Aegolius13

They both matter (this comes with a 3-dimensional universe), but the phase angle is more important when choosing when to leave.* As I mentioned a while back, it's generally not too expensive to fine-tune your inclination via a halfway-point correction burn. But you can't really do that if your phase angles are wrong, without overshooting like in your prior attempt. Important thing to note - you do NOT always need to match the plane of your target. It's nice to keep things simple, but not mandatory. What you do need to do is make sure you intercept the target's orbit at the time you capture (otherwise you'll be above or below the target and miss). In other words, if you can't match planes, you want to put your ascending or descending node over the target. You've probably done all this without thinking about it when going to Minmus. If you get lucky, you can hit Minmus without a normal/antinormal burn, but that only works when Minmus' orbit happens to cross the your original orbit at the right time. More often, you need to do a normal/antinormal adjustment along the way. Again, the only thing that's really different when going interplanetary is that you have to time things around Kerbin's point in its orbit. *Except, arguably, when going to Moho. But that's another topic entirely.

It's not about inclination; it's about where you and the target are relative to the sun (this is called a phase angle). You know how when you do a simple transfer to the Mun, you need to start it at the right point in your orbit around Kerbin, so that the Mun is at the right place when you arrive? It's the exact same thing with interplanetary, except instead of you going around Kerbin, you have to wait for Kerbin to go around the Sun until Kerbin is at the right spot in its orbit. That is the primary thing the launch window planners provide, but they also help with inclination at a given launch window.

Hi, and welcome aboard! Sounds like you're doing everything pretty much right. I wouldn't worry about trying to get the launch angle exact... just take your best shot, and aim to reduce the difference, knowing it can always be fixed later. Are you launching right when KSC passes under the target's orbit? That's the ideal time to launch if you want to match the orbit.* Do you know about ascending and descending nodes? They're the places in your orbit where you intersect the target's orbit. This means they're the ideal place to match angles with a normal/antinormal burn. In fact they're the only places where you can match planes perfectly. One important property of orbital mechanics is that the slower your speed, the less delta-v it costs to change planes. This means that if you're going out to a high orbit anyway, you're better off waiting to do the plane change until you get there.** So I would add between your steps 3 and 4: after reaching the "slightly lower than target" orbit, do a plane change burn at the ascending or descending node. As far as running out of fuel - you may just need to make your ship bigger or more efficient. We'd need to know more to see if that's the case, and what improvements would work best. Screenshots always help a great deal. *It is, in fact, the ascending or descending node. **Caveat: technically you may be able to do the plane change even cheater if you do at least some of it at the same time you raise your apoapsis, but the difference isn't going to be huge so I'd work on the basic approach first.

Did you use a different ascent profile this time? Rapiers generate much more thrust after they hit ~450 m/s, so it's pretty common to get stuck behind transonic drag if you try to go too fast, too low. The usual fix for this is to climb subsonic to a few km, and then level off or gently dive until you hit the sweet spot. Not sure which engine you're referring to as "turbojets," but if Whiplash or Panther it seems like you'd be getting enough low-end thrust. However, it's hard to know if this is applicable without seeing the craft. And apologies if you're already familiar with this stuff; just taking a stab based on info provided.

I would just to a regular Hohmann transfer -- I don't think Dres is situated that well for a gravity assist. If you choose to do one, I'm thinking Kerbin-Kerbin might be the best bet (i.e., leave the Kerbin SOI, and flyby it again in one year). The optimal plane change may depend on where your launch position is relative to Dres' AN/or DN. If you're luck enough that Kerbin is right at a node as you're leaving, then you can combine the plane change with your injection burn, and get a nice "pythagorean" savings. Even if you're not right at a node, you can often use this method to at least reduce the inclination at minimal delta-v cost. Whatever you can't do when leaving Kerbin, I'd just do around halfway between the planets. Yes, a closer periapsis is always better when circularizing, due to the Oberth effect. Even if you want to go into a high orbit, you're still best off doing your insertion burn as close to the surface as possible, bringing your apoapsis down to the desired altitude, and then circularizing at the apoapsis. if you're planning to circularize into a low orbit and/or land, then it's even simpler. Also worth noting that there's nothing wrong with splitting your circularization burn into several passes -- this can save delta-v since you can keep your burns closer to the maneuver node. (This is a bigger deal on higher-gravity worlds, though). Though of course you have to at least capture on the first pass or you'll be doing a fly-by. No offense, but you're asking for something that it's really hard for anyone else to provide. The delta-v maps show a more-or-less best-case flight from a typical launch window, but in practice that's often hard to do. How far you end up deviating from that budget depends mostly on how meticulous you are in setting up maneuvers. E.g., 2500 m/s seems pretty high on an injection burn; Jool typically only takes 2,000. 1,600 is pretty spot-on. So you may be able to save a lot by hitting the launch window dead-on and executing a clean Hohmann transfer. Perhaps combining plane change with ejection will save some delta-v as well. Also, if you can heat-proof your craft for Kerbin reentry, you can probably avioid needed any Kerbin insertion burn at all. But I think your own experience is the best guide for how much more you need. If you think you'll fly similar to the previous mission, and ran short there, adding one more stage and ~3,000 m/s seems like a reasonable start.

