_alphaBeta_

I noticed this right away as well. Didn't realize how much I switched back and forth between the maneuver mode (bottom left of screen) and manipulating the nodes themselves until the latter stopped working for subsequent nodes. I actually reverted back to 1.8 just to make sure I wasn't crazy with the intent of reporting this issue. Managed to have a quicksave from before 1.9 and loaded it with 1.8 and 1.9 and confirmed the Issue. It's already driving me crazy; I may just stay on 1.8 for now. Hopefully this issue will be noticed and addressed.

I was mainly testing this mod and wanted to confirm that, despite the current sub-optimal positioning of the planets in this case, it would still create a viable intercept. The mod shows the most "efficient" window over the next two days (so I could make a maneuver node now essentially) has an ejection angle of 31°, Δv of 1807 m/s, and a travel time of 325 days. When I create a maneuver node to that effect, I get the screenshot I attached which shows an intercept at 176 days and a 11,707,333.4 km separation. What am I doing wrong in this scenario? I've played with the node considerably, but without using a very different ejection angle and Δv, the intercept doesn't come close at all. Yes, I know I should wait for a better phase angle for a real mission. Nonetheless, just from maneuver nodes the mod's calculation doesn't seem viable. I'm probably missing a critical step in its usage or how the information is used. Someone please nudge me in the right direction. EDIT: I should note that I'm on [1.8.1.2694], and I'm just noticing that the listed compatibility for this is [1.7.x]. This mod looks so awesome, I didn't notice. The interface seems to work fine (again I'm a first time user), but perhaps there were some other game changes affecting calculations?

I realize this isn't the most efficient transfer, but I was just testing to see what it would take to reach Duna if I had to go now. I'm having a bit of an issue though with none of the values matching up. The intercept is way off, and so is the time, unless I'm doing something very wrong which is entirely possible. I managed to get my own intercept by trial and error, but it was around 188 days and took over 3000 m/s delta v from this position. (click to enlarge)

I also thought the "parent" and "vessel" modes would be what I'm after, but I haven't found a situation yet where they actually accomplish anything different. Granted I just started playing, but they're not currently bugged are they? The symmetry groups are what got a bit wonky during numerous tries to get the game to accept my intended symmetry. Some of the same radial decouplers were listed in two different groups. This was especially misleading with engines since adjusting parameters were only applying, to say, half the engines (you should have seen that liftoff). Sometimes the symmetry also seemed to fixate around a single part when I didn't want it to (really want around the whole vessel), and pulling off and reattaching whole sections of the vessel was the only way to reset the behavior. Given all of this, it feels like a design like this is outside the normal parameters of what the game is expecting, or I'm using the tools incorrectly (hence my original questions). I never would have thought to try a design like this, especially considering it's essentially squishing multiple parts into the same physical space. Feels a bit gamey and hacky, but then I noticed the first Mun landing tutorial has radially mounted fuel tanks that provide two terrier engines. So i thought perhaps this is an expected area of play, even before some of the other connector types become active in the research tree. But building them seems problematic. Is this type of construction mainstream, or am I really outside the parameters of the game? I'm not trying to land this, just looking for more power without my overall rocket being so long. I just got heavier rocketry and the corresponding fuel tanks, so perhaps that will help. I'm still struggling getting higher stages up into orbit with enough fuel. Short of establishing an orbiting fueling station, bringing up fuel in batches and topping off exploration vessels before they leave LKO, I can only think of building larger lower stages to get something like the Mun landing tutorial vessel into orbit with a fuel tank.

I'm trying to build a vessel like this. Some of the tutorials also use radially embedded tanks that are then connected to engines etc. I've been trying to figure out how to stage these into orbit. I'm having a difficult time of using the symmetry tools once I try to add components to either of the two legs. As an example, I want to add a radial decoupler to both sides of both legs. Here's what happens: Only thing I can figure is build one side with no symmetry and then "detach" it temporarily from the main rocket. Then add the entire piece with 2x radial symmetry. This "works" but there's further complications with some of the radial decouplers showing up twice in the staging and placing structs is still problematic since they don't seem to hold symmetry around the whole vessel like that description of the mode says. Is there an easier way to build a design like this?

