Budgets, Reusability and Mass Production

[CaptRobau]

With budgets coming in 0.24 and development of that system still not being completely finalized (judging by dev comments), I thought it’d make sense for me to share some of my views on the issue of reusable and mass produced spacecraft.

In real-life space programs there are two ways of designing a launch vehicle or spacecraft. It can either be reusable or it cannot. Most spacecraft and launch vehicles so far have been not reusable, only usable once. The exception to this so far have been elements of the Space Shuttle, and SpaceShipOne. Luckily the future might bring us some more reusable rockets and spacecraft, such as the Falcon/Dragon by SpaceX and the Skylon by Reaction Engines Ltd.

Reusable Vehicles

There are advantages and disadvantages to a reusable vehicle, but one thing that is clear is that in (stock) KSP it’s quite an accomplishment to make such a thing. The game should reward this skill by giving the player the cost of all the intact parts back upon retrieval. This could be perhaps modified by distance from KSC. This would also incentivize players to invest in a reusable infrastructure of spacecraft moving crew and cargo to Low Kerbin Orbit followed by refuelable space tugs moving them further into the Solar System.

Mass Produced Vehicles

A reusable vehicle is not the only way that real-life space programs are trying to get costs down. Common designs and mass production are another way. If NASA had to start from scratch for each mission they’d run in the red after only a few launches. They use common designs so that they can mass produce components and keep costs down. If KSP would add a modifier that would reduce costs based on how often a part or a combination of parts would be used by a player (to a certain lower limit), this would incentivize players to come up with common designs and use those to launch their missions. Like reusable vehicles this would add a challenge to the game, because players would have to try to build their missions around what their common design could carry into space. A cost-reduction modifier would reward the player for this.

What are your thoughts on this fellow Kerbalnauts?

[Sirrobert]

In a way we already have mass produced stuf.

We have specific parts that we glue tougether, rather than having to design the parts for each mission.

As for the money back, I agree you should get some of the costs back for the parts you recover. But not all.

Also they'd need to make some changes to the way on rails reentry works, because in the current system, it is impossible to design drop off tanks that that you want to land safely so you can recover them (as currently, those parts would get deleted because they are on rails)

[HafCoJoe]

In a way we already have mass produced stuf.

We have specific parts that we glue tougether, rather than having to design the parts for each mission.

As for the money back, I agree you should get some of the costs back for the parts you recover. But not all.

Also they'd need to make some changes to the way on rails reentry works, because in the current system, it is impossible to design drop off tanks that that you want to land safely so you can recover them (as currently, those parts would get deleted because they are on rails)

Yeah we can build an infinite number of rockets and yes you can build reusable craft, but currently there is no real point to doing so as there isn't a budget on parts. Infinite money currently. What you're saying is there should be enough money gained from building and using a reusable rocket to make it plenty worthwhile. And I totally agree with that.

As for mass production of ships and "subassemblies" costing less for using them as oppose to individual parts, I agree ten fold that if you use parts dragged from the subassembly window, parts get cheaper. - Like if you have a LKO launch subassembly, it costs enough less than plain rebuilding one that its worth using it. Or maybe like as the number of parts in a subassembly increases, the cost % for each part decreases.

Later!

[Red Iron Crown]

My thought is that recovered ships and stages should have their parts (not money value) put back into inventory. Parts that contain consumables (fuel tanks, monopropellant tanks, etc) would pay some nominal price per unit of consumable to refill. The player would be free to reuse the parts in the same ship again or rearrange them into something new.

It's not perfectly realistic, but it offers the following advantages:

- It keeps with the modular, Lego-like flavor of building things in KSP.

- It is difficult to sidestep. If a reusability mechanic involved a significant cost penalty, a workaround is to never recover a reusable ship and use ground crews to refuel and install payload. (Not that ground crews aren't cool, just they shouldn't be required to be economical).

- It is simple, requiring almost no bookkeeping or calculation.

- It rewards reusability.

- Building bigger ships becomes easier as players accumulate parts (scrap several small ships to make one bigger one).

