Heagar

KSP is like lego for space. And an action-simulation of some kind. You build your spaceships witch you have to fly on your missions in an enviroment with orbital dynamics. No elite dangerous or star citizen alike "point directly to an destination an press the pedal to the metal". The objectives witch are to reach you decide (use your imagination/dreams) as the KASA-CEO in an sandbox game. Do you want space stations? Or better bases on different planets/moons? Are you the guy who want rockets witch solid fuel boosters or are you the one who prefer an all liquid fuel rocket? Maybe spaceplanes are moore interesting? Do you want debris all over the Kerbol system or are you avoiding that, maybe even with reusable rocket systems? It's your choice! The career mode however, forces you to gain sience points, before you have the better parts availible. Are you able e.g. to send succsessfuly a manned mission with a landing to Duna and back with the restricted amount of parts availible? With the contracts part - well - you should have already some experiance with KSP. Otherwise you will have no clue how to fulfill them.

What you described has a simple reason: If the landing gear in front of your plane is at the same heigt or more than your landing gear in the rear, your plane will "dance" while accelerating. To avoid it, your landing gear in the front must be slightly lower than the rear. A space (thickness of a wing) is enoungh for that to acomplish. You can for example use the Mk1 cockpit and mount a gear - witch is rotated 180 degrees - at the nose. Because the nose isn't at that level than the main body of your plane, that trick works. Or mount a wing beneath your plane on witch you place your rear landing gear. Or use a "small hardpoint" under your conventional mounted wing, on witch you place your landing gear. That has the same effect. You can even mount a "Tail Fin" under your wing (if that is mounted on top of the plane), witch you can use (with a small "control surface") as mount point for your landing gear and vertical stabilizer at the same time. BTW: Your link refers to the main forum page. So i was unable to see your plane. You can refer to a certain thread by opening it. Copy the text of the adress-bar in your browser (on the top of your screen) and use it for your link, like: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71015-BSC-Aeris-4a-AND-THE-WINNER-IS?highlight=BSC To refer to a certain post you open the thread and go to the page of your post. Search in the source-code of the page for a line like this: <a name="post1020609" href="threads/71015-BSC-Aeris-4a-AND-THE-WINNER-IS?p=1020609&viewfull=1#post1020609" class="postcounter">#292</a><a id="postcount1020609" name="292"></a> Then put the following lines together (replace in httx the x with p): httx://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/ threads/71015-BSC-Aeris-4a-AND-THE-WINNER-IS?p=1020609&viewfull=1#post1020609 Then you should have the following (replace in httx the x with p): httx://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71015-BSC-Aeris-4a-AND-THE-WINNER-IS?p=1020609&viewfull=1#post1020609 - a perfect link to your post in a certain thread. In this case an example of a plane with under the wings mounted landing gear.

There are Three issues with your design on witch you can improve: From the picture i guess you have no vertical stabilizers? When the jets loose in about 22-26k altitude thrust - mostly in one of it at first - they come in handy allowing you to set a higher thrust. Also at higher altitudes with less thrust in a flameout senario. I suggest a pair of "Delta-Deluxe Winglet". The CoL should be at any time behind the CoW, otherwise you may experiance an flipover during reentry. Now to your main problem, getting into orbit without using too mutch fuel: I have to admit, that i play mostly stock-KSP. Because of that i don't know the structural intakes of the mod you are using (weight, intake area, drag e.g.). In my experiance 2 RAM air intakes per jet are enough to go up to 32k at slower airspeeds. But you should reach at least >1800 m/s before leaving 26k or reaching 30k. Sounds weard? That's right but: The less intakes you are carrying around you have less weight and drag witch slows you down, so higher airspeeds are possible. And with 1800 m/s + you hit a mark in witch the stock enviroment allows you to use your jets up to 45k at least, even when the air-intake readout is zero in the recource-tab. If you slow down your ascend at 33-34k to 10 m/s - you may have to pitch down! - you can reach airspeeds up to 2300- 2400 m/s. Then orient you plane horizontally and "let it go". Your speed will slowly drop with the altitude since your jet engines will be running at ever less thrust. But you should have an AP in space and an PE (within the atmosphere) as well at the moment you have to shut down your jets. So it's only a tiny thrust at the AP with your rocket engines for a full orbit. The backside of this is obvisiously the long time you stay in the atmosphere running on jets (nearly an quarter of an circumnavigation). But because they use mutch less fuel than any rocket engine it is worth that.