Thanks for the continued info. For some reason, in my head, a vessel could have only one command module. Never thought about combining some together. I get the vessel rotating when initiating an EVA when there is and is not something to grab on to. Seems random. At least it's forcing me to up my EVA maneuvering skills.

Any way to do two cabins other than putting them on top again? I had a successful landing with two behind the cm using winglets to fly the command module prograde and use the winglets to create drag in the atmosphere by pulling up. Lol, fair enough on the EVA; got a little distracted with the edit that a sentence was missed. The issue is that the kerbal leaving a hatch and hanging on the outside seems to produce a force that starts to rotate the vessel they were just in. This is happening on the "junk" the kerbals are waiting to be rescued from as well. Doesn't always happen. I've read this phantom force is sometimes the kerbal clipping to part of the vessel, but I don't see how this would apply to a single command module junk that I'm rescuing from, for example.

Thanks for all the responses. While playing after this post and before your responses, I took another look at the Science Jr since it's under research on the tech tree and I thought I may be missing something. I initially completely misunderstood what this was used for, so this was probably one of the major missing links in my progression. I had read about it, but the "materials" aspect of it in descriptions was throwing me off thinking it was only used to analyze samples. This coupled with taking a scientist along to reset them should make all the difference when my latest rocket returns from a low and high orbit around the Mun. Thanks all for the rest of the information on design and gravity turns. I've tried a shallower ascent angle with this design with mixed results. I think it's so large that it may be better to clear a good portion of the atmosphere before really laying into the turn. Will experiment further with these references and in general. Plus, I should have more parts to play with shortly. I had put the cabin on top of the command module to ensure the command module didn't go prograde on decent, which ends badly. Now that I have access to the advanced inline stabilizer, I don't think this is necessary anymore. Any way to avoid the command module nose diving on decent besides putting the cabin on top and using the advanced inline stabilizer in the early game? I'm also having a strange problem of Kerbals going EVA on both my rockets and rescue junk. Is this something I'm doing?

I'm getting the hang of this game, but have a ways to go. The big problem I have at the moment is I seem limited in my acquisition of science points which seems limited by the amount of fuel I can get into orbit to go exploring. This is a normal career play-through. My standard orbital insertion rocket is perhaps over engineered /too large for this stage of the game or I'm flying it wrong, or some combination of the two. Adding more fuel to the upper (final) stage obviously just necessitates larger lower stages to haul it into orbit. I can barely get to the mun and back. Here is a screenshot of my current design (click to enlarge): Here are the boosters removed and all engines un-shrouded (click to enlarge): Here is my tech tree situation (click to enlarge): On the science, I wasted 90 science pts on miniaturization thinking that I needed a docking port for rescue missions. Oops. Anyway, on this design I have the six boosters at 80% thrust or so, and this is usually enough to approach a 80km apoapsis. I'll wait and then fire the swivel expending all three FL-T400 tanks. From there I usually have to use up to 30% of the terrier and its two FL-T400 tanks' worth of fuel to achieve a stable orbit. For an escape to Mun I usually need a deltaV of ~850 m/s and that doesn't leave much fuel to turn a Mun flyby into an orbit, back to a Mun escape, and back to a Kerbin suborbital trajectory. Is this a normal setup at this stage of the game? The remaining fuel I wind up with seems like it's barely enough to explore and earn more science. Is this upper stage too large? I can't see adding even more fuel driving even larger lower stages. Eventually I would need more than just a command module in a respectable mid to late game upper stage, no? How does one manage this? Is there some point in the tech tree that vastly opens up the possibilities of a more fuel efficient exploration of the solar system so my upper stage isn't one huge fuel tank? I realize the Mk1 crew cabin is adding considerably to the mass being hauled around, but this allows me to work some of the tourism contracts to at least stay afloat financially. I missing some element and how to proceed. Any help would be appreciated.