[Sirrobert]

Good points, I agree with adding the the part pool, and than letting you buy new parts if the pool runs out

[regex]

I don't like this idea. I see no way to differentiate between a mass-produced craft and a reusable craft so this railroads the player towards using only mass-produced reusable craft. Which may not sound like a bad thing at all until you realize that if the game is balanced around people playing that way, any "lesser" way of doing things becomes severely penalized, almost to the point of being unplayable. If the game is instead balanced the other way, reusable craft offer little to no risk for the player and much of their funding just sits idle because they don't use it (in which case, why bother with money?)

As for parts pools, I think that offers a decent solution but I also think any parts returned to the pool should pay a reconditioning fee or something, maybe 75% of their value. You get a discount on these "new" parts and the joy of knowing you have a reusable space program but it is much easier to balance against newbies to the game and veterans who may not want to bother with the hassle of reusability.

Edited May 17, 2014 by regex
Spelling

[Red Iron Crown]

A high reconditioning fee like that would make ground crews so beneficial that they'd almost be necessary. And I guess players would want the option to not recover some of their parts and save on fees, depending on what they plan to do next.

A lot depends on how hard it is to make things recoverable. Is sticking a few chutes on enough? Not much hassle, then. Need to pilot every spent stage down? Yeah, that's just too tedious.

[regex]

A high reconditioning fee like that would make ground crews so beneficial that they'd almost be necessary. And I guess players would want the option to not recover some of their parts and save on fees, depending on what they plan to do next.

The "reconditioning" fee essentially boils down to paying 75% for parts. You buy them back after the mission instead of them going automatically into the parts pool. It should also be optional. Now that I think about it, it should probably be even less, maybe 90~95%.

A lot depends on how hard it is to make things recoverable. Is sticking a few chutes on enough? Not much hassle, then. Need to pilot every spent stage down? Yeah, that's just too tedious.

When people say "reusable" around here I work under the assumption they're talking about parachutes on spent boosters since you can only really pilot one thing at a time. Well, there was that one time Scott Manley did a booster flyback, pretty sure a lot of people around here could do that, but it'd be stupid to expect that for every launch.

[Red Iron Crown]

The "reconditioning" fee essentially boils down to paying 75% for parts. You buy them back after the mission instead of them going automatically into the parts pool. It should also be optional. Now that I think about it, it should probably be even less, maybe 90~95%.

That seems exploitable to me by not recovering the craft. Land your spaceplane, have a cheap, expendable tanker refuel it; have another rover move the payload into a position where it can be connected to the docking port; relaunch and profit! Since parts don't wear out (and they shouldn't, imo), repeat ad infinitum and save large percentages of launch costs.

When people say "reusable" around here I work under the assumption they're talking about parachutes on spent boosters since you can only really pilot one thing at a time. Well, there was that one time Scott Manley did a booster flyback, pretty sure a lot of people around here could do that, but it'd be stupid to expect that for every launch.

That's how I usually think of it, too. Though I found this design interesting for the scenario in which recoverable stages must be piloted down.

[regex]

That seems exploitable to me by not recovering the craft. Land your spaceplane, have a cheap, expendable tanker refuel it; have another rover move the payload into a position where it can be connected to the docking port; relaunch and profit! Since parts don't wear out (and they shouldn't, imo), repeat ad infinitum and save large percentages of launch costs.

So basically exactly the way we do things now? Seems like reusable craft already have great advantages, no need to make any concessions for them.

All I proposed is that you can buy back your recovered parts (under your suggestion you just get them back for free) at a discount (originally 25%, later 10%). I think you're mistaking my "reconditioning fee" for something else.

[Red Iron Crown]

So basically exactly the way we do things now? Seems like reusable craft already have great advantages, no need to make any concessions for them.

All I proposed is that you can buy back your recovered parts (under your suggestion you just get them back for free) at a discount (originally 25%, later 10%). I think you're mistaking my "reconditioning fee" for something else.

The way things are now doesn't involve money, so it doesn't matter. I've been trying to think of a system that can't be easily circumvented by not recovering craft and using ground crews to refuel/repayload (as I find that tedious), the 100% reusable parts is the best I've come up with. It is definitely possible that some better solution exists.

