Using A Single Satellite for Multiple Contracts

[Kerbart]

Another loophole is doing two space station contracts with one craft -- first launch a space station for kerbin orbit, then move it to mun/minmus orbit. Since the first contract paid for the craft, the second one becomes extremely profitable.

[AbacusWizard]

I usually try to get contracts that are a reasonable match for what I'm planning to do anyway.

[Der Kosmos]

Funny thing about those space station contracts? Most of the time, the only parts that have to be on the "new station" are the "power, docking port, and antenna". Guess what has power, a docking port, and antenna? Most of your space capsules. The extra crew capacity can come from a station you already have in orbit.

I don't really consider this cheating however, it can be justified as crew rotations or expansions, which is more interesting than filling LKO with a million different space stations, each of which were sent up as a single launch, and none of which have an actual crew.

If this loophole were to be fixed, it would be nice if the game were to remember that you have a space station already, and instead ask you to send crew rotations or new modules to it.

[Acet]

I do this all the time.

My setup costs less than 8K (including launcher) and puts a probe with 3800 dV in an 85km Kerbin orbit.

At this level of weight, half a ton less of weight makes a huge difference, so my probe has a 48-7S engine instead of the LV-909, which means that I only need an FL-T100 fuel can and still get almost 4000 dV. The lower weight also affects the size of the needed launch stages disproportionally, so my launcher for this is all of 2x RT-10 + FL-T400 and LV-909 (in two stages, with the boosters being laterally mounted and dropped half-way up).

In fact, this is the same setup I use for Mun and Minmus orbit contracts as well as to send probes to Duna and Eve.

It's not by chance that many people say the Rockomax 48-7S is overpowered.

[Wanderfound]

Funny thing about those space station contracts? Most of the time, the only parts that have to be on the "new station" are the "power, docking port, and antenna". Guess what has power, a docking port, and antenna? Most of your space capsules. The extra crew capacity can come from a station you already have in orbit.

Something else that has a docking port, antenna, power and variable passenger capacity: spaceplane. Send it up, bring it down, cost = fuel.

I've been pretending that they're actually space tourism contracts. Handy for training up bulk numbers of Kerbals, too.

[Acet]

I tend to do Mun and Minmus station and base contracts by building and launching them from Minmus (using the Karbonite and Extraplanetary Launchpads mods).

Total cost: 0 credits.

Of course, this did require a lot of setup upfront, with a scanning sat to find the best Ore and Karbonite spots in Minmus, as well as putting the necessary mining and construction infrastructure in place up there.

Career mode is a lot less grindy and a more balanced affair if you can building yourself a step by step, stairway to heaven kind of infrastructure, where some time and credit investments provide an ongoing benefit rather than having to climb up the Kerbin gravity well all the time for ever and ever.

[Random Tank]

Basically a 200 tank, an octo probe, a few batteries and solar panels, science equipment, and a 909...

It's the LV-909 that makes this so profitable regex; Glorious LV-909 = Masterrace!

[Guest]

It's the LV-909 that makes this so profitable regex; Glorious LV-909 = Masterrace!

I didn't have the 48-7S unlocked when I started spamming these contracts and I don't generally bother changing something if it works brilliantly in the first place. 909 is a great engine.

[StrandedonEarth]

Station contract to Kerbin orbit-->Mun/Minmus orbit--> Kerbol orbit--> Duna orbit--> Ike surface= $profit!

I also discovered that docking a sat or lander to a large tug and then undocking it seems to count as "launching" it. I've done that to fill a few sat and station contracts with vessels that were launched from Kerbin long before the contracts were accepted. The first one was quite by accident, I was shocked to see I had filled a contract.

[Renkov]

I don't mind the requirement of a new satellite at all. It makes sense to me that different contractors would want a new satellite in orbit. I also leave them in orbit that was asked and designate them with a 3-4 letter code and a number, and maybe something about it's orbit ex. Rockomax's 3rd contract would be something like, ROC-3-Polar. It also really helps that I've built a really simple sounding rocket using a few FTL tanks and a T-30 engine to boost the standard sat up there. IT's just a monoprop powered craft but it's got about 3600m/s of delta-v. It's a tiny, tiny probe.

As far as building the stations and probes and then losing them from the control of the player I have mixed feelings about. Mostly cause I love the idea, caused by an unexpected Lithobraking incident on minmus that left a Kerbal stranded. " Hey, there's that ROKEA base just 25km from here. I could go there and see what's left to power up and get home. "

[Random Tank]

I didn't have the 48-7S unlocked when I started spamming these contracts and I don't generally bother changing something if it works brilliantly in the first place. 909 is a great engine.

