0.24 landing parts with chutes?

[CaptRobau]

How do you prevent parachute spam? A KS-25x4 plus the largest tank (empty) weighs about 20 tons. 20*70 is only 1400 drag. That's only three radial parachutes. That seems very exploitable.

[BMBender]

How do you prevent parachute spam? A KS-25x4 plus the largest tank (empty) weighs about 20 tons. 20*70 is only 1400 drag. That's only three radial parachutes. That seems very exploitable.

Someone should report NASA for trying to exploit

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/cluster_chute2.html

[Pthigrivi]

Does anyone know the minimum recovery percentage for something landing on the other side of Kerbin? Ive been working on a turbo-jet stage that I can drop after reaching .01 atmo, and then follow back for reentry after circularizing my vacuum stage.

[CaptRobau]

Someone should report NASA for trying to exploit

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/cluster_chute2.html

The Ares I first stage is super-small compared to a Saturn V first stage. The former is 100,000 kg and the latter 2,280,000 kg. If 3 parachutes can land an Ares booster then you'd need 66 to land the weight of the Saturn V's first stage. Yet in KSP you can land that monster's equivalent with only 3 parachutes. See the problem?

[John FX]

been thinking about this...

If your first stage is huge and gets a Pe over 22km and has a probe core and chutes, you can control it later (it won`t decay as it is on rails) and continue your launch. If the orbital insertion stage is also controllable (and has some fuel left) then you can control all the launch stages back down to ground and recover some costs.

As it is doing full orbits mostly inside the atmosphere the landing point can be chosen also.

Maybe finish your gravity turn earlier to raise your Pe earlier in the launch profile. Might reduce the size of first stage needed.

It`s a reusable launch system in stock that isn`t SSTO. Maybe RSTO (Reduced staging to orbit)

i`m OK with the chutes in KSP being big. It just allows the same function with less parts. Otherwise you`d have to just spam chutes until there was enough.

realchutes does this quite well in that you can adjust the size of your chute but that increases the weight of the chute.

Edited July 16, 2014 by John FX

[BMBender]

The Ares I first stage is super-small compared to a Saturn V first stage. The former is 100,000 kg and the latter 2,280,000 kg. If 3 parachutes can land an Ares booster then you'd need 66 to land the weight of the Saturn V's first stage. Yet in KSP you can land that monster's equivalent with only 3 parachutes. See the problem?

hehe it was just the 1st thing I grabbed along that concept

Then your problem is with how KSP handles drag on tanks in particular as well as the non scalability of chutes. There are realism mods that address both. You basically have a problem with the math ok fair enough, but calling sticking chutes on the side of something you want to slow down in atmo an exploit within a game were magical yellow fuel lines with no mass, no corrosion, no pumping apparatus, no angular momentum, no wear fatigue, and no associated cost exist is somewhat rich imo.

[John FX]

hehe it was just the 1st thing I grabbed along that concept

Then your problem is with how KSP handles drag on tanks in particular as well as the non scalability of chutes. There are realism mods that address both. You basically have a problem with the math ok fair enough, but calling sticking chutes on the side of something you want to slow down in atmo an exploit within a game were magical yellow fuel lines with no mass, no corrosion, no pumping apparatus, no angular momentum, no wear fatigue, and no associated cost exist is somewhat rich imo.

To paraphrase an old comment on a space based FPS having `unrealistic gun effects`

"So you are playing a game set on a planet made from unobtanium where little green men bolt together parts of rockets ride up through an atmosphere defined in three pressure bands with sharp cutoff points, the rockets need no electricity and the little green men can sit in a chair for decades with no life support and on return enter the atmosphere at 30km/sec and not burn up and you are complaining that you use an unrealistic amount of parachutes to slow you down?"

not meaning to snark, I was just reminded of the quote.

EDIT : I saw a mod the other day that preserves angular momentum during rails warp... (no stopping your spin by warping a bit anymore)

[BMBender]

To paraphrase an old comment on a space based FPS having `unrealistic gun effects`

"So you are playing a game set on a planet made from unobtanium where little green men bolt together parts of rockets ride up through an atmosphere defined in three pressure bands with sharp cutoff points, the rockets need no electricity and the little green men can sit in a chair for decades with no life support and on return enter the atmosphere at 30km/sec and not burn up and you are complaining that you use an unrealistic amount of parachutes to slow you down?"

not meaning to snark, I was just reminded of the quote.

