0.24 and part recovery, will it change your approach to debris?

[Skorpychan]

I think it's going to inspire me to tweak my rocket designs, so that I can land the more expensive bits back on Kerbin.

As it is, my standard design already deposits the central stack into LKO while shedding debris on the way up, so maybe I can just go for simpler designs. I'm certainly going to abandon attempts at debris recovery when they won't work, however.

Or I could just economize on parts like decouplers.

[HafCoJoe]

I generally leave little debris in orbit, but my ascend stages are always scrapped. I may be designing a mostly SSTO space plane for easier transport to orbit and better usability of funds.

[Rizendell]

Not really a fan of the whole debris disappearing at 2.5 km thing if they have value attached to them. The game just seems kind of broken if you cant just stick chutes on your boosters and get credit for recovery once they are jettisoned with parachutes deployed, since its the games limitation not the players design.

[CaptRobau]

While I previously kept my orbits clean, I might now go for less careful approach. Debris really has near zero chance of colliding with something. A probe body or sepratrons on the other hand have a 100% chance of costing me money. So I might up littering my backyard quite a bit, so save on a few parts here on there. In general I'm looking forward to the prospect of getting to go frugal. Make big dumb stages full of SRBs and the cheapest rockets I can find.

[Tic-Tac]

I like those rings that appear around kerbin when I click on "debris", so I doubt it'll change anything for me, but I think I'll try to bring all my payloads(that are not communication satellites or probes sent to another body) back to kerbin safely.

*sigh*

[Sky_walker]

There will be no way to go bankrupt, so: no, it won't.

I don't see a point being bothered with recycling parts if game always provides you with some more money.

[Grover]

Yes, you cant be bankrupted, because you will be given advances on contracts, but these will be very poor ones, if you want to build a big rocket, for a prestigious contract, you need the money in the bank.

Whilst you could never run out of money for good, you could be put back to square one launching tiny rockets to LKO for a bit until you have the funds to launch the big daddy rockets

[Sky_walker]

but these will be very poor ones,

Only if your reputation will be low. And that's not going to happen.

Lack of bankruptcy threat means that you don't need to be bothered with recycling as you'll always be able to get more cash needed to complete missions, so unless you're into doing a crazy whackjobs - you don't need enormous single-launch rockets to make it happen - especially because you can research every technology in a game by just flying around Kerbin and it's two moons which can be done by using cheap rockets and basic technologies just fine.

From what we've seen so far - it looks like funds will be a no-brainier. Sure, more cost-efficient, reusable rockets will make it easier and quicker to move forward in a research tree, but apparently there will be nothing to stop your progression and mark it as a game over, so... no need to bother with that.

If there would be some necessity to go to the other planets along with biomes being there and a risk of bankruptcy in a process if you're playing carelessly - then I would recycle as much as possible for sure, but in the game as we know it? Come on...

Edited July 17, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Epthelyn]

There will be no way to go bankrupt, so: no, it won't.

I don't see a point being bothered with recycling parts if game always provides you with some more money.

Whilst the game will provide money and it will be almost impossible to go bankrupt, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll have the funds to do any particularly complicated mission; it may be that the money you're given is enough for a very simple rocket to and back from the contracted location but you'd be better off going to do a few Mun contracts because it'd end up being faster, at least in MET.

I hope it works that way anyway, otherwise that's disappointing easy.

Then again, the more funds you have on hand, the more you'll be able to do. If you save up you'll be able to do some big mission you want to do (like Jool-5, or Eve and back), paid for in career mode rather than built in sandbox. If you're wasting money by throwing away booster stages that mission will have to be on hold for longer.

[Roastduck]

I feel it's also important to note that if you want to add the risk of going bankrupt, you should disable the ability to quicksave and revert launches. This way, you HAVE to do your due diligence and make sure your designs will work the first time, or at least test in such a way that you can recover for maximum value. In ironman mode, it will definitely be possible for a careless agency director to go bankrupt

[Nimaci]

I have had a zero debris policy for most of the time I've played KSP (even for interplanetary flights), but I honestly cannot see myself being impeded by funding even at the highest difficulty level, so my return missions will probably continue to be single launch/payload return only affairs as I simply can't be bothered with multiple launch/recovery mission architectures.

