Spricigo

How about finding Ore in one celestial body, setup ISRU there and use it to refuel the vessel that will visitt the other bodies? Or just land a mining vessel to random location until you get some ore?

Keep in mind that all the stuff you include in your rocket for recoverability add mass, that requires more fuel to move around and consequently increase the cost. Often instead of build for recoverability is better to just go cheap&cherfull. Off course you don’t need much to recover something from LKO. You may also consider using a mod to recover some funds from dropped stages either automatically or allowing control.

You may ask him to move the thread back to Gameplay Question(use the report in your own post, send a Pm or just say " @Snark, may you move the thread for me?" or create new thread there and reference this one. Oh, and yes it seems to be something different with the game. Other people reported similar problem without MJ where the SAS is causing the problem. The vessels are still flyable (manually) if one keep closer to prograde but that is not what happens with the assisted flight.

As a matter of perspective the farthest any stock rover has been driven in my career was the grassland near KSC.

You don't need to mine, you may just launch the Rocket Parts from Kerbin and use it to build the ship. For that you only 2 modified parts: the Holding Tank (carry 3000 rocket parts weigthing 7,5t) and the Construction Port (modified junior docking port where you craft will appear). 1.Delivery the rocket parts at the station 2.Click the construction port and select the ship you want to build (load vessel menu in VAB/SPH) 3.Craft will be built expending rocket parts, energy and time 4.After the construction is complete, delivery the vessel in the Construction Port , supply it with fuel and flight. I see that is not exactly what you asked (specially point 3). Maybe the details can be adjusted with Module Manager patch. (you'd need someone else to help you with that ). I Liked the idea but see a possible problem: how it will handle a stack of parts attached to the "supply port"? Suppose I want to use some part in the middle of the stack what happens with the parts attached to that part? A workaround its to give the "supply port" the ability to disassemble and load whatever is attached to it into a KAS container from where the "assembly port" load parts, a extra custom part required.

welcome Without more info we can only say "something is wrong" . The fisrt stepd is to move your thread for the correct subforum (this one is about how to do stuff in game), so you are playing in PC without mods , pc with mods or consoles ? Follow the relevant link and read the thread about how to get support and try to make a post with the required info.

If you want to avoid adding parts you may consider simple construction instead of EPL. Off course HE also works, while more immersion breaking and more management of the "costs".

not exqactly saving the vessel but you can launch a copy of the vessel and use the cheat option [rendezvous] for a quick replacement. And, why not also use the cheat menu to recover the cost of the replacement.

have you considered something like: Orbital Construction => Extraplanetarylaunchpads Jump Gate => ESLD jump beacons Hyper-Drive => Alcubierre warp drive

Cost as mentioned for the completeness sake. Is actually hard to be much concerned with cost in KSP, when a expendable rocket can get a dozen times his cost in contract rewards. OTOH player time is invaluable, going with 'less efficient' options often means doing something early and quicker. Food for thought. Figure out what is important for you and have fun.

Same here, but only once and solved with a push of F5

After the few first answers the OP made evident that he didn't get enough deltaV to land on Eve and return to orbit. Unfortunately, your well intentioned reply is not relevant in this context. Considering the intention of landing on Eve and returning to orbit, the discussion naturally veered towards atmospheric flight ( heat, drag, ... ). SSTOs was never the subject, I'm afraid.. While NERVs have excellent Isp, the relatively low thrust and high mass may overcome the advantage in some circumstances. Length maneuvers are less efficient (higher cosine losses and possibly less Oberth effect), in this case low TWR can be a liability. Also there is the fact cost \F 10000 a piece. If cost is a concern it may be cheaper to get the required performance with chemical rockets. Finally the issue of high required deltaV may be solved with other means (gravity assist, refueling) which make high Isp engines less necessary and high TWR more useful. Reusability and efficient engines are certainly advantageous. But notice that you will make compromises to make it suitable for different tasks. Using a vessel capable of reaching Jool when your destination is Duna means you are carrying a lot of mass needlessly.

You have godlike powers over the poor Kerbals. "I want" is not reason enough? (seems to be enough to @The_Cat_In_Space's cat, which can unleash doom over the keyboard with impunity) OTOH if you are concerned about what we will think of your sadistic behaviour maybe you should not share that mischievous plans.

