Spricigo

Let's hope that is not something with those designs too. Easier said than done but: You need to stop tapping the D key before you reach the point of no return. A well designed rocket need just a nudge to follow prograde into orbit, no SAS, no gimbal, no steerable fins. Yet it may still flip if pushed just a fraction of degree more than necessary. So, when you say "the rocket flips before even 10 degrees" I immediately assume you are pushing those rockets way beyond limit of their stability. And while this is generally good advice: I think that is exactly what the OP is doing wrong. Waiting too much to start the gravity turn If you don't turn soon enough you will need to do it more aggressively, not only making more likely to put the rocket in an unstable attitude but also increasing the risk of flexing and SAS over-correction (which itself can ruin a launch).That is particularly true for rockets with lots of control authority but may also happen with 'sensible' designs. So, as soon as you can give the rocket that small nudge with some reliability its time to start the turn. Anyway, that is assuming there is no design problems or bug. A look at the craft would be nice for check this out.

I'm not sure if that is the case either. But if it is, getting in orbit and then lowering Periapsis seems to be the easier way to setup the testing conditions.

I think you need to see for yourself https://kerbalx.com/Spricigo/hellix08s-Moon-Satellite

err...Since the purpose was only to demonstrate the little lander idea, "launch vehicle" was the cheat menu. But I can try to design something more along a proper mission(and I'm sure that others will help too). Just give the parameters you want and what is available (more advanced tech node and building upgrades)

Actually the way you posted the question made it easier to help you. For he keen aye of the experienced helpers there a glance to that picture was enough to identify several problem but there was also a craft file and a explanation of what you tried to fix the problem yourself. Would be nice if you also had included some explanation about how far of the tech tree you unlocked and if any low level facility still limit you but we can figure it out that well enough. well, let's add my thoughts to the good advice is already there: Getting my hands in the craft Immediately did 3 adjustments for a first test flight: replaced the Delta wings with 4 AV-T1 Wiglets in the central stack removed all gimbals tilted the entire rocket 10 degrees towards east I put it in the launch pad, set throttle to max and hit space. Waiting to see it flip or at least burn in the atmosphere, to my disappointment it made it to orbit with 1600m/s left of deltaV. What brings me back to something people told you to do: The Reliant is superior to the Swivel as a launch engine in every aspect. It have higher Thrust, weight less, is more fuel efficient and it never steer the craft out of course because it have no gimbals. A well designed Launch Vehicle needs no gimbals or movable fins to be "controllable", it only need to be pointed in the right direction and will fly itself into orbit. Either you do it with a single nudge shortly after the take off or, ideally, set it up in the editor. Adding a probecore capable of holding prograde and a bit of control(fins, gimbal, reaction wheels) to keep in line a rocket that is about to lose it is OK but if you need to steer it yourself you designed it wrong. Rant over, back to your craft. My suggestion is to not try to land it back (go ahead if you want but don't seem to be worth the trouble). If there is more than 600m/s left try to land it on the mun or let it in Mun orbit and wait for a "position Mun Satellite in a adjusted orbit" contract. A few tricks I use for satellite contracts: rename the satellite with the remaining deltaV at the end ("Mun Satellite" becomes "Mun Satellite 735") to know If there is enough juice left when the contact is offered. If you are launching the satellite to fulfill a single contract include the agency on the name (e.g Zaltonic Mun Satellite.) to identify it better. Add an HG-5 antenna to make it a "Gap Relay" Use a decoupler or docking port to drop any' Contractual Obligation Part' you don't need after completion. Unlock Propulsion System ASAP, and design a "Contractual Obligation Satellite" with the essentials and powered by a single ant engine (C.O.S. will pack over 2km/s deltaV with easy since it weight almost nothing) Also an advice for general craft design: design it by stages focusing on what the particular stage will do but start with the stage you will use last working your way to the launch vehicle. After the initial design do another pass refining it. Keep a safety margin you feel comfortable but strive for a craft where each stage do only what is intended to do without leftovers.

how about struts/autostruts? Did you used it at any moment?

No, the Terrier is not "much more Efficient" it just have a bit higher Isp. The most efficient engine is the one that do the job required for less cost, be it Funds, Weight, Player Time or whatever other metric we choose to measure cost. Often we use deltaV to measure the cost. As @Streetwind explained wonderfully here, deltaV=a*b*c. A trap players fall for so often is to think that the engine with higher Isp will provide most deltaV no matter what (or at least that only in extreme circumstances it don't happen). Nope. Isp is just one factor. We need to consider mass fractions too. Only if a big lander is necessary to begin with. Typical "lander equipment" ( crew space,science,...) for first visit weight less than 2t, landing+return to Kerbin requires about 1600m/s. With 2t of payload a FL-T400+Terrier will give 1,849m/s, while FL-T400+Spark gives 1,914m/s. It tend to be less about which one is better but if the spark is unlocked, which is not really a problem in normal setting but still.

