Using A Single Satellite for Multiple Contracts

[regex]

This is the most awesome grind-reducing strategy I've come across, why didn't I think of it myself? I've launched like, five satellites so far and racked up over 1,000,000 funds just in Kerbin orbit, all it takes is a little time rejecting contracts. Basically a 200 tank, an octo probe, a few batteries and solar panels, science equipment, and a 909; I get somewhere around 4km/s of delta-V and can easily do four+ contracts with a single satellite. Plus, all that delta-V means I can trash the satellite when I'm done, leaving no clutter in space!

Anybody else use this strategy?

[ColourOfFire]

If you don't want the bother of funds, why not just play science mode or play custom difficulty giving yourself a bunch of funds to start with?

[micr0wave]

You need to try to get a couple station contracts, take a shuttle and slap on the needed things (cupola, lab, whatever) and do a roundtrip mun, minmus, kerbin. When the shuttle is big enough you can even add a couple satellites or a lander. Best trip i had was 3 stations, some sats, landing on mun with some science and flag and i didn't need to look for funds for quite a while.

[Deutherius]

Interesting method. I usually jump straight at every contract offered, so there's very rarely more than 3 satellite jobs at once - and each one gets it's own sat en route immediately. The price is below 10k per launch, so not really all that horrible. I don't know if I would have the patience to wait for one sat to get to it's orbit, redirect to a different orbit and so on (and just sitting in time warp waiting for one thing feels kinda wasteful).

Also, I like leaving the probes where the companies wanted them Having all the different satellites, stations etc up there makes the space around Kerbin feel so much more alive and real

[Srpadget]

All the time. Except that after finishing up the full set of contracts, I'll usually put the satellite into a parking orbit for those times when I give in to the temptation of the low-lying fruit and accept a "science around /body/" contract. Early on, it's the traditional ThermometerSat in low orbit; later, I'll replace that with one GravioliSat in low polar orbit and another in high polar orbit so I feel a bit more "honest" about it by at least getting NEW science when I take those contracts.

[regex]

If you don't want the bother of funds, why not just play science mode or play custom difficulty giving yourself a bunch of funds to start with?

Oh, I love the idea of funds and actually managing a space program. What I hate is the fact that the only way to get funds are these stupid little "fetch" quests. It's grindy, terrible gameplay, and it has nothing to do with managing a space program. Being able to do several at the same time with a single craft is an awesome way to bypass the hideous fund walls put up by building upgrades.

You need to try to get a couple station contracts, take a shuttle and slap on the needed things (cupola, lab, whatever) and do a roundtrip mun, minmus, kerbin. When the shuttle is big enough you can even add a couple satellites or a lander. Best trip i had was 3 stations, some sats, landing on mun with some science and flag and i didn't need to look for funds for quite a while.

Awesome, I'll have to try that!

[Valiant Corvus]

Satellites are pretty ridiculous in this game since you can use them to finish damn near every contract, especially if you use an ION thruster. If you can manage to make the satellite light enough, you can actually use that to land on atmosphere-less planets/moons. I've been able to land on almost every planet in the game (The exceptions being Tylo and Moho because of their high gravity) with an ION powered satellite and a parachute for planets/moons with an atmosphere.

Basically my "Go anywhere do anything design", which costs almost 70k with the lifter and weighs less than a ton on the final stage. It has 7-8k dV iirc and is light enough that the parachute will actually slow it down enough to do a no power landing on Duna. Only problem is getting to the ION engine in the tech tree, though that's a simple endeavor by just doing a bunch of Minmus missions since they're stupidly easy and give lots of funds/science.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Valiant Corvus

[nightingale]

It's an awful workaround for an awful gameplay issue. Which is why the "must launch a new vessel" contract restriction is just silly - it's trying to close this loophole, and you've demonstrated that it's super easy to get around.

But don't get me wrong - I'd use this exploit too, since otherwise it's super grindy and not fun at all. I just hope they fix the economy rather than having satellites self destruct after completing a contract or something silly like that.

[Wanderfound]

It ain't just satellites; if you can't pull half a dozen contracts out of a single mission, you just ain't trying.