I haven't that mod but for all docking attempts there are several rules to follow: For liftoff: "Shortly" before the orbiting target is about to overpass your own position takeoff and go for an orbit. nearing the orbit (the same as the target preferably) you see if you are in front or behind the target, then the orbital dynamics kicks in: a object at an higher orbit will be slower, if it is in an lower orbit it is faster than the target. In this way you can allow the target to catch up to you or otherwise. you have to be at the same inclination. Therefore you mark in map mode the CSM as target (visually his orbit will be highlighted in yellow). There will be two points marked in green colour: AN (Ascending Node) and DN (Descending Node). In the vincinety of these points you orient you craft to the southern pole - 180 degree on the navball - (with horizontal alignment) at the AN or to the nothern pole - zero degree on the navball - at the DN. Hovering with your mouse over one of this points reveals the deviation. Burn - but only if you are in the vincinety of these nodes - until the readout is zero. now the next step: You should have a perfect orbit by now a slightly higher or lower than the target. Create an manouver-node and manipulate him in that way, that your orbit at the AP (Apoapsis, the highest point of your orbit) or PE (Perapsis, lowest point of your orbit) "touches" the orbit of the target. Two new markers in orange are appearing: They represent you and the target at the point of that orbit with the lowest distance to each other. Now you have several options: move the manouver-node to see where you get the shortest distance to the target wait one orbit an see how mutch the distance gets shorter or manipulate the manouver-node in that way, that you "overshoot" the orbit of the target. In that way you get a second pair of orange markers. These can tell you the the "speed" of closing in to the target. The last markers you have passed will be purple, the active orange [*]when you have an distance of 2km to the target - better shorter of course - wait for the interception point. Reaching this you: cancel out all movement relative to the target. There are purple markers for this on the navball, and the speed is mesured relative to the target. If you are closing up to the target use the circle marker. If the target catches up youse the triangle-marker until the readout is zero. Important: The markers for the target have to be lined up with these for your movement indicators (Pro-/Retrograde).Therefore you have to point beside the target marker go get your movement marker on the spot. The nearer you come to the target the more you should reduce you closing speed. At about 500m you should engage your RCS for finer controls, make yourself familar with the translational controls (h/n-keys for forward/back;j/k-keys for left/right and i/k-keys for up/down). Aaand, switch your view to chase view for the docking, it is easyer to see in witch direction you have to burn. If availible, turn on docking lights. There are people out there, who are doing docking in one pass. But with a slower method with multiple orbits you are on the save side in the beginning.

