) and "the orange crew" moves over to the capsule. I bring the tug into a decaying orbit, and do one last check before I release the capsule with Bob, Bill and Jeb... WAIT, WHERE IS THE FRIGGIN' PARACHUTE? Well, of course I had to take the parachute off when putting the booster there. And then I forgot to put radial chutes in place! Aargh!

Now I have to send up an orbit shuttle, transfer the crew (Orvid needed a backup driver anyway), get Bob, Bill and Jeb into the orbit capsule (with chutes), bring them back, drop the old capsule and let it burn up in the Kerbin atmosphere, go back to tug #2 and push that one back to Kerbin, and then finally bring the tug to my space station and have it dock, awaiting new adventures next week.

What seemed a short mission (have Jeb bring the tug to the space station, send in a tug crew, return jeb) turned into a monstrous 14h adventure that was lots of fun. And all because I insist on keeping my Kerbals alive.

[mellojoe]

I always try to REVERT a flight before it goes all explodey. But, I don't build special escape vehicles or anything ... so, I don't really know how to answer.

If I launch a Kerbal into space, I always try to ensure I can get him/her back home again. I don't like to STRAND my Kerbals. But explosions don't stop me, either.

[Grijze Pilion]

If they do their jobs in a timely and correct manner, they get food and air.

we have "galley slaves". In return, instead of being a drag on society, they help with its progress. So it's a win-win situation.

This is all to say that Kerbal lives are not of too great a concern. If they're on the trip, it's because I need them for something so I'd prefer they not die. But it doesn't break my heart if they do.

That sounds like a cold, disciplined and love-free Soviet space program.

[mythbusters844]

I used to make launch escape systems and tested everything unmanned first, but all I do now is assign decoupling the command pod and deploying parachutes with backspace. No turning off engines for added fun!

[Uncle Mort]

I protect them if I can, if I fail, I just go into the persistent save and find the one or more that died and reset them to mode 0 XD <usually only do this for Jeb, Bill and Bob only, unless they have really funny names... does that make me bad?>

Using CrewManifest I've started to give my Kerbalnauts proper names. Since then I find I care more for them.

I'm just about to send Roger and Rupert off to Duna. For some reason I think they will get on together.

[Skorpychan]

I try to keep them safe, but as long as they're not DEAD, it's all good. I've got kerbals stranded on eve and in solar orbits, no craps given. I'll get them back. Eventually.

Everything has a probe core on it as a matter of course ANYWAY, so I can adjust the ship with nobody on it should I need to.

As time goes by, and I figure out docking, I will be a lot more sensible about it. Stations around planets to store kerbals, interplanetary motherships used as buses, fuel tankers, and trucks, and dedicated reusable landers available to all. Maybe even planetary/munar bases everywhere for long-term science work.

[AmpsterMan]

Safety is my number one concern with Kerbals

[Geschosskopf]

That sounds like a cold, disciplined and love-free Soviet space program.

No, the Soviet cosmonauts at least had propaganda value so got lauded and decorated. There being no rival powers or competing corporations on Kerbin, I have no use for propaganda.

Thus, when it comes to the ordinary crewmen, my space program has the policy of every government and private business during the great Age of Sail, which was of course also the Age of Exploration and the Age of Colonialism. Exploration and colonization being the 2 major themes of KSP, I consider this quite appropriate. In those days, the common sailors were often serving involuntarily and were the dregs of society in any case. Because of this class distinction, nobody in charge particularly cared about their welfare beyond the bare minimum to keep them alive long enough to perform their necessary tasks, and even then fairly high attrition was expected. The general idea was that it was better these people slave away on a windjammer on the far side of the world, opening up trade routes to enrich society, than pick pockets at home.

Probe cores make fully autonomous vehicles. There is no difference in your ability to control the ship whether it's got Kerbals aboard or not. This being the case, there's no reason to train Kerbals to fly, so there's no reason to treat them as celebrities .

[KrisM]

I consider it a personal challenge to bring my Kerbals home. At the same time, they're basically test pilots and know the risks before strapping into that command module.

On a failed launch I tend to pop all the stages just to get the CM back to the ground under a parachute instead of being rammed by a failing rocket or SRB lol

Edited September 3, 2013 by KrisM

[Unknown Zombie]

I do try to make sure my Kerbals are safe. I generally test launch spacecraft using a remote-control probe before doing the real launch with Kerbals inside.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

Yes and no, spaceplanes and in atmo planes no. Rockets most definitely, at least parachutes and sideways facing separations