Make satellite contracts "remove control permantly" from the craft.

[paul23]

Well I propose an additional feature, that you lose control of satellites upon delivering it to the correct orbit. This way you can't use a single vessel for many satellite contracts (500 surplus dV means you can do about 5+ contracts on a single satelite), it also makes sense: you bring a satellite up there for someone else, not for KSC united - but for rockomax/whoever wants it.

Now to balance two other things should be done, first of all the income could be slightly buffed (like +5% on the completion). But more importantly: the 10 seconds left alone should be changed by a "button" in either the hud or the drop down menu stating "submit current vessel as satellite". This is to prevent accidental big rockets to be submitted when you just wanted to decouple the satellite.

Anyways this makes "cheating" and "cheesing" the game less possible.

[regex]

Anyways this makes "cheating" and "cheesing" the game less possible.

What's cheating about it? If you don't want to chain satellite contracts you don't have to. If someone else builds a satellite with sufficient delta-V and can chain some contracts together then good for them.

[Alshain]

First of all, I don't see this as cheating. Why would it be?

Second of all, 1.0.5 is going to encourage this sort of behavior with contextual contracts. If you lose control of it, then that kinda defeats the purpose of the new contract feature.

[Stoney3K]

What he's trying to say is that you can accomplish multiple contracts by placing a "satellite" in the target orbit for a few seconds, and move on to the next target orbit, where you can even de-orbit and reclaim the "satellite" when you're done. That may be a bit unbalanced and really useless in the context of the "deliver a satellite" contract, since in the end, there is no actual delivery of the satellite.

Instead, if the contract is complete and the control of the satellite is lost, the satellite *stays* in the target orbit (which is now owned by the agency issuing the contract) and the player would need to devise an alternative delivery method.

Chaining contracts is still possible, but that would mean using a delivery vessel with satellite payloads which can be dropped in the target orbit, after which the delivery vessel can move on.

[regex]

That may be a bit unbalanced

How is it unbalanced? What should it be "balanced" against?

really useless in the context of the "deliver a satellite" contract, since in the end, there is no actual delivery of the satellite.

Nowhere in a satellite contract is the term "deliver" used.

[Shark4558]

although contracts do not say "deliver" the satellite, they do not want to spend money to locate the satellite in an orbit suitable for a few minutes and then switch to another useful orbit for another company, the solution is to change the contracts to "deliver "the satellite to a 75 Km orbit per example, and also it can be suggested that the player instead of launching a satellite,launch several satellites at a time, to use the other as necessary ...

I support the idea.

[paul23]

First of all, I don't see this as cheating. Why would it be?

Second of all, 1.0.5 is going to encourage this sort of behavior with contextual contracts. If you lose control of it, then that kinda defeats the purpose of the new contract feature.

While this is a good reason - I would actually like if they would be "splitted up" - you either have a station you work on, or have solitary satellites. It's quite a difference in purpose & design, a simple drone sat you would not add docking ports etc etc. While if the satellite will eventually become a station planning ahead needs to be done.

I sure hope those contextual contracts don't suddenly enforce any satellite to be ready-to-become-a-station.

[Alshain]

While this is a good reason - I would actually like if they would be "splitted up" - you either have a station you work on, or have solitary satellites. It's quite a difference in purpose & design, a simple drone sat you would not add docking ports etc etc. While if the satellite will eventually become a station planning ahead needs to be done.

I sure hope those contextual contracts don't suddenly enforce any satellite to be ready-to-become-a-station.

"Adding Onto" is not the only contextual contract there is going to be. "Reposition" is another one that has been described to us and that makes perfect sense for a satellite.

Aside from that you can't leave crap in orbit without allowing the player to get rid of it if they don't want it there, contracts or not.

[mattinoz]

The contract says they only want it in a stable orbit for a few seconds. If they want it longer they only have to ask.

Edited October 29, 2015 by mattinoz

[regex]

Aside from that you can't leave crap in orbit without allowing the player to get rid of it if they don't want it there, contracts or not.

This, absolutely this. The last thing I need is a ton of useless junk orbiting the planet that I can't control.

[pincushionman]

1. Place satellite in target orbit.

2. Wait 10 seconds.

3. Go to Tracking Station.

4. Click Terminate.

BAM! Control has been taken away. TL;DR: Feature is already implemented.

[Mr. Speed]

If you want satellites to be more permanent I think it would be a better idea to have contracts of a longer duration.

like position satellite in orbit, then have it orbit 3 times. This would cost some extra of course.

[Joonatan1998]

I think the time requirement should be longer than a few seconds, but not permanent.

But taking the control away would also work, just ask the player if they want to complete the contract, and don't just suddenly take the control.

[paul23]

If you want satellites to be more permanent I think it would be a better idea to have contracts of a longer duration.

like position satellite in orbit, then have it orbit 3 times. This would cost some extra of course.

Well the engine currently only works without non physics warps - and you have to be "viewing it".

Putting it for n-orbits would work (though I sure hope N is large for "keostats").

