king of nowhere

Yes, but the simple fact that you did send jeb on the surface make me think that you plan to land a kerbal on eve and bring him back. your lander is a big rocket meant to carry a kerbal back to orbit - as opposed to a small, lightweight mission meant to send a disposable unmanned rover on the surface. am i wrong? now, some people consider it cheating while others consider it a fundamental part of testing, but are you aware that you can alt-f12 your rover directly on eve to make sure that the struts do their job? it saves the hassle of replaying the entire mission

likely, because i've also only seen it with mods that change the planets. opm in the old mission, rss in this one

because that requires 2 converters instead of 1. it's more mass. actually, the most effective way would be to have a land base to take care of mining, and landing a ship to only carry fuel. that, however, requires more micromanaging. ultimately, as i said, you can do everything with stock isru. it doesn't matter. you get infinite fuel, and you get it fast - because, when a transfer window comes one per year and requires half a year travel time, whether you fill your tanks in 5 days or 10 doesn't matter at all. I soon stopped using stock isru because there was no more challenge to the game

in addition to the stuff already mentioned by others, there is also a convenient mod called antenna sleep that will let you retract your antenna for a few minutes. perfect to protect them during atmospheric reentry.

if you have jeb on the surface, then i assume you plan to return to orbit. then your lander must be pretty big. chances are it's got a mammoth engine. if that is the case, i recommend not using any landing struts, the mammoth is very sturdy and well suited to the task. otherwise, it's really impossible to give feedback without knowing how your lander is made and how heavy it is. anyway, i recommend increasing the value

if i go 5x and then tell it to warp to manuever node, it tell me that it cannot because manual warp already active EDIT: it doesn't seem to do that anymore, actually. it does prevent me from ordering time warp only if i use x4 time warp.

I want to describe a glitch that's been pestering me a few times: spaceships changing orbits for no reason. Today the latest instance: here's my spaceship, in low earth orbit, slowly raising apoapsis with nuclear engines over multiple passages. Here it just stopped the engines, and it's got a 37700 km apoapsis. I reset the manuever node, click a few minutes before the next periapsis and tell the game to time warp to there When i enter time warp, the manuever suddenly rises to 8000 m/s. Not only, but though the ship moved in front of the manuever node, the game thinks there's still a few minutes left. You can see what happened: the orbit has been changed, the apoapsis lowered by 1000 km, which changed the orbital time and screwed up the manuever node. It's the second time it happened today - good thing I'm saving after every manuever - but it's not the first time I see this bug. Previously in my A'Tuin mission, while the eponymous ship was orbiting Tekto (an OPM moon that's a Titan analogue), the orbit also changed, with the periapsis inexplicably becoming lower between different saves, despite the ship never using the engines. We're talking 50 m/s lower, not the small differences caused by docking manuevers. While it happened occasionally in the past, though, it seems now it's happening every other save. Just as I write, I had to reload for the third time because it happened again. And again, it happens as soon as I activate time warp. Do you also experience it? Is there any solution?

the first option is more convenient, because in the second case your lander will take off with partially empty fuel tanks. with a converter on board, you can use your fuel tanks fully. both options are perfectly viable, though. stock isru is so powerful, it kills the need for optimization

trying to be less cryptic than the other posters: take you rocket, put a bit of fuel, you get some deltaV. Now add the same amount of fuel - for the same cost - you don't get twice the deltaV, you get less. That's because the new fuel must push also the old fuel; your rocket is effectively heavier. Worse, even after you spent all your fuel, those empty fuel tanks are still heavy, making - again - your rocket heavier. So the more fuel you add, the less it is convenient. Past a certain point, the weight of the fuel tanks alone is so much, that you stop gaining meaningful deltaV by adding fuel tanks.

it is enough, barely, provided that your ship has good aerobraking. with 1447 m/s at dres you can get a kerbin intercept during a tranfer window. minimum cost for that is 1230 m/s according to alexmoon tool. You have just enough fuel for course corrections. then you aerobrake in the atmosphere, if your ship can take it you're back. if your ship cannot aerobrake, then i recommend going for duna; with 1447 m/s you can orbit duna easily - aerobraking there is a lot easier - and it's a lot easier and cheaper to mount a rescue mission at duna. finally, in the future i recommend making sure that you can return before actually getting stuck there

