Science from Space Around [X] - Obsolete?

[BlkBltChemie]

This is my first official post (aside from the introduction forum), and I’m curious to see what people think of this idea (although I’m sure most everyone is pretty occupied discussing the aerodynamics revamp).

Since we now have the Visual Surveys, Temperature Scans, etc., I’m wondering if anyone else thinks that the Science from Space Around [X] should just be removed. Often the Visual Surveys, Temperature Scans, etc. take place in space already, and the Science from Space Around [X] seems redundant.

One of the arguments I’ve frequently read is how easy it is to abuse the Science from Space Around [X] contracts to get free funds with just a satellite and thermometer even if it doesn’t actually give science. (Yes, I am guilty of this myself!) The Visual Surveys, Temperature Scans, etc. on the other hand have both science specific and location specific requirements. That is, you need to conduct orbital maneuvers to take the (specific) measurement in the correct location so eventually you have to send up a new satellite or more fuel. Granted, you still don’t need to actually have scientific gain from the measurement, but you can only collect one temperature scan from near space anyway, and these contracts often require at least 3 measurements.

One factor in favor of Science from Space Around [X] is that it requires you to transmit the data, while the Visual Surveys, Temperature Scans, etc. do not. I actually saw a discussion on this topic previously on the forum recommending that a transmission requirement be added. The advantage of requiring transmission is that it requires the probe to have sufficient electricity (and potentially recharge between measurements). Another problem with the Visual Survey, Temperature Scan, etc. is that, for atmospheric bodies, I have only ever seen the measurement requirements within the atmosphere so that doesn’t really count as science from space. Here's a summary of my analysis of the two.

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 600, align: left]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Visual Surveys, Temperature Scans, etc.[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Science from Space Around [X][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]PROS[/TD]

[TD=align: center]CONS[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Specific science requirement[/TD]

[TD]General requirement[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Specific location requirement[/TD]

[TD]Anywhere in space over [X][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]CONS[/TD]

[TD=align: center]PROS[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Collection only, transmission not required[/TD]

[TD]Transmission required[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]For atmospheric bodies, typically only

offered in atmosphere[/TD]

[TD]Anywhere in space over [X][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]OVERALL[/TD]

[TD=align: center]OVERALL[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]More challenging to complete (less easily

abused) and limited by fuel[/TD]

[TD]Easily abused and unlimited[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Personally, I think that Science from Space Around [X] should be dropped with two conditions. The first is that Visual Surveys, Temperature Scans, etc. should have a transmission requirement instead of just a collection requirement. The second is that there needs to be an accommodation for atmospheric bodies to still have some sort of space science contract.

Looking forward to reading what other people think (and hopefully I will be able to figure out how to post a poll).

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, so I looked in the FAQ on how to create a poll before I posted. It says there should be a checkbox at the bottom of the page when making a new post that says, "Yes, post a poll with this thread." However, I did not see it anywhere when I created the post. Sorry, no poll for you guys today!

The question was going to be: "Should 'Science from Space Around [X]' contracts be removed" with options for "Yes;" "Yes, but... (state conditions in a reply);" "No, but... (state conditions in a reply);" and "No."

[redsh]

I personally don't like anything from 0.90 career. Specifically, I think visual surveys should be tied to some visible landmarks or should not be at all. Observing nothing is boring and stupid.

Meanwhile with weighty science instruments (Goos and Material labs) for low and high space around [X] missions becomes more interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, you mean contract type, not science itself. Anyway, I don't like current surveys.

[Louella]

the biggest abuse of the "Science from space around Kerbin" contract, is ofc that you don't have to build a new craft to do it.

I can see the "science from space" contracts as making some sense, if it is an electronics or radioastronomy company, that are testing some kind of instrument or receiver on the ground, and they want a signal from space as a reference in testing their equipment.

If you had to build some kind of new craft, with a specific science experiment on it, in order to fulfil the contract, then that would be something, that might help to limit the more extreme abuses, while retaining the contracts as a useful earning contract.

The counter argument, is that if you've got one satellite into a stable orbit, that can continually fulfil those "science from space" contracts, then that is something that you can use to get out of a bad career situation, if you've spent a lot of your funds on something that exploded with no return.

I think, maybe the big question is whether it should be possible to "lose" a career game. If it shouldn't, then there has to be ways to recover from a bad situation, and these contracts are one of those ways.

[tater]

Building a new craft should not be required, it's a rationale to have stations, or craft that can continuously change orbits. I do agree that the various survey missions should be more sensible, and have the surface elements tied to the orbital better (image surface, then land).

