AHHans

Well, I'm not surprised that methods for optimizing production flow for making large holes in sheet-metal work also fairly well for making tiny holes people.

Hi @Kevin Kerbman, welcome to the Forums. A screenshot of the craft and another one of the map-view would probably help a lot. In game <F1> will generate a screenshot, that will be placed in the ".../Kerbal Space Program/Screenshots/" directory. And here is a guide how to get a screenshot into the forums: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/173756-quick-guide-to-posting-pictures-on-the-forum/

Well, first the rocket I built back then had one of the worst performing boosters I built in a long time. Getting that into orbit meant using a very steep (and inefficient) ascent profile so that the top stage (with the poodle) had enough time to accelerate the station into orbit before it fell back into the atmosphere. ISP aka specific impulse is the measure of how efficient a rocket- or jet-engine is. That's mostly important for the vacuum stages of your rocket(s), for the booster stage(s) the thrust is more important. (A high ISP engine, that doesn't have enough thrust to get you off the pad is no very useful.) And it is only actually relevant for choosing the appropriate engine for a stage, once you decided on the engine - e.g. because you have little choice - then it becomes largely irrelevant. TWR ak thrust-to-weight ratio is the power of the engine(s) compared to the weight (== the force of gravity) of the rocket (or whatever). A TWR <= 1 in the first stage means that your rocket just won't leave the pad, because the engine(s) cannot overcome the force of gravity. And the higher the TWR the faster the craft accelerates. (And as a stage burns fuel the weight goes down and thus the TWR up.) The first stage of your rocket has a rather low (starting) TWR (my design has 1.53), and the second stage is even worse: my design has a starting TWR on the second stage of 0.67 (as displayed in the VAB) but yours uses the same engine with a lot more weight to push around. The low TWR on my second stage is the main reason it needs such a steep ascent profile, it actually looses speed at the start of the first stage but it still manages to get to orbit because it can push the AP far enough out so that it can gather enough velocity in the end. Your design will have a harder time to push out the AP (and "time outside atmosphere") because of the lower TWR on the second stage but will need even longer to reach orbital velocity because of the lower TWR on the third stage. To have a rocket that is easy to get into orbit I aim to have a TWR of around 1.7 on the first stage (say between 1.5 and 2.0) and above 1.0 on the other pre-orbit stages. If the TWR raises above 2.0 while still low in the atmosphere (say below 20 km) then I usually throttle back to keep the TWR around 2.0 in order to avoid excessive drag.

I do! You need to see @Dr. Kerbal.

An explanation why SAS can sometimes become the problem and not a solution is that it generates control input from the orientation of the control point, and not the whole of the craft. So if this control point (the "control from here" point) is at the other side of a flexible connection from the reaction wheels, then the control inputs from SAS will bend this connection and not really re-orient the control point. But the advice stays the same: switch off SAS. For the actual docking I second @Dientus' advice: lower the power on the docking arm servos to the minimum value needed to move the arm itself. That way it is more likely that the arm flexes instead of throwing around your craft.

Huh! Here again? Let's try the Russian angle and call @DDE.

No puns please! Because in space no one can hear you groan!

Yes! How about someone rather new here? E.g. @MetricKerbalist.

Hello @wrappy, welcome to the Forums. KSP tries to display the closest encounter with the target (-body), which can be a few orbits down the line. This leads to the encounter flipping around a lot when you don't already have a good encounter. In your case it looks like it flips to an earlier encounter (when you are still on your way to the AP), so what you can do is put a "dummy" maneuver node (with 0 m/s dV) at around the AP, then it will only show you encounters after that. Another issue: you are not leaving at a transfer window, so if you want to optimize for low dV then you should wait till you are at one. Otherwise you can also fine-tune your transfer by changing the time of your burn (along the orbit around Eve), i.e. change the direction with which you leave Eve's SOI.

Pu-238 is not used to build nuclear bombs, that's Pu-239. But both isotopes are produced in the same kind of facilities, and in the US case used to be produced in literally the same facility (the Savannah River Site). So when the US military closed down their Pu-239 production facility NASA had to pony up for their own Pu-238 production site.

Don't blame KSP for that! These kids grow up so quickly these days! And welcome to the Forums! They don't have to stay that way. Electric propellers from the BG DLC make returning from Eve's surface much easier. ("Easier" not "easy" though!)

Not for the contract. But for actual usability of the station.

Something like that? P.S. AHTech Industries management does not approve of late night rocket designs. So I won't upload that onto KerbalX, you'll have to wait till tomorrow if you want the craft file.

No! Now I actually have to do that! Are you willing to wait until you have "Specialized Construction", so that you have the regular-sized docking port? (And not only the junior?)

Yupp, looks like that! Well, it would be easier if I knew which parts of the tech tree you already unlocked...

That's 10 Mk1 Liquid Fuel Fuselages. That doesn't sound too far fetched. If you want a "cleaner" design, then you can make the fuel tanks detachable [Edit: nope, doesn't work!] or even launch then in a separate launch and dock them in orbit. (As long as all these launches happen after accepting the contract.) [End Edit] I haven't seen any "Build a Station" contract that required the station to be launched with the fuel.