[MiniMatt]

I was actually hoping that this would be a contract that would appear from time to time.

The game would have one of the organizations take objection to the amount of trash in orbit, and put out a contract to de-orbit a few of 'em... Ideally these would be bits you've left behind in prior missions rather than stuff getting spawned up there... (this contract would NOT appear if you never left debris up there, in that case)

Ex.: "The Kerbin Astronomical Society is annoyed by the number of false positives for new objects detected, and are asking KSC to de-orbit at least 3 pieces of junk weighing 500kg or more.."

Really like this idea. Gives a good reason to do something different without getting too pedantic about space cleanliness.

Also gives another fun use for the ARM claw.

[r_rolo1]

Not really a fan of the whole debris disappearing at 2.5 km thing if they have value attached to them. The game just seems kind of broken if you cant just stick chutes on your boosters and get credit for recovery once they are jettisoned with parachutes deployed, since its the games limitation not the players design.

Yeah, it seems a little not well thought out. As it is in Manley video the only real aproaches to the recovery are SSTO ( either plane or rocket ), that is other way of saying no recovery of ejected parts or putting probes in the detached parts and do some really crazy arcs on the payload orbit to give you time to control the falling debris ( to avoid auto deletion ). It really looks like the devs wanted to put a cool feature and gone away without thinking it through ...

[mythic_fci]

Here's what I did to my capsule during fund-proofing(Increasing reusability/refundability to maximum):

Redesigned the SM so that it doesn't disconnect from the CM and lands with it for more funds

Equipped 2nd stage with 8 radial parachutes for a partially engine assisted recovery (preferably near KSC), a 2m probe core and a single 0X-4L solar panel to power the core until reentry, after which the batteries of the core will take over.

I didn't do anything much to my 1st stage, considering that it seperates at 30km or so and only gets to about 58km before falling back. Without the "drag-per-amount of tons" system of the mission control mod, I didn't have a reason to add anything useless to add weight. I simply slightly tweaked it for better efficiency and more lifting capacity to accomodate above changes.

So if you use a 2/2.5 stage rocket, here's a basic fund-proofing procedure.

Ignore your boosters, they won't take you up to suborbital heights.

If your 1st stage can get to 100km+, then install a probe core and a few small radial batteries (the smallest kind - 2 should be enough). If not, then ignore it and don't add anything.

Check if your second stage has some fuel after the orbital insertion burn. If yes, install a single OX-4L panel of your choice and a probe core on your 2nd stage for reentry. If no, tweak your entire rocket until you have at least 10-15% fuel left in the 2nd stage. Add a LOT of parachutes and be prepared to use a little fuel to land the stage.

[Laie]

Would adding this to e.g. all parachutes be sufficient to make spent/deorbited stages/vessels recoverable without really adding command authority or more passenger seats?

You can currently recover debris from everywhere on kerbin's surface. If it survives the impact, it's recoverable. Just go through the tracking center. (Or will you only get a refund if it's a "vessel" rather than "debris"?).

The king-size boosters from the ARM pack are self-recovering, after a fashion. Although they last until ~11km, they are always available for recovery from the tracking station. I guess the game takes them upon despawning and places them safely on the ground. I kinda hate that, actually, at least in the .235 context.

[r_rolo1]

You can currently recover debris from everywhere on kerbin's surface. If it survives the impact, it's recoverable. Just go through the tracking center. (Or will you only get a refund if it's a "vessel" rather than "debris"?).

From what you can see in Scott Manley video in page 3, atleast in the version he played you can only get cash for the recovery of debris that have command pods or probes ....

Edited July 17, 2014 by r_rolo1

[Pecan]

I am developing a set of fully-recoverable VTOL SSTOs, currently using jets for 5 and 10 tonne payloads and pure rocket for 10 and 40 tonnes. The 10t-payload rocket is currently much cheaper and lower part-count than the jet version but is much heavier and, therefore, has a worse payload ratio. At the moment - before any sort of optimisation - the 10t rocket is LV-10-1 from my tutorial (Chapter 5) and the 40t version is basically just four of them strapped together. All very much a work in progress though, just for the design exercise. I am specifically trying to avoid the balance, part-count, wing-mass and flight complexity/time problems of spaceplanes.