I think I understood your buyback discount properly, I just think it encourages/rewards a type of play that I don't find enjoyable.

[regex]

The way things are now doesn't involve money, so it doesn't matter. I've been trying to think of a system that can't be easily circumvented by not recovering craft and using ground crews to refuel/repayload (as I find that tedious), the 100% reusable parts is the best I've come up with. It is definitely possible that some better solution exists.

Your 100% reusable parts suggestion doesn't involve money either, so by your definition it doesn't matter. In fact, your suggestion is even more "exploitable" because you can recover freely and incorporate into newer designs at no cost. At least if you pay a restock/recondition fee on recovery money is involved somewhere in the process and you can't just upgrade your craft for free.

Personally I think things should just stand as they are now. If you go through the hassle you reap the benefits, but the game shouldn't be balanced around that.

[Sirrobert]

People thinking about the exploitability of reusable crafts need to remember that the only kind of craft that can actually BE reused like that are SSTOs

So it's only available for ferrying crew to places you have already been.

If you want to actually put things into orbit, you will need to do it via the VAB or SPH.

That said though, I'm in favor of the part pool. Stuf you recover goes back into the pool, and are free to use for your next craft (minus fresh fuel costs I gues)

[Red Iron Crown]

Your 100% reusable parts suggestion doesn't involve money either, so by your definition it doesn't matter. In fact, your suggestion is even more "exploitable" because you can recover freely and incorporate into newer designs at no cost. At least if you pay a restock/recondition fee on recovery money is involved somewhere in the process and you can't just upgrade your craft for free.

Personally I think things should just stand as they are now. If you go through the hassle you reap the benefits, but the game shouldn't be balanced around that.

It's not exploitable in the sense that it doesn't involve reusability mechanics that can be avoided by not recovering. I guess this is just a difference in "vision" for the game, as I'd like the economic system to reward reusability without having to mess around with ground crews; it seems clear to me that you care little about reusability. (That's not a criticism, to each their own.)

People thinking about the exploitability of reusable crafts need to remember that the only kind of craft that can actually BE reused like that are SSTOs

So it's only available for ferrying crew to places you have already been.

If you want to actually put things into orbit, you will need to do it via the VAB or SPH.

I'm imagining docking ports used instead of decouplers, with a docking port for attaching payload. A completely reusable multistage craft that doesn't need to go back to the VAB/SPH.

Edit: To MKI's post below, yes, that's what I was trying to describe.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Red Iron Crown

[MKI]

Your 100% reusable parts suggestion doesn't involve money either, so by your definition it doesn't matter. In fact, your suggestion is even more "exploitable" because you can recover freely and incorporate into newer designs at no cost. At least if you pay a restock/recondition fee on recovery money is involved somewhere in the process and you can't just upgrade your craft for free.

Personally I think things should just stand as they are now. If you go through the hassle you reap the benefits, but the game shouldn't be balanced around that.

I believe he is referring to when economics are implimented you have to PAY for newer parts. Regardless of if your going to reuse them or not. After an ssto mission then the proposed ideas come into play.

If the costs to refurbish are to high (your proposed 75%)fully reusable planes wouldn't ever be worth recovering. It would make more sense to deploy a cheap refueling unit to refuel it and re arm it and NEVER RECOVER IT. Where as a cheap "refurbish" cost that is almost negligible or non existent (full refund on recovered parts.) It would make sending an ssto up again with a new payload much easier and efficient.

We don't want the recover mechanism to be such an economic disadvantage it holds back SSTO designs. As I assume single use launchers will be much easier to build, cheaper to build and more effective at taking large payloads into orbit. If the mechanism is to aggressive against recovery you either get no reusable crafts, or massive sidesteps to keep using the same one.

PS on phone, bad typos everywhere will fix later

EDIT2: fixed

Edited May 18, 2014 by MKI

[regex]

I believe he is referring to when economics are implimented you have to PAY for newer parts.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about as well. When we have an economy and money.