Incorrect, the LV-909 is the best engine... The 48-7S is for scrubs!

But in all seriousness, if you do a bit of decline spamming, you can find some really good contracts and earn some serious money very quickly, even really early in the tech tree! It's all about technique

[Rematog]

Incorrect, the LV-909 is the best engine... The 48-7S is for scrubs!

But in all seriousness, if you do a bit of decline spamming, you can find some really good contracts and earn some serious money very quickly, even really early in the tech tree! It's all about technique

I play no-mod, no decline spam (my game, my rules) and try not to time warp too much (How long until old age kills Jeb?). I do get 2-3 satellite contracts. I'm currently using a Atomic rocket powered transfer motor to go from orbit to orbit to polar orbit. (Three satellite missions had built up).

For larger orbits, say >500km over Kerbin, is just stopping in place (going to zero orbital velocity, i.e. the node shows the "drop like a rock" trajectory) and then re-orbiting in polar, the most efficent? All the burns to tilt an orbit seem to be greater dV, but haven't checked. I did this for a two satellite mission to Ike.... thats how I earned the credits to get facilities upgrade to unload Atomic Rocket....

By the way, I've posted a Description of my Atomic Rocket powered "Eagle" (think Space 1999) lander on "What have you been doing" thread. It's for Ike and Pol landings.

[g.koster]

If you are playing a 10% game( ultra hard) then there is a other reason to do more satelite missions in one go.

My satelite luancher cost 16,787, and I get 10,800 for a completed mission for a orbit just past mun. So to run not into a devised I have to multiple missions.

same is true for base build missions, I can just do with a STTO a kerbin orbit for a profit, But it will cost me roots if I would leave it in orbit.

So Yes they sign the contracts I keep to the letter.

[McFarnsworth]

I've also launched a station that got used as a station and/or satellite around Kerbin, Minmus orbit, Mun orbit and landed it on the Mun eventually. Part of it decoupled in Kerbin orbit to be used as a rescue craft for some poor Kerbal. Another part of it decoupled to be used to fulfill a few satellite contracts. And it had some random parts stuck to it as well to complete a few part test contracts while I was at it.

It's a very profitable way to play and it takes away some of the grind while you get to design and launch weird and fantastical craft.

[samstarman5]

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.

I am on a custom game where funds are less a concern, but I do compensate that by ramping up reputation penalties. I got no problem affording what I need for the missions, but if I screw up and lose a kerbal or three, I can kiss a lot of contracts goodbye for a while. That might be why subconsciously I have been going more for the satellite contracts or those that can be fulfilled with a probe core. Why risk a kerbal when you can just have an AI do it?

But, yes, custom settings are awesome when you feel you need to tweak the game to how you want to play. Just don't hand too much to yourself or you may as well just be playing sandbox mode. It's good to establish a bit of balance, but by your rules. There really is no one way to run a space program.

As for multi-functional craft, I had launched a station into Minmus orbit, and then sent a probe-piloted craft up to rendezvous, take on a couple kerbals and some fuel, and then land on Minmus for that nice lucrative contract. It was actually quite fun to do that, especially as it helped me figure the best approach to enter Minmus orbit for an orbital rendezvous, something I had not attempted before.

- - - Updated - - -

I've also launched a station that got used as a station and/or satellite around Kerbin, Minmus orbit, Mun orbit and landed it on the Mun eventually. Part of it decoupled in Kerbin orbit to be used as a rescue craft for some poor Kerbal. Another part of it decoupled to be used to fulfill a few satellite contracts. And it had some random parts stuck to it as well to complete a few part test contracts while I was at it.

It's a very profitable way to play and it takes away some of the grind while you get to design and launch weird and fantastical craft.

I like to throw on a Mk1 Lander Can with my satellites as one never knows when one may be needed for a lifeboat, especially if a kerbal rescue mission may come up. I have to admit that idea was inspired by Star Trek The Next Generation when they had shown that the subspace communication satellites carried habitat modules for such cases.

Edited March 11, 2015 by samstarman5

[rcp27]

Just don't hand too much to yourself or you may as well just be playing sandbox mode. It's good to establish a bit of balance, but by your rules. There really is no one way to run a space program.

Unless, of course, a nearly sandbox experience is what you are looking for. The game I felt like playing was science mode with kerbal experience, because I like the idea of actually having to take the places to make them more useful. No actual option exists for this, but massive funds rewards in career mode, and not abusing outsourced R&D gives me that game style.

