Spricigo

As far I observed the craft type that is less likely to be randomly assigned by the game is Outpost. But whatever works for you is fine. There is several mods that help with managing multiple mission, but be warned that yo u may end up running even more simultaneous mission just "because you can". From the top of my head: Kerbal Alarm Clock, Flight plan and Tracking Station Evolved. That last one seem to be something in the lines of what you want but I never used it to tell for sure. Other than that..spreadsheets and sticky notes are things that I use sometimes.

Any chance the docking ports are actually surface attached somewhere else and not just docked?

Please, a picture. You need to post it somewhere and give us the link so we can see what are your tools for the job. Generally speaking, you don't want to reenter with a craft that have low heat tolerance. If aerobrake/aerocapture is possible at all, you want a craft that can fly like a pancake to bleed out velocity quickly before diving into the low atmosphere. Unfortunately, that is the kind of thing you need to take care way before the time of reentry. If you ended up in a plane that burst in flames just after touching the atmosphere then it's time to design a rescue mission.

I know its an old thread. But That is is exactly what I'm looking for, too. In my case the immediate interest is in things like , deploy angle, thrust limit, throttle(independent) and resource amount. It seems like a "must have" mod that don't exist yet.

That is kind of a problem. What do you expect to find in plain words that is not possible to be better presented with images? But if that is what you looking for: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Maneuver_node#:~:text=Adding%20a%20maneuver%20node,-Two%20maneuver%20nodes&text=Click%20on%20the%20vessel's%20orbital,it%20in%20%22delete%22%20mode. I still think a nice video tutorial is much better:

Oh, I wished it was the case. I tried to use all those fancy stuff and still screamed in despair with how badly managed docking back in the days. I'm not saying that you shouldn't look for better way to dock. I'm saying that, while there is ways I know to make it easier, is hard to explain how. I'd like to offer better advice, but I can't. Not only it is counterintuitive but also chances are that your aha! moment will not be like mine was. PS: I have this quirk of sticking with a subject way beyond the point is necessary without noticing. You don't need to worry about offending me just because you noticed but I appreciate if you may forgive me for the annoyance that it may cause.

Why not? It looks cool and is easier/cheaper to put in orbit than a keraled craft. Playing in career mode: Doing "position a satellite in [designed orbit]" contracts Doing "position [designed satellite] in a adjusted [designed orbit]" contacts. With science instruments and an antenna: can do "science in orbit of [celestial body]" contracts With a relay antenna: extending communication network With Remote Guidance Unite, Relay antenna, Pilot onboard(not really a satellite anymore at that point but for the sake of completeness): Allow control of probes not connected to KSC's communication network.

I know I will sound condencendenting but: I understand that is how you perceive the whole situation, but it is not, by any means, a problem with the navball. It is just a matter of technique that you didn't developed yet. While you have trouble telling your alignment is correct a veteran says: And while you are trying to do it just a few meters away he probably start to do a thousand meters away. Docking is a dance. Some people move graciously with the music and...some trip in their own foot!? No, it's not that I was trying to say. Oh well, also true. But hey! You can learn to move graciously too, just be patient and keep practicing.

Nice you figured it out. Mind you that for thing that Mod specific usually the mod thread or https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/20-add-on-discussions/ is a better place to look first.

No, it wouldn't. The navball is always oriented the same way your controls are, no matter what odd viewpoint you need to look at the docking port alignment/separation. It's just that you are a new player not used to the navball yet, you still look at the movement of your ship when you should be looking to the navball, you see the target "above" and you when you try to move "up" it goes "sideways" because the camera lies to you. Maybe there is a few amongs us that are related to Buzz Aldrin or something and "just knew it", but most had to learn it just like you. (The forum have plenty of evidence of this) We may give you some pointes, there is a few good tutorials around but most of it is practice. Notice, a craft is as easy to fly as designed to be. If there is a bunch of RCS thrusters randomly placed, the craft will randomly rotate when trying to do translation (and the other way around) but If there the right amount of thrusters carefully placed to be aligned with the Center of Mass set only for translation the craft will only translate when commanded to do so. If you have trouble designing a craft that is balanced then post a picture and ask "what I'm doing wrong?" very often is something that EveryoneButTheDesignerTM can easily spot.

