Linkageless

Awesome, thanks @Aelfhe1m ! It shouldn't be too daunting to insert those VESSELNAMING sections manually.

I recall seeing odd things like vessels retaining a different name after collection of some module belonging to the other vessel. The new naming priority is a brilliant solution but I've yet to see how this can be retrofitted to vessels launched without, or indeed tweaked later.

Welcome, tinygrox, we're glad you are able to participate! I imagine the site maintainers will appreciate any details you can provide, perhaps using the 'Contact Us' link below. From some very brief reading on the matter I believe a common fix may be to use www.recaptcha.net for the api call, rather than google.com. I'm on my phone so haven't been able to verify exactly what this site is using.

I've just spotted you have already answered the question of which container is chosen. That's certainly in keeping with the simplicity aesthetic. I've yet to try ASS, but still find myself longing for FS with two buttons. Thinking about this, however, it seems unlikely to be possible.

Works on 1.8.1 stock+DLCs with no discernable difference. The CKAN meta data could do with an update to reflect this. This mod is excellently reliable, no doubt through it's simplicity. I've yet to work out how the mod chooses which container to populate with science. This also applies to when two vessels with science dock; how does it determine which one it transfers the results to? I feel it would be useful to be able to turn the automatic science transfer on/off, and even better be able to specify where to send new science results. Is this likely to break that wonderful simplicity?

v0.2.0.5 on KSP 1.8.1 in Linux... all looking good so far, I can get all three types of batteries in the SEQ-9 and SEQ-3. What I haven't worked out yet is how to mount one on my vessel in the VAB. They don't have attach nodes (as per the stock radial mount batteries) but don't seem to want to radial mount to anything. I can turn them round from the horzontal with the WASDQE keys, but when I try to place them they just stay with the not-attached red halo. Very good work, @linuxgurugamer, the idea that these can be vessel mounted also is beyond my expectations!

Yes, this is what I remember, the actual distance is independent of the plume displayed, but except as @Laie says, varies by engine. I don't know if this is exhaustDamageDistanceOffset or another attribute, but RCS thrusters don't seem to be constrained in this way. I've knocked up a mining/towing vehicle in career as I had a contract sitting around anyway, will do some experimentation and report back when I get chance.

While assembling the fairing, if the writing goes orange it is indicating that it's clipping a part and won't let you set that bit of the fairing. In this case try a bit wider. When you bring it together at the top it offers to 'close fairing' but again this is only possible when it is not clipping anything and the writing is green. It is actually possible to close the fairing onto parts above, so its use is not limited to the top of a vessel.

I wonder if larger rover wheels or landing gear would help. Irrespectively, any slight bump you hit at speed will still flip you. As suggested, aerodynamic down force is the conventional solution, but I like Fierce Wolf's slightly more kerbal solution of a separate engine for downforce. If you're feeling creative and have breaking ground or a robotics mod, you could have a variable pitch on your main engine to angle it up slightly. Be careful about the relationship between centre of thrust and centre of mass, and watch your centre of lift, especially if you have any components providing lift. A couple of fins either side of the engine nozzle might just help keep it straight, once you have downforce sorted out.

I recall finding lack of thrust due to the plume being blocked experimentally quite some time ago, but can't certify that this is still the case in 1.8.1 (although I would expect so). It's always possible I dreamt this so won't mind being proven wrong.

Wow! That's going to need a lot of Scientists! I'd like to see those legs on robotics to make it walk around like a spider

A higher TWR on a vessel attached by klaw to an asteroid is undesirable, especially pushing. It's hard to precisely line up on an asteroid and that misalignment puts strain on your stack, and may cause the combination to drift off target or worse oscillate terribly. The Kraken awaits those that push asteroids too hard with inadequate setups. Adding some reaction wheel/RCS pods, with their own klaws, distributed around the asteroid may help stabilise things and allow higher thrust. If you do start to oscillate, back off on the throttle (which is effectively lowering your TWR). Some have had more luck towing asteroids rather than pushing, but its not something I've tried in a while. The main considerations for that would be: 1. the length of the plume from your engines in vacuum (if it's thrusting against the asteroid, that will decrease the effective thrust you get) and 2. the strength of the boom and klaw holding your ship to the asteroid. (I understand the long mk3 parts are perfect for this) I'd say it's probably a lot less bother to go after class B & C than the largest ones if you need to alter their course a lot. Class D and E tend to need much planning and patience in the absence of experience.

Nice idea! Trim controls on the sticks for pitch/yaw of spaceplanes could be quite handy. I'd expect USB connection would be essential; don't know if modern RC controls commonly provide this and if they're readily recognised.

Absolutely! RCS is marvellously convenient for tweaks to eventual intercepts, etc. I'm preferring vernors for larger vessels so there's no need to carry that mono. A good tip above is to disable the Pitch, Yaw & Roll attitude control on the thrusters in the VAB so it doesn't mess with your periapsis by attempting to stabilise the vessel.

Not something I've experienced, other than extreme slowness when my part count became silly. Presumably everything else has been responding normally in a timely fashion for you. Does the log/ debug console provide any clue?

Does the wording of the contract specify you must also simultaneously spot, say, 10 asteroids to qualify? I forget. I find the devil is often in the detail with such contracts.

