Editing The Staging Sequence In Flight: Exploit Or Not?

[Frostiken]

In my eyes this is an exploit. If it isn't, then the stupid contracts should be changed to not require this to be done to complete them. It's ridiculous to say that this is 'intended behavior' when this 'feature' is totally locked out unless you begin abusing mechanics. If not an exploit, then it's very much a bug.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Frostiken

[Wallygator]

It's not an exploit. Consider the need to reprogram vehicle components mid flight. It's all acceptable. Cost effective. And it's compleyely in line with optimizing the payback for any given launch.

[Frostiken]

It's not an exploit. Consider the need to reprogram vehicle components mid flight. It's all acceptable. Cost effective. And it's compleyely in line with optimizing the payback for any given launch.

I don't think you read the thread at all.

[Wallygator]

I don't think you read the thread at all.

Sorry mate. I responded to this thread early on.

This in an opinion thread. All perspectives are valid.

Contracts are usually legal documents. If there is leeway to interpret or extend them to ones benefit and still complete the intent then that is completely acceptable.

Props to the devs for allowing play flexibility.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Wallygator

[aleis]

Case in point you can also complete build a probe missions by putting a probe core on a manned rocket, get it to the orbit, Eva your kerbal then switch to the rocket and complete mission.

Is that also an exploit?

[Beowolf]

In my eyes this is an exploit. If it isn't, then the stupid contracts should be changed to not require this to be done to complete them. It's ridiculous to say that this is 'intended behavior' when this 'feature' is totally locked out unless you begin abusing mechanics. If not an exploit, then it's very much a bug.

Exploit? Bug? I respectfully disagree. When Apollo 13 changed their staging sequence on-the-fly, firing the LM descent stage without detaching from the CM, was that an exploit?

The only contract I can think of right now that HAS to be done in a particular way is jet engine testing when you haven't unlocked intakes yet. But the "Test an LFB KR-1x2 in Duna orbit" contracts can absolutely be done by sending a fully-fueled and unfired stage to Duna. I did it once, just for fun. You can do that, you can ship an empty used stage to Duna and test it, you can burn the stage during ascent, then rendezvous and refuel it in orbit before it leaves for Duna...there are all sorts of legitimate ways to complete it. Using Hyperedit to place the stage around Duna would be an exploit.

I don't make assumptions about exactly what is being tested on these parts. Maybe the manufacturer wants to know if the electronics in their SRB igniter still work after soaking in low temps, vacuum and radiation, so they pay for a Mun voyage. We know the chemical fuel will still burn in space because sepratrons, so there's no need to cart a loaded SRB with you. Just the empty shell is fine. Admittedly that's still a wasteful way to test such things, but Kerbals definitely have a different perspective on efficiency than humans.

As an aside, I've found another possible exploit. By placing a manned spacecraft in Mun polar orbit at the correct altitude, I can overfly all of the possible Mun survey contract locations without expending any fuel.

Friend, that's not an exploit. That's you learning how to do things. This is exactly what polar orbits are for, both in KSP and real life.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Beowolf

[Superfluous J]

Exploit? Bug? I respectfully disagree. When Apollo 13 changed their staging sequence on-the-fly, firing the LM descent stage without detaching from the CM, was that an exploit?

Lovell Hax.