For me KSP is a kind of mix between an action game and an simulation for all people, who want to "go play in space". Action game: All planets/moons are reduced in size reducing the time for an orbit. Nice for an intercept for an docking target, isn't it? days are shorter. You can easiely wait for a "new day" if you want to land in daylight. have an shorter "year". Good, if you are waiting for an optimal lauch window. [*]most of the planets/moons are in the orbital plane of there gravital source witch they are orbiting in a perfect circle. You can easyly reach them without midcourse correction burns. Simulation: the orbital mechanics are functioning: gravitational fields are present, witch alter your direction of travel in order to dock with an given target you have to be at the same time at the same spot, not easy for an beginner. if you want to reach an other planet/moon - well, you have to do the correct burn, otherwise you are "stranded" in space. [*]an atmosphere is simulated - ok, very crude - but with a amount of drag you have to overcome. Given the fact, that KSP seems to be build as an building game - lego kind - witch let's you fly your own craft in a mission in an semi-simulation eviroment easily, it's an good game. I personally doubt that most of the players are calculating their launch-windows/dv and so on and are not willing to do so. Because they: haven't that much spare time want to have a fun evening on witch they are able to complete a mission are not that mutch interested in space sience that they want to deal with complex mathematics regarding this Because of that there are several aspects of a "real" simulation missing in KSP, but it is an highly moddeble game. And for the people, who want more realism there are therfore mods availible, witch they can use (e.g. FAR, deadly reentry, TAC life support). And that is in fact a real strength of KSP. You can even try out mission profiles of witch is thought today, but aren't proofed possible (e.g. go to an other planet and refuel there for the return trip (Kethane mod)). For those, for whom mods aren't enough and wanting a "real" simulation in witch the preperation for a lauch takes an hour, if done correctly: There is the "game" orbiter for free. But be warned: there is the real solar system simulated six orbits until docking? Damm, 10 minutes waiting at time-warp you want to land on the moon, you spent an hour forces witch may altering your course: gavitational fields are overlapping (three body problem), witch are gradually increasing/decreasing solar winds [*]spacecrafts are much more realistic you used up your RCS-fuel? You can't manouver anymore. you have to familiarize youself with every craft, since they can be different in their systems and cockpit layout: fire up your spacetug (Dragonfly) takes about 10 minutes in a possible failure senario (Project Mercury) you don't find the right switches: Oops - you drop your retro rockets - stranded in space. The droge chute doesn't open - witch switch was for the main chute? - oops - chrash [*]on reentry the angle is too deep (Delta glider IV): burnup of the craft possible blackout/death of your passengers due physical stress [*]mods are possible but not so easy to implement as in KSP and not so gamechangeing The most important thing at last: Let's not forget that KSP is still in an early alpha. There will be so much contend added an problems fixed. Next time the 0.25 version comes out, far away from an 1.0 release...

You have to notice that contrails not beeing present all time, depending on the weather conditions. In the real world there is in indeed an contrail present at very high altitudes, due to the fact that the heat of the exaust - witch carry mutch more moisture than the atmosphere could hold at that altitude, when the exaust fumes are cooling down - condenses after leaving the engine. Even at lower altitudes a contrail can be visible, depending on the weather conditions. But: Real wether is not availibe in KSP. And if you want to implement mutch more of contrails you are breaking the game engine, wittch is constructed to evaluate the physical stress on your rocket/spaceplane, witch is more important i guess. Or do you want a 6-10 FPS framerate while recording a KSP-session? I guess not ....

Of course they have software to calculate it. But at NASA there was an crasy engineer who wanted to have a sattelites course/orbit (designed originally for a sun observation mission) altered to chase a comet too. The resulting distance was not as close as for Rosetta, but done mostly by hand (The computers where not so good at that times). After a 25 years voage of the sattelite he promises (the guy must be over 80 years by now) that he is able to reroute that sattelite a second time to it's original course. Because i didn't find that article again so quickly, i searched for a sattelite witch is matching the the story. It may be the ISEE-3.

