Spricigo

@AeroGav I think this https://kerbalx.com/Spricigo/Valiant may be enough to bring Val back. There is room for improvement but I don't care much more even for crafts I use. Don't worry If some fins explode during ascent don't worry, its part of the procedure.

Maybe I was a bit blunt and not clear, sorry. My comentarry was more in response to the suggestion of of canards. For planes with scarce lift and not much of it provided by canards itsellf can still have a hard time toking off. On the other hand, if this is not a concern, too much plane behind the landing lags can result in tailstrikes. As always therre is compromisses to take.

Agreed. My point was more "CoL indicator don't show the whole picture" than the concern about the terms itself.

accordingly to http://www.quantumg.net/rocketeq.html 14t dry mass, 2t fuel, Isp 800 results in 1046m/s. Just running some number: A single Kickback can provide 2km/s with TWR @launchpad 5* and @burnout 17.5* for a payload of 6t. From there a spark can provide 3km/s with initial TWR 0,33 assuming a dry mass of 2,2t. I will mess a bit with the idea later, but I think we are not too far from a reasonable vehicle. Notice that I started with the booster, usually its better to design in reverse order of use. *obviously, thrust limit its your friend

Not quite accurate. Actually CoL also change dynamically and you can fly pretty well with CoL in front of CoM if other variable are correct. The point is that CoL its neither CoDrag or CoPressure while if affects both. Also important that the editor's CoL indicator is itself a approximation that only take in account parts that have a Lift Value listed in description. From the thread above:

Just notice that If you keep the wheels too far from the CoG it may be still difficult to pitch up. Consider the torque relative to the wheels, you want the [aerodynamic arm length]x[aerodynamic force]>[weight's arm length]x[weight].

An image helps. A disproportional drag may be caused by an mismatched joint, however MK2 parts are know to be considerably draggy for their performance. You may just 'close' the stack with a nosecone. Or even design a twin fuselage plane. Yes, however vertical symmetry can be a concern.

I'd go with my typical rescue infrastructure. However I don’t think you'll have anything similar in place. It's up to you to put a compete rescue system in place or just send a single trip vehicle to get Val. In game time don't seems to be a concern, waiting for the next low deltaV interplanetary transfer windows would be ideal. Also since Val is a competent astronaut docking is not necessary if you keep the seats accessible for EVA transfer.

Again, its just a unintended feature. I think "experiment" its the word you are looking for instead of exploit.

If we decide to change the orbit using only gravity slingshot how high we are(relative to the central body) become irrelevant. Yes, the deltaV required will be proportional to the inverse of the distance, however the deltaV available will be proportional to the distance. In fact the only thing that actualy matter its the proportion between mass of the ship and mass of the planet, thus, for a given ship the only important factor its the mass of planet. (ok, there is some slight inaccuracies in that explanation, but the general idea is there) So appart from the mass of the planet, the only other consideration is how much deltaV it takes to get to the planet. That is why I personally choose Eve/Kerbin, less deltaV to reach (also assuming infinity time/patience available) pretty much standard practicy IRL e.g.

Symmetricral Systematic Assymetric Symbol of Excelence in Design (for mixing raidal and lateral symmetry modes)

Assuming no time constraints? With the objective of minimal fuel consumption? Plan C: multiply slingshots around Eve and/or Kerbin. Plan B, If plan C is not an option. Edit: Throwing a bit of aerobraking in the mix for bonus kerbal points

Actually you may tell us what tech us available and what is the plane's purpose. Thus we can present some design proposals and a few pointers to better utilize it. Alternatively a image of your plane so we can help improve it

At sea level the terrier is heavier, less efficient and less powerful than the Juno. It's just terrible for what you want and limiting the thrust make it even worse. If you limit the thrust you use less fuel.

Ahh! My suspicion was right then. Actually the problem is we all didn't notice the limits of the equation also we didn't correctly accounted for some symmetric situations. We actually didn't proved opposite arguments but argued s lot about the same thing. If you multiply u by -1 you revert the planet's path. If you multiply v by - 1 you revert the ship path. Again a case of symmetry. The results you get in those reverted paths must be equivalent to the base case. So if with v and - u we find that change in velocity is -2(u+v) that is equivalent to - 2(u-v) we obtain if we take - v and - u. If we take 0 and -u the change of velocity will be 2u. If we take -v and 0 change in velocity will be 2v. 2v is equivalent to 2u, most of our discussion is moot.