It's fairly easy to land within or close to KSC so I probably won't bother with the runway 2% - which would only be about 500 funds for the current 10t rocket.

ETA: As the thread is asking whether it'll change my approach to debris - not really; I already design to leave none and spent stages are, at least in theory, parachute-recoverable. What it's changing is my approach to making sure things are recoverable in practice as well.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Pecan

[bigyihsuan]

Nope, I'll just keep littering space as usual.

[BMBender]

Personally? no I won't be changing my debri habits. From what I can see not much point imo. Jump through hoops with probe cores/chutes everywhere(that dig into the return costs pretty steeply anyway), work around the moving Bermuda triangle, all for an at best marginal return for effort. From what I can tell the returns from recovery are modest enough if that's a significant determining my space programs financial viability I have bigger issues. I may waist time with a cost challenge or two but other than that, nope kepler syndrome ftw

When I'm in the mood for SSTO's I will but just as a side effect, not because I care much either way.

[Alshain]

I'm toying with SSTO's, both planes and rockets... but only because the creation of the SSTO interests me in the first place. I have no plans to change how I do my space program and I don't think being obsessive about recovering every little bit is going to be that big of a financial windfall. So while I may continue to make SSTO's, I won't be attaching probe bodys to non-ssto's just for recovery.

[Moonfrog]

Hmm, I've given this about 10 seconds of thought so, here's my take on this. I think if the most expensive parts of your ship are stuff like science experiments, engines, command pods, basically the extra stuff u add to make the payload craft what u want it to be. It might change how I collect science, if it costs a lot to create a science module, then I might be tempted to bring it back home with me to recover the cost, so I don't have to pay for a new one. I might also use less engines, maybe even try to bring home an engine if its an expensive one.

I think funds are meant to control how many parts u can put into a rocket, so u can't just build a rocket from the start of career mode get all science in one trip. I don't have a problem with being unable to go bankrupt, personally I think that would ruin the game. FOr me I'm not interested in an economic simulator, but if the funds are going to act as a restriction on how many bits or parts I can use, limit my choices so I can't just splurge, then that's fine. Can't imagine a kerbal saying, we are not going into to space today because I'm broke. By broke I do not mean my leg, head, rocket engine or fuel tank, or that giant explosion thing that sometimes occurs. Not bothered about not going bankrupt.

I might be tempted to use more permanent structures or ships. It might actually end up cheaper launching a small fuel tank into orbit and reusing a Mun ship to travel to minmus. Wouldn't need to pay for any new science equipment or anything as I would just use the thingy ma bob, lab that's it. I might use more probes, as I suspect they would be cheaper, right now not much point since transmiting for science is pretty bad. One way trip with a probe might be really cheap and fufil requirements like landing on mun much easier than having a return trip.

Certainly change the way I play, in regards todebris, I may think debris is far more important now. before it was just deletable stuff. if that makes sense.

[magnemoe]

Here's what I did to my capsule during fund-proofing(Increasing reusability/refundability to maximum):

Redesigned the SM so that it doesn't disconnect from the CM and lands with it for more funds

Equipped 2nd stage with 8 radial parachutes for a partially engine assisted recovery (preferably near KSC), a 2m probe core and a single 0X-4L solar panel to power the core until reentry, after which the batteries of the core will take over.

I didn't do anything much to my 1st stage, considering that it seperates at 30km or so and only gets to about 58km before falling back. Without the "drag-per-amount of tons" system of the mission control mod, I didn't have a reason to add anything useless to add weight. I simply slightly tweaked it for better efficiency and more lifting capacity to accomodate above changes.

So if you use a 2/2.5 stage rocket, here's a basic fund-proofing procedure.

Ignore your boosters, they won't take you up to suborbital heights.

If your 1st stage can get to 100km+, then install a probe core and a few small radial batteries (the smallest kind - 2 should be enough). If not, then ignore it and don't add anything.