Testing parts would be nessecary, if there reliabilty would grow for example. Or if you have to evaluate the conditions where they can be operated in a "safe" manner (E.g. no operating nuclear engine or solar sails within the atmosphere, they could mailfunctioning). Both is not the case in KSP. Besides: You have to spent a lot of money (witch is included) just for a test with a litte to no results in revenue. And no changes in the behavior of the part. And to make things worse: The next tests are displayed (without the conditions) in tier witch is one up! Witch forces you to go nuts with missions just to earn enough R&D-points to buy that tier. But wait, a mainsail without tank, mmmh... you mostly can't combine sutch a test with an actual missionin a resonable manner. at higher tiers the deadline can crush your planning. So i accept a contract and planning my missions as usual. For some test i use a jet/spaceplane to have low costs. If i can't perform them for any reason, it is rejected afterwards. All in all it makes no sense for me up to now. The game mechanic should be as followed: by purchasing a part the reliability should be at 30%. That means a 70% change for a failure by using that part in the active stage for e.g.: engines could be explode/burnout at ignition will not ignite tubopump failure (thrust too low, 10% max) thrust at a wrong level can't be shut down [*]tanks (in witch are fuelvalves located) fuelvalve failure due e.g. iceing (no fuelflow/crossfeed). heater failure. Too low pressure = fuel flow low (resulting in 0-10% thrust). Too high pressure = tank explode (Apollo 13 alike) [*]docking ports are too weak and therefore damaged at a docking attempt. --> docking clamp failure docking clamp failure. Other craft can not dock/undock. [*]with several tests under different contitions the reliability should rise up to 75-85%. [*]with using those parts on a mission the reliablity can increase to 100%, if there was not a failure on the part during the mission. Witch means, you will of course not nessesarily risk a manned mission with parts below 80%. And especially not with multiple parts with a low reliability. So it will mostly be unmanned probes that will be used on sutch missions. In conclusion: When testing is performed, the should be a higher R&D reward (the kerbals are learning something, right?). And a higher reward for transmissions with probes. Because a temperature/magnetic field/pressure-reading e.g. should be without a penalty (if the reliability of that devices are 100%). A soil-probe/sience-container/goo not, you have to process it through a lab for a full reward. If the reliability of the used sience parts on a probe are below 100%: it could cause e.g. KerbalEngineer to display slightly different values (up to the missing percentage to the 100% in every direction). lessens the reliability of a follow up mission. For example a manned landing on duna with 100% parts get's a 10% penalty (of the missing percentage to 100% of the data of the probe for every device. Not used low sience devices are counting too, even if they are not availible) on it`s reliability. The obove mentioned would force the player: to perform these tests. They must be resonable and follow logic principles. They should be performed completely on Kerbin (e.g. on the ground), in the atmosphere or on an orbit around Kerbin. space probes would be flown again, because it makes sense. The lower sience parts (e.g. a thermometer as in reality) must be located mutch earlier in the tec-tree, an manned laboratoy mutch later. manned missions would be carefully planned and a launch aborted, if a suggested penalty is to big. A failure of a manned mission should decrease the reputation of the player in a significant manner. And therfore the parts (the highest tier that is currently availible for the player) - witch are on stock - should be reduced. Forcing the player to achieve the same or a minor goal with older parts and a less big craft...and therefore a smaller mission with less results. PS: If s.o. is interrested on how sutch a concept may work: there is an old DOS-based game (i have the CD-version) witch is overhauled to work under Windows. It's for free (GNU license) on sourceforge.net: RiS (Race into Space). There may be a successor, but in a very pre alpha version on steam: Race to Mars.

Planes in general doesn't act like planes in a flight simulator, because KSP was build for rockets. The wings where introduced, when SQUAD realized that a mod (the same modders as B9) was very popular. Then the sudden change in the athmosphere layers (it's only slightly corrected with NEAR or FAR) can cause troubles, witch you can overcome e.g. by airhooging. If you need some inpirations for spaceplanes (what they can archieve and how to set up) a few links: The K Prize - 100% reusable spaceplane to orbit and back Better SSTO Spaceplane Challenge (0.23.5+0.24) Extended An Affordable Space Program: making the reusable spacecraft pay off. BSC: Aeris 4a What you can say for sure is the following: The very first spaceplane is hard to build, but when it's functional, it's a huge "whow"-effect. Then you have to finetune your designs. Because: At most bigger spaceplanes the CoW will change pumping the fuel arround helps or maybe you want to install TAC fuel balancer. [*]The plane is very twichy you can - by pressing the "caps-lock" key - activate the "fine controls". [*]if your plane repeatedly trys e.g to pitch up or down you can use the "Alt" + "WASDQE" keys to trim your plane. But i suggest using it only for the pitch, since there is no zeroing key if needed. Aaaand most of all: Because you are playing an simulator (FlightGear, maybe FSX too?) i guess you have an flightstick, am i right? In that case you can set it up under Settings/Input/Staging UI. There you find pitch, roll, yaw and throttle. (Worked fine for me with a HOTAS warthog & CH pro pedals). I will be that you have to pull down the sensitivity a lot and to increase the deadzone a little. Under the Misc-Tab you will find the camera controls, witch is nice to have on the flightstick while flying IVA.

