AHHans

Feel free to try it with another heatshield but the same engine.

Hmmm.... If you burn at a small angle to prograde then you can get some gain for negligible cost. In my "experience" the main reason not to include some plane correction in a PE burn is that it might shift the node to a worse position for the correction during the AP burn (for a Hohmann transfer and apart from convenience). So I think if you burn at a node anyhow then some angle is always positive, but that the optimal angle to prograde probably depends on the specifics of the orbit. If you only thrust parallel to the equator (== in the plane of your target orbit) then you won't cancel the velocity perpendicular to the equator / distance to the equator that you already have. So I don't think that this is the optimal strategy. The main reason plane-change burns or circular orbits are done at the nodes is mostly that only there a short (== high thrust) burn can actually get you onto your target plane. Another reason might be that it is most efficient there because your difference to your target plane is velocity not position and thus Oberth. Also if you burn radial at nearly a 90 deg phase angle to the nodes then it is easy to overdo it and increase the angle of your plane again. So my guess is that burning at an angle to prograde during most of the spiral is probably a good idea. How much of the region around the "anti-nodes" (== 90 deg away from the nodes) you want to exclude is up to you. [Edit:] This assumes that your thrust is low! I.e. that you'll have to burn with a large radial component for multiple orbits to match your planes. How do you plan to control the maneuver anyhow? This doesn't seem to be a maneuver that would be fun to fly manually. Hmmm.... That sounds wrong. My guess is that this is more a "measurement error" than an actual effect. (E.g. that the PE and AP after the burn at PE weren't 100% identical.) What I do expect is that the dV at AP doesn't change much when you are already close-ish to your target plane after the burn at PE.

If you are like me, and like to handle multiple missions at the same time(*) then I can strongly recommend Kerbal Alarm Clock. (*) Why just timewarp while your craft is in transit to Dune/Eve/Jool/wherever. Think about all the missions you can do in the meantime.

P.S. You do realize that the terrier is a pure vacuum engine and has an extremely poor atmospheric Isp? Already at Kerbin sea level it has lower thrust than the spark, not to talk about the soup that surrounds Eve.

Do I spy a Terrier engine in there? If so, then have a look at bug #23924. (In short: something is wrong with the definition of the Terrier so that it isn't protected by heat-shields closer than 21m to it.)

Yup. That's what the red part on the indicator and the red color of the burn time wants to tell you. One word of warning: that calculation is notoriously wrong while your craft is still in atmosphere - even if the maneuver node is in vacuum - and underestimates your dV and TWR (thus overestimates burn time). So don't panic if your maneuver node readout says that you don't have enough fuel while the dV calculation in the staging display says that you have enough. You don't have to delete the node, you can: pull the prograde marker in the other direction pull the retrograde marker mouse over the pro- or retrograde marker and use the mouse-wheel to adjust the burn switch the maneuver-node display (in the lower left corner, where it says how many m/s you burn in which direction) to maneuver-node-manipulation and klick on the retrograde marker manually enter a m/s value in the maneuver-node display when it is in list mode As with many things in KSP (and RL): practice makes perfect.

Well, that guide is so over the top that I never bothered trying to figure out how to "correct" it. (I never felt the need to have such a massive relay network!)

If the lander is connected to a docking port in the editor, then you should be able to detach in flight it by selecting "decouple node" from the right-click menu of the docking port. See also the discussion here: Docking Port Decouple Vs Undocking

CommNet relays don't consume electricity. So you only need enough generation capacity to get it into position (and then have some ECs to spare). I personally would add enough generation capacity to keep the probe core powered and to recharge the batteries over time. So one RTG is plenty and there is no need to spam batteries.

No, there is no such thing as a "proper" way! And you payload isn't more bizarre than the stuff that I routinely launch. (Have a look at my KerbalX collection. These are the ones that I cleaned up for public presentation.) It is just that your payload is different than what I do. Not better or worse, not more or less bizarre, just different. (But then again, my way is the only correct way. So there!) I personally like the Twin Boar better. Except my personal preferences I don't see much of a difference. (And it has totally nothing to do with the procurement manager of AHTech Industries being the sister in law of a sales manager at Kerbodyne!)

No. IMHO the best way to search for anomalies is with a RoveMate in a polar orbit. (High enough so that you see a good fraction of the planet.) Another thing is that the waypoint markers that are set further out from the center of the Kerbnet map are more and more inaccurate and become essentially useless if you set them at the rim of the planet (if your FoV is large enough).

