Reusability

[Captain Sierra]

With science and experiment non-reusability now in as part of career mode and more work underway on economy, I can't imagine it will be long before we have money implemented. With money, comes cost per part, so what about reusability? Currently, it's just a role play concept. Until part inventories and money come in, it doesn't matter. But what happens when it does? Currently, the only actually reusable crafts are spaceplanes (sidenote, this would further the point established in this thread).

Now, I know you are yelling at your monitor saying I'm wrong, but think about it. If you drop boosters or an entire first stage off a rocket shortly after launch, would it have time to hit the ground before it unloads due to KSP unloading crafts in atmosphere? If you are over 2.5km, it's a guaranteed no. Even at lower altitudes, it's unlikely as with the obligatory parachutes (so it lands instead of lithobrakes) it falls at a few meters per second. You, in the rocket, are climbing at hundreds of meters per second. The fact is, the game does not facilitate proper reusability on rockets. When money comes around, is it worth it to make reusable launchers? In the current meta, the answer is no. Parachutes cost more than stock nose cones and do not provide the same minimal stabilities the nose cones do. Why should I waste the money on them if they will unload and read as destroyed before they safely touch down?

Share thoughts, I'm curious to see other opinions on it.

[Deathsoul097]

The game could implement some sort of re-useability aspect in which parts that have parachutes that get deleted can be considered recovered, depending on a randomiser or the biome it lands in. Basically, you launch a rocket and you dop some tanks during the gravity turn and they "Land" in the ocean, and the water biome would have an 80% recovery rate. Say, however, that they "Landed" in the highlands or mountains? Well then the recovery rate would drop to about 20% and if they landed at or on KSC, it would be around 95 to 100% (Cost of recovery would also be more expensive the further away the part lands, so you may end up recovering half of a part for the same amount as an entire rocket, simply because it landed further away. Of course, there would be minimal or no cost if recovered from KSC.)

[Supernovy]

Deathsoul097, that is almost the exact same way Mission Controller implements reusability. Although it also makes allowances for winged vehicles, and powered landings.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

There are some ideas on similar stuff in this thread:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/56136-Rewriting-the-on-Rails-code

Suggestions include: "don't unload craft with deployed parachutes at all" and "use an extremely simplified aerodynamic model to predict approximately where and how fast it will land"

@Deathsoul097: The "probability of recovery" part sounds a bit too much like random failures. However, the cost of recovery being affected by the biome a craft lands in could work pretty well.

[NWM]

Even if not think of the reusability, the current autorecovery system is nonsense! Now due to the current science system, we have to bring back vast amount of scientific gadgets from each of the biomes (4-6 SC9001s, etc), but those gadgets cannot be paradropped or even disessembled on reentry to decrease the mass to lower the descending speed - because of that f********* atmospheric automatic "recovery".

I agree, there must be some kind of exceptions of this unloading. For example - the part has a pod - means it is not a kind of debris.

But there is also needence of refuelling facility, hangars and such things for the SSTO-aircafts.

I have a two staged 30 tons tons to orbit 100% reuseable system, but if I want to save the first stage I have to see its paradrop descending hoping the KOS handles the first stage properly and the package reaches the orbit. I have fuel tap, refuelng car, crane, all would be nice and cost efficient but that damned unloading...

[MR4Y]

I find funny that Kerbins are capable of creating NERVA engines, but not reliable planetary radio transmissions, instead relying on goo inside canisters and goo labs on location.

[S4qFBxkFFg]

I really can't imagine that Squad will leave things as they are when it would be so simple to fix - as previously stated, all that would be required is not unloading anything with a set-to-deploy parachute (and maybe making FAR/Realchutes stock).

I'd also like to see recovery tug-boats and helicopters...

[nholzric]

So far there are a number of interesting suggestions about how to recover more parts, but maybe recovery of *everything* won't be so important even after cost because a factor. What if the real cost of a rocket wasn't fuel tanks and boosters but the science experiments, batteries, labs, and capsules. When I'm launching, the stages that I'm ditching are fuel tanks, big boosters, a wing, a strut, a decoupler, a fuel line, maybe these aren't worth recovering.

In fact their worth will be partially a function of how much each mission earns.

In the later parts of career mode I can imagine getting money for shuttling tourists to a space station. Maybe these don't earn as much money as other later career mode missions so you have to choose between flying a reusable SSTO or maybe using a low cost early-career rocket ("rickety but cheap!"). I'm making assumptions about what missions will look like in career mode but the point is that there are probably ways to balance the game that are fun, challenging, AND don't require every booster and stage to be recovered.