[PlonioFludrasco]

Is there a way to "repurpose" space stations? If I already have a 5 kerbal one and later a contract asks me for a 12 kerbal station, can I just launch some hab modules and, with some repeated docking-undocking, make the game believe the station is new? I got a look at the persistent file, and docked crafts are managed having a main craft, giving the name and launch time to everything, and then docked vessels as "sons" of the main craft. Can those roles be swapped in game?

[Mr. Scruffy]

I dont think the multiple use of sats for various contracts is a big deal. I am sort of new to 0.9 (been playing for years, though) - i played for like 3 days straight now and still i have not upgraded my mission control center, so i can only take 2 contracts at a time anyways - maybe the upgrades to the mission control center should be more costly/less effective (lower number of maximum contracts at higher levels). What i think are real problems:

- ´Decline mission spam´: The missions that are being offered should be what you have to choose from until they expire ´naturally´. The way it is right now, is a bit like Bart playing Monopoly with Maggie: Keep pulling event cards from the stack until you find one that you like.*

- Get science from X should not be possible to complete by ´harvesting´ 0 science. I actually play this way, checking my science archives each time before i accept such a contract.

*this of course points to the problem of time being irrelevant in KSP outside of missions. Instead of declining the mission, you could just time-warp until it expires. That´s another issue with the science center imho: I really dont like that 100 science-barrier - but without time mattering outside missions, it´s hard to think of any other reason to upgrade it.

Maybe, there should be fixed costs in KSP? The buildings taking some maintainance funds, the employes getting paychecks? And research taking some time? Time not mattering really irks me. Messed up your phase angles? Ah, doesnt matter much if the mission takes a week or a year, as long as you brought some extra dV.

If that is out of the question, i´d still suggest a different parameter to be altered by expanding the science center. Maybe a multiplier to science cost (2x unexpanded -> 1.5x -> 1x...) - just having to stop researching anything at all, until i hit 764,000 MUs is indeed quite a grind, which is not even optional - i´ll have to do it, at one point or another. The game feels a bit like WoT, here.

[samstarman5]

- ´Decline mission spam´: The missions that are being offered should be what you have to choose from until they expire ´naturally´. The way it is right now, is a bit like Bart playing Monopoly with Maggie: Keep pulling event cards from the stack until you find one that you like.*

*this of course points to the problem of time being irrelevant in KSP outside of missions. Instead of declining the mission, you could just time-warp until it expires. That´s another issue with the science center imho: I really dont like that 100 science-barrier - but without time mattering outside missions, it´s hard to think of any other reason to upgrade it.

Except time does matter in many ways that you aren't bothering to consider. Every single body, besides the sun, moves in its orbit over time. This changes drastically the dV requirements for any orbital transfer from the most ideal window to the worst that shouldn't even be considered when resources are not infinite. Sending any crew to a body beyond the Kerbin SOI commits them to that mission for months up to a year or more. That is crew that may very well have a lot of valuable experience that would be wanted for future missions. That means wanting the most ideal launch window to the destination, otherwise you may as well go with the rookie crew which can mean a more difficult flight, no ability to repair or deploy objects in EVA, and zero bonus to any science gained. And yes, you can just commit to that one mission, but you also stand to lose the opportunities for lucrative contracts that might very well be easy to accomplish.

That would help make it very important to upgrade your R&D center to make missions much easier and rewarding to accomplish.

Restricting the player to what contracts are being offered would cause too much restriction to the game. Consider how many parts test contracts come up early on that a number of players would rather have only if funds, science, or reputation was getting tight. Going through those would provide too much a grindfest to the game that even in Career Mode should not have as massive a presence. However, on the other side of the coin, you can actually choose to set yourself such a rule to restrict yourself to what contracts are being offered without declining. That is part of the fun of the game, and I will say..anytime someone speaks of adding rules and restrictions overall actually annoys me as it shows a certain amount of short-sightedness and ignorance to how others play the game. There is no one way to play KSP, not even in Career Mode. That is the way it should be. Period.

- Get science from X should not be possible to complete by ´harvesting´ 0 science. I actually play this way, checking my science archives each time before i accept such a contract.

If you mean taking on a contract for something you have already collected science on, and therefore will not get as much, if any, science back through the modules you bring along...that's a bit narrow-minded as well. Consider that the company offering the contract is actually looking for something else that you haven't, and is offering valuable R&D of their own to the space program upon completion of the contract. Not everything you get out of a mission comes just from what you accomplish alone. It would be like SpaceX asking NASA to test an engine for them, and in exchange, NASA gets the blueprints for said engine. Which would be pretty much like a lot of the testing contracts involve. It is silly to think science can not be gained from doing something trivial, because it really is not that trivial as you believe. And in the end, you do not have to actually take on such contracts if you feel it is outside your space program's mission statement.

