Spricigo

Cant resist...considering that trajectory the only thing I imagine is and how close you can approach the ideal don't limit how much you can change the speed in practice? (I’m not trying to disagree, I really don't know)

Based in the result in the current relevant challange 35% can be archieved (with very optimized and well piloted spaceplanes). Based on design shared at https://kerbalx.com/ seems that designers will often be satisfied with much less (~20% seem common), specialy for smaller/lower-tech . Personally I care about 1st: The rule of cool; 2nd:How easy its to fly; 3rd: How fast I can recovery the cost of it. As such I never calculated the mass fraction of my own vessel (and my spaceplanes are not that good to begin with). Someone else (e.g @Wanderfound, @GoSlash27, @AeroGav) can give you a better idea of what is a good mass fraction (or whatever metric they think you should look at)

Until someone says its bad for the game in some way its just a 'unintended feature'. So my question is: do you care enough to make it a bug?

I think smart part only work in the current controlled vessel. If you don’t mind the break in immersion, parking the carrier while controlling the rover maybe a option with this mod: another option is But for the specific purpose of this thread I feel activating parachutes with decouplers may be enough.

Pretty much. I will add to the list: The Other Prograde Badge Monopropelant Is Out Of Thrusters Badge

Another possible cause it's that you attached the cargo bay by its internal node and leaft the external one open (more common when multiple cargo bays are used) .

Quite the opposite in my personal experience.

Personally I use only the navball to dock and never had a problem. About mods: how much they change the gameplay varies from mod to mod. And how acceptable is a given change varies from player to player. So, we can give our opinions but it's up to you choose which ones, if any, to add to you game

Actually more often my problem its with thrust misalignment generating too much torque.

No. That is me avoiding to fix a case of CoM behind CoD after I used all that fuel. The idea its to reach the orbit with a SSTO spaceplane, but bring the plane back rigth back while the spaceship go further.

Ok,, there is an example of what Im proposing. Notice that its far from fully developed and I designed it mostly because I can and because I liked. notice that is a crude and inefficient design. Ignore the design itself, what I want to present its the concept.

MK0 Airbrake. And for some odd reason you can also put small parts inside.

This only means you want to separate and recovery the spaceplane while I don't care* if it burn/crash. Your compromise it's to design the spaceplane to be recovered while mine it's to accept the cost of using the plane only once. *for the sake of the example given.

The return probe can be further optimised a bit (heatshield, battery, decoupler, drogue are convenient but not really necessary ; OX-STAT can provide enough electricity) but is already capable enough. Also, for a craft so small, just a bit of fuel will give lots of deltaV.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/List_of_easter_eggs

I think you missed the point. Consider we both designed very similar SSTO spaceplane, about the same mass, same engines, same fuel capacity, same wing area... Both have barely enough deltaV to reach orbit but can be refuelled. However mine is designed to get rid of jets and wings just before reaching orbit. Guess which one will have higher deltaV and TWR after refuelling. You may argue that recovery can make your design cheaper, however this only is true if I didn't use mine enough to archive a better economy.

But, if you can put a plane in orbit and refuel, you can also put a rocket and refuel. After reaching orbit jet engines and wings are dead weight if your destination is an airless celestial body. For this purpose the spaceplane being the tanker makes more sense.

Corfirmed both by mathematical demonstration and practical examples a few times. (need to dig the forum a bit to find) However, as @Streetwind points, the flight time will be longer. Also there is the complexity factor

Notice you will carry the RAPIERs around either way. The argument that a engine turned off is a waste is only valid when not bringing it is an option.

I'd like to know what are you seeing. Personally I can see the CoM below the geometrical center, and the fairly low drag difference between top and bottom portion of the rocket. But, if you forgive the pun, where is the turning point ?

Agree, but The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

A different idea for similar results: 1 bonus point for every 10% (rounded down) recovery. Ir something along this lines. However multiple recoverable stages can be tricky.

That's what I heard. Howeve, since it may be a modded contract, maybe it tries to track the craft that extracted the ore at Minmus. Just wondering...Anyway, a simpler solution is always better.

Probably the kind of mess I imagined when writing "but still..." And slight less problematic was not supposed to mean acceptable at all.

I'd try as low as possible (short of entering the atmosphere) just to be sure. Then quicksave/reload as suggestedby @Cpt Kerbalkrunch. Wonder if staging/docking/resource transfer messed with tracking of "your ore". Also, since you are using a few mods its possible its a mod issue, if the problem persist removing your mods one at time and see if the problem goes away can help to find the offender (If you are patient enough for this and after less 'intrusive' procedures) Anyways, you did the job. If the game refuses to pay hit ALT+F12 for drastical measures.