Spricigo

Well... It's kinda difficult to be wrong with a maybe.

Both the HG-5 and the RA-15 are relay antennas. And given the fact the HG-5 is much weaker its effect on signal strength is negligible. Also, the direct antennas will not affect the power of the relay but will contribute to the strength of a transmission originated from the craft in question. Interesting to notice that the relay bonus make advisable to use distinct designs for relays (high antenna power) and probes l(antenna power in accordance with distance from relay).

While may be simpler and/or easier to design a aerodynamic stable plane with elevons, the issue of CoM to far back its not exclusive of canard delta. Notice , I recognise elevons as the better option for spaceplanes since its activation bring the CoD further back, contributing to stability. But the assumption that using elevons instead of canards will result in a stable designs is far from reliable. Actually this sum up the whole point. If there is more drag in front than behind of CoM the vessel will flip. It's not only probable, it's a matter of time.

The image show rockets but its the same principle for planes. For this purpose a plane is just a rocket with lextremely oversized fins. Also notice that the CoL don't show the whole situation, it only account for aerodynamic forces in one axis when the craft is in the same direction of the airflow. (and, to advertise CorrectCoL, it also only account for part that have a Lift value)

^This. Alternatively open the vessel list (load) and use the merge button. BTW welcome aboard.

Yes or no, but definitely maybe. Burning perpendicular to your velocity (normal/anti-normal/radial in/radial out) will be more efficient when you velocity is lower (ap) and a burn to reduce relative inclination is more efficient when the orbits are closer (an/dn). But the question is: how much it will cost to make both situations coincide? In particular it don't make much of a difference if inclination and/or eccentricity are low.

Maybe I'm overthinking it but, If you are pressing the agencies for "something else" instead of the projects they current have, its understandable the agencies conclude you are not as reliable they thought . Nonetheless the agencies recognize the opportunity and offer some lower profile projects, (which may not yet had received the same attention the contract you declined did). Its not that the agencies consider you incapable, but you gave then signs of not sharing the same vision. Anyway its just a matter of perspective, if you think there is no reason to reputation loss turn it off.

Its a smart trick tht i would use if not because muscular memory to tap shift & X. another point about main engines(but also usefull for RCS) no one mentioned yet: thrust limit is very usefull to tame overpowered engines, and with already precise engines at low throttle allow for cirurgical adjustments.

how it goes with launch numbering? In particular: how the sufix from LN will be added (not added/only to principal probecore/to all probecore the same/different to each probecore/other)? Or I can just use a config to provide the functionality from LN? So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish Mods

You need to load it with data (results from experiment) to generate processed data (science points) refer to the wiki for further details

skiming at the principia thread I found this: Notice that i know almost nothing about the mod. I'm just quoting the author.

1.Locate the .craft file. By default it will be .../Kerbal Space Program/saves/[save_game_name]/ships/VAB/[ship_name].craft or .../Kerbal Space Program/saves/[save_game_name]/ships/VAB/[ship_name].craft where [] denote player chosen names for game or ship 2. Upload it to a file sharing service. Being designed to exactly this KerbalX offer some advantages over a generic file sharing service but its up to your choice. 3. Post the download link in the forum. If your intention its just share a craft that you find interesting the proper place is Spacecraft-Exchange Also some challenges requires a craft file as part of the report, even if not require may be a sign of good will when some specifics of the design is particularly relevant. 4 Improve the process with the use of tools and adoption of good practices. There is several mods out there to help you design, organize and share your creations. Including images, description, flight procedures and other consideration help to increase the interest (and, also important, avoid people not interested wasting time with the craft. No one want a hater.) 5. Go back to 1

I just hope the irony was intentional. May, 4th be with you.

If my opinion worth something (probably very little) it's a nice overall design ruined by too much RCS thrusters and roundified monopropelant tank. If my opinion worth something (probably very little) it's a nice overall design ruined by too much RCS thrusters and roundified Just to be clear, the 'problem' it's that I prefer to be minimalist in regard to RCS thrusters, and this particular MP tank disgust me. Just a matter of taste

I'd go with docking port, 2x crew cabin, 3(±1)x radially attached solar panels, no-staging fairing (probecores okto/okto, reaction wheel, batteries monopropelant, antenna, something-small-I-forgot-which-I-don't-need-to-reach), tank, engine, RCS thrusters where needed. I not usually concerned about looks but I find the fairing invaluable when modellingm, Rotating one of the crew cabin to make the hatch usable is something to consider. There is also a small mod, properly named Crew Cabin Hatch, that put a hath radially to the crew cabin.