Maybe, there should be fixed costs in KSP? The buildings taking some maintainance funds, the employes getting paychecks? And research taking some time? Time not mattering really irks me. Messed up your phase angles? Ah, doesnt matter much if the mission takes a week or a year, as long as you brought some extra dV.

As I said, time does matter, a lot. And what dV you bring should always be considered when you may not have the most ideal launch window to a certain target. Even the Mun and Minmus have their own ideal launch windows, depending on the time of day and month you decide to launch. Minmus is the easiest to illustrate, as if you do launch at the right time, you will not have to spend extra dV aligning your craft's trajectory to match Minmus's orbital angle, instead aiming for a rendezvous at the point of zero degree of angle...where Minmus would be crossing over the equator of Kerbin.

As for monthly expenditures put towards staff and building maintenance, I can see that being appealing to a number of players, but it might be best just left as a mod. That way the choice is there to take it on, without it potentially ramping the difficulty curve of the game beyond the stratosphere. And this comes from someone who likes the game being difficult. We already have to consider a lot with space and atmospheric missions without having to worry if the plumbing bill got paid. Especially when we also have to make sure we don't destroy a key building in the KSC that could ruin the rest of the career. Things that can be considered trivial should remain oblivious. Maybe it can be considered for a Space Center Manager game, but not for KSP.

[Rath]

I like the idea of being really tight on funds and having to strap a few ion-sats to a mk1 pod to do some contracts or something. I think that maybe we could have it so satilites could only be moved for a cost.

[Wjolcz]

I dont use sats much, but I remember doing a station mission. Built an SSTO capable of holding 6 kerbs and added everything the cantract wanted me to qualify as a station. The cost of the plane was very low compared to what I got from the contract. I was also playing on custom hard mode so my space program was basically full of reusable SSTOs, because I decided to set the bar a bit too high.

Will prob update with a pic of the plane later.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Veeltch

[Mr. Scruffy]

@samstarman: No need to lecture me about transfer windows - you obviously missed the part, where i said i have been playing this game for years. The point being, that when you miss one transfer window you can just wait out the next - cause you dont have to pay anything for the waiting game. As for pilot skill - always ample time to train new sla... kerbals. A trip to the moon and back takes like 2 kerbal days and even for a transfer window to Duna being missed by that much - what does that translate to? 15m/s? 20?

For everything that is not currently in transfer (intended or not - moon capture and whatnot) or an aerobreaking process (and asteroids, maybe), time does not matter, since all orbits are... well... frequencies and will come to the same point again sooner or later. So all timing concerned with starting transfers is subject to reoccurance, for which, again, you can wait without penalty.

And i was refering to the ´get science from orbit around x´ which are completable with doing science that has been completely explored before, thus yielding 0 science. If i measure the mass of the mun a couple of times (to account for errors or such), there is no point or scientific value in doing it for the upteenth time - the game reflects that by granting zero science for it. Yet, some company comes up to our programs, asking us to do it again, for good measure, so to say, and is willing to through money at us for it. Some kerbals must be very sceptical about our programs abiliity to do science (or simply dont mind being scamed by getting as a result for their investment, info that is now in the school books), it seems, and even if so, it seems unlikely they´d offer us a contract in that case.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Mr. Scruffy

[magnemoe]

@samstarman: No need to lecture me about transfer windows - you obviously missed the part, where i said i have been playing this game for years. The point being, that when you miss one transfer window you can just wait out the next - cause you dont have to pay anything for the waiting game. As for pilot skill - always ample time to train new sla... kerbals. A trip to the moon and back takes like 2 kerbal days and even for a transfer window to Duna being missed by that much - what does that translate to? 15m/s? 20?

For everything that is not currently in transfer (intended or not - moon capture and whatnot) or an aerobreaking process (and asteroids, maybe), time does not matter, since all orbits are... well... frequencies and will come to the same point again sooner or later. So all timing concerned with starting transfers is subject to reoccurance, for which, again, you can wait without penalty.

