Docking should provide science

[Kerba Fett]

Title says it all. Rendevious and docking is a huge milestone in a space program. You'd think you'd get some science for a crew report and perhaps returning the ship for the engineers to examine.

Of course like orbital crew reports it should only earn science the first time and only apply if you docked 2 ships launched separately.

If a suborbital hop is worth science, shouldn't a far more complex flight be worth some too?

[Kialar]

I disagree. It should give a significant amout of reputation, once a system like this is implemented.

[sal_vager]

Yeah why not? After all you get science from craft that have just landed on other planets

[coolitic]

I disagree too.

Exactly how would connecting 2 craft provide any information or "science" at all?

[Captain Sierra]

Yeah why not? After all you get science from craft that have just landed on other planets

This statement is proof of how poorly set up the science system is. To really get good data, you have to go low, go in atmosphere, and land. There's no good way to make disposable probes doing orbital science remotely profitable.

[sal_vager]

Nope, not proof of anything, and how you jumped from docking to probes is beyond me.

NASA had to learn to dock in orbit, and they learned a lot from it, it was essential to get right before they went on to use those techniques in the Apollo missions.

Having a few science points for your first successful docking is not must to ask for

[CaptainArchmage]

Docking should provide science. "Return of a spacecraft that completed docking in X orbit" is a considerable achievement. NASA learned quite a few things from their first attempts at keeping spacecraft in formation on Gemini - they noticed that thrusting towards a spacecraft later caused the separation to increase, for example.