I've been trying to come up with a simple way to vertically stack a rover and deploy it from an upright parent craft. This version isn't perfect (it's too tippy with the small base, and the hinges are pretty herky-jerky), but the concept seems promising. The command pod on the top is on a hinge so it can bend backward and act as a counterweight to the rover as it swings forward. Could also use it for a flashy angled launch on the return trip.

I took a quick run at it, but could not seem to get accurate numbers for either speed or g's. This thing maxed out at 5.9g, but I think that's when it was violently ripping itself apart after a few seconds. While it was intact the meter bounced between 0 and 1, so it might just be looking at the up-and-down motion rather than rotational? (I vehemently deny any accusations that Jeb is going to get strapped to the front of this thing in the near future.)

Playing devil's advocate, some of these contracts have at least a tenuous relationship to actual space program stuff. E.g., before going to the Moon and whatnot, NASA did a lot of testing with high-altitude aviation and the like (e..g, the X-15). And the earlier Apollo missions were largely dedicated to testing and proving the components for moon landing. Apollo 10 in particular was fairly close to "test landing legs in lunar orbit." But yeah, some of the random combinations do seem pretty ridiculous. I feel like the rotary actuators are more useful for this than the continuous rotors, which are what I believe OP was talking about. The former seem better when you want a precise adjustment; the latter when power is more important. Returning to the original topic, I do agree that I haven't been able to find a purely practical use for the continuous rotors yet. The other robotic parts seem useful for unfolding things to save space; docking booms; cranes, etc. The rotors, not so much. But I'm fine with this. There are a lot of parts that you don't really NEED to accomplish anything in the core "explore space" gameplay experience, including almost all the airplane parts and miscellaneous structural doodads. But they can be fun for a side project, and I certainly don't begrudge parts that indulge other playstyles. I would love to have a legit electric propeller, but just because the rotors aren't that, doesn't make them a net negative. And I've already gotten more than enough entertainment time out of Breaking Ground to justify a $15 investment.

Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient I love the comparison chart. Today I learned Usain Bolt has a higher drag coefficient than a coffee filter.

For missions in this passenger range, I'm a big fan of using the Mk 1-2 capsule as a base. It's got great heat resistance, good torque, etc. One of my most-used designs is to put an Mk 1 crew cabin on the top, so it looks like a giant flask (appropriate for science missions). The capsule protects the cabin on reentry, and it's all quite stable. That's only 5 passengers, but you could probably add a Mk 1 command pod on top. Or, if you have Making History, I imagine putting a Pomegranite (3-person Soviet reentry capsule) on top of a Mk 1-2 command module would work pretty well too. Keeps the center of gravity nice and low. Eventually, when my headcount inevitably gets out of control, I switch to landers built around the 16-passenger Mk 3 crew cabin. With fuel/engines on side nacelles and some big landing legs, it's easier than I expected to keep the thing stable.

The contract originated in 1.7.1. I just upgraded to 1.7.2 and it says the same thing, so maybe the fix only affects new ones? I guess I'll let it run a bit (have like 10 years on the contract), and kill it if nothing changes.

Easy way to throttle down core stages on a multi-stack LF rocket? Differential thrust for attitude control? Me likey.

I've got a contract currently asking for 1,720% of 50% of a goo experiment. Think it's time to consult my good friend alt-f12.

