Spheniscine

The tolerance varies based on star rating (you'll also note that the contract stipulation is worded differently; one star is "reasonable deviation", two stars is "marginal deviation", three stars is "minimal"). Personally I like to just get it almost perfect on the first go (matching Ap and Pe within three significant figures) as it is very annoying to adjust an orbit that is "almost" right.

Er, yeah. RemoteTech is a "hard mode" mod made for more advanced players; the idea is that you have to build a communication network to keep unmanned satellites online, and it also simulates communication delay due to the speed of light. You really shouldn't mess with it until you are very comfortable with the game.

I also have written a tutorial for satellites here: http://www.lets-play-sphen.com/?p=509

When you perform an experiment with it it's called a materials bay study, that's why.

Actually, the AoP is measured from the ascending node, along the orbital plane. The LAN is measured counterclockwise, along the equatorial plane, from a standardized reference point (on Earth, the position of the sun during the vernal equinox is taken to be that point). I actually found this picture quite informative: except imagine the "Pe" flag right at the end of the purple line. The only way you can actually see those values in-game is either by digging through your save file, or using mods like VOID. But you don't need to for satellite contracts and can just match it by eye.

Yep... you can build a reusable skycrane lander that way. Land, rove around, return to the lander, redock, take off and land somewhere else, rove again The rover looks about right as a whole, given that most of the parts don't make sense independently anyway. It's just the seat thing that jumped out at me. Not tried the other parts enough to have an opinion on those.

I tend to use six... probably more than absolutely needed, but I like to angle and stagger them to make sure that I don't screw myself over by being at just the wrong angle for the sun to catch them... Like this: http://www.lets-play-sphen.com/?p=509 (there's one behind the satellite)

Yeah, it does appear to float, but it works fine; I've tested with the small decouplers and docking ports. Perhaps that could use a fix.

Hey great mod! I think the rover is much more beginner-friendly than any stock ones I could build, what with node attachment, inbuilt power supply, and the impact-tolerant landing cage (the rover itself seems pretty tough too, I have survived flips that would probably wreck a stock rover), so much so that I'm tempted to just use it for my tutorial. There's just one thing that seems off to me though. Why does the seat cost 1,000 funds more than the regular seat, when the only difference is node attachment? (One can just surface-attach the regular seat to the Pack Rat, if a little less conveniently.) If Umbra Space Industries needs the funds, they should just charge more for the back section instead. After all, it has a freakin' RTG in it.

Tundra, Kolniya (Molniya), and any highly eccentric orbit can be difficult. The problem is that even though it looks pixel-perfect, the deviation at the apoapsis can easily fall outside the accepted range because your view is focused near the body. Additionally, the Oberth effect works against you; burning prograde/retrograde at a low periapsis is so darned efficient that it is very hard to match a high apoapsis precisely enough. Try creating two maneuver nodes, one mid-course, and one at the apoapsis. Then hit Backspace to focus on your vessel, then Tab twice to focus on your second maneuver node. Zoom close enough and you should now be able to clearly see your deviation. Carefully adjust your first maneuver node (using Precise Node will help avoid tedious view switching between your nodes) so that your apoapsis is at the correct spot (try to match the first three decimal places, and make sure it looks right from all directions). Execute it, then match your orbit with another maneuver node at your new apoapsis.

There is one exception to the "no upper limit" rule - if you are doing barometric or atmospheric analysis (sensor nose cone) scans, you need to be in the atmosphere. You can just "graze" the very top of the atmosphere to avoid deorbiting though as long as your apoapsis is high enough.

Alt download link now included.

Kerbal Stuff Download Alternate link (Requires ModuleManager) While building stations for contracts, I've always been bothered that the larger versions of command pods and lander cans both cost more *and* weigh more per-crew. This mod rebalances their costs so that the stats per-crew remain about the same for all pods within a "class" (except for spaceplane cockpits, as their balance is a bit more complicated). Larger parts have reduced part count, better aesthetics, and are very slightly cheaper-per-crew. Details: Command Pod Mk1: Cost ⇒ 800 (↑ 33%) Rationale: Win some and lose some. Bump this cost up so that other changes do not have to be quite as drastic. Mk1-2 Command Pod: Cost ⇒ 2300 (↓ 39%) Dry Mass ⇒ 2.4t (↓ 40%) Reaction Wheel power consumption improved. Mk1 Lander Can: Cost ⇒ 1200 (↓ 20%) Monopropellant ⇒ 20 (↑ 33%) Reaction Wheel Torque ⇒ 5 (↑ 67%), power consumption made same as Mk1 Rationale: Lander cans are kept in the role of "pay more for less mass", but don't have quite as drastic a jump in price. Mk2 Lander Can Cost ⇒ 2300 (↓ 29%) Dry Mass ⇒ 1.2t (↓ 52%) Reaction Wheel Torque ⇒ 10 (↓ 33%), power consumption adjusted accordingly PPD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container Cost ⇒ 3000 (↓ 25%) Rationale: Now cheapest part per-kerbal, and only slightly heavier than lander cans. Makes up for it by lacking command functionality or any other amenities. Released under the MIT License.