Obsession doing replicas, defnetly no. Of course i build for an challenge a Saturn V alike rocket and for my pleasure a KSP-version of an LLRV, but that's all. But normally i build crafts for missions as i see fit. It's much more fun to see how a craft could work in a given mission that to copy any given hardware. When i want to play "realistic" space hardware i use Orbiter (Project Mercury, X 15 e.g) instead, because that is a real good simulator.

Are you asking for real? Commentary: Of course, without it would be boring. Webcam: Is not nessecary at all. It may be popular in the youtoube scene, but it distracts more and covert an important space of the UI. Stream: Long, not short. BTW: You can't have a stream at all witch you "cut" like a video. Mods: Are depending on your playstyle. Don't let anybody exert an influence with that. Your viewers watching you because of that, am i right? MIssons: You should have an idea with what to deal with. Because you have to build that craft in the time of the stream. A mission to e.g. duna take a long time (real, not "in game time") to accomplish! Even more, if you go for jool or eleeo. Design: Let your viewers have some influence on your design (there maybe some really good ideas), if possible per TS or Skype. If the mission fails, you can even blame your viewers (witch you will never do, of course). Misson actions: (e.g. insertion-/trans X insertion-/course correction-/descend-/ascend-burn) Again, you viewers may can decide, what to do (if there is enough time for it).

A very ambitious and interesting project. When i wish all that "realisim", i would use "Orbiter" instead (uses a three body problem instead of only one, solar winds, original texture of planets/moons etc.), but with that you could not build spaceships as in KSP, of course. Aah, i almost forgot: In case you need a quick overview of informations on studys of the NASA regarding a mission to mars, please take a look at this site. In the linked thread there are the most proposals listed, witch have ever existed. You will find there also (in an different section) informations for other hardware (e.g. rockets). Personally i believe, that a mission to the mars will be international (NASA, ESA, russia, japanese, maybe chinese too), because no single space administration have the funds to carry it out alone.

Because your link is missing a n d this is only possible to judge for your when a video is presented, i can say that for the most of us this challenge might be impossible to join.

Plane-Limbo: Build or use a already existing small, agile plane. Taxi it off the runway. Then build in the SPH the obstacle: On the ground there is a kind of shape of an plane in yellow. At the back of the left wing there is a white rectangle. On this rectangle place a row of 6 or more vertical "large girder segments XL". Then mount a "launch stability enhancer" on the left side of the second segment of it. The horizontal element should consist out of 9 girder segments. It should be connected to the top of highest part of the vertical element. On its right side again a stability enhancer is mounted. You should mount (for the visibility in the distance) some "structural panels" vertically on top of the horizontal part. ---> Launch the obstacle an try to fly through it. The landing gear must be retracted. For each succsessful attempt lower the horizontal element (in the SPH) halfway down the length of an "large girder segment XL". Winner is who has an succsessful attempt with an lower horizontal element than the other, otherwise the one who done it first. In ASCII-Art i am not so good, but as an example how the obstacle should look like: X = girder y = launch-clamp XXXXXXXXXXyy X y X y X y yyX y y X y

After a fast update to my craft to give it VTOL cababilitys i downloaded your savefile. But your crafts couldn't be loaded because of missing parts. Please clarify witch mods you did use creating your savefile!