Regardless of your going to reuse them or not. After an ssto mission then the proposed ideas come into play.

If the costs to referbish are to high (your proposed 75%) fuel reusable planes wouldn't ever be worth recovering. It would make more sense to deploy a cheap refueling unit to refuel it and re arm it. NOT EVER RECOVER IT. Where as a cheap cost that is almost negligible or non existent (full refund on recoverd parts.) It would make sending an ssto up again with a new payload much easier and efficient.

Let's go back over the thread slowly because this happens A LOT around here.

1. OP's suggestion.

2. Red Iron Crown makes counter-suggestion that you should be able to recover parts for free and have parts "pool" (inventory).

3. I say that, while RIC's suggestion is pretty cool in theory, you should have to pay a reconditioning fee (essentially restock) before putting used parts back into inventory.

What no one seems to get, and what I've been trying to say, is that under RCI's suggestion you can freely reuse parts that you recover at no cost, essentially sidestepping the economy. It's the same as if you bought a spaceplane and reused/refueled/rearmed it, but even better because you can refurnish that plane or turn it into something else at no cost. My suggestion was an attempt to address that by introducing a fee, that way you pay for the parts you use one way or the other, but if you recover them you get a discount (however minor).

We don't want the recover mechanism to be such an economic disadvantage it holds back SSTO designs. As I assume single use launchers will be much easier to build, cheaper to build and more effective at taking large rlayloads into orbit. If the mechanism is to aggressive against recovery you either get no reusable crafts, or massive sidesteps to keep using litter ally the same one.

The mechanic isn't aggressive against recovery at all, it is an attempt to address the "free parts" you would get under RCI's suggestion since, once you have them and can recover them, you essentially never pay for them again. That represents a massive bonus to using recoverable craft since you essentially never pay for parts again. You sidestep the economy. If that is what we're going for, the current way of doing things is better because you can't magically turn your used parts into something else at no cost.

[Red Iron Crown]

What no one seems to get, and what I've been trying to say, is that under RCI's suggestion you can freely reuse parts that you recover at no cost, essentially sidestepping the economy. It's the same as if you bought a spaceplane and reused/refueled/rearmed it, but even better because you can refurnish that plane or turn it into something else at no cost. My suggestion was an attempt to address that by introducing a fee, that way you pay for the parts you use one way or the other, but if you recover them you get a discount (however minor).

I get this, and understand what you're saying. And I agree that it's a somewhat major flaw in the system I proposed. I just don't see a better way to include a reusability mechanic that isn't avoided almost completely with using ground crews and not recovering (and that includes "no reusability mechanic"). And avoiding that is important (to me, at least), because then the economic way to play involves a lot of tedium with rovers on the tarmac. Plus, there will always be some need to buy new parts. Some things are just not going to be recoverable, because they never come back to Kerbin's surface.

A lot of this will depend on how the economics system actually works. If we're given a "bank account" where leftover money from each mission can accumulate, then saving money is very important. If we're given a "use it or lose it" budget for each mission, then all that matters is that the craft are efficient enough to fit within that budget. It's not clear to me which way it will go, but I suspect the former.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Red Iron Crown

[regex]

A lot of this will depend on how the economics system actually works. If we're given a "bank account" where leftover money from each mission can accumulate, then saving money is very important. If we're given a "use it or lose it" budget for each mission, then all that matters is that the craft are efficient enough to fit within that budget. It's not clear to me which way it will go, but I suspect the former.

Most of the reusability suggestions I've seen massively favor reusable craft under the first economic model, to the point where they're the only logical choice, so you'd have to balance the game towards that if you cared at all about making it challenging. Which railroads players into one style of play that I, for one, don't find any real joy in. I personally think the current way of doing reusable things is just fine if the benefits are that massive.

[Red Iron Crown]

Most of the reusability suggestions I've seen massively favor reusable craft under the first economic model, to the point where they're the only logical choice, so you'd have to balance the game towards that if you cared at all about making it challenging. Which railroads players into one style of play that I, for one, don't find any real joy in. I personally think the current way of doing reusable things is just fine if the benefits are that massive.