Spaceplane to Minmus? That's "science from..." Kerbin and Minmus, station contracts above/on Kerbin/Minmus, rescue a Kerbal from orbit, plant flag on Minmus, survey contracts at Minmus, etc etc. And, of course, you can drop off some satellites on the way, each of which can fulfil several satellite contracts (and act as Scansat probes afterwards, or Remotetech relays, or...).

See http://s1378.photobucket.com/user/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Spaceplane%20economics/story for an example.

[regex]

It ain't just satellites; if you can't pull half a dozen contracts out of a single mission, you just ain't trying.

Yes, yes, of course you can, but doing multiple orbits with a single satellite is specifically awesome because satellite contracts pay so much just in Kerbin's SOI. The base chaining sounds pretty cool, too.

[Arsonide]

It's an awful workaround for an awful gameplay issue. Which is why the "must launch a new vessel" contract restriction is just silly - it's trying to close this loophole, and you've demonstrated that it's super easy to get around.

"Launch a new vessel" is not trying to get around this particular "stacking" strategy. It is meant to prevent players from leaving a satellite in orbit, taking contracts, and fulfilling them with minor course corrections. It's a subtle difference. At the very least, the new vessel parameter makes absolutely sure that the player needs to launch a new vessel every time he grabs a satellite contract. Even if he grabs eight of them.

Removing the object from the game is an option that I'd considered, but it is not a very fun mechanic in general. Back when facility contracts were conceived, there was a similar contract "stacking" issue with base and station contracts. That was solved by making them not ever target the same planets if more than one appears on the board.

[NightOwl07]

Haha I do that too. I often try to use the smallest rocket/fastest mission time I can which can involve fulfilling contract criteria from multiple contracts out of sequence. I've resorted to working out the mission plan on actual note pads to keep everything straight. Makes me feel like an actual mission planner

[Wanderfound]

My favourite quickie sat-launcher, BTW:

http://s1378.photobucket.com/user/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Beta/Kerbodyne%20Showroom/Satshot/story

[tater]

I agree that the cause is a bad career system.

That said, I would prefer for contract satellites to cease to belong to the player as soon as the orbit parameter is met. Then, future contracts might be to repair or resupply, etc. I'd do the same for any bases/stations built for 3d parties---though I would also have Missions proposed by your own KSC, that you'd obviously own.

[nightingale]

"Launch a new vessel" is not trying to get around this particular "stacking" strategy. It is meant to prevent players from leaving a satellite in orbit, taking contracts, and fulfilling them with minor course corrections. It's a subtle difference. At the very least, the new vessel parameter makes absolutely sure that the player needs to launch a new vessel every time he grabs a satellite contract. Even if he grabs eight of them.

You misunderstood me - I meant that "launch new vessel" is working around the problem you described, and the "stacking strategy" is the further workaround to "launch new vessel". It's an exploit arms race.

Removing the object from the game is an option that I'd considered, but it is not a very fun mechanic in general.

I agree completely. It's a problem with no good solutions.

Oh and by the way, when I said "workaround for an awful gameplay issue", what I really meant was the fact that the economy is such that it forces the players into grinding contracts - if the incentive for "contract stacking" were to go away, then I really don't see it as a big issue.

[Spatzimaus]

Satellites are pretty ridiculous in this game since you can use them to finish damn near every contract, especially if you use an ION thruster. If you can manage to make the satellite light enough, you can actually use that to land on atmosphere-less planets/moons.

Even without landing, satellites are the easy path to unlimited money. The "get science from orbit around X" missions have no real limitations on them, so you can still complete them even if you've researched the thing in question enough times as to no longer get any science. All you need is a small satellite with a thermometer and an antenna, and you can do those science missions for everywhere other than Gilly. (Gilly's altitude limit for thermometers is below the max terrain height, so sooner or later the satellite would collide and blow up. Just use a gravity sensor for Gilly instead.)