O.K. Trying to get into orbit without the radial decouplers or the Terrier engine is rather ambitious. I haven't done that myself (yet?), I have used at least either one or the other but more ofthen than not both. I think I would use two Swivel stages though, just to have some control. (I believe you also don't have fins that move to steer yet.) P.S. Another comment: when posting screenshots of your rockets for help: don't crop them. There is a lot of information in the UI around the rocket that may be useful for those trying to help you.

Yes, that means that Jeb has recently experienced a case of uncontrolled existence failure, which confused him so much that he is now wandering the different planes of existence and is searching for his way back to the KSC. Don't worry, he is an experienced astronaut and used to navigating in the deep dark. In a day or so he will pop back into the astronaut complex ready for the next mission.

I just tested a re-creation of your rocket, and indeed if you point it more than just outside the circle of the prograde marker it is hard or impossible to wrestle it back under control. (And it is not so much drag, but the body lift that causes the instability.) Anyhow, the best way to get into orbit is to pitch over a bit fairly soon after leaving the launchpad and then follow the prograde marker until you are in orbit. Trying to do that with this rocket shows the issue with control authority that I mentioned: trying to pitch over while the Fleas and the Hammer are still attached is really hard the rocket just doesn't want to move. Sorry, that rocket won't go into orbit. To get to Kerbin orbit you need more than 3200 m/s vacuum dV, and my re-creation of this rocket has less than 2000 m/s. Have you managed to get another rocket into orbit, or is this still new for you?

Hmmm... O.K. I assume that the liquid fueled engine is a swivel, then you should have quite some control authority. How many degrees away from prograde were you trying to point the rocket?

Yes, If you expand the staging view during flight then it will show you the same information like in the editor (only on the left screen not the right). This information is continuously updated during flight (i.e. as you burn fuel and get to thinner atmosphere). Yes. It also doesn't look totally overpowered to me. From the performance values it looks like something I would build. (Except that I like to use the Twin-Boar and not the Mainsai / Skipper, so I probably would use that instead of the Mainsail, kick out the Skipper stage altogether, but add more fuel to the Wolfhound stage for final ascent & circularization. And of course your payload is totally wrong ... errr ... not the way I do things. But other than that... O.K. Don't have parts sticking out of the fairing, that just looks odd!)

Thanks. The rocket looks like it has three engine stages: the two side-mounted Flea solid rocket boosters the central Hammer solid rocket booster, which may or may not be started together with the Flea SRBs, but which will burn longer than that. a central liquid fueled rocket which is either a Reliant or a Swivel which fires after the Hammer SRB. While the first stage runs the two side-mounted Flea SRBs generate quite some drag (in particular with the two flat surfaces) so that will likely keep the rocket stable. When the Fleas are finished and detached and you only have the Hammer running then most of the drag is at the top of the rocket (the flat tip of the command pod but also the surface-attached parachutes & science experiments and the rocket in general). And with only the Hammer running you don't have engine gimbal to control your rocket, the only control you have is from the reaction wheel that is part of the command pod. So I'm not surprised if the rocket becomes uncontrollable in this situation. Some other issues: you don't have a nosecone or the small conical parachute at the top of the command capsule, that flat surface there will cause quite a bit of drag. I've never managed to get a combination of one Mk-1 command pod and two Mk-1 crew cabins to reenter from orbit without one of the crew cabins overheating an blowing up, heatshield or no heatshield.

"deliberate"? Well, yes: I didn't hit <SPACE> by accident. But after that it's every Kerbal for their own! "planned"? Hmm... Does "I always do it that way, and most of the time it worked" count as planning? "understood"? Hu?!? Whut's that? The only real numbers that I actually look out for are the 45 deg at 10 km and the 1 min time-to-apoapsis. The rest is most following my gut feelings. (O.K. and competing in things like the launch profile challenge that I mentioned earlier, taught me a bit why some things work and others don't.) My post was really trying to put what I just usually do without thinking too much about it into words. I think I also usually launch steeper (getting too high too fast) than optimal. But launching too steep "only" costs more fuel, while launching too shallow can cause the mission to fail - due to overheating, because the rocket flips out, or because you do have too much drag and run out of fuel. And what the challenge above showed me is that you can go quite a bit too steep before it costs you significant amounts of fuel. You can also do what I did: build a rocket that can only just so get into orbit and then launch it again and again until you get it into orbit more often than not. (My first design for a tourist bus was like that.) Most of my rockets don't have high enough TWR that it is useful to monitor the TWR. (If you have high TWR then you can usually save money by mounting a smaller engine until you have a low TWR rocket.) But recently I follow the "just slap an oversized booster on that stuff" philosophy of rocket engineering more often, and with those it is indeed useful to monitor the TWR during launch. (It is really embarrassing to run out of fuel on your launch after adding an oversized booster to your payload because you didn't pay attention to what your rocket is doing.) You need to add the URL of the image file itself, not of the imgur page for that image or the URL for the album. With imgur you need to get the URL for the image itself and then add ".png" (or ".jpg" if you like) to the URL that imgur gives you. So inserting "https://i.imgur.com/jbhy7Nd.png" works. (You can also right-click and select "view image" in your browser, and then copy&paste the URL from your browser.)