Let me rephrase : multiply u and v for those scalars. A vector multiplies by a scalar is vector. I'm not sure what contradictions are you referring to. Please explain.

OK, take u=1 and v=1, u+v=2 Now u=-1 and v=1, u+v=0 Now u=1 and v=-1, u+v=0 Now u=-1 and v=-1, u+v=-2 We called orbital velocity -u and ship velocity v for convenience but the equations need to works for any valid combination of orbital velocity and ship velocity. And it need to keep working if we do any valid transformation also.

V=0 Edit: that is why I said "maths..." the same calculation "proved" opposite arguments because no one noticed that either u or v need to be 0. A 180° turn it's impossible with gravity slingshot only.

If you have object A travelling at v, hitting another object B travelling at -u (both in inertia frame), and assume B is huge such that its own velocity change can be neglected. Then object A in B's frame has velocity v+u. A totally elastic bouncing changes the sign, so after bouncing, A has velocity -u-v in B's frame. Transform back to inertia frame(both frames are inertial), it is -2u-v. In particular this is not -(2u+v). Total velocity change is thus -(2u-v)-v=2(-u-v) =2v-2u=2u-2v (not a mistake) Maths...

I actually need a bit of sleep and lots of coffee before continuing the discussion. On the bright side at least I will be using a keyboard later.

Please, show me why the frame of of reference I choose is incorrect. I'm pretty sure both the planet's and the star's are valid inertial frames of reference. The laws of (classical) physics are invariant for inertial frames of reference. Actually your -v is his "approach at the speed v+U" and your v is his "recede at the speed v+U". You use signal while he use words.

...and now In reaserching this subject instead of playing KSP. Thanks you, stand-up guys!* @Red Iron Crown is correct about twice planets orbital velocity, I found this explanation: Where v its the velocity of the ship and U velocity of the planet in the Star frame of reference. ok, if v is the ship's velocity relative to the planet, U is the planet's orbital velocity. We can find the magnitude of ship's velocity relative to the star using the rule of cosines |v+U|²=|v|²+|U|²+2|v||U|cos α where α is the angle between v and U, notice that -1<cos α <1 |v|²+|U|²-2|v||U| <|v+U|²<|v|²+|U|²+2|v||U| (|v| -|U|)x(|v| -|U|) <|v+U|² <(|v| +|U|)x(|v| +|U|) |v| -|U| <|v+U| <|v| +|U| *dont worry I love you all and only used this word for theatrical purposes. (but yes, 4h reasearching this instead of playing KSP)

well... this kind of contracts is actually fairly simple when you know what to do. But how you describe it seems like you mostly performed the manuevers at random without even noticing which ones helped you and which ones were a waste of fuel and effort. Looks like you had a opportunity to learn a bit about the game, either by experimenting or seeking help, and missed it. And something like: make me wonder why you waste your time and our time asking something you already decided it was too difficult to undertand the answers. Personally, I think that if you don't know you can learn, and if you know you can teach. And there is no shame in teach or learning something. But my intention was not to pratonise you. I'm really there to offer some help. If you decide to accept our help just ask and we will do our best. Just notice we are all human and as such sometimes feel disrespected and become distressfull. Peace To fix you orbit(If you still have enough fuel): 1)Point and hold prograde direction and burn to get a highly eliptical orbit. Somewhere beyond minmus orbit may be enough, ideally as far as you can within Kerbin's Sphere of Influence (SoI) 2)Wait until the ship reqach the highest point of your orbit (apoapsis) point to retrograde (but don't hold retrograde, hold orientation instead) and burn until you have the same speed in the oposite direction. The lowest point of your orbit (periapsis) should be touching the target orbit. 3)wait again until you reach periapsis again, point and hold retrograde and burn until your orbit match the target orbit. 4)if the orbit is out by a few degrees inclination you need to burn antinormal when passing over AN or normal passing over DN If you really have lots(and lots) of fuel you can just burn retrograde anywhere and to reverse your orbit. Description of basic manuever here . You can also look for tutorials at Youtube, just be carefull with old videos the info they show may not be valid in curent game version.

If you don’t mind mods: among other thing you can add custom waypoints,

May be just me seeing what I expect to see, but seems that the orbits drawing show exactly that. 2nd and 3rd screenshot target orbit goes clockwise, vessel goes counter-clockwise. I know that if brute force don't solve your problem is often because you are not using enough. However while you are spanking the problem try to understood why something is working or not. In this case try to understand how each burn is affecting your orbit and why the same burn at different points of your orbit give different results. Learn from your mistakes .