Per the delta v map, looks like 5,700m/s round trip from LKO to Dres orbit. That's without any aerobraking on the way back. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/87463-13-community-delta-v-map-26-sep-29th/ [EDIT - read map wrong and used wrong number. Fixed above]

Has anyone else noticed that the Onion/Pea/Pomegranite pods use next to no ablator on reentry? I've come in hot a few times from the Mun and Minmus without engine-braking, and only use up like 2 units of ablator during reentry. If I remember right, you use well over 10 times that much on a Mk 1 command pod with heat shield. Wondering if this is a bug, has something to do with the spherical design, or just if not all ablator is created equal.

Do you have the deployable antenna with your experiments? I haven't definitevely figured this out yet, but perhaps you need one to beam back the science. Even though the experiment controller has an onboard antenna, it may be that it can't be used to transmit results, much like the built-in antennae on the command pods.

On a recent launch, these... things... followed my rocket to one side all the way to orbit. I had some deployable experiments in cargo containers - it looks like maybe they're astral-projecting outside for some reason?

The two tips above (ascent profile and higher-than-necessary TWR) seem like the big ones. But a few other things: but if you use the Kickbacks or some other radial booster that gives you a ton of thrust, you might consider throttling down the middle stage as the boosters burn out and your thrust goes through the roof. This will let your core stage burn longer after the boosters drop off. Can also help if you're having stability problems from going too fast, too low. Since we can see landing legs, at the top, I'm assuming there's a kind of lander-y thing exposed. You might consider putting that in a fairing, which can improve both efficiency and stability (drag at front = flippiness). If you want more range after you get to space, I think you could use a similar design, but add another stage before the Terrier (maybe the Poodle). Your Kiwi+Kickback first stage is a pretty good combo in terms of tapering down thrust as your rocket burns down, but the stepdown from Kiwi to Terrier is pretty big. If you need to burn the hypothetical Poodle stage a bit before reaching orbit, no big deal. A write-up I did a while back that you might find some ideas in:

I've heard the "close door" button on a lot of elevators doesn't actually do anything, but is just there to give the illusion of control. Probably works on Kerbals too.

You also may need to upgrade the Astronaut Complex building -- total crew count is limited at lower building levels. According to the wiki, you can have a total of 5 with the Level 1 building, 12 with the Level 2 building, and unlimited with the Level 3 building. (Though I believe you can exceed these limits by doing the contracts to rescue stranded Kerbals)

No. With CommNet turned off you should be able to operate a probe anywhere. Perhaps your probe core accidentally got put into hibernation? (Should be able to see it via right-click). Or perhaps your battery still has charge, but has been set to off/locked? Posting a screenshot might help identify any other possible issues.

I had the same thing happen on my first craft with hinges. When I loaded a game with a surface base on the Mun, the hinges would start in the wrong spot and flip into place as physics loaded, making the craft jump up of the ground... not good. I found that locking the hinges and disabling the motors on the hinges resolved this particular problem. Not an ideal solution, but it worked for the time being. Side note - 'The Floppy Hinge' would be an excellent name for a pub.

Does anyone have any insight into the science generation mechanics? So far I've been able to glean: To work, an experiment has to have sufficient power (per OP question) and a control station nearby. The experiment also has to have a connection back to Kerbin, using normal CommNet rules. The control station has a weak antenna, and you can either deploy a stronger one, or piggyback on normal relays. When all these conditions are met, the experiments (other than the passive seismometer) will generate a certain rate of science per time. This is not wacky data like the MPL, this is just straight science into your account. The passive seismometer instead generates science when you crash stuff into the planet nearby -- the most Kerbal way possible. The higher the level of scientist who deployed the experiment, the more science the experiment will generate. You do not need to, or get bonuses from, having Kerbals stationed nearby. The scientist and engineer bonuses are determined at the time of deployment. Does that all seem right? And has anyone figured out the following? Is there a limit, or a penalty, for deployment of multiple copies of the same experiment? And is that for the whole solar system, or per world, or per biome? Does the science generation rate for a particular experiment eventually stop, or degrade over time? Seems like it should, to matching existing limits from regular science collection or the MPL. And so you can't complete the whole tech tree by deploying one thing and time warping 100 years. Does the science collection rate depend on the quality of signal, or is it an on/off thing? Does the solar power unit care how far you are from the sun, or the angle of exposure, like normal solar panels? [EDIT] Per info in the grand discussion thread, you can get science from a given experiment once per planet.

Great video! The tip about yaw/pitch/roll settings was very helpful. And you've already come up with very clever uses for the parts. Is it weird that the little accordion-ramp was my favorite?

Good call. I think I'm so traumatized from trying to use that thing to recover landed debris, I forget it even existed for a moment.