What do you do when something explodes on launch?

[rdwulfe]

So I was curious how people respond when something explodes on takeoff. I do this in response to the hate and upset over the new minor explosion feature (which, for the record, I think is neat and fun). I don't really want to start a debate or get folks riled up, I'd prefer to keep things light and positive, I'm just wondering how the people who complain that this will make the game harder/more annoying are justifying it, considering that most likely, people revert. Or I do, most of the time, unless I particularly enjoyed how something went, or am playing a game where I've forced myself not to revert for various reasons.

I even have a mod that has a big red button to make me revert, so I lose SOME credits.. but it's such a minor amount it really doesn't seem to matter, I still end up with millions.

So I was curious, feel free to participate or not! Thanks.

Wulfe

[DevoidLight]

Figure out what exactly exploded, and add moar struts. 60% of the time, it works every time!

[regex]

I revert and redesign because no one puts an untested design on the pad IRL.

One thing I think would be cool as a difficulty option in career would be additional costs that apply on the first launch of any craft to reflect design and prototyping expenditures. That would make reverting pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things.

[Random Tank]

My stuff never explodes on the launchpad because i know how to build rockets well, but if it did it I would have to keep the result... Ironman ftw

[SunChaser]

I take screenshots if it was a spectacular explosion. But real space missions don't need the astronauts for ascent, so experimental rockets are tested many times with boilerplate capsules before any people or expensive payloads are put on a launch pad. That's my justification for reverting, anyway.

[Renegrade]

It depends on the self-imposed rules I've set up for a given save. I'm usually but not always playing ironman style, so any explosions that happen would be accepted as is, unless it was definitely a bug (there's a symmetry-related null ref which results in a ship exploding literally as physics starts, before any staging events. One of the tell-tales is that the ship is missing parts, with the remaining parts floating in air with no connections. This is clearly a bug).

After a certain amount of building and flying experience, explosions should become rather rare though, for what it's worth...

Regarding the exploding buildings, I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think it was underwhelming and something that should have been done after scope completion.

[Stratzenblitz75]

My design process:

Launch -> Explode -> Revert -> Tweak Something -> Launch -> Explode slightly less violently -> Revert... so on and so on.

So I revert pretty much every time something goes wrong.

Although, I don't play career mode the way its "supposed to be played". I just cheat in a bunch of funds and science and treat it like a sandbox save. So I guess I don't even have to revert, its just quicker.

[Alshain]

Depends on if I'm in a test run or not. And no not one of those "oh yeah that was a test" runs. In my mind I define all test runs before I hit the launch button, if it's not a test run... no reverting. I'm fairly disciplined on that too, I don't need an alt+F12 option to force it.

[CG_Kerbin]

Just roll with it like I always do it's fun to see what happens

[CalculusWarrior]

I generally like playing with the Kerbal Construction Time mod, which allows you to do (paid) simulations. However, when it's not installed, I am more flexible as to which disasters I allow to happen. Generally the longer the mission has been going on, the less likely I am to revert. So a rocket that explodes on the launchpad is more likely to be reverted than one which survives to orbit.

[rdwulfe]

I'm enjoying all of these responses so far, and I thank everyone! I am very curious about how other people play. A sandbox game is wonder in the fact that it allows each of us to express ourselves and play in a way that in no way affects how others play. I love that!

[cantab]

It's largely moot for myself since I'm still playing .23.5. Though I do have Kerbal permadeath on. If it's stuff under heavy development, or stuff I'm doing pad tests on and not actually planning on launching yet I'm more likely to revert. If it was meant to be a final proper launch I'm more likely to accept it, especially since I should have an escape system for my Kerbals.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

I used to revert, but I often don't unless it's just some inane thing I forgot like I forgot to put engines on in symmetry or something.

[[email protected]]

I don't think I've had anything explode on the pad in over a year. I honestly can't remember the last time something did. I would likely revert just for matters of convenience. Having a rocket blow up isn't really going to set me back that much.

[Franklin]

revert, like anyone else who isn't a masochist. does take all the teeth out of failure, though. basically you cannot mess up in KSP.

[NecroBones]

Yep, I often end up reverting a couple of times, and consider those attempts to be "simulations".

[Geckgo]

Just depends for me. I don't like reverting but especially for silly things, like grabbing one of my lift stages from subassemblies and the struts and fuel pipes get omitted somehow and I don't see it. Failures because of that I usually revert. I try to build unmanned "test" rockets but that gets spendy. This is a deep problem that I feel the career system doesn't really take into account. Progress through the early stages of ironman career go slow and can be tedious if playing without reverting once in a while. However my best saves often come when I don't.

Yesterday I was launching a mapping sat to Minmus, the little com antennas failed in flight (though they were in a fairing) and then the sat got stuck in the fairing. burned the engine to break free, missed my burn for minmus, but eventually got it there and in the right orbit for that mission with 33dV left in the tank (started at over 2000). I was pretty proud of that. Today I had a stranded kerbal running low on life support and managed to get him off minmus by landing my entire starship (oversized service module) on minmus. Never would have tried that otherwise. Screw-ups are bound to happen and they can be frustrating but some of them pose interesting challenges, specially when using life support and RT2.

[Linear]

It's always the bloody staging.

[TimberWolffe]

I laugh, repeat twice (explosions are fun) and then revise the design. Thing is, usually my rockets work first time unless the game itself has a problem. (Sometimes it won't stage due to planet loading and I can't get my descent stage out so...*kaboom*)

[Levelord]

I sit there and watch the explosions play itself out while I chuckle to myself. Then I determine if the crew pod/Kerbals survived and then I revert back to the VAB for a revision. My rockets rarely explode these days ever since I learnt specific strutting rules and behaviors, which also reduce the part numbers too.

[Astrospeak]

Because I play with the Revert option turned off, the answer is that I'm forced to watch in horror as my poor kerbal dies in the inferno… and then add more struts (assuming it didn't wipe out a significant portion of my $aving$).

[Thomas988]

I use Revert Flight, of course. Remember when using that didn't feel as guilty as using Quicksaving?

EDIT: OH MY LORD I HAVE 2 REP BLOBS

[StrandedonEarth]

I tend to revert if only because I found having all that debris lying around tends to slow the framerate. I know I could turn the persistent debris option down, but I enjoy littering other planets.

[Taki117]

Assuming this thing doesn't explode as soon as physics kicks in, but instead as I'm ascending off the pad I roll with it. If it's serious enough I might abort the mission entirely, or reevaluate and instead abort to orbit. In either case, barring massive catastrophic failure (Challenger/Columbia) my kerbals will come home safe.

[Brotoro]

It's unrealistic to think that a space agency would launch a rocket that hasn't undergone extensive engineering studies, reviews, and tests...so if I am just testing a design, I'll revert if I find some staging sequence flaw or if Jeb accidentally snuck on board.

Once I'm satisfied with the tests, then I'll launch "for real" and accept any disasters in stride (unless its the result of a game bug rearing its ugly head).