I had build already a time ago a STOL-plane (the SAR I for that purpose, but without VTOL-capabilitys - so it's not a competitor in this challenge. But it can perform the requested task and might give s.o. an inspiration. It's very agile (as a fighter) because of the low level operations (It can flip at takeoff if you are not careful). Range is about 1900 km at an crusing altitude of 25 km, if i recall it correctly. For the landing in the terrain following procedure: engage brakes approach speed 40 m/s for beeing able to make an contour-flight 10-20 meters above ground engage braking-chutes (this will cause the plane to "touchdown" immedeatly and a standstill within a few meters from the point of releasing the chutes). For takeoff from the rescue-site: brakes on wait for full thrust release brakes and engage sepretrons

The original three, Jeb, Bob and Bill in the demo from the game (Mun was introduced at that time). I wanted to have an rocket similar to the R7-design. At last it was big, clumsy and wobbeling like hell. But - i got to mun and back.

Not to take in account a functinal design is stupid, it doesn't mean you copy it. You have your own goals, therefore your solution will be different in some kind. So getting ideas for a spaceplane from BSC or K-Prize e.g. is ok in my opinion. Take the ideas and create something new! Only one tought is important: The first spaceplane should be small. Improve it and get it bigger in your style.

I appreciate the statements above, but the best thing is not to fall over for the next time is: RCS-fuel and thrusters for the landing. With witch you can avoid sutch hazards. And if it happened already, trying to lift up the lander. Otherwise you can use a widespread base for a lander: One center tank with three small tanks attachet to it, on witch the landing legs are mounted (both in symmetry [tanks/legs]). l 0 = center tank with engine x x = external tank (on witch could also mounted a SC 9001 aj) 0 l = landing leg x x l l Or l l x 0 l x x l l l You have to pump fuel around (after the landing), or use later on fuelpipes. But having the savety of a big "base", witch can also fether a bump, landings are easy (even when additional small landing-legs are aquired due the additional weight). Test it on kerbin, when it works it shall be great on other planet/moons. You have also the increased possebility for a save return (to Kerbin).

Are you building a Apollo alike spacecraft or a - for kerbals normal - a "Asparagus"-launcher? In any case: Not only the TWR is the criteria you should care about, but also the burntime. If you build Apollo-style your first stage should include the strongest engines. But for the second (you are already in the gravity turn) and third stage the weaker engines are preferable, since they are at liftoff dead weight only. If you use an asparagus-launcher (for the mun a two-stage rocket is enough [Asparagus plus TMI-stage&payload]) you can build it in a way, that the second pair of the outer tanks are without engines. Witch means, the fuel-consumption in a given period of time is lower. If your TWR is too low: Use additional solid boosters for liftoff or build an second Asparagus-layer with shorter tanks around the first one witch feed the engines, witch are the first to stage in the first layer. In either way: You have to build a gigantic rocket since you want to get 200 t into orbit. Presumly for a long term mission, i suppose. Otherwise the crafts mass (CM, LM, TMI-stage) would exeed only 60-70 t max (without life-support). But there are other options too: If the hole thing can't be liftet, you can use orbital construction for your advantage (putting together the modules like a space station, the manned section at last). Witch can be achieved with launchers you have build already. If you have installed the KAS-mod (there are solutions for it, but in stock it is difficult): You can deploy most of the life-support with a seperate launch on the mun where it's waiting for your kerbalnouts - witch are coming with the second launch and are landing aside the life-support module. BTW: In case you need a engine with 3000 to 6000 KN you can set up a cluster of weaker engines to resolve that problem (Mouting four of the small girders at the bottom of the tank and then mounting the engines to/on them).

