Spricigo

Craft files usually works best, however not everyone have access to KSP while answering your question. (I would rather be playing if I had access to KSP rigth now). Pictures are a good starting point. However if there is something unusual or 'hidden' its up to you to point out. Posting pictures and good description its just 'good practice' that facilitate to get advice.

I have this kind of issue some time ago. Looking at my savefile I noticed the rescued current trait was listed as "tourist". At the time I was using USI Life Support, which in the default setting make astronauts out of supplies behave like tourists. I suspect it may be the cause.

Anyone know if using an "old" module will fulfil an expansion contracts?

Disable yaw/pitch/roll control for RCS thruster, let reaction wheels handle the rotation. It makes a huge difference.

Link to the challenge thread, please

So... how this update that bring a free game keyboard will be handled?

Considering it "at the top" will just cause confusion. Using this reasoning I may consider anything I choose to research later at the top, resulting in odd conclusion like "the more advanced engine in the game its the Juno". That said: The node Precision Propulsion contain a few small engines and a small fuel tank, also its not required for other nodes. While I see why someone may consider it not so necessary/usefull, my perception its quite the opposite.

Another trick to make the separation cleaner its to put fins, on the radial boosters. The drag of the fins will push the booster behind and, if placed in some ways, case the desired rotation (up side moving away) in the booster.

Its up to you decide if the stock game is adequate or if it need fine tunning. If you decide something different can improve your game experience go for it. Also, while some mods can make the game arguable easier, many mods preserve the challenges of the game or even bring new ones. As an example there is no life support in the stock game but several mods are available if you are interested. There is also "info mods" that just present some information in a different form, "cosmetic mods" that just change some visuals/sounds/etc, "quality of life mods" that aim to 'fix' some awkward interface. Even if a particular mod make the game easier often can be argued that its an aspect that the game its more difficult than necessary, and being KSP a sandbox single player game the general consensus its that nothing is "cheating" except if you brag about doing it with no mods/glitch/tricks (like is often required in a challenge )

Look at the navball, a strange orientation means a misalignment of the control point. Another possibility its that the brakes got activated (even if its not showing as it), try to toggle brakes on/off.

@Loren Pechtel I was adding to your advice to not bother with KAC yet. My warning was: some people instal KAC then get bored spending so much time around kerbin.

Not necessary, but its convenient. On the other hand, if one is doing it just because is cool (like in a sandbox game) it don’t even matter if the aircraft get deleted.

For some people getting KAC means chaining itself in LKO, they may even design a interplanetary mission, but then they plan a manoeuver to a couple weeks ago and in between there is just a ton of alarms for the "launch a satellite around Kerbin" mission.

The rocket flips because you have too much weigth at the rear and too much drag in the front. The solution its to increase the drag in the rear and increase the mass in the front. A pair of tail fins can make a hug difference, same for adjusting the fuel priorities so the lower tanks get used first.

Even this is personal preference. Using a expendable multi stage rocket cost more but is much faster. In the time gained you may just do a extra contract and to pay for the higher cost.

Use a MK3 to 2,5 (remove the oxidizer if you don’t use it) behind that a stack adapter . If you still need more space for engines use tail cones to create more nodes.

Fair enough, you seems to understand why you need(/want) the mods you are using. Just be prepared for when a new version of KSP is released, some mods stop to work, some of those take long to get updated and some are abandoned. At this point you need to chose between holding your update or go on without the mods you used to rely on. Its not really a big issue, just something you need to be aware. ScanSat: The maps are convenient but a bit demanding on resources. The science point generated not much of diference. KAS:Great mod...if you actually use it. Some players will be impatient and just decide to launch whatever they will need in the ship they will need instead of dealing with the spare pieces. The link functionality is often regarded as a good way to refuelling ships without a docking port (personally I prefer EVA Resource Transfer), also as means of coupling planetary base modules.

For what?

Notice that you can just get ride from this extra deltaV you don’t need anymore because you craft become lighter and cheaper. Also there is a domino effect, when you reduce the weight in a later stage it will also increase the delta V in the stage just before it, but you don’t need it, so you reduce the weight in this stage also. Soon you end up with a much lighter and cheaper craft.

try an empty service bay just below the command pod, it will move the center of mass toward the botton and you if you open it increase the drag in the top. A further modification its to change the command pod for a probecore+antenna +2 OX-STAT solar cell (I'm supposing this is a tourist ship). It will make the upper stage a bit more expensive but lighter so you may be able to compensate with cost reducition of lower stages. Unrelated to the question: seems you can benefit from some optimization of your launch vehicle. Looks like there is too much TWR at launch Pad. for starts, I would consider dropping 2 SRBs and adding a fuel tank (do about the same job but with less hassle)

@Wanderfound actually I left many options out. Still the point its that if you need to get to orbit and then transfer to an interplanetary vehicle you can make the both the ascent and the interplanetary travel more efficient at the cost of efficiency at rendezvous/reentry while a SSTO that is also a interplanetary vessel is the other way around. The 'best option' its in certain measure a matter of taste.

that reminder me:

Well, it may sound like a cheat, we can even consider it a cheat but in a single player game it really don't matter. Personally I'd consider the trick equivalent to a modded rapier, which is fair game for most people. (incidentally I modded the rapier to behave more like a scramjet {no thrust at subsonic speed, works at bit higher speed and no rocket mode} that I, in all my ignorance, consider balanced . I'm a shameless cheater) Some people will even argue that its not efficient to bring a spaceplane further than LKO. But yes, sometimes is not about efficiency (at least not cost/launch efficiency) Anyway: I don’t think its relevant to compare a chemical spaceplane that only get to orbit(orange) and a nuclear SSTMinmus (banana). If instead we compare the whole systems seem more a matter of personal choice to me. You can either: 1.Use jets and nukes, and thus taking longer to get to orbit 2.Reach the orbit with jets and chemical power, transfer to another vessel for the rest of the trip. Rendezvous and docking takes time. 3.Reach the orbit with jets and chemical power, use a upper stage for the rest of trip. This spaceplane will be bigger(heavier, more expensive) than other options. For 2 and 3 you are also re-entering two vehicles or instead taking the extra step to circularize, rendezvous and docking in LKO. Then we have the whole matters of how far are you going, how big is your payload , how often you are doing it and how much you enjoy doing it.

funny how my disregard for the Thuds caused the discussion to veer toward decouplers... Small hardpoint cost 60 funds and requires Advanced Aerodynamics (160science) Strutural Pylon cost 125 funds and requires High Altitude Flight (300science) At this tech level I’m usually launching larger rockets with larger payloads, engine choice goes toward skipper, mainsail and twin-boar. I can't say if at this point Thuds are interesting for "just a bit more power" since I never needed "just a bit" was either "had more than enough" or "needs a couple kickbacks" But notice, there is a lot of my preferences(and maybe prejudices) about not using the thuds. I don't design my vessels to be the most efficient cost wise, I'd rather pump the TWR a bit, so it reach orbit a bit faster . Launching feel like the major expenditure of timetoplay and I prefer to waste some funds than waste some timetoplay. Likewise I don’t give much consideration for a choice that just save some funds (game gives plenty) if there is an option that use less timetoplay (scare because real life) And in the limited cases where I would consider Thuds they never looks like a good idea to me.