Hangars next to KSC Runway

[Raven.]

Part of this post is the result of me thinking about how the introduction of a currency changes the logistics of a space program in KSP (it is my understanding that currency is going to be introduced in the .24 update). It is possible that I'm misunderstanding how the currency system will work, but with the introduction of currency, it all of a sudden seems as if reusability of a spacecraft has become a big deal; it seems as if that SSTO spaceplanes will dominate a late career game because instead of immediately recovering the craft after landing, you land the plane, refuel it, and then send it back up into orbit. This decreases the cost of a mission from the cost of an entire craft down to just simply the fuel cost. Now I do not know if recovering a craft means you loose the funds used to build that craft, or if the funds are recovered as well. If the funds are not recovered, then there is suddenly a need to store a craft at either the KSC or the island runway. The island runway immediately comes to mind because of its two large hangars that can fit almost anything, including space planes built with the HL fuselage from B9 Aerospace. But those are only two hangars, and the island runway is not the longest runway ever built.

So here is a feature request: is there any chance that we can get more outdoor hangars similar to the island runway hangars except adjacent to the KSC runway?

I'm also aware that refueling is easier said than done in the stock game, as not everyone is going to be using KAS. Another idea for the hangars is to add the option that if a craft is in a hangar, that there is a refueling option.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Raven.

[MKI]

I think there are two leading ways you get your money back.

1. Each part recovered can be used again, think of legos(not my term) which would make SSTOs fully recoverable and rockets partial. Gameplay wise this seems fun and interesting, as if you screw up the landing on an SSTO you have to pay for the replacement parts. Or if you land ALOT of your launch system, a la SpaceX, then you can just refuel and go back up

2. You get your money back for each part recovered. This seems easier and more simplified than above. But more or less the same idea.

The difference between the two is the first suggestion needs to keep track of part counts.

The idea of forcing hangers to be part of the recovery process is really limiting. What if the SSTO is VTOL? You cant fly it in. Or a reusable launch system? It won't just fit. I highly doubt the refueling will be implemented as you speak of. With the claw it would be easier but still pretty frustrating.

[Javster]

Also, it would be good if you could select which hangar/pad/runway you launched from.

[Kasuha]

It is possible that I'm misunderstanding how the currency system will work

I am not aware of developers sharing any details about how the currency system is going to work yet so it is possible we are all wrong in some aspects.

Idea of recovered parts paying off in any way leads immediately to requirements for recovering as many parts as possible, including lower stages of rockets, and players being upset about them disappearing in atmosphere. In my opinion the only two reasonable ways out of this (considering full simulation to impact a non-reasonable option) is either automatic recovery of any staged part that disappears in atmosphere, or no money refunds on any kind of recovery.

Nobody knows for sure how it is going to work yet so I believe we should not be skipping to conclusions.

[comham]

I think it would be neat to have a bank of hangars that store (out of the game world) specifically recovered ships, so you could use them again without having to simply leave them sitting there on the grass where they cause CPU load when you're near them. And it would store the specific ship you recovered when you recovered it, so just what's left, no initial boosters, remembering which solar panels had been accidentally broken, fuel levels etc.

Recover To Hangar / Recover For Parts, two different options. More useful for spaceplanes, obviously, but I guess you could have a reusable rocket launched capsule you load via crane onto a decapitated booster assembly.

[federicoaa]

I think the easiest way is to recover the money from the parts, and possible minus the used fuel (if fuel also costs money), and minus a recovery fee (that can be a function of distance to KSC).

[zeel]

I think it would be neat to have a bank of hangars that store (out of the game world) specifically recovered ships, so you could use them again without having to simply leave them sitting there on the grass where they cause CPU load when you're near them. And it would store the specific ship you recovered when you recovered it, so just what's left, no initial boosters, remembering which solar panels had been accidentally broken, fuel levels etc.

Recover To Hangar / Recover For Parts, two different options. More useful for spaceplanes, obviously, but I guess you could have a reusable rocket launched capsule you load via crane onto a decapitated booster assembly.

That seems reasonable.

The way I would do it is as follows:

Step one design a ship, anything you want to build and save in the VAB/Hanger is fair game (long as you unlock the parts). But to use it you have to "build" one - press a button to spend all the money for all the required parts and add that ship to your built vessel list (or 'hanger'). At this point you can "scrap" a ship and gain some % of the worth back (perhaps some parts are sold at a better return, while others are essentially worthless), or you can launch it. Recovering a ship return it to the list as-is. If something is broken, it remains that way. However you can pay to repair it (you pay the price for all replacement parts) which restores it to its original configuration. Or you can still choose to scrap it, though damaged parts are worth little to nothing.

In this case a space plane that returns undamaged is simply refueled (which I imagine should cost you something) and can be launched again. Something launched with a ricked would need its entire launch stage rebuilt - and you would need to pay for that - which means "repairing" a rocket means "build a new launch stage". I would guess that some parts (such as the claw) would be so expensive that returning and rebuilding the rocket would be far preferable to building an entire new ship.