For instance, here's my oft-posted DinkySat satellite:

2.5 tons, ~80k roots, 23km/s of dV, and it fits into the half-length Mk2 cargo bay on my 10-ton light spaceplane (which only costs 30k itself, and uses less than 1000 roots' worth of fuel to reach orbit and land). All of the parts are in the first two science tiers (no need to wait for the level 3 research lab upgrade), and that's with two ScanSat sensors and a Karbonite mapper. I've got a version with legs and a parachute for landing on various bodies, but since unmanned probes can't complete Flag missions, why bother?

A cost of 80k might not be pocket change, but a single science mission at Laythe might pay 130-150k even on hard. Unlike the satellite/station missions, these science missions (or the flag ones) don't require a new entity, either. So, the first thing I do in my new careers is launch a couple dozen of these and put them around every body in the system, and then I can sit back and earn income just by checking for science missions every 5-7 ingame days while I do the more interesting stuff, like fly spaceplanes to Laythe or launch mobile refineries to Pol.

Honestly, I'd like to see that loophole fixed, along with the other ones mentioned in this thread; if each craft could only complete a single contract of a given type (science from X, station around X, etc.) in its lifetime, and we had a way to easily see this, there wouldn't be effectively unlimited money. Instead, just give us a nice baseline funding level, a steady income from government funding to pay for minimal operations.

[tater]

I see the pure science missions as the "point" of my program. Commercial launches (satellite contracts) are just a way to pay the bills, so I take them from time to time. I never use them after launch, and if the map gets cluttered, I delete them. I see that as the "spirit" of the contract idea. Note that that only applies to Kerbin. Others I usually ignore, unless I am planning a probe mission anyway, in which case I use that as the orbiter parameters, and I then allow myself to move it as required (So I will take polar orbiters of the Mun or Minmus with science instruments and assume they are scientific missions.

[regex]

Honestly, I'd like to see that loophole fixed, along with the other ones mentioned in this thread

I'd much rather the "loopholes" weren't fixed, especially if career mode were to continue in the same vein. It's a collection of tired mechanics flung together in the hope that they would equal space program management, and they fail at that. If career would change to an entirely different paradigm I'd probably be okay with it, but right now the grind is literally so terrible that this sort of "loophole" makes career actually bearable as a game mode.

[r4pt0r]

I too use the multi-contract sat concept. But regex, what would you advise as a different paradigm?

[AbacusWizard]

What I like to do in early career mode--or at least as soon as I've researched docking clamps--is build two space stations (one orbiting Mun, one orbiting Minmus), each with crew quarters, a lab, plenty of fuel, and a detachable lander or two. If I time it right this fulfills a couple of Build Space Station contracts, and once they're in place, completing any "science from" or "survey" or "plant flag" mission on Mun or Minmus is quick, essentially free, and fun. It's also a useful way to give the crew some experience while also accomplishing something productive.

[rcp27]

Oh, I love the idea of funds and actually managing a space program. What I hate is the fact that the only way to get funds are these stupid little "fetch" quests. It's grindy, terrible gameplay, and it has nothing to do with managing a space program. Being able to do several at the same time with a single craft is an awesome way to bypass the hideous fund walls put up by building upgrades.

I've been feeling the same way lately. I like the idea of the upgrade path to buildings and Kerbal XP and stuff, but the regular career is a bit to grind-intensive to get the money, and when I do finally decide it's time for the grand expedition to a far off planet, I feel all bad about the money I'm "wasting" that took so long to earn. My new strategy is to run career mode in "custom", and push the starting funds and contract rewards funds all the way to the right. It basically gives me all the funds to do what I want to from a few simple contracts. On the basis that "it's not wrong if you're having fun", it's the game for me right now.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd much rather the "loopholes" weren't fixed, especially if career mode were to continue in the same vein. It's a collection of tired mechanics flung together in the hope that they would equal space program management, and they fail at that. If career would change to an entirely different paradigm I'd probably be okay with it, but right now the grind is literally so terrible that this sort of "loophole" makes career actually bearable as a game mode.

