Spricigo

Personally I never feel the need for very accurate TWR and delta-v calculations. I just design a ship for the mission, if it fail or I feel it's overengineered I adjust accordingly. Doing the math is not necessary but knowing how it works is handy.

You mean "revert flight" ?

Probably the best approach. I had a similar contract and did that a few days ago. Mission accomplished!

Is at least highly impractical. -The game don't predict the t trajectory after a few SOI changes; -kerbin is orbiting so the timing need to be correct -small deviations will have bigger effects on longer trajectories.

I suppose that means something like "what if it takes more time than I'm willing to wait?" Well, you will probably wait until some "essential mods" are updated to 1.2 and decide you can live without without whatever it's not available. Among the mods you had before the update some can be removed without problems, some will cause issues. Hopefully there will be help available to solve the issues in the related mod's forum thread. Anyway, don't fix what is not broken...backup you saves before updating and worry about any issue if and when it happens.

There is also a mod, if you feel stock mechanics not good enough. FMRS

Yes, screenshots please. But given the current state of landing gears a good start it's considering to use something else as legs. Modular wings and modular girder are popular choice but there are other high crash tolerance parts available.

Somewhat solvable by using a wide lifter with several tailfins. .... or just heading to minmus. Anyway, people being people, advice is usually only asked for after a failed attempt. Since Mun appear to be easier, novices you shoot for it more often.

Actually no, you are not sure since you didn't check it. Also you don't know how to solve the issue by yourself yet is refusing the help @OrbitalBuzzsaw was willing to give.

BTW, if you are interested in a full-fledged guide, I found This blog and This video .

Pretty much this. Other possible rules: -pics or it didn't happened. -mods prohibited/allowed/required (my suggestion it's only stock parts, no autopilot and no mods that change the physics (if enough people get interested in using, say deadly reentry, make it a different category) -no retro burn, craft must slow down by atmosphere (body drag, aerobrakes, parachutes.) -extra leadboard: same rules on Eve, Duna, maybe Earth, Kerbin x6, 4... Perhaps [score] =( [craft mass at reentry] + [craft of mass after landing] ) /[units of ablator left] This is to account for fuel burnt while in atmosphere if allowed by the rules.

This

I risk to say we probably have technology necessary to a gizmo like that but the questions are 1) How efficiently it can be done? 2) Wich other better options we have? Gravity slingshots are convenient because we are taking kinetic energy of a planet/moon to give it to a craft. This is actually pretty easy* we just need to encounter with the planet/moon in a convenient trajectory, it's like going with the stream. To generate electricity from this energy we need to work harder, maybe a very different approach. I risk to say we probably have technology to figure out something** that works but probably it will be a complex and bulky device with low output. We have much simpler and efficient solutions if we go look elsewhere for electricity generation. Maybe we will someday have solar farms in Mercury, nuclear powerplants on the Moon, wind turbines in Venus, "geothermal" powerplants in Enceladus or other fancy stuff. Until then we have solar panels, and whatever we use to charge the battery before launching. *rocket science easy **my wild guess/bet is a device that use tidal forces to generate electricity. But I'm no engineer, mind you.

An idea here it's to have less thrust and more vertical trajectory while in dense atmosphere and as air density decrease push and turn harder. This seems strange since it may result in longed time and increases gravity losses but the idea it's to find the sweet spot between too much gravity and too much drag losses. Since drag will increase with velocity and decrease with height going fast and low it's what we want to avoid.

And I'm pretty far from any point but I'm curious. Why backwards would make a difference in space? Even more since when you select control from here in the docking port it will be forward. I understand that it can be confusing because apparent discrepancy between control imput and ship movement. Just curious about how much an issue it can be or if I'm missing something

After attaching the ports (this can also be done as usual at the VAB/SPH) rigth click the port and select [link], then do the same in the other port. Another interesting part available in KIS/KAS is the winch. A crane can be very handy to move different base modules around.

This mod among other features allows faster physical warp. (x20). Maybe interest you. Im not a user of the mod so can't say how well it works with the current version of ksp.

I guess you are referring to what @Snark said it There Also there was some mention of people observing phantom forces action on vessels on low orbit around airless bodies, so maybe it was a bug eat you ship.

TAC fuel balancer may help

Xbox controls Hope it helps

On a vacuum world, a vertical ascent can dial up the TWR to minimize gravity losses. But on the other hand, a gravity turn can crank it over to horizontal much sooner, since it doesn't have to worry about climbing steeply out of that pesky atmosphere. For most vacuum worlds, it's pretty close to a moot point, since gravity is so low that even a very modestly designed craft can have a (local) TWR of 10 or more, and going beyond that you get diminishing returns. They're easy enough to escape that it probably doesn't matter a whole bunch whether you go up or sideways. The place where it would really make a difference would be a heavy vacuum world, where both the gravity and the escape velocity are significantly big. Tylo's about the only really good example in the game for that, I think, though I suppose Moho ought to be enough to tell the difference. That wold be a interesting demonstration indeed. Just some consideration about the relevance of the demonstration from gameplay perspective ( I see few plus and a few minus) : + higher TWR is open (and useful) to both approaches. With the possibility of more similar designs we may have a better comparison of the flight profiles. +allows for very aggressive gravity turn, thus being also a opportunity to compare the importance of thrust Vs ISP for gravity turn. -in the regular game mission starts at kerbin. In practical gameplay how we get to Tylo/Moho/Whatever it's much more decisive factor to how we get out of there. -Once in space there is opportunity to refuel and/or docking with a tug, at this point reusability and recoverability become as important (if not more) than individual launch cost. - Reliability is almost never mentioned in those frequent discussion about efficiency. If the situation where one method is better than other don't happen often enough the question has little practical value. -How much the efficiency 'cost' in funds, time and effort is also often let out of these discussions. And there I think @bewing have a point. A particular design and method will be ineffective before the results overcome the cost, yet quite often we bash methods/design ideas to people struggling to understand it.

Well... Solar panels catch the energy radiated by the sun Wind turbines catch the kinetic energy from atmosphere Geothermal powerplants catch the energy from tectonics ... Harvesting energy from celestial bodies it's quite the standard in some sense. Obviously harvesting it from earth (so close) and the sun (astronomically huge output) are particularly convenient.

I bet the struts fixed it. Your vessels was flexing and the docking port in particular was not stiff enough to damp the oscillation. To add injury to offense SAS try to overcorrect your trajectory adding even more oscillation.

How good you are at rendezvous? Your problem now it's exactly to rendezvous with Bob. In case of doubt this tutorial may help you. Also if you did the mistake of using all EVA monopropelant try put something near the hatch for Bob to grab.

I have serious doubt it being possible at all even for different pairs of planet+moon. Also I'm so lazy to make the calculations myself so this is just a hunch. Accordingly with kerbal wiki Now compare it with height need as stated by @Streetwind in his explanation if you want to calculate it for any given planet+moon combo