@invision burning at munrise to reach the Mun is a good and effective way to explain if one is struggling with setting the maneuver node. I'm genuinely curious how effectively that approach can be extended to Duna (and maybe Eve). Appreciated if you may share deltaV expenditure estimated with base in your experience.

Maybe the culprit of the problem is not MJ, but something that changed in the game update. Have you launched the without MJ before and after the update? Also is it happening with a (/few) particular craft or to all your vessels? If you think it may be a craft related issues post a picture (with CoM displayed preferable) so people may try to diagnose the problem and help you figure out a solution.

He also want to remove obsolete parts. Granted that decommissioning obsolete modules is also possible Maybe not ideal if one is concerned with just a few parts, but doable in several ways. * *personally, I'm found in collision course with a Celestial Body.

No nodes, no calculations. No precision, I guess. How much that will cost? Assuming an inexperienced player that didn't figured the details of Interplanetary transfer yet.

Many people deemed multiple ignitions of rocket engines unrealistic. I'd say it's just unreasonable (IRL) given the added complexity (thus weight, thus fuel required, thus cost). Most of the "RCSless" docking only happens because KSP don't simulate that complexity (Also magical reaction wheels, of course) Either way how realistic/reasonable the game need to be is a matter of taste.

Well, if we remove the Kerbal Factor, only the human remains as probably cause of failure.

Probably a common experience. I see KSP as a niche game. As expected, many people don't even 'get it' while a small group love it. And if your friends don't share your love for KSP be comprehensive. No one is perfect.

Sorry, but that is a gross overestimate of NERVs. 1. Good luck using NERVs in any atmosphere. 2. You can go anywhere in kerbol system without ever touching that node (or ion propulsion for the matter). Just the Swivel and the Terrier are enough to comfortable land and return from Duna, Ike and Gily. 3 . There are still several reasons to not use nuclear engines even when the situation requires a high deltaV budget. Notice, this don't mean nuclear engines are not useful (far from it) just that is not the solution to all problems in KSP. It is a good option to solve some problems, another tool in the toolbox.

Are you sure? -The center of the node is where the maneuver will be performed. Drag it to change where(/when) the maneuver occur. -There is six signs representing six direction. Push/pull to increase/decrease how much you want to burn in that direction. -Point in the direction of the blue marker (maneuver indicator) to perform the maneuver you set. That covers the basics. As @Snark pointed there is some 'advanced' functionality. Now, I really think your problem is not understanding maneuver nodes, but rather is learning the basic maneuvers, which in turn are addition of vectors (velocity + deltaV). If deltaV is in the same direction of velocity it only change intensity. If perpendicular only change direction.

1.No*. 2.Yes. *Just for the sake of completeness: Xenon cannot be produced by mining/processing in stock KSP. Keep in mind, given the fact that Dawn Engine have the highest Isp by far (4200s vs 800s of NERVs) literally an order of magnitude higher than chemical rockets), you hardly need to refuel an Ion-propelled vessel.

That says much about the quality of your analysis. Unfortunately we can't guarantee people will not ignore that because... "is just a game" let alone that people are just people. I really suggest people read, with attention, the thread, and some other obviously good stuff about rocket science and orbital mechanics. Just remember that IS rocket science, pay attention.

Exactly what I understood. My point is that, ironically, people now skim over the first post and get some of the values as the new ideal height for the transfer. (e.g. so 303km is the ideal height to transfer to Jool.) Sorry, what I meant was that a first approach considered circular orbit. Since I was criticizing* people that don't read it past the first post I didn't mentioned the later discussion, my fault. Also my fault that I did the same mistake for awhile, after I take the time to read and try to comprehend the entire discussion. Only when I noticed that I was wasting a lot of fuel/time/effort to reach a ideal orbit that was not ideal at all in my circumstances (I read the thread again, said D'oh! , read a few times more to make sure I really understood and promised to myself: not be so lazy and to pay attention when studding something. ) Hope I made myself clear now. And thanks again. *In my pedantry I rather prefer to say alerting, but criticizing is the correct word.