Spricigo

Mind you, the kerbal will be fine if he don't hit some celestial body (which is not very likely) and you can just add a new one from the astronaut complex. Also, if he cash into something (or you just go to the tracking station, select the craft the kerbal is in and terminate it) the kerbal will just appear after a while none the wiser. In any case, what you need to do for a proper rescue is send a craft with some crew space available, rendezvous with the kerbal, transfer him to the rescuer craft via EVA and get him back to Kerbin. For a rescue in solar orbit the craft will need quite a lot of deltaV but a rendezvous in solar orbit is otherwise basically the same as a rendezvous anywhere else. Here a video that explain it in a nutshell ( We know that it may be quite overwhelming for a inexperienced player, feel free to ask further question if is not clear. However,theory can only go so far, at some time you will need to go and try it yourself.

Mind you, those contracts asks for mine ## units of ore at place A delivery ## units of ore at place B Since the game don't track if the ore in step 1 is the same ore in step 2, you don't need to transport ## units of ore from place A to place B. (Of course, you may do it anyway.) AFAIK Yes, should be possible.

As often is the case in KSP, the trick is to find a good compromisse. Not too shallow, not too steep.

Nope, he said the problem is the rocket becoming too big. If so, somebody just need to ask for a clarification. Same deal for control surfaces. But reactions wheels are available right from start with the Mk1 Command Pod. Or rather, unless he ask and get advice. Which is exactly the objective of this forum section.

Not really. With the right initial conditions, a well designed rocket it will be in a curved trajectory towards obit, under the effect of thrust, weight and aerodynamic forces. Control surfaces can be used to steer the rocket in those initial conditions but is not the only option. A look at the craft would really help us to figure out what may be the problem.

Not sure if that is because of a mod (or several) but in my roster level and profession is displayed for each kerbal. While I could use a bit more options for organization, the basic is covered.

A simple mod, yes. Just a few lines in a Module Manager patch. But if is just for you and you don't care about it getting undone in a update just editing the file in notepad works too. Also, the previously mentioned Contract Configurator may be used in a similar fashion.

0 I'm not aware of any limitation except the probability of getting a different contract instead, and I read somewhere* Contracts // Below you will find many career mode options, and most are commented ... AverageAvailableContracts = 10 // The average number of contracts in Mission Control A thought crossed my mind: "MOAR!!" Having option is so nice. */Gamdata/Squad/Contracts/Contracts.cfg

[snip] Ok, it is a pointless comparison but let's take an example from my current career archives # Type (*) Destination Funds rep Sci 1 Station ** Solar Orbit 524,975 20 21 2 Station * Solar Orbit 366,030 16 0 3 Station * Solar Orbit 373,420 17 0 4 Station * Solar Orbit 373,420 17 0 T 1,630,785 70 21 Station cost: 8,120, Launch Vehicle cost 4,200 And since a singe station will complete all four contracts RoI=1,630,785/12320=13,000% On top of that all the advantages of not be doing tourism contract.

At this point I'd start to design a cargo rover.

I'm guessing there. But seem like how % of max stack (bar) and itens in the stack (number). Itens that don't have are unstackable.

important caveat

That misses my point entirely. I was trying to make the opportunity cost more evident, not more important. I after considering that you still consider tourism contract the best option available more power to you. (Still, YMMV) In any case, it's not other preparations but rather coming up with efficient way to do other contract in the very same manner you com up with efficient ways to do tourism contracts. I really don't want to enter in the specifics of each kind of contract because there is so much depending on preferences and personal inclination (including less evident factors like williness to use mods (and which mods)) ...except maybe as a kind of joke: Gather Science/Test Part at the lauch site. The payout is enraging low but several orders of magnitude over the cost.

Maybe because you didn't took similar preparations to make a different kind of contract lucrative. So you need to taken in account this infrastructure as part of the opportunity cost. In other words, the time you setting up and maintaining this infrastructure is time you are not doing the best thing you could possibly be doing to advance your career (or more to the point: enjoying the game) whatever it is*. Also, is very convenient in the early Tourism contract when everyone just want to go to orbit because no other destination is unlocked. Not so much when each tourist want to go to a different planet. *Of course "best thing to do" is not necessarily the same for every player.

By default is a token penalty for declining a contract. So, there is some effect but given that the game will be less likely to offer another contract of the same type you declined (actively, not just let expire), you probably don't see much of a difference. Of course, the penalty can be zeroed out or (go figures why) increased in the difficult settings. Personally, I really don't enjoy sorting which tourist goes to where very much. Flyby/orbit around Mun/Minmus I'd consider, lading it's not gonna happen.