No. You are misreading the deltaV map. You are in LKO. from there, according to the map, you need 930+1140=2070 to reach an Eeloo intercept, plus up to 1330 to equalize planes, plus 1370 for capture. total 4770. But, as I said, the map is not reliable when significant inclination is involved. You can save some of the price of changing inclination. So the only thing you can tell from the map is that you'll need somewhere between 3500 and 4700 m/s. The alexmoon tool, though, IS very reliable for those kind of transfers. If it says you need no less than 3657, then you need no less than that, period. That's the best possible trahjectory, if you're really good and really lucky you may save 20 m/s over that, at most. By the way, if you tell the alexmoon tool to make a plane change, it will still not work as the map. the map assumes you reach the orbital node, then make a normal burn to zero inclination. the alexmoon will calculate the best, and that will often entail small plane changes that still leave a lot of inclination but do end up getting the lowest intercept cost for unfathomable reasons. So, your craft with 3461 m/s cannot reach eeloo's orbit. Well, not unless you play smart. First thing in your favor: orbit does not mean low circular orbit. both the deltaV map and the alexmoon tool assume that you end up in a circular orbit, which requires additional braking. You can brake enough to capture around eeloo, stay in an elliptic orbit, it will save some fuel. 200 to 300 m/s, not sure. anyway, you may just barely have enough to get captured into an elliptic orbit. I wouldn't count on it, though. What you do have in your favor is that you can make gravity assists. Now, if you're in year 9, you're in trouble, because the only source of gravity assists in the outer system is jool, and the jool-eeloo transfer window happens between years 8 to 10. During that time, you could take a jool flyby (for 2000 m/s from LKO) and get a free gravity assist to an eeloo intercept, with low intercept speed. Now you can still take a jool flyby, but intercept speed on eeloo will be a lot higher. and jool-eeloo windows are every 15-20 years. You could take a trajectory spanning multiple orbits too. Anyway, that's very difficult stuff. if you aim for a straight transfer, then no, your ship does not have enough fuel.

It is not perfect. if it was perfect, you'd have 1370 m/s intercept. It's not a matter of ejection deltaV. Getting an ejection deltaV for the nominal amount does not mean it's a perfect ejection. there are many ways of making an ejection burn with 1370 m/s, and only one of them will result in the minimal injection. You have to burn normal, I think. There are a lot of factors you don't know here. You see, ejection deltaV brings you to touch eeloo's orbit. that's all it does, putting you in an intercept trajectory. for capture, you must match the orbit of your target closely. the more similar your trajectory and eeloo's trajectory when you meet, the lesser the cost of capture. This is why it is very important to meet the target body at your apoapsis, because then your velocity is parallel to the orbit, and so you have minimal difference with the target body. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/207502-struggling-to-get-to-any-of-the-moons-of-jool/&do=findComment&comment=4110563 Here I explain the concept in more detail, the pictures show it very well, I'm talking of moons but it's the same concept. For bodies in circular orbit it's not important, because if you make your ejection with the minimal deltaV then your apoapsis is on the target orbit, but for bodies in elliptic orbit and with inclination it's not guaranteed. the body in elliptical orbit is not moving exactly parallel to a circumference, so you don't want to meet it at exactly apoapsis, for example. and meeting at the orbital node is cheaper, but you still have to pay the difference in plane inclination; it's generally better to pay some of that during the ejection, but transfer with high inclinations are always very difficult. Speaking of which, when you look the deltaV map and you read 1370 m/s deltaV, you ignore the other number, 1330, written diagonally over it. that 1330 is the deltaV for a plane change manuever, because the deltaV map assumes that you are going to launch purely prograde, then make a plane change at the orbital node. So you should pay 2700 m/s. Which is a pretty inefficient way of making transfers, mind you. if you include the planar change in the ejection and injection burn, you can save deltaV, though it's harder to plan. Certainly, though, you have to pay something. The alexmoon planner, the most reliable tool there, says 3550 as minimum deltaV needed to reach Eeloo. Launching in 2:259. The transfer window in year 1, which you're probably using, that's 3750 m/s. So, your hopes of doing it with 2100+1400? nope, impossible. the deltaV map isn't all that accurate, actually, because of this assumption. when you reach the point where you understand how transfers work, you stop looking at it entirely. except the part to land from low orbit. Of course, you can save even more deltaV by using gravity assists, but that's another matter entirely.

it depends on the size of the lander. you can literally do anything there. if you want a small rover, you should use the external seat and you could get away with 500 kg.