The little ones built into your command pod or some probe cores. They still use electricity. Some other ways: 4. Vernor RCS thrusters (using LF+Ox) 5. Additional engines mounted in different directions, perhaps controlled through action groups. 6. Jeb getting out to push. (Yes, it can work!)

There is a wiki page that gives an approximation also. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/CommNet You should be ok if that's what is on your lander and it's on the kerbin side of duna. Beware of the potential for aero forces in Duna's thin atmosphere, they might be enough to snap off the deployed antenna, in which case you'll be stuffed without a backup. I tend to prefer fixed ones for anywhere with an atmosphere.

* I should add, I forget at what level tracking station and if you need anything above basic SAS on the probe core. The small Remote Guidance Unit is a good choice if you have the tech. This is all assuming you want to control from KSC.

Correct, as long as the probe has line of sight to the relay, and the relay has line of sight to a Kerbin ground station or another relay that does have line of sight. I'm assuming you've upgraded your tracking station a bit, but Duna should not be too much trouble with the larger relay antennas.

I'm glad you achieved a rendezvous, that's essentially the hardest part done. I can't speak for console but on Linux/windoze the default is to have forward thrust away from you no matter which way the camera is pointed, but only on the orbital plane, as displayed on the navball, as I recall. Up and down are effectively normal and antinormal. I must say it is a little confusing compared to vessel manoeuvring, but I expect they wanted to somehow highlight the difference of context with a jetpack with this weirdness. I recall seeing an option to change this in the controls setup but haven't tried as I was already used to it. If you are able, from the EVA kerbal, set the rescue ship as target, and use the 'target' speed display (rather than orbit speed). Point yourself at the rescue ship and thrust only a little. Try to trim your prograde indicator with left/right up/down so you're heading directly for it, and trim off any excess speed with a bit of reverse thrust. Less than 1m/s is probably adequate. When you're a couple of meters away, try to bring yourself gently to a stop, then point at the appropriate ladder/hatch and thrust forward very slightly, with any up/down that might be needed. Be ready to grab, then board. An advantage of external command chairs is you can board them from a little distance, while you have to be pretty much touching a pod hatch before you can board. As for which controls for forward/back and sideways, I can't help you other than suggest looking for the controller setup in the main (initial startup) setup menu.

The relay antenna is for communication with KSC, which is the place from which you remotely control the probe core. The presence of Jeb on this mothership/relay is regrettably irrelevant and doesn't help you. Perhaps there is a mod for the sort of pilot based remote control you're imagining.

On my part, I'd been too lazy/preoccupied to investigate. I didn't start using RCS translation until I was regularly docking large vessels at which point I realised I was putting myself through hell for no reason. In the real world, my astronauts would be frozen corpses heading for an eventual reentry viking funeral!

Thanks, @5thHorseman . I am pretty sure you're right, and I stand corrected that for a rigid object it makes no difference. Having thought about it I think I established the practice of putting reaction wheels in CoM before finding autostrut. Absolutely with @Foxster on saving the RCS, those are excellent tips for economising on monopropellant. I tend to only turn on RCS (if I have it) once I'm pretty much stationary and lined up with the target maybe 100m away, but disabling attitude adjustments as he describes is undoubtably more efficient. Targeting the docking port on the other vessel is the next useful thing to do once you have come within 100m or so (double click, or right click on it). Switch your navball mode from 'orbit' to 'target' if it hasn't automatically, and select the target SAS mode, if you have it. To give yourself time at that point, ideally you should be as close to stationary as possible compared to the target (0.0m/s). At this point excess weight (like spent tanks as Foxster suggests) should have been shed or you'll be having to manage their momentum also. If you can turn the target so it points to your Docking port in the same way, that often helps ('control from here' on the port's right click menu will be necessary if you have it anywhere other than on the nose). Be sure to select a docking port of equal size, I once spent an age trying to use the inflatable Docking port from making history not realising it was 'Jr' sized. After this, quicksave, and approach very slowly, perhaps only 0.1m/s for the final few meters. Tiny bursts from your RCS translation controls while keeping the prograde circle and target in the centre of your navball. Actually killing all speed when ~0.2m away is possible, at which point if you're perfectly lined up the two ports will magnetically attract each other. With luck, they will be docked now, but if they are just gently touching at a slight angle, you can turn off SAS to see if the magnets pull you together. If you bounce off, you've come in at too much of an angle or two fast, try again more slowly. Don't be afraid to abort by backing away if you're not satisfied it's perfectly in line. Good luck, it's very satisfying when it all comes together! Clearly and succinctly put, @VoidSquid I missed that! I think in future I may set this up on new craft in the VAB as the only things I want RCS attitude on are captured asteroids. It plays havoc with sensitive orbital rendezvous too!

The majority of your attitude control is definitely coming from your pod reaction wheel and the Advanced Inline Stabiliser below it. While thrusting, the swivel will provide a little bit of attitude control, but nowhere near what the (supernaturally effective) reaction wheels do while they have electricity. Ignore this... [For future construction, I'd suggest placing any Stabilisers closer to the middle of the stages you wish to control. Ideally they should be at the centre of mass of those stages. The slow, awkward response you've experienced is due to lack of leverage, a bit like trying to lift a ladder from one end, rather than from the middle.] Actually this is irrelevant as long as the vessel is rigid.