Spricigo

Well, lets use Voyage as an example than. Someone at NASA noticed that was about to open good transfer windows from Earth to Jupiter, than from Jupiter to Saturn, than from Saturn to Uranus and finally from Uranus to Neptune. So they planed the flight path so each planet bended the trajectory toward the next one. How much the trajectory will be changed depends on (1) how close you get to the planet (2) how long you stay in the planet's gravity well. The direction of the change is opposite to the side you pass. In KSP we have some advantages over real life (like the fact there is no equipment wearing out or kerbal running out of snacks), but the basic idea remain the same.

Usually by not doing gravity assists. Seriously, gravity assists add more complexity than is reasonable for the average game/player. The idea is that instead of plotting a direct trajectory to your destination you instead plot a trajectory that will collide* with a different celestial body and then follow to the destination. It makes you flight time longer and requires better precision. In practice you are planing a 2nd (or 3rd or Nth) maneuver along the the way. which would be non-sense if you actually needed to expend fuel for it, but happens to coincide in time to a moment a celestial body will be there to perform the maneuver for you. Don't worry, its not collide like in "hit the surface".

My assumption was that he meant a 2nd mining base on Tylo. Just for departures from Tylo. Combined with fuel deliveries from Val it may allow for a smaller and more efficient Tylo lander/ascender for the cost of increased infrastructure complexity. Well, I deploy rovers, lander/ascender, space transports and tankers everywhere I go. But I don’t suggest to do like me because not everyone have OCD.

C'mon we don't need calculator and spreadsheets to math like: And given the fact we don't need a very precise result also we can just make [Kerbin apoapsis]+[duna apoapsis]+[some extra just in case] then read the description of the antennas to find which one has enough range. If that is too difficult go to setting and disable CommNet. /rantover

Maybe you just need to see how its done. This one makes look easy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuDbhHcuZik This one is more detailed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyRfAVwDnLs Another possibility its a setting issue: draw path conics limit too low.

@Cpt Kerbalkrunch I re-read what you said. And seems that indeed in your case Pe just outside atmosphere is the way to go. As often is the case when the physics guys talk about something, looks like @OhioBob did some assumptions and his results are for circular orbits. If you are coming from Ap around Minmus you will have much more speed at Pe. (or maybe I misunderstood his post, if that is the case I hope he show up to correct me). Of course we are ignoring the DeltaV necessary to reach Minmus. I Just have a question: what do you do to get the correct ejection angle? Minmus will often be in a bad position when the transfer window show up.

If you want to know how to calculate It's an old guide but works : Alternatively use https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ or http://ksp.olex.biz to calculate for you

Unfortunately, you are really going backwards. If you go below the gate orbit Oberth it's not worth.

Well, I don't mind to desgin to silly people also. So RCS for convenience... and sillyness. Didn't notice there was incidence, probably inadvertidely removed while moving parts around. Wing strakes are in the same branch of the windsplash, and standard canards can be replace for av-r8/tail fin with little of a difference if not available. The vertical AV-R8 was causing to much pitch torque to my likings , but the wing strakes below the wing got to close to the ground with ly-10. Maybe I should just had put the landing gear in the wing strakes but I prefer the look with bigger gears. Yes, mine is considerable heavier, If I'm not mystaken 850kg more dry mass and 3.350kg more fuel(including mp) than yours, the few times I tried to splash down the material bay splashed hard and got destroyed. So the used Is advised to stay dry and use the fact the plane dont require much ground to takeoff and landing. (fortunatelly, contrary to popular belief, Laythe has land)

hatch is only a problem if you obstruct it (but I personaly use Crew Cabin Hatch mod, name says all) Just combined some parts to show some possibilities. Same vessel in first 3 images. And I really liked the Rosie. Precise propulsion, cost 160science and requires propulsion systems The 2.5m to 1.25m adapter hold 360lf+440ox. Which is about the amount (or even less) used in the design posted in this thread.

I hope you dont mind, but messed with your design a bit: https://kerbalx.com/Spricigo/B-Wing4ps Docking port, RCS thurster, monopropelant(maybe a bit more than necessary), some extra liquid fuel and oxidizer. A good pilot can find a better flight profile, however low imput ascent is part of my design philosophy. Further development may be some wing incidence or aerospikes instead of terriers. But I'm satisfied enough with the current design.

Since he started the post with the word " Conceptually" I suspect may be just theory. Maybe he is working to bring this theory in practice. But a TWR around 0,1 will result in the long burns even longer. Something much easier to endure in theory than in practice. And there is the case of thing tha in practice dont follow the theory. In result I want to see someone trying it even more.

there is a saying "the Devil is in the details"... Congratulation on a devilish rescue.

I think you don't need to plan so far in the future

rescueing 14 kerbal from surface of eve? That is a challenge. 1.Provide a persistent file. 2.Set a scoring system (like "total mission cost, lower is better better") or create a badge 3. post it there:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/25-challenges-mission-ideas/ alternativelly go to the subforum above and look for challenges related to bringing kerbal from suface of EVe for ideas.

Notice the check marks at each post? Click the one of the post you think it's the best answer answer. It will mark the question as answered, which is helpful to people browsing the forum seeking or offering help.

Usually necroing 4yo threads are not useful, but maybe this mod will be

@GoSlash27 you are correct. However my point was about why, in my rationalization, the reputation loss for declining a contract make sense. Notice, I didn't said it's the best way for the contract system work...Jbust it make sense.

@bewing getting 8 engineers in a row don't means it's not random. This combination have exactly the same chance of any other combination possible. Also notice, after 8 engineers you had a pretty good chance(1/3) of getting the 9th in a row, but didn't got. BTW someone reading this post will get 3 pilots in the next 3 rescue. Statistics is telling me.

Game time or player time? Which one you are concerned? For game time probably multiply vessels is better. For player time a spaceplane doing suborbital hop (maybe isro capable) is probably better. In any instance remember to use biomes boundaries to your advantage. Also, just checking, it's stock or there's any mod that can influence which method you'll use?

Which is irrelevant since you need to pay for hiring while you get paid to rescue. And the chance to get a occupation you need (even assuming that you only need one type) are far from low. 33% in the first rescue, 55% in the first two, 70% in the first three and statically certain in the long run.

There's a science bonus for recovering a craft based on what flight situation it reached (atmospheric, suborbital, orbital, flyby around celestial body X,....) However you receive this bonus once for each situation. Also a single flight will only provide the most valuable bonus available. So, if you collected the bonus for orbital flight before the one for suborbital maybe the most valuable in this flight.

The vector is still a bad option. Even the Swivel may serve you better in a mixed cycle(jet and rockets) spaceplane. I strongly recommend you redesign the whole vessel. Define what the purpose will be and than chose the hardware that allow you accomplish it with less. Specifically less mass, less drag and less cost. Also, use the collective wisdom of this community. I can demonstrate how effective this is with a link :

Giving up?! How such thing passed your mind! NO KERBAL LEFT UNASSISTED!! Well, unfortunately I have a life, such things like "family", "friends" and "work" tend to rob the time from my very important space program. And to make things worse I designed my mission in such way that after 50 years I'm yet to rendezvous with Valentina (Jebediah reminder me all the time she's remaining in space longer than he. For Oberth, she's stranded!) At least I already reversed my orbit. About gravity assist: Eve it's not so good for orbit reversal, but for setting up the encounter with Jool it can help with a fair amount of deltaV.... If you don't mind the extra mission time.

This line alone make me want to give him a like. Do you have a link to the video?