Last week I finished building, testing, launching and assemblying my new mothership A'Twin. now I watched helpless as the kraken feasted on it. This is A'Twin just assembled. A straight, nice cylinder I already tested on saves and reloads several times without problems, but this time the ship got twisted This is a well-known bug of kerbalism, and sometimes it reverts spontaneously, so I was still optimistic This is the Fat Man taxi, which I sent to the moon; I did manage to use it by carefully adjusting the thrust of the individual engines to compensate for the center of mass being shifted But the next time I came back to look at A'Twin, I found it like this Now I am a lot less optimistic. But the next time, i found it even more twisted Some parts even spontaneously exploded I ragequitted and will leave ksp for a few days. then maybe i'll come up with some ideas to try and fix this mess.

actually, as of the latest version, autostrut seem to be malfunctioning. they are not helping with my own docking ports problems. they are not even placed across docking ports, ever. I discuss the autostrutting problems in detail in my nanocristalline diamond challenge report, parts 11 to 14. but long story short, ever since i switched to version 1.12 autostruts have never worked for improving stability of docked modules.. but to get back to the OP's problem, as I said, you still have to rotate the ship. for you see, perhaps you think of your trajectory as linear and so you think you'll have to revert direction, but actually you are orbiting a planet, that's orbiting a sun, and you burn your rockets at some point to leave the planet on a conical trajectory encountering another planet at another point, orbiting the sun in a different way.... good luck keeping track of directions. but there is a small trick to still manage turning around with minimal wobbling: a quick time warp. when you time warp, rotational movement is stopped, and that includes most wobbling. using larger docking ports also helps, though of course they are heavier. reverting to a previous version helps too, i am strongly considering it anyway, you still have to turn the ship around the first time to make the ejection burn. if the ship can tolerate that without a RUD, then it can turn around and do the capture brake too

you can watch them in the log until the end of the game session. i am sure there is a science archive somewhere where you can access old experiments too, but i don't remember where

yes, you can - but why would you want to do it? Rotating the spacecraft with reaction wheels costs you absolutely nothing. Putting more engines in the front increases the mass of the ship. By a lot! Engines are heavy. Putting unnecessary engines like that is gonna deeply hurt your deltaV budget. And it would bring no gain. To add insult to injury, having those engines in "front" would not remove the need to rotate the spacecraft, because the direction that your spacecraft will be facing when you eject from kerbin is not the direction you'll need to make the capture burn. You make the kerbin ejection burn, then you time warp to the target planet, and then you won't be aligned with whatever other planet you went to. You still have to rotate the spacecraft. Finally, don't think you can get away with "smaller engines". Depending on your target planet and trajectory, you may well find that the capture burn is more expensive than the ejection burn. And having weak engines to do it will result in loss of efficiency.

can you survive at 3300, in general? sure, my record is close to 10 km/s. Can you survive with that ship? Surely, it's got a thermal shield. Can yo survive with that shield and a steep reentry? Hard to say. Probably you can save the pilot. But the goo and batteries? forget about them. you could forget about them in a normal reentry too. goo and batteries are exposed on the outside. the goo has high thermal vulnerability, it explodes before other stuff. that one cannot survive unless shielded. the batteries have average thermal ratings, but in that position, exposed to full airflow during a brutal reentry? not a chance. Just be glad you can save the pilot. losing a couple parts during reentry is only a minor cost anyway. and next time, learn to make better reentry trajectories. if you want to save delicate parts, set a periapsis at 55 km and aerobrake gradually over many passages

