Why we cannot "set as target" planed orbit from satellite contracts

[Pawelk198604]

Recently i started again play KSP after long brak

It's still fun that i have when i first played it in 2012 :-)

 

But is one think that bother me, why cannot set as target the predetermined orbit that we have contract, as we can with other craft and celestial bodies?   

[natsirt721]

This would be a nice feature, however the targeting system currently requires a tangible body (spacecraft or a planet), and the orbit is just a path.  In my experience, you can pretty easily match the target orbit by simply looking at where your trajectory is relative to the target and adjusting from there. Liberal use of maneuver nodes is recommended.  

If the contracts were modified to require a position (as a function of time, but a concrete position nonetheless) then you might be able to target a dummy spacecraft, but this seems a little excessive as far as precision goes.

[SchweinAero]

If you selected an orbit as a target, where would the target direction marker point? What would your relative velocity with a stationary path be?

Though this does make me wonder about another scenario. Imagine targeting an orbit and, from that moment, seeing navball markers as if the closest point to your vessel on that orbit was a normal spacecraft. A new closest point chosen for each frame, and its "orbital velocity" calculated from the properties of the orbit. Would this help with something?

[Snark]

Moving to Suggestions.

[natsirt721]

On 4/28/2017 at 6:58 PM, SchweinAero said:

Imagine targeting an orbit and, from that moment, seeing navball markers as if the closest point to your vessel on that orbit was a normal spacecraft. A new closest point chosen for each frame, and its "orbital velocity" calculated from the properties of the orbit. Would this help with something?

Probably not, as when changing orbits you rarely go from your current position to the closest point on the target orbit. Hohmann's need minimum 2 burns 180 degrees apart, which is just about as far away as you can get.

Personally, I think that eyeballing it with the maneuver nodes is fine, especially given how generous the game can be in determining if your current orbit is close enough to the target.

[SchweinAero]

1 hour ago, natsirt721 said:

Probably not, as when changing orbits you rarely go from your current position to the closest point on the target orbit. Hohmann's need minimum 2 burns 180 degrees apart, which is just about as far away as you can get.

Personally, I think that eyeballing it with the maneuver nodes is fine, especially given how generous the game can be in determining if your current orbit is close enough to the target.

Then how about taking it one step further, and co-opting the closest approach markers to show where your orbit passes closest to the targeted one. Time doesn't need to be considered at all. Then you could judge the apsis match of your Hohmann using those and the velocity match using the imaginary vessel. Mostly devil's advocate, I find the current procedure easy enough.

[natsirt721]

3 hours ago, SchweinAero said:

...co-opting the closest approach markers to show where your orbit passes closest to the targeted one

Yeah that's probably the best option.

[Nothalogh]

The ability to set a hypothetical orbit, and then target it would be invaluable