Spricigo

If you want a Mun base later on prepare yourself for deal with a lot of other issues. e. g: coupling two modules together can be way more challenging than landing, because off several issues of docking port alignment/placement (I really don’t see one struggling to archieve such precision landing to be satisfacted with just klawing the modules together) . Also, at this point consider some modules to give the base some objective since the stock game lacks one (except the 'I want/should be cool' one) Convenience has a cost. But even at such inefficient situation how much your launch cost would increase? How much time/effort can be saved by skipping fine mid-course adjustments? The interesting thing about efficiency its that different people will asses it in different ways. You may consider launch cost, other will count on recovering the vessel and count just the fuel cost and others yet will just consider just how much game time. As everything in the life, its a question of cost/reward. just that everyone have a different way to calculate it.

you know...my best way its better than your best way. Just because its mine. While I agree with you that Minmus/Mun missions are a better way to get science, I have a different reason. I can get enough science with regular missions to finish the tech tree without the need to setup labs, so why bother?

I suspect its because when out of focus KSP calculate heat and cooling for longer times. It may screw the calculations resulting in exagerated heating and/or underated cooling. Something similar the sudden wobbleness a craft have when loading. Notice, I'm guessing there. And its not even a educated guess since KSP heat model its something arcane to me. But maybe someone with more knowledge can explain if that made sense and why/why not.

aluc24 Nice to see you found a working solution. Don't mind if we keep the discussion going. It may be useful for other people in similar situations and part of the fun.

I suppose you mean missions. Some missions ask you to do something when all conditions are met. In this case when you are in a particular condition it will have a check mark but if later the condition change the check mark is gone. Just check the fine print to figure out what are you missing.

I still suspect is Styrofoam. Made sense with the cardboard winglets. Anyway, the odd thing is that the ablator don't need to resist high temperatures to do its job. Wich is to remove heat from a system (in your case the vessel).

How to calculate is the easy part. You need deltaV equal to orbital velocity to stop. You can use a maneuver mode to find out how much time it takes. The difficult part it's to execute the burn, it helps nothing the fact you are approaching with enough velocity to pass through you target in a blink, or the fact that maybe your target area its not exactly in your current trajectory because a hair of deviation in the other side of the orbit. You may not like it, but you need to do a suboptimal approach to have time for those adjustments. And that is how people deal with those superefficient precision approaches, they trade efficiency for precision until they get a good balance.

The kind of contracts I always decline. Too much trouble, too time consuming. As I said just accept you won't have total efficiency. If you need to land further and then hop closer so be it, just bring more fuel.

Yes, you need something to target. I was assuming that was available. At this point I really see no reason to such precision, other than the challenge of it. So I have only 2 answers left: a) accept you won't be able to archive total b) practice, practice, practice

This one have it in a simple and elegant way : Like I said, assumed MJ and KER had it also, but can't check it at the moment

You need to consider it as a high speed rendezvous, make sure you will be near enough you target and at closest approach burn to kill velocity. I'm assuming MJ have readouts for time to closest approach and burn time to kill velocity.

And this interaction is in great part heat transfer, warming the ablator if you prefer. Also noticed that ablator is, in real life, a broad term also used for material that don't need interaction with plasma to erode. You don't manage reentry level of heat with Styrofoam, but it's good enough hot coffee. Well, maybe KSC actually have Styrofoam heatshields.

That's exactly the point of ablator. It absorb heat to the point it start to burn, the burning portion become fragile and is teared off by the friction.

For just the purpose you asked, automatically deploy parachute, Smart Parts is perfect: just attach and setup a altimeter. MJ and KOS are fully functional autopilots, better suited if you want continuous control (they also have other features, like info readouts). About the drag calculations : it certainly is possible to do. Problem is that if you want reasonable accuracy numerical analysis will be necessary. This is the kind of calculation where dozens of factors are too few, and we want a computer to handle it for us or just go with the empirical data. For most of practical game purposes a rough idea of how much drag will effect a flight it's good enough. In some challenges it may become more relevant, then there is experimentation.

This is only relevant for direct contact with KSP. A single RA-2 16Gm away will connect with ~25% signal strength, but it don't connect with a identical satellite 8Gm away. And looks like that is what is happening In your case.

Range=sqrt(antenna strength 1 * antenna strength 2). Your satellite has antenna strength 2G (HG-5 makes negligible difference).

How about this for a simulation that cost something :

Well, to be honest, I have no problem with "rare biomes" . It don't change my game at all. If it makes someone's game better, good for him. I just think if the devs decide it is a nice feature they should do it properly. Something like KSC biomes. Call it reefs, mangrove or whatever. On the other hand I know the "how much work" /"how much improves the game" ratio its pretty high

My curiosity was about design performance specifications. Probably not the best choice of words, my bad. Anyway, a craft file to test it myself would be very nice. I'm starting to play with spaceplane and something better than my own designs may be of great help to practice.

While the idéia of some weird biomes may be interesting, splashing down to ground and grounding down to water it's just weird. Even if the "rare biomes" make the game more interesting for some players, they are clearly a glitch, not intended.

Now one just need to make a 'personal-use' mod with the required stats in a single part with the lowest possible mass and we will also have the modded winner. The idea of the challenge its interesting, but the actual thing looks to me like something more suited for The Spacecraft Exchange.

@fourfa mind to give some extra design specifications?

Major problem its drag. Lots of variables, very dependent of ship design. There is the fligth results, however I never paid much attention to exactly what its show. I think you need to hit F3 to it show up, someone please confirm.

cheers What Benjamin Kerman said, you need both tracking station (for visible patched conics) and mission control (for flight planing) upgraded to lvl2.

What kind of early design you did? Show some and people will be able to point the problems and how to improve. Also, if you not done yet, get something to help you with deltaV and TWR (if you have something against installing mods something like this or this will do) . In early game, my usual strategy its to gather some science around KSC (and, because a mod ,automagicaly from KSC biomes) , while doing some part test for funds. When I finally go orbital , I do with hammers, swivel, FL-T400 and Terrier in a over-engineered combination (similar design to @5thHorseman's with a couple of hammer in the 1st stage) because I have so much funds anyway. So I'm probably not the best people to talk about efficiency, but I know you can be effective without 2,5 parts and 5+engines/stage. About Thud: Sorry for the little derail but someone please tell me what its the point of Thuds. Its the only stock engine I cant figure out what niche its supposed to fill.