EDIT : I saw a mod the other day that preserves angular momentum during rails warp... (no stopping your spin by warping a bit anymore)

My only point was if we're gonna get so deep in the weeds towards realism about number, size, drag of chutes and what they're slowing to say what is and isn't an exploit, there are much bigger offenders to plausibility. At least parachutes and the concept/practice of recovering spent stages actually exist in the real world, unlike other things I could name.

[AngusJimiKeith]

The Ares I first stage is super-small compared to a Saturn V first stage. The former is 100,000 kg and the latter 2,280,000 kg. If 3 parachutes can land an Ares booster then you'd need 66 to land the weight of the Saturn V's first stage. Yet in KSP you can land that monster's equivalent with only 3 parachutes. See the problem?

That's the wet mass. The Saturn V S-1C massed 138,000 kg with no fuel. Source: http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/First_Stage.pdf

Which could be landed by four of these theoretical chutes.

EDIT: Not quite 4. Probably 5, to be safe. Still: THe stage "could" be recovered with chutes. (There are other issues, such as the stage hitting the water, which are not so easily dealt with.)

Edited July 16, 2014 by AngusJimiKeith

[undercoveryankee]

Can anyone recommend a simple mod to extend the craft load distance? IIRC, there's a weapons mod (Lazor Systems?) that does this, but I don't know how much impact that will have on the rest of the game.

There's also one called Never Unload that expands the load distance without all of the other Lazor stuff.

[ethernet]

Personally, I'm fine with the status quo on this.

From a realism perspective, economically-sound booster reusability has never been done. Yes, the Space Shuttle had reusable solid rocket boosters, but an expendable launch system would have ended up being cheaper. Now, SpaceX looks like they're getting close, but the problem is a heck of a lot harder than "stick a few parachutes on it". Sure, the Kerbal tech tree ends up exceeding our state of the art, but parachutes are low tech. However, realism isn't my main issue.

My main concern is gameplay, and I don't want to see KSP change from a "what you pilot is what you accomplish" model; a game about building, and piloting spacecraft. Automation should stay in mods. Auto-recovery via parachutes simply gives too much benefit for negligible effort. Under the current design, booster recovery is at least theoretically possible, and pulling it off sounds like a cool challenge. Also, trivial booster recovery means SSTOs go back to being "cool but useless". In a good game design, "cool" and "useful" should be synonymous.

[BMBender]

aye SSTO's are much more realistic

[ethernet]

aye SSTO's are much more realistic

Like I said, realism isn't my main issue.

The important point is that they require a lot more gameplay effort and skill than slapping a few parachutes on a booster.

[RuBisCO]

I can easily do a 2-stage reusable rocket in 23.5, as long as the 1st stage gets out of the atmosphere long enough to get the 2nd stage to orbit I can go back to the 1st stage and land it and parachute it into the ocean, question is how much will the recovery cost be: supposedly the further it lands from the space port the lower the percentage of its cost is recovered. Will there also be a penalty for landing in water? What about launch claps will they recover 100%? Questions to test.

[CaptRobau]

hehe it was just the 1st thing I grabbed along that concept

Then your problem is with how KSP handles drag on tanks in particular as well as the non scalability of chutes. There are realism mods that address both. You basically have a problem with the math ok fair enough, but calling sticking chutes on the side of something you want to slow down in atmo an exploit within a game were magical yellow fuel lines with no mass, no corrosion, no pumping apparatus, no angular momentum, no wear fatigue, and no associated cost exist is somewhat rich imo.

been thinking about this...

If your first stage is huge and gets a Pe over 22km and has a probe core and chutes, you can control it later (it won`t decay as it is on rails) and continue your launch. If the orbital insertion stage is also controllable (and has some fuel left) then you can control all the launch stages back down to ground and recover some costs.

As it is doing full orbits mostly inside the atmosphere the landing point can be chosen also.

Maybe finish your gravity turn earlier to raise your Pe earlier in the launch profile. Might reduce the size of first stage needed.