It would also be nice if each stage could be repaired separately, and if you could build something in the VAB designated as a "launch stage" or as a "payload" that could be built and connected to any of the payloads you have recovered previously. This would probably integrate with sub-assemblies in some way, perhaps where you could "build" an assembly and then when designing a rocket it would remember what parts are sub-assemblies, then when you "build" the rocket you could choose to replace the designated sub-assembly with the already built version you own.

[Wahgineer]

I am not aware of developers sharing any details about how the currency system is going to work yet so it is possible we are all wrong in some aspects....

Nobody knows for sure how it is going to work yet so I believe we should not be skipping to conclusions.

Have you been living in a hole? The Devs have told us constantly how money will work: contracts, the three currencies (money, science, reputation), the three currencies being interchangeable, etc. The only part of currency we don't know about is what money will be called (dollars, credits, etc) and how the game will handle recovering parts/vehicles.

[Kasuha]

Have you been living in a hole? The Devs have told us constantly how money will work: contracts, the three currencies (money, science, reputation), the three currencies being interchangeable, etc. The only part of currency we don't know about is what money will be called (dollars, credits, etc) and how the game will handle recovering parts/vehicles.

I know all of what you mentioned and I still don't think we know anything substantial.

For instance nobody has confirmed that we will be receiving any money for recovering a ship. Or a recoverable piece od debris. In general I didn't see anywhere for what exactly will we be paying money. Everybody assumes we will pay for parts but that does not necessarily have to be the case. And even if it is the case I kinda doubt it will be the only or even main reason for players decreasing their account balance. What else will be coming to this picture? Fuel? Launch licenses? Until there are at least semi-clear mechanisms of how will we be acquiring and losing money confirmed by developers, I am taking it as if we know nothing.

And last but not least, it has happened many times already that developers changed their opinion on something. So whatever they already said does not have to be 100% definitive as well. Until they publish a consistent global picture of how will money fit with the game.

[Red Iron Crown]

In this case a space plane that returns undamaged is simply refueled (which I imagine should cost you something) and can be launched again. Something launched with a ricked would need its entire launch stage rebuilt - and you would need to pay for that - which means "repairing" a rocket means "build a new launch stage". I would guess that some parts (such as the claw) would be so expensive that returning and rebuilding the rocket would be far preferable to building an entire new ship.

There is a lot of overlap between rockets and spaceplanes. How would you determine into which category a particular craft falls?

It is that problem that makes me think the recovery/reuse rules shouldn't specify what "type" of craft it is, just a single set of rules that applies to all craft.

[Random Tank]

Have you been living in a hole?

And what is wrong with living in a hole??? I hate it when people automatically assume that people that haven't kept up with something live in a hole, its offensive to us hole-dwellers!! Everyone is different you know!!

...Anyway; I suggested an idea similar to this the other day, but people put up some ideas why not; but anything to do with this sort of thing isn't gonna be in .24... or probably not in .25 or .26. It'll happen in a long time, or not at all. What we'll probably get is: Rocket cost money; Recover rocket give Science; Science and Tasks go to Mission; Mission give money for Rocket; Rinse and Repeat....

[Red Iron Crown]

I know all of what you mentioned and I still don't think we know anything substantial.

For instance nobody has confirmed that we will be receiving any money for recovering a ship. Or a recoverable piece od debris. In general I didn't see anywhere for what exactly will we be paying money. Everybody assumes we will pay for parts but that does not necessarily have to be the case. And even if it is the case I kinda doubt it will be the only or even main reason for players decreasing their account balance. What else will be coming to this picture? Fuel? Launch licenses? Until there are at least semi-clear mechanisms of how will we be acquiring and losing money confirmed by developers, I am taking it as if we know nothing.

And last but not least, it has happened many times already that developers changed their opinion on something. So whatever they already said does not have to be 100% definitive as well. Until they publish a consistent global picture of how will money fit with the game.

It's also amusing how many people are assuming that economics are coming in 0.24, but I don't think that's been explicitly stated. Contracts yes, but whether the contract system is fully implemented or even involves money is not clear.

[zeel]

There is a lot of overlap between rockets and spaceplanes. How would you determine into which category a particular craft falls?

It is that problem that makes me think the recovery/reuse rules shouldn't specify what "type" of craft it is, just a single set of rules that applies to all craft.

I did not mean to imply that there would be two lists or anything, just that part of repairing is refueling - so since an undamaged space plane only needs fuel to go again it is far cheaper than a rocket to reuse.

[BudgetHedgehog]

What about a SSTO rocket that parachutes safely down without crashing anything? It'd only need refuelling again and it's good to go (our SSTO rocket also has landing legs and remains upright). It is no cheaper than a plane to reuse.

What people forget is that SSTO doesn't necessarily equal spaceplanes. It just means it's in a stable orbit with what it left the ground with i.e. it didn't drop anything. Rockets are perfectly capable of that. And if you end up back on the ground without dropping anything, you're no different to a spaceplane that's done the same thing and I don't think it's fair there'd be different rules for that.