@AHHans looks at the "Enable Comm Network" option in the difficulty settings and goes "Hmmmm...."

Errr.... O.K. Here are my rules of thumb for when I launch "normal" rockets: pitch 5 - 10 deg when aim for 45 deg pitch at 10 km altitude (Yes, that's why I was confused about your statement.) keep TWR below 2 (throttle down if needed), in particular in the lower parts of the atmosphere keep time to apoapsis either increasing or at 1 - 1.5 min if I come in too low then I can throttle up (if not yet at max) pitch higher than prograde, switching SAS from prograde-hold to stability-assist for some time might already do it if I come in too high then I can: throttle down (preferred if not at the very start of the ascent) pitch lower than prograde: needs to be done manually, I usually only do this if my initial pitch over was too small A high drag / low TWR rocket need a higher arc than a low drag / high TWR rocket: when in doubt then drag is more relevant than TWR if it looks like a "real" rocket then it is low drag (e.g. if the payload is in a fairing and that fairing doesn't look like a pancake on a stick) high drag are craft that have many draggy parts outside a fairing. In particular uncovered connection nodes. Drag examples: this is a low drag rocket (although IIRC it has low-ish TWR); this is still a low-ish drag rocket; this and this are high drag rockets, they need a high ascent to get out of the thick part of the atmosphere quickly - independent of TWR. low TWR is when much of the ascent is done with a TWR smaller than 1.5 high TWR is when the rocket starts out a > 1.5 and/or goes above a TWR of 2 I usually have a TWR of 1.3 as the minimum of the first stage, TWR of a little below 1 is O.K. for later ascent stages (e.g. when I dump the SRBs), TWR significantly below 1 only for the final circularization, for deep-space maneuvering I prefer a TWR > 0.2 (otherwise the maneuvers get too boring)

It is not a problem of the engine, but of your rocket. The reason that your rocket kept turning is because it is aerodynamically unstable, i.e. on it own it wants to fly with the engine-end forwards through the air (in contrast to flying with the capsule-end forwards). And you didn't have enough control authority to overcome the aerodynamic forces. For a reasonably built rocket the control authority from the engine gimbal is enough to keep the rocket flying straight even if it is slightly unstable. Which engine did you use? To get your rocket more stable you can reduce the drag at the top of the rocket (if possible) or add fins to the bottom of the rocket. Here it would help a lot if you could post a picture of your rocket.

No, not autopilot, it doesn't pilot the rocket for you. It is a planning tool. I allows you to plan a maneuver and shows you where this maneuver will lead you. (You can also add more maneuver nodes to the predicted orbit/path so that you can plan a complex journey.) And it helps you to perform that maneuver, by showing you where you need to point the rocket and how much to accelerate.

Have a look at the Asymmetrical Aircraft Challenge for more inspirations on what people can get to fly - even if it looks like it shouldn't.

If you play career then you need to upgrade the tracking station and mission control to be able to place maneuver nodes. (In science and sandbox modes they are available from the start.) If you have them activated, then you can clock on your orbit in map view and place a maneuver node there, then you can modify that node - e.g. pull out the prograde marker in order to plan a maneuver in which you accelerate prograde - and it will show you your predicted orbit after performing that maneuver. It will also show a blue marker on the navball that shows in which direction you need to accelerate for that maneuver and it show next to the navball how much you need to accelerate for that maneuver and when that maneuver is. That's fine. Using a maneuver node "only" makes it more precise. (When done correctly.)

Yupp, it's called "Enable Kerbal Experience" in the advanced difficulty settings when starting a new game. Or you can use the cheat menu and give all your crew maximum experience.