Fixed that for you.

nope, that is a mod

Imagino que seja a mesma coisa, você acessa a fonte por onde obteve o jogo, dá a confirmação que comprou e baixa a tradução. A única coisa é que na steam a confirmação de compra já está linkada ao client Steam e acontece sem que você precise se preocupar com isso.

I'm not familiar with any particular shuttle parts mod. But for actually placing the parts in the right place there is quite a few: BTW, there is any mod with open license you didn't adopted yet, @linuxgurugamer? Not that I'm complaining, quite the contrary.

Personally I'm found of using 0 landing legs, since radially attached fuel tanks don't bounce the same way. Still, I agree that 4 can be considered "the right amount" for a lot of cases. There is quite a few reason that people often use Terriers for Mun Landers. Is often the lighter engine people will have unlocked when going from the Mun the first time in a typical career, and it can handle landing, taking of and boosting back to Kerbin drooping just a few fuel tanks and science instruments along the way (if that much). Is not expensive But if what you really want/need is just landing one kerbal at the mun? The Terrier is a Beastly Overpowered Engine! You can easily pack all TWR and deltaV necessary for landing and return a kerbal with a spark and still call your lander beefy. If you really want the right tool to that specific task, less is more. Take a look what those little gems can do: https://imgur.com/a/STlUvdM

Don't want to burst your bubble but it maybe the case of lack of practice if it is the "I move too far away from prograde and lose control" but if it is the "no matter how much I try it just point back to where it comes from" then you have a more serious problem, a design problem. Even then, if you can still go back to when you launched it, there is no shame to just attach some parachutes to get the mission at the hand done and after that try to fix the flipping problem. Also, go back to where you got it and see if the designer recommended some procedure for reentry. It's often the case that moving some remaining fuel to better balance the CoM/CoL relationship before reentry is required.

well, in the game directory you will find a folder named (maybe you guessed) [Saves] and in it the [default] subfolder, if any saved game survived, that is a .sfs file there or in the [backup] sub subfolder and in [Ships/SPH] and [Ships/VAB] sub subfolder you should look for .craft files. This assuming you don't have any mod that manages your craft files (CraftManager, ShipSaveSplicer, SomeOtheIAmUnawareOf ) which seem to not be the case but you my consider as a way to avoid It happening again. You may look at KerbalX.com or the The Spacecraft Exchange subform for some low tech craft to speed up the restarting but it seems to not be the most common thing in both places. Granted you don't need to download the "Reliant/Swivel and a bunch of tanks below a pod, science and decoupler" but I was a bit annoyed when someone pointed that my low tech science plane requires an 90science node instead of only 45 and lower (shame on me!!).

ok, people already pointed out that you can do by terminating it in the tracking station. Another option is to reserve some fuel in the craft you are putting in orbit, after you are done and before switching back to space center point the ship to and activate your engines until the periapsis (lower point of the orbit) is below the ground. You may leave immediately and the craft will be gone once it reach the ground. Yet another option is to not leave to Space Center/Tracking Station or switch to another vessel, but press ESC and click the [Revert] . Either you go back to launch to try gain with the same vessel(under the same condition) or you go back to the VAB/SPH to adjust the vessel. In both cases it will leave no ship floating in space. But even if you don't terminate, don't deorbit and don't revert to before they get launched Is just a matter of going to map mode, moving the mouse to the very top of window and click the things you don't want to appear in the map and you'll be ok. Yes, the vessels will still be be there, but the chance to you actually hit something is statistically 0.0%. In fact, I assure you'll get much more frustrated when you actually attempt to get two vessels to meet each other (and you may search in those forums for "help rendezvous" to see examples of people in this situation). People play the game in uncountable different ways, the only one that matter is how you want to play. Most of us build and fly rockets, a good chunk also build/fly planes and spaceplanes too and then there is the people that build cars, trains, boats, submarines and even a Grand-Piano or a Toilet. You already know how the games goes in sandbox mode. Everything is unlocked but the game gives no directions whatsoever. It's in some aspect dependent on how much of you already know about the game and your ability to motivate yourself. For new player is easy to be motivated, since everything is new, but is hard to get the hang of everything, since everything is new. In science mode you need to unlock parts before using, to make this you need to run experiments (using parts from science category, kerbals and EVA and command pods) in different places and situations.The game gives you an objective, gotta catch all those pok, err...science. You catch some in the 'starting areas' and use it to catch more in 'advanced areas'. Things that are always available in sandbox (SAS, wheel repair) can be dependent of which parts or kerbals you bring to the mission depending on your difficult settings. In career mode you also need to pay for things. Parts cost Funds (the ingame currency), you can get some back recovering the ship that land back in kerbin and earn more doing contracts. Also some abilities are dependent of how developed are your buildings (which you also need to pay for). What you do in career mode is highly related to contracts, either because you are doing something the contract asked you to do, or because you need the Funds from contracts rewards to pay for it. Is often the case of people finding a type of contract that tend to have a good cost/reward and specialize to do then (for me is satellites (low kerbin orbit rescues don't even count, once you get used it's the game throwing free kerbals and funds at you)) Beyond that is "mod territory" there are several mod that makes the game easier (presenting flight information, improve editor functionality, autopilots, new parts, facilitate science gathering, ...) or harder (part failure, life support, harder to reach/land/take off planets, ...)and some that just change how the game looks/sound/feel (visual effects, appearance of the parts/kerbals, voices, musics, ...) Well, that ended as a wall of text, even only scratching the surface. I don't think it will become more clear if I keep writing, so I let you to think about, find some other opinions to compare and decide by yourself how the game is more enjoyable for you. In the end, its only you that can decide that.