Taking control could also be extended: for stations you lose control until the point where you need to add another part/move the orbit. At that moment the engine gives back control.

As for conceptual contracts: I really really hope they give an advance warning. I plan my satellites correctly (like done in real life): taking into account delta-v budgetting. I could of course plan easily for some advanced station keeping. However then the contractor is expected (just like in real life) to give a rought estimate he expects to do with the satellite, before launch. If the contractor first said it's a LKO satellite, I don't leave more than 50 delta-V after getting into the orbit, too little to suddenly make it a HKO.

[Zombie_Striker]

I support this, but I think this should be it's own type of contract. That way you can have a contract that says "hey, we only need a satellite in this orbit for 5 seconds just cuz. After that we will never need it again!", and then have a contract that says "hey, we need a satiate in this orbit for a year. We will be actually using that satellite for a year, so we can't have it get go to the mun or anything like that."

[Nothalogh]

First of all, I don't see this as cheating. Why would it be?

Second of all, 1.0.5 is going to encourage this sort of behavior with contextual contracts. If you lose control of it, then that kinda defeats the purpose of the new contract feature.

Because it's a satellite, its job is to be in that orbit.

Similarly station building contracts should trigger crew, supply and station expansion contracts

- - - Updated - - -

This, absolutely this. The last thing I need is a ton of useless junk orbiting the planet that I can't control.

You could go claw it, and sell it for scrap

[regex]

You could go claw it, and sell it for scrap

That's stupid, the game should just remove it so I don't have to look at it.

[paul23]

That's stupid, the game should just remove it so I don't have to look at it.

Junk management is the most important thing in space engineering. I'm saddened it's not in KSP, and debris keeps being so very big.

[Alshain]

Because it's a satellite, its job is to be in that orbit.

Similarly station building contracts should trigger crew, supply and station expansion contracts

Says who? The contract doesn't say that. The game doesn't say that. I don't say that. It's my game.

You are talking about putting limitations on people other than yourself. I mean if it's just your game you are concerned with, why don't you just enforce the rule yourself? Don't touch a satellite once you put it in orbit.

OR is it just that you feel if you can't do it, nobody should?

Don't artificially limit MY game because you are incapable of willpower.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Alshain

[Joonatan1998]

Don't artificially limit MY game because you are incapable of willpower.

By that logic why have a career mode at all?

Why have a tech tree?

Just don't use nuclear or ion engines before you reach Minmus.

Career mode is all about artificical restrictions.

It is only your game if you are willing to mod it to be like you want.

The "launch satellte and keep it in place x for a few seconds" contracts are about as silly as the "test this plane landing gear on escape targetory from gilly" ones but it seems that a lot of people here really like them...

So I think there could be be both contracts that require you to keep the satellite there for a few seconds, and contracts that take control and automatically delete the probe.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Joonatan1998

[Alshain]

By that logic why have a career mode at all?

That's not the same logic at all. Having a career mode offers a goal, leaving a piece of junk in orbit does not. You can't have a goal in a game to not do something.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Alshain

[paul23]

The goal is reached once the thing is there.

Actually I think the satellite missions should force you to bring a "predefined" satellite into orbit - the shape/etc is already defined by the company and you have to bring it there.

[Alshain]

The goal is reached once the thing is there.

Agreed, the goal is reached once it is there and after that we can deorbit it to get it out of our map view list.

It's clear nobody here is going to change their mind and the it is irrelevant because it is highly doubtful Squad would do this given the current development, so I think this will be the last I say on the matter.

[Zombie_Striker]

Agreed, the goal is reached once it is there and after that we can deorbit it to get it out of our map view list.

It's clear nobody here is going to change their mind and the it is irrelevant because it is highly doubtful Squad would do this given the current development, so I think this will be the last I say on the matter.

We don't have one GPS satellite in space that moves around. We have multiple satellites that do not change their orbits. Because everyone here seems to have a different opinion on this, There should be contracts where you can have it fly from one orbit to an other, and some contracts that say that a satellite needs to stay in one orbit.

So far, the argument about "goals" has been dumb on both sides, both sides making arguments that really did not mean they were right. It should be an option [controlled by what the contract specifies], not mandatory loss-of-control.

[paul23]

Agreed, the goal is reached once it is there and after that we can deorbit it to get it out of our map view list.

It's clear nobody here is going to change their mind and the it is irrelevant because it is highly doubtful Squad would do this given the current development, so I think this will be the last I say on the matter.

Or do more missions, get all the money I spent on it back etc etc. Grossly preventing truth balance & challenges. You can't make a mission say "bring this 100k costing satelite in orbit", it will earn you 300k upon completing. Cause as you can return you "earn" instead of 200k (minus launcher costs) the full 300k.

So for balance you will have to already include this: and make all contracts (I'm currently doing that) "earn" only 200k. - But at that point the costs of the satellites are so high that you're forced to actually return the satellites: which is getting (to me) increasingly silly: bring up something, wait 10 seconds and return it back home. But without this I don't make money. - Or if I change it, with doing this the highly expensive contracts make way too much money.

Edited October 31, 2015 by paul23