ForScience6686

Considering it's a rescue I tend to try and get them as soon as possible. Especially since it's in Kerbin soi, it shouldn't take you too long. Why wait so long to rescue the poor guy? I over build my rescue to craft to make rescues quicker as if they are in dire need for help, not waiting on a taxi.

With a shuttle, I don't think you want it to be highly maneuverable. I would just focus on enough lift for a good glide

I go with a similar idea as above but I avoid oscars on craft that I need to move fuel around. My design uses mk1, utility bay or other science gear, small lfo tank and then 3 or 4 radially mounted tanks with legs for wide stance and a terrier. I use decouplers to attach the radial tanks and enable fuel flow to avoid fuel lines. depending on mass and tank selection you should be able to get a couple hops before having to return and refuel.

Heck, for rescues I don't even match velocities. Just get close enough to switch to the stranded astronaut and switch. They have plenty of dv in their pack to catch up with the rescue craft, and I can usually leave my rescue craft in its elliptical orbit to catch the next rescue on the next pass.

What I've done is set my ap above the target orbit until I get an intercept on the way back down. So I do not complete my orbit until the rendezvous. It's not always to efficient, especially if I'm too early on the launch. But I've gotten a rescue down to 18 minutes with the rescued kerbal safely inside. This method is quite easy and repeatable, but you'll take a hit in efficiency as you usually need to burn radial to match the target.

A couple things. The part test contracts give you the item to use. This can be very beneficial in the early game to get tech you don't have yet. I usually accept these just to get the item then decline it one I've reached that level on the tree. You don't necessarily need supersonic engines for Kerbin observations. Use jets to get you to the area and a rocket engine to get your altitude. With the new jet tech I think Kerbin observations are much more easier and beneficial now. Make sure to bring some extra science gear and land in the biomes as well. I recommend lots of wing to allow for slower landing speeds on the rougher terrain, or just use chutes. Next, go for a poplar orbit and do Eva over each biome. Get solar panels as soon as possible to open up easier exploration of the moons. It is doable to send a manned landing mission of the moons early on. There are ways around the lack in technology, you just need some creativity. for example, instead of needing a radial decoupler, I built my mun landers transfer and landing stage with tanks attached radially to give me a bigger foot print. Then I drop the bottom section, which includes a center tank and the three radially mounted tanks, for the return stage which takes very little for the trip back to Kerbin If you keep your return craft lite. There is added mass as I use a separate engine for the ascent and journey back to Kerbin, but it allowed for sooner exploration. I then send the same craft to minmus which can get a few landings in with the same amount of fuel. This got me the tech needed for my duna probe by day 10 in my current career. Remember to keep your weight as low as possible to save money and fuel. I had a problem with over building my ships when I first started.

You need to become intimate with the nav ball. Without a good understanding you won't be able to do any of the fun stuff. Time to beef up your ksp knowledge. Go watch some you tube videos, too much to explain without knowing your specific struggle.

Fuel lines are not as necessary now that we can allow fuel to follow through de couplers. Asparagus staging is also a bit wasteful I think for such a small payload. Use Srbs first to get up whereyyour liquid engines are more efficient.

If you're just sending a probe it should be quite easy. Keep your design light as possible to squeeze the most dv out. I personally calculate my own dv. Mods aren't necessary and they take away from your understanding of the mechanics. Leaving at the right time is also not necessary. I sent my probe to duna by day 10 in my 1.0.5 career. It will cost more dv, but with a light probe that's easy to increase. I also suggest you build in the ability to drop fuel tanks as they empty to further increase your dv. Now to get there, use the window planner to find the dv needed to transfer. Create a node with that amount of dv, then slide the node around the orbit until you get a rendezvous. Good luck and enjoy.

I've dealt with the Panthers over heating when running fire long durations in wet mode. May also be drag related but nothing else was over heating.

My advice is a small probe after your polar orbit scan. You need better data than that anyways. So I send a small probe to find my ideal mining target. Making sure concentration is high enough and terrain level enough. Than target it. My orbital scanners are built with the probe so it's a complete kit in locating my mining location. I also use this method as it seems the most realistic. One would think you would need more than an orbital survey to pick a good mining location. Plus I'm all vanilla.