CoM too far behind. Drag bits on top of the rocket have a much longer level arm than the drag bits on the bottom, thus producing a bigger torque.

Revert to VAB and fix the design flaws. One of the big mistakes of inexperienced players is expecting a lot of "piloting" during the launch when in fact an efficient launch follow a very smooth trajectory to orbit with little to no control input, nothing more than a nudge in the right direction shortly after taking off. In some extreme cases not even a control point is required.

The thing with docking (as well orbital mechanics in general) is that it is counter-intuitive. We're so used to how objects move there in the ground, restricted by all sorts of drag, that we expect a similar behavior when I space. With some effort and a few good explanations don't take that long to understand that what is happening is normal for things moving in space but to it feel normal, that is another issue altogether. So, while I understand your desire for some why to learn it quickly, lots of practice seems like the way to eventually get it.

As good a reason as any. People asking for help in this forum usually just want some solution for their issue. From previous post/threads I was under the impression you would be more interest in a cool solution. just asking to be sure. Good thing that is not what I proposed. The idea was to rather use Ike as a reference. Bad thing that what I proposed didn't work either, see bellow about axial tilt. nah! It can be done with some scary math...theoretically... Granted that I lack the will to do it myself. That was what I assumed at the time of my previous post. Sadly it happens that is no tilt relative to Kerbin's axis and I was just remembering it wrong. At this point it seems the alternatives are: 1.zero out inclination once in Ike's SoI 2. having something in Ike's orbit to use as target/reference. 3. A krakenload of trial and error and ridiculous amounts of luck. Neither strike me as efficient or elegant, at least not as much as yo requires.

Well, I'm no economist either but I heard of something they call opportunity cost. It provides an interesting insight for that discussion. Essentially, when making a choice you need to take in account what you are losing for not taking the best option available. Case in point, while a return of investment of 6 seems quite impressive, you may still be at a loss if getting busy with this particular contract prevented you form earn even more with a series of apparently worse contracts (To be clear: I'm not saying that was the case. Just one don't really know if assume getting more funds than spent is all that matters.) Sure, one will not go broken, unable to advance, for doing those contracts that pay several times the funds to set it up it. But couldn't more funds/time be generated doing something else? How about other rewards? How about enjoyment/time? KSP is forgiving enough for those questions not be critical, but nice to consider nonetheless.

Any reason in particular? I'm asking because not that many of us would care for more than a couple of degrees of precision just for the sake of being precise. If that is required for something else maybe there is a better way to meet your goal. Both are correct. Just happens they aren't the same thing. 0.2º ref Duna 0.06º ref Kerbin That is not correct at all. You can change inclination anywhere, any normal/anti-normal burn will change your inclination. What is generally correct is that is hard to predict how your inclination in Duna SoI will relate to your inclination in Ike SoI(same situation for the Sun-Duna SoI transition, for that matter). However, it just happens that in this particular case we know we 0 relative inclination to Ike in Duna SoI will result in 0 inclination in Ike SoI; IOW Ike's orbital plane matches Ike's equatorial plane. In any case, I'd say It get more are more elegant farther away Ike's SoI the inclination is matched. If nothing else because it become harder and harder. Nonetheless, zero inclination can only be achieved at AN/DN, as Bewing pointed.

Yes, you didn't provide a screenshot for us to see your design and try to spot the culprit. Without a screenshot, I see nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong with "decoupler node" instead of "undock" option. That is just how it works, as a regular decoupler (hidden from the staging sequence by default) until the first activation.

hard to blame @Snarkhis advice is not accurate anymore 5 years later

Excellent. Nonetheless, I will point that a Terrier can indeed lift a 5.25t craft from Duna, only because I'd like to raise the question: Is the terrier the best option for this task? We can discard the option for anything heavier because either the Terrier have better ISP or the extra weight negates the Isp advantage. Ants and Spider being so weak would require impractical clustering to compete and the puff is just terrible in so many ways. But Spark, Twitch and Cub lower weight may still give you an edge, it boils down to how much of those 5.25t is fuel and if that is enough to provide the necessary deltaV (Understanding mass fractions, perhaps the single most important insight when it comes to building rocket stages ) In any case, I took a look at the stats of craft with 5.25t more 1-2 of those engines: 1xTwitch, 80kg TWR1.02 Isp 289s 1xSpark, 130kg TWR 1.25 Isp 312s 1xCub, 180kg TWR1.99 Isp 308s 2xTwitch, 160kg TWR2 Isp 289s 2xSpark, 260kg TWR 2.44 Isp 312s 2xCub, 360kg TWR4 Isp 308s For comparison, Terrier, 500kg, TWR 3.36 Isp 327s. I'd take a closer look before deciding.