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

[regex]

It's amusing to me that this "balance" issue really only arises in the toy solar system. Delta-V goes so much further that it's worth your time to stack contracts. With a realistic solar system you could possibly only get maybe two contracts with a single satellite, and that's only late game since the early isp progression of realistic engines makes it very tough the get the required delta-V.

One way to solve this with the existing system is to simply offer/allow active only one satellite contract at a time, or one equatorial and one polar, that kind of thing. You could still stack them in the toy solar system but even there the punishing plane change means even if you had another contract you'd likely only be able to do two.

[Nothalogh]

Satellite contracts would be much better with a RT like system in place, as the resultant sat would be useful

[sal_vager]

You don't know an AntennaRange style system is in the works? You need to follow the devnotes more

[Nothalogh]

You don't know an AntennaRange style system is in the works? You need to follow the devnotes more

I am aware it's on the way at some point in the future

[PugzInSpace]

I really like the idea. I'm always one for adding challenge to my games. But may I offer an alternative? The parts in the game are incredibly over powered, and I believe that this is what allows things like that to happen. I think your issue and many others can be addressed by rebalancing all of the parts to add a more satisfying progression to the game. I believe that the limitations of what you can do at any point during your career mode should be dependant not on the current level of your facilities, but rather the technologies that you have available to you. Landing on the Mun with 1.25 meter parts just seems nonsensical to me. Maybe the upper limits of what those parts could do is placing communication satellites in geostationary orbits and sending small probes to the Mun. But that is just me. Squad has done a very good job at taking very advanced concepts and presenting them in the way that allows anyone to get into it. Heck, when I first started KSP, I didn't know which was was up or down.

[regex]

Landing on the Mun with 1.25 meter parts just seems nonsensical to me. Maybe the upper limits of what those parts could do is placing communication satellites in geostationary orbits and sending small probes to the Mun.

If I have a craft able to enter geosynchronous orbit I have a craft able to perform a flyby of Duna or Eve (or possibly even land on Minmus with a bit of extra fuel). With aerocapture I can make orbit. Space isn't conducive to "balancing" in a gamey sort of way.

[Rath]

They can talk to my lawyers. The contract says 10seconds.

[KerbMav]

Some time back - although it might have been in a mod thread - I rambled about contracts generating parts in the editor (like part test contracts for not yet researched parts) as an optional necessity to fulfill satellite contracts (some contractors might want to put something specific to their needs into space) as well as a bonus payment for the satellite staying in its target orbit for several months (making good use of the unlimited contract list in the last building tier) which would eliminate the funny 10 second rule.

This would create a real reason to keep satellites where the contractor wants them to be, opens up new challenges via extra large/heavy contract specific parts, and might even enable the game to delete these satellites after the contract is fulfilled.

[ratchet freak]

Why not a bonus to keep the satellite in orbit for a few years. Bonus should decay so you can't just do a few and then timewarp to infinite riches.

Then you could a periodic contract to change its orbit slightly (to mimic orbital decay and station upkeep). Those (almost free) contracts would not show if the craft is ever not in the assigned orbit anymore.

[Tw1]

This would make more sense. The vessel should vanish from your tracking station afterwards too.

Space isn't conducive to "balancing" in a gamey sort of way.

Agreed. There are limits already, the laws of physics. If you can achieve something with certain parts, it's just your skill as an engineer.

[PugzInSpace]

If I have a craft able to enter geosynchronous orbit I have a craft able to perform a flyby of Duna or Eve (or possibly even land on Minmus with a bit of extra fuel). With aerocapture I can make orbit. Space isn't conducive to "balancing" in a gamey sort of way.

No you're right. You could definitely land a probe on Duna with a rocket that can also lift things into geostationary orbit. I should of specified what I meant. I don't think it's very fun to land a Kerbal on the Mun with those parts. That's all.

[paul23]

This would make more sense. The vessel should vanish from your tracking station afterwards too.

Agreed. There are limits already, the laws of physics. If you can achieve something with certain parts, it's just your skill as an engineer.

Actually I wish the "tracking station" could track 'ownership' - and allow contract-races (if you fail to meet the deadline another company will have a satellite in place).

[WinkAllKerb'']

since when stuff in space belong to any single one down there @ kerbin ? just sayin'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_law this always bode well you know ... are you promoting that a way or another ? just askin' ?

Edited November 3, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[regex]

fail to meet the deadline

You're talking about KSP; it is literally impossible to fail to meet the deadline unless you forget about the contract or are being a total derp. You'd need time management for deadlines to be a factor (building times, upkeep, life support, etc...).

E: and having contracts that are skipped by the player suddenly spawn craft in space would really irk me in this unoptimized game.

[WinkAllKerb'']

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(franchise)#The_return_from_the_Scattering

yup we also have the star war version (and many other but thoose two are well known) ... can't wait look so much fun xDr what a mess here since .... let's bring that mess with us in space ... sure ... old habits are not always good habits even if they have been usefull a certain amount of time. i don't like much what's behind the sat ownership process regarding that ...

edit: and on an other, less semantic, more practical aspect if you asked the ksp to launch the sat that's probably because you can't do it yourself same goes for later maintenance, control, safety of the said sat/ship/whatever over time. There's no reason you could assume that if you can't launch by yourself as a company and asked a tier, kinda you bought the full service suit *grumpy mode half on/off // with semantic and what is still usefull for now sorry if a few thing could sound harsh at first*.

Edited November 4, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''