It`s a reusable launch system in stock that isn`t SSTO. Maybe RSTO (Reduced staging to orbit)

i`m OK with the chutes in KSP being big. It just allows the same function with less parts. Otherwise you`d have to just spam chutes until there was enough.

realchutes does this quite well in that you can adjust the size of your chute but that increases the weight of the chute.

That's the wet mass. The Saturn V S-1C massed 138,000 kg with no fuel. Source: http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/First_Stage.pdf

Which could be landed by four of these theoretical chutes.

EDIT: Not quite 4. Probably 5, to be safe. Still: THe stage "could" be recovered with chutes. (There are other issues, such as the stage hitting the water, which are not so easily dealt with.)

While realism played a part in my argument (although I used a wrong statistic, which undermines what I said), I was more concerned with gameplay balance. As ethernet above me said, its about the effort. If one can get 75% of the cost of the entire launch vehicle back by sticking on a few parachutes then very few will care to get close to 100% back by creating complex SSTOs or powered-landing stages à la SpaceX as those take a thousand-fold more time and effort to do. SSTOs and powered-landing stages are a nice challenge that present a goal to players. If nearly the same reward is given for something much simpler like automatic parachute recovery, it'll just cheapen the experience of those far more interesting designs.

[BMBender]

I'm not going to debate who's play style is better than someone else's, ones skill or effort is relative in a single player game; no ones style of gameplay is any more or less valid than another's as long as they find enjoyment in it. I fail to see how someone adding one or more parachutes to their rocket prevents another from building an SSTO if they wish or vice versa. If the incentives or de-incentives on how the $ return works out are an issue there are already mods that address them with plenty more coming after the update drops. It should be fairly easy to mod your game to any complexity, simplicity, expense or cheapness I imagine.

Edited July 16, 2014 by BMBender

[AngusJimiKeith]

While realism played a part in my argument (although I used a wrong statistic, which undermines what I said), I was more concerned with gameplay balance. As ethernet above me said, its about the effort. If one can get 75% of the cost of the entire launch vehicle back by sticking on a few parachutes then very few will care to get close to 100% back by creating complex SSTOs or powered-landing stages à la SpaceX as those take a thousand-fold more time and effort to do. SSTOs and powered-landing stages are a nice challenge that present a goal to players. If nearly the same reward is given for something much simpler like automatic parachute recovery, it'll just cheapen the experience of those far more interesting designs.

Okay, this I can agree with.

I also think that the sort of "You have x parachutes on the stage, so it counts as recovered" patch people are proposing is a bad idea. It's not a fix. It's a kludge. That said, I don't think I should need an ultra-high-performance first stage that goes high suborbital just so it doesn't unload. You can fix the unloading and still make recovery a challenge: we already know that distance from KSC will matter, which helps make passive 'chute recovery less worthwhile.

In the end...it's likely that most players won't even bother.

[cpast]

If the incentives or de-incentives on how the $ return works out are an issue there are already mods that address them with plenty more coming after the update drops. It should be fairly easy to mod your game to any complexity, simplicity, expense or cheapness I imagine.

Yes, but that doesn't mean Squad should not worry about stock incentives.

[ethernet]

I'm not going to debate who's play style is better than someone else's, ones skill or effort is relative in a single player game; no ones style of gameplay is any more or less valid than another's as long as they find enjoyment in it. I fail to see how someone adding one or more parachutes to their rocket prevents another from building an SSTO if they wish or vice versa. If the incentives or de-incentives on how the $ return works out are an issue there are already mods that address them with plenty more coming after the update drops. It should be fairly easy to mod your game to any complexity, simplicity, expense or cheapness I imagine.

Who is debating play styles, and whether some are "better" than others?

Mods already exist that do parachute recovery. I make no judgements whatsoever on those that want to use them.

The discussion is about what the stock gameplay experience should be; that which the rest of the game is designed and balanced around. A good game design is one that rewards and pushes players to accomplish new, interesting, and fun things. In that regard, automatic parachute recovery is a dead end. It short-circuits interesting gameplay that might otherwise exist.

[BMBender]

Yes, but that doesn't mean Squad should not worry about stock incentives.

Any incentive that chutes may or may not apply vis a vis recovery is pretty much irrelevant with the fairly significant de-incentive of the 2.5k magic Bermuda triangle that follows you around. Get rid of that then we could have a serious discussion about balance, rational incentives, and a base line mathematical approach to plausibility.