Check if your second stage has some fuel after the orbital insertion burn. If yes, install a single OX-4L panel of your choice and a probe core on your 2nd stage for reentry. If no, tweak your entire rocket until you have at least 10-15% fuel left in the 2nd stage. Add a LOT of parachutes and be prepared to use a little fuel to land the stage.

Yes you will use either solid boosters or even liquid fueled ones with cross-feed.

This is my 40 ton launcher, cargo is a 34 ton tug set up for asteroid use. It has 4 of the large SRB and is has one of the low 3.5 m tanks more than the 18 ton SSTO.

No the SRB is not recovered the parachutes are just to pretend, however the two shutes on the launcher slows it to 30 m/s during landing.

Weakness of this design is that it uses lots of fuel, two orange tanks, one 1x2 and the same four SRB does the same work. Even worse then you think that the tug has 4 nuclear engines, if your cargo has a engine, you can use it as a upper stage.

An 320 unit drop tank adds 800 m/s to the tug, now a 1.5 orange tank one 1x2 and two large boosters is enough. Pad weight is down to the half.

Add two seperatrons to the tank to deorbit after getting into orbit, add a probe, 2 solar panels and you can use the 200 m/s left before dropping it and then activate the seperatrons at Ap.

In this setting I wonder if not the disposable setup with droptank would be cheaper, this is also relevant for anything who goes past LKO, you save a lot on doing the last 500 m/s with it.

[rottielover]

I've watched Manley's videos and I gotta say, I'm disappointed squad.

The Mission Controller mod has been able to handle refund of stages for some time (by calculating if you had enough parachutes to land that stage safely), yet you overlooked such an obvious thing.

As a huge KSP fan with over 1,500 hours play time (steam verified), I'm pretty "meh" about .24 right now. The community is what seems to be pushing KSP forward anymore anyway. 64bit wasn't on the agenda for "some time" until someone in the community brought it forth, as the same with many other features along the way (C7 anyone). Heck you used to close and kill threads about multiplayer until SodiumEyes put KLF (kerbal live feed) out, which turned into KMP, and lead to darkMP, and now it's on the planned feature list.

IMHO, start paying small sums to the modders to get the best mods developed out fully and then put into the game core, mods is about the only push forward anymore anyway. You could have had Mission Controller's code for stage recovery, deadly Reentry, FAR, and a life support mod could have made up a "hard mode" switch in the core, and all for virtually zero effort on your part.

I'm sure the first thing I'm going to do when .24 arrives, is wait for the mods that fix it to come out / update.

This is my opinion, I am entitled to my opinion as a veteran to the game.

[NecroBones]

I suspect that the funding system is balanced with the expectation that you won't recover much of your launch costs (lander or capsule + attachments only, most of the time), and that you'll have a few explosions and failures along the way. It's quite possible that fretting about saving all or most of your launch stages, right down to SRBs, may be a bit of a waste of time.

I'm just going to try to build a little more efficiently, by not using parts that I don't need for the mission. Usually I try to build my lifters so that the last stage to survive to orbit will have some reserve fuel and a probe core, to de-orbit itself. Since I'm already doing that, I'll start adding parachutes to those too, to try to recover a little more cash. But I'm not too worried about that.

My thinking is that early on, I won't worry about it, because I won't have the tech to reliably save boosters. Later, I'll only worry about what makes it to orbit. And way down the line, I may try to use landers and orbital transfer vehicles that can just permanently stay in space, and be refueled and docked for multiple missions.

But until then? Disposable SRBs sound very attractive.

[r_rolo1]

I suspect that the funding system is balanced with the expectation that you won't recover much of your launch costs (lander or capsule + attachments only, most of the time), and that you'll have a few explosions and failures along the way. It's quite possible that fretting about saving all or most of your launch stages, right down to SRBs, may be a bit of a waste of time.

Not seeing how you can do that and disallow that people can get net profit from delivering a rocket intact to KSC ... especially when one of the persons that has been testing it says you can build a rocket SSTO with little tech advacement ( See Scott Manley second video, that someone dropped some pages ago here ). This unless fuel is expensive, that brings it's own can of worms behind ...