The problem is, "space program management" in real life is pretty repetitive and, if reproduced in a game, would feel like a complete grind fest. I'd put money on it that if you take the KSP save with the most satellites launched in various orbits of Kerbin, it is far and away less cluttered, probably by an order of magnitude, than the real Earth's local area. Consider: GPS has used 68 satellites. Iridium (the satellite phone network) has 72. Would you like to get a contract to "build a satellite phone constellation" that required 72 identical satellites in specific orbits?

[tater]

I'd much rather the "loopholes" weren't fixed, especially if career mode were to continue in the same vein. It's a collection of tired mechanics flung together in the hope that they would equal space program management, and they fail at that. If career would change to an entirely different paradigm I'd probably be okay with it, but right now the grind is literally so terrible that this sort of "loophole" makes career actually bearable as a game mode.

Yeah, I agree, and you just have a different strategy than I do.

As I said, I use another method to try and make some of the missions feel like they make sense in context… which is exactly what we should not have to do, the very point of career is putting missions into a context.

In the thread about this stuff I'm sort of at a loss ATM, because unless we have some evidence that they are profoundly changing things, adding more contracts doesn't help. Any novel enough to be really different are just grindy in a different way, or interesting---once. Sort of like a few months ago when I did my first rescue a kerbal contract. It was fun. Once.

[regex]

But regex, what would you advise as a different paradigm?

I'd say "pretty much anything", but I'd be wrong. In another discussion the general consensus was that having an alternate way to make funds and rep from contracts would be a great way to reduce grind, but I'm at a loss to what that might be or look like. Right now stacking contracts creatively through "exploits" and "loopholes" is the best way to do it.

The problem is, "space program management" in real life is pretty repetitive and, if reproduced in a game, would feel like a complete grind fest. I'd put money on it that if you take the KSP save with the most satellites launched in various orbits of Kerbin, it is far and away less cluttered, probably by an order of magnitude, than the real Earth's local area. Consider: GPS has used 68 satellites. Iridium (the satellite phone network) has 72. Would you like to get a contract to "build a satellite phone constellation" that required 72 identical satellites in specific orbits?

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure how things could be different or better. Maybe if, as tater puts it, contracts were a little more cohesive and had more context... Not progression, really, but a better way to define your space program and create a story, something that felt more like a grand adventure than a bunch of random stuff.

[nightingale]

I too use the multi-contract sat concept. But regex, what would you advise as a different paradigm?

This thread has a lot of various ideas from people about how to improve/fix contracts and strategies (I think regex may have replied in there as well, can't remember offhand).

[Arsonide]

I'd say "pretty much anything", but I'd be wrong. In another discussion the general consensus was that having an alternate way to make funds and rep from contracts would be a great way to reduce grind, but I'm at a loss to what that might be or look like. Right now stacking contracts creatively through "exploits" and "loopholes" is the best way to do it.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure how things could be different or better. Maybe if, as tater puts it, contracts were a little more cohesive and had more context... Not progression, really, but a better way to define your space program and create a story, something that felt more like a grand adventure than a bunch of random stuff.

I understand this sentiment, and I agree and disagree to an extent. One theme I see is that people allow the contract system to define their space program for them, and that is really not how the system is supposed to work. A contract should be something you can accept or decline. A contract is not a mandate being handed down by your boss, it is an opportunity for you to have some fun. When I design a contract, I try to think of things that I have never done in Kerbal Space Program, and how I would encourage myself to do those things. They are random to encourage the player to leave his comfort zone, and try new things.

As an example, as a Kerbal Space Program player, I never did do any stationary orbits. As I was designing the satellite contracts, obviously I had to do a couple. It was something I'd never done before, and the target orbit line showed me how to do it, without me needing to crunch any numbers myself. The first time I tested it, I hit the time acceleration button and watched the planet hover in front of me, and I sat there, amazed. The game just basically showed me how to do something that I had never done. I was given an opportunity by the contract system to have fun and learn something new.

The opposite end of the spectrum is absolute control, and something I think you'd enjoy: being able to craft your own contracts as you need them. However, consider the implications of that: humans are creatures of habit. If anything, I think that would encourage repetition, and possibly make things feel more "grindy". Players would rarely, if ever, leave their comfort zones. This is definitely something I have considered, but I think the solution lies somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.