Without knowing exactly how the money system will work, this is all moot, anyway. Will fuel cost anything? Will stuff you drop in atmo with chutes deployed be destroyed as normal, thereby losing money when you really shouldn't be? Will recovery get you back the money you spent or just a portion of it? Will we have to worry about stuff like wages? Will there be grants we receive every year or whatever? These are all questions that need to be answered before we can start speculating about how to save money.

[zeel]

There would be no separate treatment between planes/rockets - anything that makes it back without losing anything will not require you to replace anything. This would hold true for a plane, an SSTO rocket, or a massive 5 stage rocket that you aborted before even launching. The idea is that anything that doesn't make it back need to be replaced, be it a lifting stage, a broken control surface, or just the fuel. This makes planes and SSTOs cheaper to run (though I imagine more expensive to build in the first place), but it isn't due to some special rule - if you crash the plane and recover the ejected capsule it's no better off than recovering the capsule of a rocket.

As for fuel I certainly think it should cost you something, and launching a rocket with an empty tank would be cheaper (as well as lighter) than doing it with a full one. That mean that doing just building a really big lifter to use on everything is no longer a good idea - efficient fuel consumption to reduce costs is a need, and you don't want to send more fuel than will be needed in a part that you can't recover.

Now the issue of thing like boosters on chutes is important, at this point I don't think they ever land do they? Won't the debris just despawn? There would need to be a system in place to properly simulate the falling objects and track them so you can recover them.

And that brings me to another point - recovery should not be free. Something like distance + terrain modifier * mass would calculate the cost of recovery. Where distance is how far from KSC it is, (anything on the KSC grounds (airstrip/launchpad/VAB roof/island runway) is a distance of zero. Terrain modifier is a factor based on things like mountains or being in the ocean, again it's zero at KSC. And mass is obviously the mass of the ship, and debris is it's general area. This means that anything you land at KSC or the island is a free recovery, anywhere else is going to cost a lot more. That means planning your landings is now far more important.

I would say though that an EVA kerbal should be free recovery anywhere on Kerbin - we can assume they hitchhiked.

[Grover]

I love the idea of rigging up chutes to boosters and launchers to recover them (dont use stock chutes, or youll end up with hundreds of the suckers on larger boosters) but it will be difficult, especislly on weaker computers that will struggle to simulate a few falling booster stages, one or two launch stages and a spacecraft in orbit at the same time (not a problem for myself, but there are plenty of people with this problem)

[MKI]

I feel during then first iteration of costs for parts chutes WONT save the part they are attached two.

1. It would make a big change on calculations, as the game must calculate if the part survives the landing when out of the current rez limit. Currently chutes or no chutes, if your out of the limit, its dead.

2. It would make spamming chutes very effective, and make everything reusable, UNLESS CHUTES are very very, expensive. But such expenses could be covered if they can bring huge chunks of the ship back

3. Currently the atmos does nothing to ships or parts, so a reusable craft could be a whole launch stage thrown from the mun with chutes activated. Extemly unrealistic but an option with no re entry effects.

The chute, re entry effects and landing calculations all need to be reviewed to make recoverable boosters viable. Which is a lot to make SRB's realistic, which are already pretty cheap gameplay wise. Yea it sucks, but hey if boosters are cheap, why care?

[Grover]

Thats the point, SRBs are cheap and fairly easy to use and recover (only 1 part) but liquid rocket boosters allow more control and asparagus staging (justifying the extra cost to build them), though are harder to recover (in my experience theyre heavier and tend to lose a nosecone on landing unless you use modded chutes with ridiculous drag) the problem isnt balancing i feel, but that the increased CPU load of simulating boosters falling will render many PCs unable to run this game where they once could (again, not a problem for me and my "tower of power" which has never simulated KSP at less than 60 fps even when its modded to hell)

If Squad can find a way to simulate or model debris re-entry, descent and landing without incredible resource usage, since its not unusual to have 6 boosters falling and one large launcher still flying, requiring the game to either simulate or model 7 craft at once.

I love the idea of a recovery cost, which is dependant on distance from KSC, which may sometimes make it unfeasible to recover craft, and you instead leave them to curious kerbal civilians/tribes/rival space centres to savenge

[Wahgineer]

It's also amusing how many people are assuming that economics are coming in 0.24, but I don't think that's been explicitly stated. Contracts yes, but whether the contract system is fully implemented or even involves money is not clear.

The devs stated that contracts will be used to earn money, and that 0.24 is the economics update. People aren't assuming anything; if anyone is assuming anything, it's YOU.

[Red Iron Crown]

The devs stated that contracts will be used to earn money, and that 0.24 is the economics update. People aren't assuming anything; if anyone is assuming anything, it's YOU.

Got a link? The goals for 0.24 clearly state contracts are coming, but no mention of money or economics. I'd love to know if the devs have stated something about economics more clearly.

Edit: Interestingly, the About page on the main site says "Take on Contracts to attract interest in your Space Program.", which to me suggests that contracts may be part of the reputation system rather than economics. We'll see, I guess.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Red Iron Crown