The screenshot need to be posted in a external site like imgur and posted as a link there. (I think some other restrictions for new posters may also exist but don't know for sure) Well, the "exactly" is the trick part. Depends on a lot of things. In some circumstances you can do it the 'most ineffective way and get away with this, in others the craft explodes in the slightest deviation. I indeed have a few spaceplanes that can do the retroburn above that desert and land nicely at the runaway (no overheating or overshooting problems), but they are small, can hold high AoA and are coming from very low orbits. Your situation is different in at least one aspect: orbital height and i suspect that is not the only one. @jimmymcgoochie suggests to do the burn the other side of the planet and drop the periapsis to 35km. That approach, which is the usual advice, makes easy to avoid overheating problems but also kind of easy to mess with landing at the target location (rather land intact 100km away from KSC then crash catastrophically into the runaway). I personally don't like it very much (that's is why i don't design my spaceplanes to need it) but it works for a wide range of crafts and situations and is reasonably safe, thus a good approach to try first.

One of the points of career is that you have less option at the start and more will be presented as you progress, thus preventing you to be with lots of stuff available but no idea how to start to figure out what is for. It's largely a question of preference if you play career, science or sandbox. But it seems to me that new players often fall for the illusion that in sandbox all option are available when in fact there is nothing they know how it works.

Well, without flying the same craft ourselves(at the very least to see a picture) there is not much we can say. Just the usual "roughly at the wastelands". But is not just about where you start the descent, you need to control your glide rate, do this by pitching up(undershooting) or down(overshooting). Helps if you have a waypoint of KSC to orient yourself, but there is also the experience telling that you should be at X altitude and Y speed when passing Z landmark and you only get experience by doing it. In fact the whole Shuttle/Spaceplane thing is. But asking for help is a tested and true way to find it .

Don't want to be rude but: So you get the message that show up in the start of game every time. Working as intended. Rather than figuring out how to remove a message that seem likes a non issue for most players (and often helpful in the case of new players) I'd be more inclined to figure out why you feel the necessity to create new games instead of keeping with the one you started one day or so before. And then see if there is an alternative solution for that, so you don't need to create new games anymore.

I'd call it "finding a lower difficult beyond game designed constraints". It's not cheating since you are competing with no one but yes, the game don't expect tourists in command chairs. In any case the general consensus is that if you did everything the contract requested but some bug happened you can just open the debug menu and set the thing you need to get the rewards you are supposed to get and clean any mess the bug let behind. it seems that a combination of rigid attachment, struts and part clipping is often the cause of such incidents. YOu may look at that if is a regular occurrence for you.

In general mods are very well behaved, but let's start with good practices early because figuring which one is the troublemaker among several dozen is not fun.

Well, with no mods, effectively it is safer to assume so. There is the physical range but if the other craft goes just a bit too far and it will not activate.

Most mods just requires that you extract the files to the [gamedata] folder, some requires that a dependency is also present and some are version specific. CKkan is a mod manager, intended to err... manage mods(version, dependencies and stuff). BTW, if get the game via steam, copy the entire ksp folder somewhere else before modding. So auto update don't overwrite your modded install. also, is a good idea to at least backup the [gamedata] folder if you plan to install many mods (which makes me wonder why i don't do that)

You just need to give enough room for it not clip through anything and click to set each section. Just notice that if you attach it right next to something too big (a.k.a: same radius) there is no room to set even the first section.

Well, we can tell you to try more different configurations until one actually works. Is easy to push the parts in Aviation beyond their capacity so it may be necessary to redesign your whole plane (add angle of incidence in the wings, reduce weight and so on). I have an example in kerbalX of a plane, it requires a bit higher tech (aerodynamics if I'm not mistaken) but you may be able to tweak it for your needs or just use it as an example for your own design. https://kerbalx.com/Spricigo/KarlJatho If mods are an option for you, is much easier to build craft with more control over the placement of the parts: o.O I wonder how! Maybe I should take a closer look to KVV.