This is already a time ago, but: I had already build an Apollo alike craft, but only a lander for one kerbal. Therefore i wanted to build a new two-kerbal one, witch had to have only the same height as the one-kerbal version. The reason was simple: With the old version i nearly scrached the ceiling of the VAB with my LES. Additional i wished to have two sience-packages on board as well as a small rover on the new lander. Fuel? Two FL-T200 for the descend-, and two FL-T100 for the ascend-stage should be enough i thought. I calculated a bit short it seems. After the circularisation burn at mun i had already used up more fuel of the CM than on the missions before. On my landing attempt out of a 30 km orbit i realized that the fuel consumtion of the lander was - uuh - a bit more than expected. So a normal slow but save descend was not an option, and i decided to avoid hovering. With 3.5 m/s and a bang i setteled down on the surface only a few seconds before burnout. After this "near miss" i decided to go for an 20 km orbit for future missions - for the saftey of having 10% fuel left on landing with 0.6 m/s at touchdown.

My first intoduction to KSP was via the let's failer (his own description: "godfather of fail"; and yes, he is a german let's player) "xqdmhose", who was originally playing minecraft. I downloaded the demo (13.3) and tryed to get into orbit and to land on the mun (at first with heavy explosions and loosing control of the craft), and with my fifth craft installed a mod already: landing legs (witch was possible in the demo that days). Watching "kurtjmac" and "HOCgaming" on youtoube i want this game badly. As soon it was availible via paysavecard (no need to reveal my bank-account in the internet) i purchased it on the developers website.

Mods, aahm ... yes. I tryed several out in seperate installs, wanting to explore their benefits. To cut it short: When i want a special senario or for a challenge i use them, so they are mostly gamechangers (Kethane, life-support e.g.). What i don't like about them are the way overloaded parts-tables under the tabs in the VAB/SPH (especially with heavy mods like B9 or infernal robotics e.g. [The mods should really create their own tabs under a mods-menu.]) and the loading-times. Additional to that the "must" for looking for updates and then maybe forced to rebuild the spacecrafts. That's the reason i play stock mostly - sometimes with mods witch are providing additional functions but no parts like: Docking port alignment indicator/persistant trails/additional IVA's for manned pods witch haven't one.

Most of your questions depends of the computer a player have and her/his intentions regarding her/his spacestation. It may be only a station for research/refuelling/cargo hold or can be all. In any case it is important to have a look at the partcount, because you have to have enough computer-power to run the game when your spaceships (you have to add their partcount to your station) are arriving. It can be a pain in the ass when you are running a slideshow while attempting to dock. To make things worse, you will have an additional framedrop to take into account if you try to take a video of that. Conclusion: The more and the bigger ships you want to dock, the smaller the space-station should be. Minimum requirements: A pod, an ASAS or some RCS (to kill an unwanted rotation), a battery and an solar cell/RTG. Most important is to have all sorts of docking ports of course (to be able to dock all kinds of ships you have/design in the future). And maybe some docking nodes where you can expand your station in the future when new parts comming out. Hardest thing: That is not the design. Normally i build a mockup first and test it on the launchpad or parts of it in space (escape pods e.g.). Tricky it becomes when you have an modular design with a very long structures witch you have to dock going in reverse (because of the wobbeling).

I assume that you have build your ship (From top to bottom) this way: Payload tank for nuclear engines nuclear engines bi-coupler, witch is mounted top-down so both nuclear engines are covered stack-decoupler/-seperator at the single node of the bi-coupler and attached to the stack-seperator any other parts of the ship (witch should be debris by now) If this is correct you have only two choices: To use the RCS-thrusters (if you have any mounted) to create an impact with your debris from the seperation before to cause the bicoupler to explode kerballike, or to rebuild your ship (and starting a rescue-mission for Jeb). Thats because with bi-/tri-/quad-couplers/-adapters you can merge things together, they don't act as seperators! And in your case that means: The bi-coupler is fitted to the nuclear engines witch may running, but doesn't produce enough heat and force that the bi-coupler would be destroyed. And therefore their exaust hits an obstacle (the bi-coupler) and eliminating their thrust (1. Newton's law). Addition: Mounted in the normal way the couplers/adapters have an fuel-crossfeed to an engine below - mounted in reverse means: no fuel-crossfeed (you can overcome this with additional fuellines).