Proper alignments allows for less travel time and reduced dv. However it isn't a requirement. You will just need to bring more fuel. In my current career I sent a probe to duna by day 10. Not as efficient as the window but a light weight probe is easy to add dv to. My last career had me really working on cramming enough dv when launching at the worst possible time. But I learned a lot about building better ships and managing dv. So I would actually recommend trying it at bad windows to push your creative limits. I am also trying to limit warping in this career to be better prepared tech wise for when the actual windows do come up. Plus I've found it fun running multiple missions at once and finding small missions (kerbin observations or rescues) with the new jet tech to fill the gaps in missions.

Not sure how to help you out. I had to start fresh with 1.0.5, moist of my crafts used the structural pylon which was replaced breaking all my missions. You could always specify science and funds when you start a new career to get you back to where you were.

Retro burns will only make you drop faster,as you start falling more vertically you lose the time spent in the upper atmosphere to slow you down. . That current design is not made to re enter. Next time I would add a stack decoupler to drop the tank and fins. Or add wings to give you lift so you can glide longer higher up, but that will add challenges in getting it to space in the first place.

Why not go to all the planets, you'll have plenty of time while they are enroute to launch multiple missions.

That's a good point by snark. I've used the wing strake with a tail fin to help stabilize some crafts. It helps push the tail back if you start to spin. However if you don't have the speed, you won't have the aero forces to help you.

I would guess you're losing too much speed in the turn. You got to take it gentle the bigger you go as you are taking forward momentum to change direction. If you get into a spin, turning into it and trying to stay on prograde is my best advice, having excess power will help as well.

I've been employing a similar trick. I have started turning off SAS and allowing the pod, cargo bay, and science jr, and heat shield to wobble on re entry. The added landing legs begin to overheat and I add roll into the equation. This with the wobble has increased my altitude above 6km where I can safely deploy regular chutes. IHave not ran into issues with the craft flipping to prograde. Flying at retrograde as not been very successful, usually end up with very tight margin of deployment.

Sorry slash, but I figured I made it clear that I was not using actual math here. What I am saying is that you calculate odds all day, but that does not dictate the outcome. The poster and I have both beat the odds, but from what you can calculate that isn't very probable. Probability is just a method humans use to quantify an outcome, but the real world does not necessarily follow those odds. Therefore could it not be argued that all these numbers are arbitrary and it's all luck of the draw anyway?

Goodness guys, I have stated this is not accepted math, and you are taking too much from this. Based on the question of receiving a scientist or not, your chances are 50/50, however your probability is lower. I have gotten 4 out of 4 engineers, but your math says that is highly unlikely to occur, where my " math" shows that it is more likely to occur than your odds show. We now have multiple examples of people drastically beating your odds. A coin flip is 50/50 but I bet your actual results would show different. All I'm saying is the real world doesn't have to go by your odds. And the way you state a question matters more than you are recognizing. I figured a higher sense of humor in this group. Lets not get hostile here.

Ok this went much farther than I intended but I'll keep playing along. Now you're getting the message, it's all in how you state the question. In this case 66%, as you now have brought in a third element of it not being either of those. I have argued this logic with an instructor before and did end up receiving credit on the related question . If it is not stated in the question, than it can only be assumed, which is not an exact math. Now for your lottery example, why do so many people play the lottery knowing the probability of winning is against them? My reasoning is they only see the two outcomes, hence the 50% chance. Or, should we say that all these people are ridiculously stupid going against those odds? I myself am not a gambling man awi know the probability of winning is low even with only two outcomes.

First, you don't understand the disclaimer. Second, you both are wrong. Change your statement and you're correct. Will I win the lottery? Only two outcomes right? You are thinking way to much into this. Is it not the same as what will I get when I flip a coin. Only two outcomes.

First, you missed the disclaimer. Second, yes it is a 50% chance on the 20. As that is all you are questioning, the other denominations are not in question. Only whether or not you pull a 20, that leaves two outcomes. It's all semantics and that's what I'm playing on here. If you ask me if it will rain today, you'll get the same response, as only one item is at question. Now the probability will most likely differ.

Well i would agree, but real life does not. If there is only two outcomes, a scientist or not, than you have a 50% chance. My numbers are much more realistic since it did occur. But as you show the probability is low, still if its not a scientists it still fits my math. Most often you will only have two outcomes, a yes or no, that leaves a 50% chance. The probability will reflect otherwise. Disclaimer: this is not widely accepted math :-p.

I see the chance at 50%. You only have two outcomes, a scientist or not a scientist in this case.