Spricigo

The computer need to calculate how much force need to be applied to fully stop the craft. Computers calculate things insanely fast, but even the fasted computer will give the answer the time of a calculation too late.

The option to terminate all debris is often requested. While we don't have it in stock there are alternatives provided by mods.

Is the craft by any chance sitting on the drill? Rather counterintuitive, it don't "make contact" if is clipped below the ground.

Well, it's your decision, but I have thousands hours played and no idea of what "finish career" is supposed to mean.

Just saying, if that is the advantage they have none over my seaplanes with control surfaces in the tail. (Which quite often are regular planes that happen to take off from the water just fine )

Except that you don't need to take off, just entering the water from land is enough. As long as your craft in the water (or whatever there is in Eve's Ocean) and not moving the game consider it splashed down.

Maybe. There is quite a lot of parts to eventually fail in unexpected ways. Have you considered to test it in a sandbox save before flying it to Minmus?

Any kind of boat that can get agrround at the sea border should be enough. If you have the DLC you may try something similar to my Padwheeler. Another option is to make land contact first and then rover to the sea (you will be splashed down as soon as you lose land contact.) Tr to get in orbit first and then enter the atmosphere. If that is what you did try to get into the atmosphere without getting in the orbit first. If the contract don't say manned/unmanned, either should work.

If you have crossfeed enabled in each and all decouplers, that setup is supposed to work. Not much ideas left...I think I read something about a bug with fuel transfer recently. Let's ask @bewing if he know something about that.

I'd pleased to meet that guy. Right now I have no idea who he is.

There is a mod for that If mods are not an option you may use the Big White Structural Part as a backbone and radially attach the ore tank to it to it.

You know there is a price for that disagreement, don't you? I'd say your craft is well worth it, BTW.

That is not supposed to be the issue. Decoupler will either allow or block the flow for all parts in "the other side". Anyways, that is a Kerbal Forum, give us MOAR DETAILS!!! Providing a picture is better but at least tell us what exactly you have between the tanks you want to tranfer fuel.

Maybe we can agree but I'd rather not, since that is not the effect of fuel flow. Consider a craft with a single engine and multiple tanks. For a for a given tank we may ask: Is the engine able to draw fuel from this tank? (fuel flow) The engine will draw fuel from this tank after/before other tank in the craft? (fuel priority) Now, we can agre (and I assume that is what you meant in your previous comment) is that we can either control the flow with crossfeed or external fuel ducts (the later allowing restriction to only one way flow). But, agian, the engine will just draw from the with higher priority first,if there is no flow from the tank to the engine that fuel will not be used at all.

If I needed to guess, I'd say that is because of how much it "sinks" into the ground before the physics engine kick it up for being bellow the ground. (but I'd laying if I said I actually know *Shrugs* ) It may even explain why it consistently dismantle @Reinhart Mk.1 craft while causing no harm for people using slightly different machines/configurations. Anyways, I'm not entirely sure if the "magic number" is 10m/s but meet the ground quickly enough and something will break. Rigid attachment can make things worse because the craft become more brittle while attaching the landing gears to the heaviest part (to which, gears are autostrutted) can alleviate the issue a tiny bit. Don't worry about copying a design that works, not even in the sense of downloading the craft someone shared and use it as it is. More experienced player are those that just found more ways things fail, you have plenty of time to find those by your own, meanwhile there is not wrong to use the exception (things that actually work) Also, taking a craft someone else designed and reverse engineering it is a good way to learn. Allows you to get something that already works, make some change to suit more our needs (or tastes) and, if the changes break the craft, revert to the previous functional version. (E.g. One of my earlier shared craft was a development of a craft @bewing shared, it is not a better craft than bewing's original except in the sense that it was more along what I wanted and that I learned somthing mesing with it and with his later comments about the differences and why he did as he did. Oh!..Maybe (/probably) is broken after several game versions)

Don't confuse fuel flow with fuel priority. External fuel ducts allow/control fuel flow but don't fix a messed up fuel priority. The later need changes in the tweakables or the staging sequence.

I know that people usually have a particular kind of craft when they use the term. But the point is the term there is not necessary and even slightly misleading. Helicopters and rockets are VTOL, we just don't call them that because we reserve the term for planes, vehicles that usually don't take off/land this way. Similarly, if we are talking about landing on Minmus, we expect everything to be land/take off vertically, to be a VTOL, we just don't need to say it and confuse things. We'd rather need to say when something is not a VTOL since that is what everyone is expecting. Actually, you just did: But hey, don't focus to much in my pedantry with terminology. Let us take a look in your craft to see if we can offer some specific advice for how to improve it.

First lets get or terminology correct. If you are planing an almost horizontal landing, that is not Vertical Take Off and Landing. on the other hand, the traditional craft @Grogs mention are VTOL. Now, wing will not help you there, in fact they will hinder you(likely not much, still...). But a more horizontal landing actually makes a lot of sense for Minmus. Since the gravity is low, your approach speed also will be, and there is plenty of surface flat as..well, Flats, And wheels let the brakes to take care of some of the deltaV after the touchdown. Put the engines in the rear of the rove.' Coming form the low orbit, lower the periapsis to just a few meter above the ground*, maintain retrograde with the wheels facing down. Burn just before the periapsis making the trajectory intercept the ground at safe speed, brake to a full stop. It may take some practice to get it right, but it is very satisfying when you do. (then you either automatize of switch back to less stylish/efficient but easier options)

I have this in my sig: And yet, is not obvious to you. Ok: USING A CRAFT SOMEONE SHARED IS NOT CHEATING IN MY BOOK For anyone interested, here is mine,. There is 38000 other craft in the same site and many more in The Spacecraft Exchange Subforum . And if you ask nicely we may try to design a new one together and have fun doing it. @MarsUltor I appreciate if you clarify the point you think I misinterpreted, make it stronger than the eventual snak. Arguing about what I said on the other hand, will get you nowhere, an I will not waste my time with it anymore. He already sent probes to Duna... maybe a manned lander catch his attention. Gossiper

Maybe there is more elegant solutions but THAT would work for sure. Probably not. But is often cheaper, simpler and lighter than the setup you need for a rocket breaking

I will neither confirm nor deny that. Don't worry, you are not the first to come there with a flipping spaceplane. And I'm sure you will not be the last either.

Mind you, making "a shuttle" that looks less like "The Shuttle" is often a easier way to solve the issue. Putting more of the weight up front and making it more symmetrical improves stability more than a bit of control surfaces, reaction wheels and RCS usually can.

Set the Flow Priority in the tanks that you want to use first to a higher value and Enable Crossfeed in the decouple/docking port between the tank and the engines you want to use. Those option appear on the Part Action Windows if you have Advanced Tweakables enabled.

@M@tyu Clarke is a much smaller and cheaper rocket that can perform that task without any problem. Maybe you don't want to use a ship you didn't designed yourself but you may still take a look to see what can be done with a fraction of the cost of your reusable rocket.

Not saying the actual don't have its issues, but that was in reference to a previous version (with a Kerbodyne Engine Cluster Adapter Tank filled with mismatched engines, IOW a part screaming "DRAAAAAGG!!!") The aero overlay is just to get a basic idea. To know how draggy each individual part is you need to check {Display aero data in action menu} under Physics in the debug menu. Then you can open the Part Action Window and see something like this: Welcome to the world of overwhelming amounts of data available. Digging some info out of it can take a lot of time and effort. Good luck with your plane. Meanwhile, I been told the cool kids are doing boats those days.