Yes, this is the same problem I described. A workaround I found is to use Reset Advanced HUD, but it must be done every time and is thus annoying.

Hm yeah... the reward for part test missions seem to be highly variable and imbalanced. Generally: "Flight" ones are not worth it - not only do they pay peanuts, they have both an altitude window and speed window, making designing and flying a rocket to reliably meet both windows difficult. "Suborbital" ones often pay too much for something where the solution is often just "moar boosters" "Orbital" ones tend to be about right, though it can be pretty variable "Landed" ones pay peanuts, which is somewhat expected for testing a part that can be recovered immediately - the problem is that this applies even for "landed on the Mun". "Splashed down" ones should probably pay just a little more so that the cost of the rocket is actually covered. Not sure if it suffers the same problem as landed for Eve and Laythe. "Escape trajectory" ones tend to pay too little. Kerbin escape should cover the dV needed to do so; for other bodies, perhaps pay a little less than orbital since you don't need to spend dV circularizing.

Yes. /10chars

Bug report: When creating a maneuver node (I think), the advanced HUD (burn time estimate) borks up and displays overly narrow and tall. "Reset HUD Positions" fixes it, but I have to do it every time.

Yeah I do think lateral distance makes more sense, since that's what the contracts look for as long as you're in the correct altitude range, which is quite wide ("above X meters" extends all the way to "near in space", I believe?) The waypoints are placed in the air/space, but only as a guideline. (As a bonus, I think it would thus calculate the correct "great circle" distance for a waypoint that's near the other side of the relevant world. Currently it shows the distance straight through it, causing your distance to actually increase as you circle around.)

Wikipedia on orbital inclination To answer your question, >90 degrees will be retrograde (clockwise from north), <90 degrees will be prograde (counterclockwise from north). Do not confuse it with the orbital prograde/retrograde vector; even though you're on a "retrograde" orbit, the direction you are going is still "prograde". If the inclination is at (or close) to 90 degrees, it'd be a polar orbit (or nearly so) so paying attention to where the dots move is even more important as it could be "clockwise" or "counterclockwise" depending on where you look...

My point is that we already have survey contracts, that do something similar, fits the theme of "expensive research expedition", and neither suffer from abusability nor non-renewability.

Whatever happened to the "Thrust Offset" feature in the editor when you turn on the CoM and CoT display? I found that feature pretty useful.

The problem with that is that it is a non-renewable resource - as you collect more data (and not necessarily because of such a contract either), there is less data that would be eligible. As untapped sources of data dwindle, one would have to use guides/cheats/mods to find the last few biomes, and it is possible to have no more data available. The flags one appear to be fixed, as in it won't be offered if the body is currently inhabited by at least one Kerbal.

I'd argue that the science contracts are made obsolete by the survey missions and should be removed or rehauled. Survey missions do not require transmission or recovery, but serve a similar purpose and are much more interesting due to requiring a particular experiment type and a particular location. As for abusing satellite and station contracts, Fine Print's developer (Arsonide) has it on record that he feels just taking away control of a vessel is too punishing, as you can't look at your handiwork later nor access any kerbals within. The solution should probably be to "mark" the vessel in the save file so that no other contracts would recognize it. To prevent accidentally marking a multi-part ship, or marking a station in Kerbin orbit when you mean to send it elsewhere, completion of the contracts should require a manual action of some sort (perhaps have a context menu action on probe cores and command pods that only appears when the requirements are fulfilled, similar to "Run Test").

Just wanted to say that I much appreciate the key-binding change function, as I reassign all my keys to fit a Dvorak keyboard. There needs to be ones for symmetry and angle snap though... or just detect the ones that stock KSP is using since those are already rebindable in stock.

I think the building costs are about right at 100% fund penalties. If I had a free hand, the changes I'd make would be to decouple fund penalties from building costs (most of the grind on harder difficulty levels is because buildings cost more even as your profit margins narrow, creating a multiplicative effect. It's also silly because no other costs are coupled with fund penalties; imagine if R&D unlocks or even vessel parts scaled with it), and make mission control t2 / tracking station t2 cheaper so that you'd get patched conics and maneuver nodes faster.