Spricigo

I disagree, spaceplanes are useful for some tasks. Using spaceplanes when they are the right tool (or at least a good one) for the task at hand make sense. Using spaceplanes despite better options available can only be justified by rule of cool/it's a challenge. Also, while the drawbacks you pointed are real only in extreme cases it will be that big issue you describe.

Yes and no. You may have that stuff in a separated unit, a tug. This tug dock with the module that need to be controlled and is removed after use. Just remember you will need a new tug for a new station.

Ok so you have 3 kerbals (lets call then Jeb, Bill and Bob) . Their craft will run out fuel 300m/s from orbit. So far what you tried and the result were: Jeb does a 300m/s burn and is in orbit, Bill does a 300m/s burn and get in orbit, Bob try to do his burn and crash. How about: Jeb does a 100m/s maneuver, then Bill and Bob do the same. Repeat it three times and everyone get in orbit.

Btw, you don't even need a buffer for science transmission, just let you antenna [allow partial]. OTOH Reaction Wheels may require a bit during maneuvers.

"Lastly, land your outpost ob the Mun" Don't let that wording confuse you. You may think you need to get everything else before landing but that's not the case. As long as at some point we have a craft that fulfill all requirements it don't matter what happened along the way. Warning about "new": it means you craft need to have a 'fabrication date' after you accepted the contract. What you need to be cautious is that when two crafts are docked together they get the fabrication date of the older one so never dock any module of your new station to anything created before the contract was accepted. A possible advantage of using multiple modules is that later you can get expand station/base contracts. So you can send multiple modules, put then together to complete the contract and separate all modules again. Each module will be a separate station that can generate an expansion contract or the expansion module for expanding the other stations (the contract don't exige a new module)

Nice guide, but think some small improvements can be done. Do you mean 'within 1degree of this position' or 'this side of the planet' ? What if I'm at different altitude? A bit more info about the trajectory after the burn would be good too. Err, how it can be so? Different crafts will suffer different amounts of drag and have different mass. That profile may be fairly consistent for a large range of craft but is less likely to also work for a particularly [massive and sleak] or [light and draggy] craft. And even assuming it works for 'most crafts, it may exist a better (or just different) profile for some craft. Finally you may try to make more evident why you think people should try it. (I know it's pretty obvious in this case, just as general rule.

And I'm pointing that it have serious risks associated. Forced to choose between this and extinction we will take any risk, no matter how big. But while we still have time better to find alternatives or, at least, create ways to reduce the risks in this one. Yeah, in most cases I'd call that a huge success actually So you prefer to get hit and poisoned instead of only hit? Because that's the difference. I'll continue to consider the potential radiological accident in global scale. My reasoning: if it can cause a mass extinction by Itself is not negligible. The point remains: there is nuclear weapons and spaceflight, but no nuclear weapons flying in space. Granted there are political reasons, but technical reasons also exist.

I don't know how much energy a solar panel will produce around Eeloo, but you can quickly find out using the cheat menu [set orbit].

BonVoyage

Nobody said. Nonetheless the risks were downplayed and the probability of sucess exaggerated. In particular 'blowing up' the asteroid is very unlike to do any good. We may call a sucess if we end with a radioactive pile of rumble instead of a rock? No, theorical solution like anyything else We have no tools and no techniques. Statistics don't work like that. The asteroid we deflected* will not change when the next one will appear. In any case the value of the question remains. I'd say we seems to have more urgent matters to deal with. And since we don't have unlimited resources. ..OTOH we can't just disregard a know risk until it becomes uncontested reality. Instinctive answer: send everything we have. Ractional answer: lets come with a better plan because otherwise we are doomed. *I can't seriously consider the idea of vaporizing an asteroid.

And a brief description of your objectives.

^This . Without some imput about it the thread is just spam.

Which don't make it a reliable options. Right now on such scenarios we may have no option PERIOD. (e.g. asteroid detected too late) Or we may have some chance to rush out a risk plan to deal with the threat. But definitely we don't have a clear idea of how to deal with such scenario and have a good survival.

I think, accidentally, already adressed this: Anyway if you really think Relativity is 'wrong' figure out how to observe something that make it evident. That is the scientific method and it fits very well in scientific discussions.

What could possible go wrong? Theoricaly (1), we are just taking a weapon of mass destruction (2)that uses radioactive material (3) putting it on top a huge tank of explosives (4) igniting those explosives (5) to deploy our WMD on an asteroid we have little information (6) precisely positioning it (7), so we can detonate our WMD remotely (8) and effectively use the explosive energy (9) to overcome gravitational (10) and structural (11) bonding forces, turning the big asteroid in multiple (12) radioactive (13) smaller asteroids while also ensuring that the whole thing (14) is deflected from its collision course with the Earth. (15). Maybe we get in a desperate enough situation to go with that madness anyway.

No, the Earth will be fine. It go hit several times before and is still there. WE are the window that will be destroyed if proper measures are not taken in time. Point is, if we intercept the asteroid early enough we just need a minimal effect. Our current problem is ensure we identify the threat early enough. (After figuring out how to detect it) Intercept and rendezvous is well within the capacity of chemical rockets. (Already done). The move it part depends entirely on how much of leading time we have. (It can be quite insignificant in terms of deltaV but the point is how much mass of equipment is necessary to this. ) C) is a moronic idea.

Maybe not so much that rover don't work well but that hoppers do work much better for little extra cost.

And while FTL travel is not necessarily impossible, we also have never observed it. So any model can be 'consistent' with the observations, equally 'correct' and equally irrelevant. As Vanamonde pointed we have no knowledge about it. And while FTL travel is not necessarily impossible, we also have never observed it. So any model can be 'consistent' with the observations, equally 'correct' and equally irrelevant. As Vanamonde pointed we have no knowledge about it.

Einstein reasoning behind the constant value of the speed of light was "Maxwell's Equations says so, every other result of those equations is consistent to observed reality" . So no, the reasoning don't involve casualty at all. As @GreenWolf explained scientific models are not The Truth but just our current best approach to explain what we observe. In that context the individual ideas of the scientist is of little (to no) relevance, the value of or model is the ability to make precise predictions/descriptions of what happens in reality. In the case of relativity, many of those predictions stands just short of breaking casuality and this is an apparent 'weak point' since we always observed effects after causes. But while relativity comes close to the edge, no one got it crossing the line.

As much deltaV as what? In real life we have no reliable option. Nuclear rockets? Banned. Ion propulsion? Pitfully weak. Solar sails? Experimental.

Imagine you are guarding a large glass windows and somone throw a brick towards that window. You options: A) Move the window out of the way B) Throw a net at the brick C) Detonate a nuclear device near the brick.

I fail to notice where it was implied otherwise.

It does consider all frames of reference. That is the very hypothesis of the theory of relativity: the speed of light is the same for all observators. Given that after a century all the attempts to falsify that simple statement failed we end up with no choice but accept it's consequences*. The universe don't care if you have issues with that. Accordingly with the best info we have, that ia how it works. *Answering OP's question, one of the consequences predicted by relativity is the distortion of the spacetime. For a photon (which always move at speed of light) the space is so compressed that in the photon's frame of refence there is no here and there, the distance is 0 and the photon can transverse it in no time.

[ALT GR]+[F12] at least that's what do it for me.

Late game...fully upgraded buildings, all parts unlocked, astronauts at high level, can afford any vessel.. like sandbox.