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

I've managed to get a lot of temperature surveys done over Minmus with a satellite in a polar orbit and a bit of patience - so a little more work than just "science from around" but not by too much.

[BlkBltChemie]

Specifically, I think visual surveys should be tied to some visible landmarks[...]Observing nothing is boring and stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, you mean contract type, not science itself. Anyway, I don't like current surveys.

Your update in particular actually got me thinking that maybe the problem is not with the contract system but rather biomes/science. Right now, for temperature scans, near space is one biome and if you return the science you get the full value; it isn't incremental like goo and materials bay and the thermometer is reusable. Hmm...now that I reread that, it kind of makes sense - I can look at a thermometer 50 times no problem and would the temperature of near space change that much (if your altitude is constant)? Maybe that is why the contracts have a science reward. I know that is a very controversial topic in and of itself, but it does make up for the times when your measurement doesn't actually give science.

It would be really cool to have the contracts linked to something specific, but I don't know if that is possible since they are procedurally generated. Then again, maybe it could be something like "Visual Survey from the Mun's Northern Basin" and it could be limited to one for each biome. That would actually be really cool, in my opinion, because you would actually be observing something new each time.

I can see the "science from space" contracts as making some sense, if it is an electronics or radioastronomy company, that are testing some kind of instrument or receiver on the ground, and they want a signal from space as a reference in testing their equipment.

If you had to build some kind of new craft, with a specific science experiment on it, in order to fulfil the contract, then that would be something, that might help to limit the more extreme abuses, while retaining the contracts as a useful earning contract.

The counter argument, is that if you've got one satellite into a stable orbit, that can continually fulfil those "science from space" contracts, then that is something that you can use to get out of a bad career situation, if you've spent a lot of your funds on something that exploded with no return.

I think, maybe the big question is whether it should be possible to "lose" a career game. If it shouldn't, then there has to be ways to recover from a bad situation, and these contracts are one of those ways.

Building a new craft should not be required, it's a rationale to have stations, or craft that can continuously change orbits. I do agree that the various survey missions should be more sensible, and have the surface elements tied to the orbital better (image surface, then land).

I had completely overlooked that aspect which is a really good point. I remember one mission I was really struggling for funds and did an all for nothing Mun-shot. After the launch I had less than 1000 funds, fortunately it worked. I tend to agree with tater in that I like to have multi-purpose, reusuable, redirectable, etc. craft. Although it could be possible to require launching a new craft...maybe it could be balanced so that the "Advance" funds was high enough to pay for a launch - suborbital works for science in space and can be pretty cheap.

I've managed to get a lot of temperature surveys done over Minmus with a satellite in a polar orbit and a bit of patience - so a little more work than just "science from around" but not by too much.

I haven't tried that yet (limited number of contract slots + hard mode = need funds quickly), but now I really want to. Again though, it is a real strategy (and I don't think an abuse at all) - it worked because you were in a polar orbit which passed over the specific locations you needed not just because you were there.

Thanks for thanks for all the comments everybody!

[tater]

After testing a new version, I play with life support. That puts time limits on missions, or I need to resupply them. At that point leaving people in orbit is more difficult. Still, leaving a probe in orbit is not a problem. Weather satellites provide benefit to humans nearly every day, all over the world, including "science."

[Renegrade]

Weather satellites provide benefit to humans nearly every day, all over the world, including "science."

^ precisely. Weather satellites, comm satellites, various surveys for different science purposes, deep space observation satellites (Kepler, Hubble, etc), so on, and so forth.

On the other hand, the payout is probably a bit on the high side for such a low-cost mission - maybe cutting that down to something small like 5k (total, for Kerbin, and maybe just a bit more for other bodies); not really enough to launch it in most cases, but more than enough when using it repeatedly, etc.

[worir4]

^ precisely. Weather satellites, comm satellites, various surveys for different science purposes, deep space observation satellites (Kepler, Hubble, etc), so on, and so forth.

On the other hand, the payout is probably a bit on the high side for such a low-cost mission - maybe cutting that down to something small like 5k (total, for Kerbin, and maybe just a bit more for other bodies); not really enough to launch it in most cases, but more than enough when using it repeatedly, etc.

We need some really use for the satellites that we put into orbit for contracts. Maybe some sort of follow up contracts like to service them or adjust their orbit. Anything so that they are not just another piece of space junk.

[tater]

Yeah, the cash is weird, but it honestly depends on the time frame. KSP needs time based mechanics. 60k would not be bad for a year, or even a quarter, perhaps. Right now, you can clickfest "contracts" and do the same missions multiple times in a day if you felt like it.