My thought is that no specific reusability mechanic massively favors not recovering reusable craft, which railroads the player into that style of play. My proposed mechanic would allow rocket stages and other craft to be reused without all the tedium of ground crews, so I think it is actually better in supporting multiple playstyles.

[Comrade Jenkens]

Regex: Building a reusable vehicle in KSP is many times more expensive then making a cheap expendable rocket. What your suggesting would mean that it would be cheaper to just spam expendable vehicles as the 75% cost for refurbish would still be more expensive.

[regex]

My thought is that no specific reusability mechanic massively favors not recovering reusable craft, which railroads the player into that style of play. My proposed mechanic would allow rocket stages and other craft to be reused without all the tedium of ground crews, so I think it is actually better in supporting multiple playstyles.

It actually does massively favor reusable craft. If all I need to do is slap a parachute on a booster or core to recover it and it gets put into my inventory at no cost, I essentially get free boosters and cores for the rest of my career, save for a few new parts needed to upgrade. I sidestep the economy because everything can be reused or converted to new craft for free, so why are we even bothering with money at that point?

Now, if the game is balanced around that, it pretty much mandates that I slap a parachute on everything, which ups my part count (and testing time if I actually have to land it at a certain m/s to recover). Under those conditions, a space program that mimics something like, say, the Soyuz or Proton (or most real world launchers) is at an incredible disadvantage in terms of cash flow since they recover neither boosters or core but the game expects you to.

As things stand in the game now you have to use tedious ground crew and put in the time and effort to save cash, which I really don't have a problem with. As MKI pointed out elsewhere, you put in the effort and it makes sense that you should benefit from it, with the added bonus that the game doesn't need to be balanced around it because it's very late tech tree gameplay. Under the free recovery system you get all those benefits with none of the tedium and it can be done from very near the beginning of the game, and is an integral part of the mechanics, and you can also magically transform old craft into new ones for free if you recover them. Balancing the game around that would ruin any sort of non-reusable program. Not balancing the game around it would beg the question "why do we even have an economy?"

Again, my proposed adjustment to your (pretty elegant) suggestion would hopefully give some incentive to recovering without requiring that people slap parachutes on everything unless they really wanted to. If you feel like a 10% discount (or whatever) on the next launch's boosters or reconditioned spaceplane is too little to bother with, and only free recovery or ground crew is really worth it, why are you even bothering playing with an economy in the first place? We might as well keep the current (non-existent) system.

Edited May 17, 2014 by regex

[regex]

Regex: Building a reusable vehicle in KSP is many times more expensive then making a cheap expendable rocket. What your suggesting would mean that it would be cheaper to just spam expendable vehicles as the 75% cost for refurbish would still be more expensive.

You have no idea what parts will cost or how expensive missions will be under 0.24, please don't make such statements.

E: You also have no idea how my proposal fits into Red Iron Crown's suggestion.

E2: I mean, look, under RCI's suggestion:

1. Buy strut, +1 strut, -<cost> money.

2. Use strut on craft, -1 strut.

3. Recover strut, +1 strut.

4. Use strut on craft, -1 strut.

It's an endless loop where you bought 1 strut and get to use it for free forever, why do we even have an economy? With my addition:

1. Buy strut, +1 strut, -<cost> money.

2. Use strut on craft, -1 strut.

3. Recover strut, +1 strut, -<90% cost> money.

4. Use strut on craft, -1 strut.

You get a discount on the future use of that strut, but it isn't free forever. Recovering and reusing your spaceplane is still more economical than spamming expendable rockets since you're getting a discount on every launch of your spaceplane if you recover it. Furthermore, the game doesn't have to be balanced around the assumption that recovery is mandatory and, even if it is, it doesn't penalize the people using expendable boosters in the same way that balancing under free recovery does.

Edited May 17, 2014 by regex

[Red Iron Crown]

Regex, you make some excellent points. It is definitely a tough balance to strike, because I think disposable launchers, reusable launchers, and spaceplanes should all be reasonably viable economically. At the same time, I hope that whatever system is implemented doesn't add too much bookkeeping to a game that already requires a fair bit of calculation.

