Remove 'Suborbital Spaceflight' From Tourism contracts

[Kuansenhama]

Not building a ship with whatever the ridiculous DV requirement is so I can put some sap on a suborbital trajectory over the sun, then return to orbit and intercept kerbin. (Especially not for only ~150k funds payout) You can't land on the sun, or even go near it without getting incinerated, so from a sightseeing standpoint suborbital spaceflight is no different than orbiting the sun.

Come to think of it, it doesn't make sense for any planet/moon. If you're going suborbital without landing, then you're just firing your engine one way to go suborbital, then turning back the other way and burning more fuel so that you stay in orbit.

Flyby and orbit make sense, since a tourist who wants to orbit a particular body may want to observe it for an extended period of time. Landings make sense because tourists may want to experience the lower (or higher if we're going to eve) gravity on the planet. (Though they would make more sense if the tourists could go EVA at their destination.)

This mechanic just isn't enjoyable in my opinion.

[Kaos]

There is precisely one situation where I see sense in it: Suborbital on Kerbin without any other additional goal.

[tater]

If you redid all the current contracts with the sole caveat that they be "Not 100% idiotic," there would be about 10-20 contracts in the entire game.

[Holo]

If you redid all the current contracts with the sole caveat that they be "Not 100% idiotic," there would be about 10-20 contracts in the entire game.

That's a problem with the contracts, not with their removal.

[Grumman]

There is precisely one situation where I see sense in it: Suborbital on Kerbin without any other additional goal.

Two situations: suborbital on Kerbin (even if it's not the only goal, it means you can do part of the contract now, get paid, and do the second part later), and also if you wanted to jettison something to hit the body. So you could justify it if you tried hard enough - if some eccentric Kerbillionaire wanted to send his pet goldfish's ashes into the sun, you could spawn a small box that counts as debris outside the airlock once you're on a suborbital course and powered down.

[Kuansenhama]

If you redid all the current contracts with the sole caveat that they be "Not 100% idiotic," there would be about 10-20 contracts in the entire game.

Two situations: suborbital on Kerbin (even if it's not the only goal, it means you can do part of the contract now, get paid, and do the second part later), and also if you wanted to jettison something to hit the body. So you could justify it if you tried hard enough - if some eccentric Kerbillionaire wanted to send his pet goldfish's ashes into the sun, you could spawn a small box that counts as debris outside the airlock once you're on a suborbital course and powered down.

I get it. I get that it has to be a game. I'm not griping about any of the other contract types besides this. (It's not like its realistic or not idiotic that other space programs managed to strand three kerbals in plane cockpits in lko, but I'm not complaining about that...) I guess it's more of a balancing issue since (as described above) getting suborbital on the sun takes a lot of fuel and therefore a lot of funds. For the payout I was offered, profiting was nearly impossible.

Then agian, the haphazard nature of tourism contracts has always been kind of annoying to me. I almost never take tourisim contracts in career, particularly once I've gone interplanetary. If it were three kerbals wanted to go land on the mun and come home and that was it, I would be fine with that. But chances are one of them wants to go to Duna, another to Eve and another to Minimus.

Squad says they're overhauling contracts in 1.1. Maybe we'll get some newer betterer tourism system.

[Just Jim]

I find them quite useful in conjunction with other missions, like tests or rescues.

Doing a rescue mission is profitable... but doing a rescue mission with a suborbital or orbital tourist or 2 along for the ride can really help offset the cost of the launch!

My rule is: Never, ever take a suborbital or orbital tourist up by themselves.... but always try to fill any empty seats with tourists, even suborbital ones if that's all that's available.

That's where they become worth something.

[Skeltek]

Not building a ship with whatever the ridiculous DV requirement is ...

Ridiculous? How?

Why dont you just refuel in high Kerbin orbit for the additional few hundret delta-v?

...so I can put some sap on a suborbital trajectory over the sun, then return to orbit and intercept kerbin. (Especially not for only ~150k funds payout) You can't land on the sun, or even go near it without getting incinerated, so from a sightseeing standpoint suborbital spaceflight is no different than orbiting the sun.

So you're kind of saying parabolic flights in earth's atmosphere are also pointless? Thats what your argumentation implies.

Going suborbital around the sun requires several planetary gravity-assists with preferably lunar gravity-assists to get the additional delta-v.

If you dont cheat your tourists out of their money, you should had passed several planetary bodies when you reach completition.

Besides, you "funds payout" is not just 150k. Just take 6 or 12 tourists at the same time if you are afraid of financial losses. 1.5 mio credits is ridiculously worth the investment and the few hundred delta-v n total doesnt even require a heavy rocket.

Come to think of it, it doesn't make sense for any planet/moon. If you're going suborbital without landing, then you're just firing your engine one way to go suborbital, then turning back the other way and burning more fuel so that you stay in orbit.

Going suborbital means reducing the transversal velocity of the craft, thus tourists slow down over a certain spot. Sightseeing-wise they get to view a certain area of the celestial body for a longer period of time instead of just furiously speeding by it and the view and photos all getting blury ^^

So logically you can always find something to legitimize the mission parameter. And why do you even care why someone wants you do do what he pays you for?

Flyby and orbit make sense, since a tourist who wants to orbit a particular body may want to observe it for an extended period of time. Landings make sense because tourists may want to experience the lower (or higher if we're going to eve) gravity on the planet. (Though they would make more sense if the tourists could go EVA at their destination.)

This mechanic just isn't enjoyable in my opinion.

It is a challenge.

[Superfluous J]

I always figured it was some Bond-villainesque type who was hiring you to get him on a suborbital Sun trajectory so he could throw a business partner - who either did him wrong or simply disagreed with his plan - out the airlock.

The contracts don't need removed. They need their payouts looked at to verify that they are reasonable for the cost to perform them.

[DocMoriarty]

I would probably agree with that if it were Human Space Program, but it's Kerbal Space Program which requires some idiotic missions. Also is a good lesson for users. Not fail safe! Hurray!

Edit: Actually going suborbital makes sense in a lot of cases. The suborbitals for Mun, Minmus and Kerbin are no problem at all since i often take tourists to pay for my 3-star Kerbonaut trainings flights (->Mun Flags->Minmus Flags->Sun Orbit->Return to Kerbin).

Edited September 20, 2015 by DocMoriarty