Well, you are correct about activation toggles. I guess my mistake was because I setup regular engines work as RCS just once and didn't even used it. Don't give up yet. The actual method (just checked in game) 1.Set Throttle to Independent in the part window. 2.Set Toggle Engine to RCS Action Group. (a regular Action Group works too) 3.Set Throttle to the required Axis Group (chose reverse if needed) 4.Set Throttle to an different Axis Group (this allows to cut the engines in one direction without firing engines in the opposite direction) It doesn't work exactly like the regular RCS but it have some uses (like turning that huge interplanetary mothership or VTOL planes).

That's what the RCS system actually do. If you want a RCS system made with regular rocket engines you need to set the activation toggles of each engine in the editor (needs advanced tweakables enabled)

Actually the engineer could just wait for the replacement. Yep, it is expensive but my reasoning was that running the missions to get the money is actually "cheaper" in terms of quality of my game time. Mind you, I have the luxury of knowing that my wide design would work since I already deployed it long ago.

Good thing you don't need to impress anyone, just enjoy the game. Still, I guess your troubles can bring memories from most of those veterans. BTW, you can make things wider if you design it to be launched sideways. Useful to make a skycrane with room for bulk stuff, surface structures that don't tumble and rover's that don't capsize. Of course, don't rush to replace your current working designs.

Not the physics, just the craft structure. Each part have one, and only one, parent part. (except the root part of course) The mod just need to make a connection to a part that is not a parent part (like an strut) that have a similar strength. And actually there is a mod:

I wouldn't bother to try to try to keep it upright. I'd just design mk2 to be way more wider, it makes everything so much simpler. If you have a earlier save you may try to use those docking ports to attach some structure that keeps it upright but I think you will not be very satisfied with how it behave (or even looks)

"SSTO" is supposed to be Single Stage To Orbit. Got into orbit without dropping pieces? Than is an SSTO. (Most of my SSTOs were a bunch of fuel tanks attached to an engine. But I guess that is not what you are interested in.) So... You need to decide what kind of craft you want and design it to not drop parts. It will need more fuel and slither stronger engines but also be careful to not put too much of everything or it'll be to heavy to work properly.

If mods are an option, EVA Transfer is my suggestion. It allows just that and do it very well. . Another popular choice is Simple Logistics

Being a while since the last time but I completed that kind of contract with kerbals aboard. As far as I know the game check if you have the parts (probe core, antenna, electricity generator), if you have than is a valid craft for this contract.

One way to effectively have MOAR BOOSTERS™ is to remove NOT BOOSTERS™. Same fir MOAR FUEL™/NOT FUEL™ Give us a picture of your craft so we can see what are you carrying around.

... It's not the only choice. Pick what works best for the mission at hand. It happens so many times: People pick some "best something" and when the drawbacks become apparent they try to fix it and get caught in loop of improving A, then B when it affects each other negatively. In the case at hand, people tend to add more engines to improve TWR, but since dry mass decrease Delta-V they add more fuel to compensate, lowering TWR again. If your interplanetary ship can have enough Delta-V and a reasonable TWR with a single chemical engine just go for it. NERVs are awesome if you can endure the long burns.

Oh well, coming from an interplanetary trajectory you will be much faster than the typical return from Mun/Minmus. As result the aerobraking will generate much, much more heat. If a propulsive capture or aero capture higher is not possible you will need a rescue mission.

In those contracts "new" just means "built after the contract was accepted". Mmm. It seems to me that you tried to plan a bit more of retrograde in that maneuver node and got a predicted encounter with Ike and your reaction was to think "that's not what I need" Thing is: predicted encounters don't matter for satellite contract only the short time while the contract is checking matters. You just needed to a bit more of retrograde so the apoapsis drops to about 3360km cut the engines and wait a moment, that's it. In fact you were way more precise than is required for those contracts (It even bother me sometimes how far from the target orbit I get a completion )

Unfortunately I don't have a time machine to warn you earlier, so I hope that is something you already took in consideration. If this two pieces of equipment will be moving everything you'll send to your base, things will be a lot easier if everything 'feels the same' no matter what is being moved. Which asks for standardised modules, if everything is same weight, same size, have same coupling mechanism, same, same and same then it will have the same feel. I'd argue that is often a case of the pieces not being properly classified. Take a look at the Kickback for example, how is that long cylinder not an structural part?

Keep in mind that precision landing is a combination of landing and rendezvous. That means you will use the same techniques but need to take in account how the landing will mess the rendezvous and how the rendezvous will mess the landing. Some people are good enough to do a very efficient landing and still land few meters from its target. Most of us just expent a lot of fuel to land within a few hundred. Anyway, minmus low gravity make it a good place to practice.