Thanks for stating your thoughts so clearly, it's given me a lot to ponder.

[shizophrenic]

i agree that it would be a hell of balancing.

i personally think it they won't Change much of the 'on the rails mechanics.'

i would make it like :

0. there is a assembly cost depending on part Count and mass

0.1 soft mode : payable when you lose the abillity to return to Launch/Asssembly

0.2 hard mode: payable imeditaly after leaving assembly

1. recovery cost: recovery is dependent on distance and mass (maybe x kerbal Dollars + y kerbal Dollars per mile and per ton of mass.)

1.1 you can choose to sell those parts to a junkyard. (x kerbal Dollars per ton of mass)

2. you have to repair cost depened on most g force/temperature endured and Mission time, based on full Price (like 5% to 10%) each

3. fuel Comes extra. maybe 15% the Price of a full tank.

4. the command modules and probe cores would be quite expensive compared to fuel tanks and common rocket engines. cheapest would be Boosters.

5.1 recovered crafts, stages and parts go to a 'hangar',

5.2 they would be fully reusable if you like it.

5.3 you can disassemble them for a certain cost, and they go into your part storage.

6. Maybe some parts like struts, grinders, decopplers, and srb never go back into your part storage, but are cheap. for recovery as functional craft/ stage you have to rebuy it upon recovery.

what do you have:

you don't have to Change the engine.

every landed/crashed part has still value

a recovered fully functional stage/craft has even more value. ssto would be quite valuable

a fully destroyed/lost in space part never gives a recover value creating the Need to earny Money.

recovery, repair and dissasembly/assembly cost creating the Need to earny Money.

fullfilling a contract could have Options like complete duna landing and return in less a year you get addionally 10 sls engines to your part storage since you have a storage

[MKI]

I'm for a career that can be finished by someone that NEVER builds an SSTO. If a player plans his missions efficiently enough they should be able to make a giant SLS mission at the end of the day and not care about funds.

Funds should limit more or less failure of objectives, failure of missions, inefficient missions (a whole missions costs more than how much funds it would actually get besides science/reputations). NOT how funds efficient your ship is and how much can be made from recovery. It should also somewhat limit how much advance tech you can bring. IE no 16 expendable Goo labs.

You could say this makes the economic system broken, or useless. But hell it isn't about limiting game play, or shackling a player with their design choices. Its more about adding a new requirement for mission planning, another challenge that must be handled with each mission and your space program overall. Yes pro players could utilize a fully re-usable ship to keep funds efficient. So what? What exactly are they accomplishing besides saving cash they could of saved by just doing a more hardcore mission with expendable gear?

There is little to no way you can prevent recovery sidestepping. The only way is to make it completely impractical by making recovery 100%. Without part reliability a ship that is never recovered is almost a 100% free ship, besides paying for a loader design and refueling it. This again shouldn't exactly be a choice for a game that offers a recovery function in the first place.

I believe there is nothing wrong with a career that get to a point where funds are no longer an issue. If there are ways that are difficult to reach that point earlier, more power to you. But if you go the easy route(expendable, efficient missions) its guaranteed you get there all the same, that is when career is flexible to re-usable styles and expendable launches.

I also believe the idea of kerbals taking recovered parts from ships and making a whole new one is completely awesome. Things don't break down, so the idea of refurbishing actually makes less practical sense in this game.(kerbal duck tape is invincible)

So in the end a minor recovery payment could totally be added as long as its not ridiculous but it isn't really necessary.

@regex and the parachute spam idea.

The best way to keep parachute spam and "reusable" booster spam out of the equation is just keep them how they are and just make boosters CHEAP. So parachutes attached to the booster still don't matter outside of rez range. Keeping boosters cheap makes sense, as boosters are pretty simple parts that are utilize almost entirely for launch stages. So keeping them so cheap losing them hardly matters. This should also go with simpler engine tech and fuel tanks.

For the most part i only believe advance parts and special parts should cost a lot of money. Such as high end engines, command pods, science equipment and maybe some special parts such as docking ports and solar panels.