[cpast]

Any incentive that chutes may or may not apply vis a vis recovery is pretty much irrelevant with the fairly significant de-incentive of the 2.5k magic Bermuda triangle that follows you around. Get rid of that then we could have a serious discussion about balance, rational incentives, and a base line mathematical approach to plausibility.

You appear to have missed the discussion we were having - the whole point of the discussion of incentives is that the physics sphere provides an incentive to minimize stage dropping. We can have a serious discussion about incentives with any incentives, including "dropped stages cannot be recovered".

[CaptRobau]

Okay, this I can agree with.

I also think that the sort of "You have x parachutes on the stage, so it counts as recovered" patch people are proposing is a bad idea. It's not a fix. It's a kludge. That said, I don't think I should need an ultra-high-performance first stage that goes high suborbital just so it doesn't unload. You can fix the unloading and still make recovery a challenge: we already know that distance from KSC will matter, which helps make passive 'chute recovery less worthwhile.

In the end...it's likely that most players won't even bother.

Agree with you on the unloading, provided it doesn't hamper performance.

[Francesco]

If we exclude the use of mods like Never Unload, then yes, it seems to me that the most viable option is to have a very big, recoverable first stage (~3500 m/s) and a small orbital insertion stage with the remaining delta-v.

Another variable that I'm curious about is whether splashing down on water vs. ground landings, given the same distance from KSC, grant the same percentage of returned funds for recovered parts: if ground landings return more funds, the first stage would have to be tuned so it can land on "Thailand" by crossing all the "Indian Ocean"

Yet another option would be to provide excess fuel to the big first stage, so that after staging it can reach orbit on its own, deorbit and land precisely at KSC.

It will be interesting to see if it's more convenient to just land it wherever, or to pay a price in terms of more fuel expended and possibly a reduction in payload size, but with a greater reusability bonus.

Finally, an almost-reusable option would be to use a cheap, expendable solid-only first stage, providing the first 1000 m/s of the ascent: if Squad sets solids to be really cheap compared to other fuels and engines, I'll trade some reusability for simplicity.

Building a 3500 m/s fully reusable stage is greatly easier than a 4500 m/s one.

But for this I'll have to wait and see what the new in-game prices for SRBs are.

[AngusJimiKeith]

Agree with you on the unloading, provided it doesn't hamper performance.

Emphasis mine. I fear that's the roadblock...perhaps it would be possible to tag certain vessels as "not unloaded," or something along those lines, but I don't want to choke my CPU just for recovery's sake.

Another variable that I'm curious about is whether splashing down on water vs. ground landings, given the same distance from KSC, grant the same percentage of returned funds for recovered parts: if ground landings return more funds, the first stage would have to be tuned so it can land on "Thailand" by crossing all the "Indian Ocean"

That's actually not a bad idea. It's a targeted landing, so it requires some skill, but allows lower performance than flyback (at the cost of some recovery value).

Splashed down parts imo should be worth less for recovery IMO...water does bad things to parts in reality (and often in KSP too). That restriction would also prevent a "chute and forget" recovery.

[Sma]

I remember seeing something about adjusting the unload range. I was thinking about finding that and maybe adjusting it to the point where dropping stages don't unload automatically. Of course I don't remember what that range was.

Then it also comes down to how far from KSC is the drop in recovery percentage acceptable.

Also I was thinking that with kOS you COULD, after staging switch to the dropped stage, run a program on the dropped stage to return the stage back to KSC, and switch back to the stage still going to orbit. You would have to figure out how much fuel you needed to cancel your velocity AND still get the stage back to with in an acceptable recovery range.

In the end it may be too much trouble to figure all that out lol, but once you do it might be pretty cool as far as realism goes, at least based off the SpaceX plan anyway.

However it goes, I have a feeling a lot of us are going to have to start paying more attention to weights and what not.

Edit: I did just think about something though. Others have mentioned attaching new command pods onto "debris" and then recovering. I wonder how it would work if (after getting rid of the 2.5km unload) you drop your boosters in the ocean, then send a "ship" out to grab them and bring them back to KSC. I guess it's something someone will try at some point. Of course there will be costs associated with launching the recovery vehicle, so it comes back to "will it really be worth it?" lol

Edited July 16, 2014 by Sma