And i was refering to the ´get science from orbit around x´ which are completable with doing science that has been completely explored before, thus yielding 0 science. If i measure the mass of the mun a couple of times (to account for errors or such), there is no point or scientific value in doing it for the upteenth time - the game reflects that by granting zero science for it. Yet, some company comes up to our programs, asking us to do it again, for good measure, so to say, and is willing to through money at us for it. Some kerbals must be very sceptical about our programs abiliity to do science (or simply dont mind being scamed by getting as a result for their investment, info that is now in the school books), it seems, and even if so, it seems unlikely they´d offer us a contract in that case.

Transfer time matter as you don't get more contracts if you have 15 active, this also reduce the chance of getting double contracts like put an station in orbit around Duna, one around Ike and land a base on Ike, so if you are busy and don't do many long timewarps you might want to think twice about the Eeloo satelite you are asked to deploy.

[tater]

Mr.Scruffy is right, time is meaningless in KSP. A simple mechanic to instantly add time would be for the "contracts" that in reality should be from your own program (all the "explore" contracts, and most all the survey/science type contracts) to not pay in advance, and not pay upon completion, but to pay out part every few months over the time threshold of the mission. (note that a kerbin month is like 6 days). Have other contracts tend to pay upon completion.

So you get a kind of budget, and you might have to warp forward a couple months to build funds for the next launch. Yes, you have to warp, so what? Also, 1.0 is adding "warp to maneuver node" as I recall, and they could make a button that jumps forward 1 month or something.

[Mr. Scruffy]

Transfer time matter as you don't get more contracts if you have 15 active, this also reduce the chance of getting double contracts like put an station in orbit around Duna, one around Ike and land a base on Ike, so if you are busy and don't do many long timewarps you might want to think twice about the Eeloo satelite you are asked to deploy.

I am really startled on what is so hard to get here: The way time is set up in the game, there is exactly zilch economical reason to have multiple independent missions going on at the same time (though you might try fullfilling multiple contracts with one flight). Being ´busy´ is pointless from a gameplay perspective. You do it for roleplaying purposes and because you may not like time warping too much at too high multiplicators (which is exactly the same for me). If that is the case, i ask you to look inside and ask yourself why that might be so. For me it is, because it feels wasteful, which is exactly what it should be, when you are running a program that has fixed expenditures like having to pay for personel periodically, for example. [late edit: ... and that wants to stay on top of people´s minds (rep), too.]

Now, i can live with this abstraction of time, making it meaningless wherever possible. I am not even sure i wouldnt agree with it, if i saw the alternative in action. But please: Do not deny simple facts. What you describe mattering here is the number of contracts you can hold at any one time - not time itself.

Okay, contracts have expiration- and duration times - which just makes the whole construction even more wierd and inconsistent, in my book.

So a campaign may go something like this: Within the first two weeks several mun-landings. Then first shot for minmus. Something goes wrong with the transfer burn - say i havent paid attention to the mun intersecting. So what? I´ll just do a 70 day mission to minmus then. Or 170. It does not matter in the slightest. The worst thing that can happen to me, because of it, is that i´ll have to do some additional timewarping free of consequences once i want to go to duna, cause maybe i missed the first window... big deal.

´... to, whenever it may happen, land a man on the moon and return him savely back to earth... maybe this decade, maybe next... who cares.´

EDIT: @tater - you probably know the mapsat mod? That would be a good source of continous income (of whatever, science, rep, funds... whatever fits best). There could be loans and interest on them (call it a ´strategy´ - btw, i think for some terms squad should reconsider if they are truely well chosen - ´biomes´ and ´mission control´ are two other suspects in this regard). There could be periodical government funding (maybe based on your rep?). And where you get your lions share of this periodic income from could then influence what kind of contracts you get offered - which brings us to SpaceX vs. NASA sort of programs. Expanding the buildings needn´t be so expensive - if they had a periodical maintainance cost attached to them... Training kerbals came up - well, why not have a training facility that trains recruits over time at a periodic cost (upto a certain, limited, point of expertise)?

´Oh awesome, in just one week, the tech with the parts i want for my first interplanetary manned mission will be done... i could still need some funds for that, though... hmmm maybe i can squeeze in one more lucrative mun mission until then... That´ll make my cash go up a bit till then, instead of down, cause these scientists working on that tech are damned expensive...´[late edit:] ´well i should also keep some spare funds in order to be able to do something while that big duna rocket will be under construction... hmmm... maybe i SHOULD build a LKO base first, to do reservicable flights, to free up the VAB for a long time, so that the Titan can be constructed without interruption... Oh, this is hard... seems we wont be making it to duna on the next window after all...´ [/LE]

That´s how a KSP, in which time mattered in the sense i am talking about right now, would look like.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Mr. Scruffy