The last couple months I went through a few cycles of designing new ships, testing them, trying to get them to orbit in rss with stock parts, finding insane bugs randomly shutting down my game, ragequitting and swearing I'm done with ksp, going back to work after a couple weeks, finding new bugs, ragequitting again, I eventually reached the point where I could assemble my new mothership in orbit It normally takes multiple days to assemble a mothership of this size from scratch, but I had a factor on my side: I was allowed to jump all the subships to rendez-vous, without launching them. No, I wasn't cheating; one of the many bugs that almost got me to ragequit scrambled the game after every launch, so that after leaving the launchpad I could not save, go back to the space center, change vehicle, or do anything whatsoever that would save my progress. Using alt-f12 was literally the only way to bring my ships to orbit. So, after launching them for real - a task I completed in the previous week - I am now entitled to just jump straight on the target. The only piece that didn't crash like that is the venus exploration plane (yet unnamed, temporary name Dagger). For it, I did run the rendez-vous normally It's a small, light plane meant to travel around venus. it can't come back to space, I have a special rocket for that. But I loathe landing somewhere just to plant a flag and leave immediately. This small plane has provisions to explore and perform science for one month with a crew of 3, and it weights a pittance compared to the ascent vehicle. Approaching the mothership (also yet unnamed, temporary name A'Twin because it's derived by A'Tuin and it's made by two twin parts, but I don't like it much). Had to start braking a one hundred kilometers before the encounter because Dagger's orbital engines are barely capable of manuevering. Second piece is the small rover Clamp. Meant to explore the small moons, and to be cheaper to operate than the bigger rover I use to explore the bigger places. After that, it's the time of Fat Man, the taxi ù I called it Fat Man because from the right perspective those upper engines look like arm and the lower engines look like diminutive legs. Although, given that the "arms" are attached to the larger fuel tank, I may as well have seen it as a well-muscled man. Except that those engines-legs are so tiny. Then it's Nitrogenie in a bottle. There's no nitrogen to be mined in planetary crusts in rss, so I had to make a plane specifically to go down on Titan and grab it from the atmosphere. Well, I needed a special lander for Titan anyway, this catches two birds with a stone. And now the most complex part, the Venus ascent vehicle. Still unnamed, I'd call it helicopterocket if I hadn't already used the name for my latest Eve ascent vehicle. Unlike its predecessor, to orbit Venus this rocket still needs some 8 km/s after clearing the atmosphere, so it's huge. Its rotors are encumbrance incarnate. The rotors on the helicopterocket are too cumbersome, I can't use the remaining docking ports. So I send up a couple more docking ports. Realizing I forgot the antennas, I also send them up, to be placed by eva construction. Running eva construction is always dangerous, stuff may accidentally get clipped explosively. it's exactly what happened here how long ago did I last save? I also see several pieces scrambled by the well-known alignment bug, here shown on a cargo bay. Less evident, but the big tank on the Fat Man also suffered the same fate. The bug is not too dangerous, though, everything keeps working and it will occasionally revert. And I made sure to protect the engines by placing lots of manual struts. Now that I installed more docking ports laterally, I can send the last shuttle: the Spider heavy lander. It's got 4500 m/s of deltaV, and it can release a small rover. Ideal for the larger moons, like the Moon or Ganymede, which require around 2000 m/s to orbit. It's got a couple of extensions attached to it; one for Mercury, an additional stage because going up and down Mercury requires 6000 m/s deltaV, and one for Mars, another additional stage with additional "parabrakes" Looks like those "parabrakes" are too cumbersome for docking, though No worry. A Service Probe (in the center of the image) will grab the Mars landing extension and allow it to dock on the other side. Finally, all the small pieces are docked. Damn, those are a lot bigger than I'm used to. rss forced me to make much bigger landers than I did for my previous missions. On the plus side, I'm planning to lose some of those parts early on. Still missing the big piece, the bottom of A'Twin. The part containing all the mining equipment to strip-mine celestial bodies, as well as the heavy high-thrust rockets needed to land there, and the oxidizer needed to fuel those rockets. It's smaller than the top part, but more compact and heavier, at 1200 tons dry mass. Approach, seen from the respecting cupolas The two huge docking ports are about to mate, when they stop I have no idea what's making contact. I did check all around, and I didn't see any part slamming into each other. Yes, of course I already tested the docking procedure. A bit of work with the rockets managed to push the docking to completion. Just as I was relaxing, something exploded I reloaded, and this time it went smoothly. On the plus side, this manuever won't be needed more than a handful of times. Lag and loading times are a lot better than I was hoping. One second in game is four seconds in real life, and it loads in about 5 minutes; something that may be unacceptable to most of you, but that's in line with the DREAM BIG, and a lot better than A'Tuin. Given that A'Twin is similar to A'Tuin, but bigger, more complex, with 20% more parts, and using more mods, this performance exceeds my most optimistic hopes. I was giving it a 50/50 chance of crashing the game immediately as soon as all the parts entered into physical range. I got worse lag as I was testing without the parts on top. Maybe it's because I just cleaned the pc fans, so I got better cooling. Anyway, 1349 parts and 4650 tons while half-empty. It can exceed 7150 tons when fully loaded. 2270 tons of dry mass, it's the reason I had to make a provision to leave half of it behind to reach the really difficult places. There's still a lot of bugs that can make this unplayable. But if I can get to Phobos and run the first refueling, then I'll open an official mission report.

hydrazine, N2H4. you can see if if you go in the chemical plant and look at the chemical processes to make monopropellant

does your ship work on kerbin? do you have control of the ship? as in, do you have a pilot on board? a probe core? does anything change if you add a pilot? if nothing works, it could be a bug. how big is your ship? i personally found that past a certain size they tend to malfunction

what do you mean by "launch from the mun"? do you mean you alt-f12 it there, and then launch? becuse in this case the "physics easing" simply means that the gravity is reduced until you touch ground, it's a normal safety measure that's automatically activated when you alt-f12 on a position, and automatically deactivates once you touch the ground. it doesn't cause any problem, and your problems with staging are probably not related to that. maybe you don't have signal on mun? some pictures would help

they are normally on the left of the navisphere and you click them with the mouse, but as @James Kerman explained, you need some prerequisites for them. what's your specific situation?

I would further add that fuel transfer through a claw is allowed at normal difficulty settings. at harder settings, by default it is not

you make it the same way you make any other shuttle, just with mk2 parts. i don't get your question, it's too generic to give a good answer