Which was good to know when I figured it out. Unfortunately that was after I used the 'trick' of activating SRBs together with the decouplers holding it... more than once, or twice. I wonder why past me had such a pleasure embarrassing me.

Maneuver nodes assume instantaneous change in velocity. With that in mind at each burns of a hohmann transfer the maneuver node is exactly in the same direction of prograde/retrograde. However in real maneuvers change in velocity its not instantaneous and you will lose efficiency anyway, if you are pointing in direction of maneuver node there is a difference in direction between velocity and burn, if you are holding pro/retrograde there is change in direction of your burn. For what I know both cases are equivalent in regard of efficiency, if something holding pro/retrograde its more prone to inaccuracies due to piloting/SAS. Its the same situation for a constant descent trajectory, for the part of our thrust we are not using to counteract gravity. Not enough data to know (from my part at least). But seems plausible a combination of both that end with a better overall efficiency (eg we start following a constant descent trajectory and finish a gravity turn) More to the point if there is a atmosphere you want to reduce drag what you archive reducing the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the airflow. In a gravity turn you are already keeping the thurst pointed in the (opposite) direction of the airflow so you get two benefits(the other being minimal cosines loses) with the same trajectory. Without delving in maths or experimenting we don't know which one is better for a airless body . To me it seems that if the gravity losses are a major concern constant altitude is better, if steering losses are a major concern gravity turn is better. But there is several catches: 1.It may be the case that we are just trading one kind of loss for another in similar amounts. It helps nothing if to reduce gravity loss in 200m/s we lose the same200m/s due steering. 2.We may be doing a efficient maneuver in a inefficient way, (eg not burning at full throttle, letting the craft wobble) 3.Other variables may be a greater concern than either gravity or cosine loss (eg low control authority). 4.Its possible that the ideal trajectory is part constant descent, part gravity turn.

If you succeed Physics Student will tell you can use the badge. Copy the address of the image and use it how you like (e.g. putting in the signature like Cpt kerbalKrunch did (and I pretend to do in a couple of centuries of game time))

Not similar to a Hohmann transfer. It Is a Hohmann transfer. What happens it's that with the 2nd burn we combine the burn to rendezvous (match velocities) with the ground. Need to go now. But coming back later for the other points.

Related question: does MJ have an optional "don't require a part" setting? I'm not an user. But I'm under the impression that option exists.

Assuming infinite TWR it's just to simplify the maths. A theoretical constructo. In practice you start with a periapsis above the ground (but not much) and start the burn before periapsis. As you burn your periapsis is lowering slowly becoming 0 at touch down (ideally) Alternatively you star with periapsis slightly below ground and start you burn and start the burn before hitting the ground. As you burn periapsis is raising slowly and become 0 at touch down. The idea there its to prevent abruptly changing your periapsis while decelerating. Notice that don't exclude a suicide burn (performing the burn as close, in time, as possible to the touch down.) The alternative landing method* is the gravity turn, which also can be performed with or without a suicide burn. *other alternative methods are what we do when failing to follow a gravity turn/constant descent.

It's that meaning, the lowest point in a orbit. No it shouldn't be underground, that is too low for a constant descent. The idea it's to never have enough vertical momentum for your trajectory intercept the ground (Except rigth before touching down). Assume you have perfect timing/piloting and instantaneous change of velocity. You set your periapsis to 1m and exactly at the periapsis reduce velocity to zero. Now you are falling, but it's so close to ground that you only reach 4-5m/s at touching down. I'm practice we don't have instantaneous change of velocity or perfect piloting so we can't be that good. We do as close as possible to this.

Personal taste, I suppose. Choosing any particular ratio is an arbitrary decision.

With 216min orbital period you complete 5 orbits while kerbin completes 3. Or 2,5 to 1,5 as described by Kryxal.