The biggest issue is probably the plane change: 4000km apoapsis isn't all that much. So the order of business is to: a) align the nodes with the AP/PE, so that the following burns can both lower AP/PE and change planes, b) lower PE if needed, c) intermediate plane change burn if needed, d) lower AP plus final plane change. So the first step would be to push the nodes of the orbit to the AP and PE. If the orbit is around Kerbin, then you can set the Mun as the target to have the orbit's nodes displayed in the map view. Then burn (anti)normal about a quarter orbit away from a node on the outward half of the orbit (where the orbital velocity is lower) to move the nodes around. With some fiddling around you may include lowering the PE to 180km into these burns (but I wouldn't sweat that part). I don't do that as one single full thrust burn, but several low thrust burns, pushing the nodes around bit by bit. Once the nodes are at AP / PE and the PE still needs lowering then set up a node at AP to lower the PE, add as much (anti)normal dV as you need retrograde dV to adjust the plane (i.e. whenever you burn, add some (anti)normal component until the plane is matched). When the PE is in position then set up a maneuver node to lower the AP and match the planes. If the (anti)normal dV is larger than the the retrograde dV then you want to do some plane changing at the AP first. If the planes are too different then it may be better to first raise the AP. (Yes, that's a thing!) Finally once everything is in place do the combined lower the AP & match planes burn(s). If the burn is too long, then you want to split it over several orbits: for each orbit set up a maneuver node at PE to get into the final orbit, but execute only a part of that.

Well, 4 hours is too short for a good night's sleep. But have lunch, get groceries, read a book, watch a movie, or so are all compatible activities. And, as @Souptime said: physics warp is your friend. But if it is a good movie then I'd recommend to not to overdo it with the warp.

It's not that I actually disbelieve you, but it still takes some effort to believe this.

what! That actually happened, and it apparently wasn't method acting or a joke : (It starts at 1:18.50, direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkSs7BHScnU&t=4730s ) And the answer was: I've got nothing to say....

The "the little dials" do not show the rover steering commands, but the yaw, pitch, and roll commands -as they are labeled. IMHO it is rather unfortunate that the rover steering commands and the pitch & yaw commands are mapped to the same keys by default. But I don't think that's your actual problem... My guess is that you changed to a control point that's pointing straight up (or down), and then the system doesn't know in which direction to turn the wheels to go upwards. (Well, or you have a control point 90deg to the left or right.) What does the Navball show when the rover doesn't want to move? It should point to the horizon and into the direction in which you want the rover to move - i.e. straight forward. Or have you run out of electricity? P.S. O.K. Next time: first food, then posting. That way the answer might not be so grumpy.

Are you sure? On the two docked ports on the left in the foreground the black and yellow stripes on the two docking ports from a fishbone pattern. But if I see it correctly, then the stripes on the part that you are trying to dock are going in the same direction as the stripes on the port of the station. Otherwise at this distance, speed, and orientation the magnetic force of the docking ports should pull the craft together, even with SAS fighting the it. (Btw. it is usually a good idea to switch off SAS as soon as - or just before - the magnetic force starts to work.)

Hello @bqvkhag, welcome to the Forums. If you unlocked the Terrier engine (and all the nodes in the same tier) then you have all you really need to build a rocket that can land on the Mun and return your pilot to Kerbin. Although I would recommend to first land on Minmus: getting into orbit of the Mun is easier than getting into orbit of Minmus, but landing on (and returning from) Minmus is easier than landing on the Mun. I see that you decided to research Heavy Rocketry first. I for myself would have done Electrics first so that I have a solar panel, but tastes are different. I want to encourage you to play around and try out different designs, but if you have questions then feel free to ask here in the Forums. There is a whole section dedicated to Gameplay Questions.

I guess it is a bug. [...] Could be bug #25730 on the bug-tracker. Have you tried drogue chutes?

The engines are quite a bit above the center of mass, so when they run they will push the nose down. And you apparently don't have enough torque to pull the nose up against the torque from the engines. In addition: - Nearly all your control authority in pitch and yaw on this plane is from the reaction wheel (== magic) torque of the cockpit. That would probably be O.K. if the plane was balanced otherwise, but it isn't when the engines generate significant pitch-down torque. - The two ailerons that you placed are more or less in-line with the center of mass, so they won't do much for pitch except increasing drag. So you might want to disable pitch control on them. (They are placed well for roll though!) - I guess there is a reason why you don't have any control surfaces on the tailplane, but I wonder what that is. - The springs on the main landing gear are bottoming out - you can see the wheels coming up through the to side of the fenders. This makes the gear extra jumpy, which in turn makes it harder to control. It will probably roll better if you increase the spring strength so that the wheels are in the middle, with the spring somewhat compressed but not all the way. Welcome to the club! My solution is tho just place the control surfaces in about the right position, and then manually rotate and move them into place. Trying to get it right by attaching them at the "correct(TM)" place is IMHO an exercise in frustration.