paul_c

It depends what you mean by "requires parts". As previously explained there are the "test xxxx part" contracts which will specifically provide access to xxxx part for the contract to be fulfilled. But you'll be offered contracts that need (or more accurately, it would be a great help if you had) parts and facilities you don't yet have access to, for example 18t limit, 30 parts limit, bigger rocket stages etc. I am sure some people can skilfully do the jobs with the restrictions but it makes a lot of sense to unlock stuff and make your progress/make life easier. There is no specific check for whether that contract can be fulfilled with the current parts and facilities you have.

Mun landing is the worst. With Minmus or Gilly, its so low gravity it makes it slow and easy. For Duna and Kerbin, you have the atmosphere so its easy to drift down on a parachute and do a bit of retrofiring the rocket to get you to landing speed. My advice for Mun landing is to get all the horizontal speed off before you are anywhere near landing, then don't be afraid of using a bunch of fuel to fly/hover/go up again, and don't be afraid to change your chosen landing site. You won't see a flat area until you get reasonably close anyway. Also you can land in a crater if the bottom is flat, its the sides which are too sloped. I'd go for a quite wide design - 1.25m parts with extra stuff stuck on the side, or 2.5m fuel tank (both with landing legs). And a TWR of about 3-5 seems to work best for landings, it gives you control to hover then gradually lower it down rather than having to go on/off the throttle.

Swivel: 215kN Skipper: 650kN Mainsail: 1500kN If you want to fine tune thrust/TWR, you can strap on the Thud (120kN) to bridge the gaps. If the Mainsail isn't enough, then its time to join up fuselage sections/fuel tanks side-by-side for any amount of extra. Or save up the money/science for the even bigger engines available.

It was the Draim 4 satellite constellation which I'd vaguely remembered about. Its an ideal, but I find it terribly hard to visualise the 'shape' of the tetrahedron shape, especially when slightly eccentric orbits are involved (which gives more margin of error over position). So I chose to do a 6-satellite constellation for mine.

Aaaaah ok it sounds/looks like a bug. I wonder if it is specific to a feature/design of that vehicle, or Duna.

For an orbit to change that radically over Duna, it must have a ton of delta V or TWR or force or whatever. Is it stable on and off the (engine) power? Can you hold a position? Does it have SAS? Are the pitch/roll/yaw indications off the scale when you or the SAS is trying to turn it, etc? What is the TWR? You don't need much for orbit changes, in fact the less the better if you can fit a smaller/lighter engine.

What kind of probe, and what else is connected to it? Do you have a screenshot?

Put it another way, why 100?

I don't think 3 would do it due to "over the horizon" considerations with the missing one served by KSP base? ETA as the error in positioning those 3 satellites --> 0, the global coverage would --> 100% (but never achieve it). So, the textbook answer is 3 but the practical answer is 4? Its debatable!

Having 1000 relays won't boost communications 1000 times either. In fact.....you can achieve 100% planetary coverage with 4 relays, if they are in the right orbits. I keep meaning to write up my "build a relay network around a planet/moon" tutorial.

yes

Science labs are fun and a good way to earn a lot of science quickly. However its a bit unfortunate the terminology of "data" is a bit misleading. There's 2 kinds of data, think of it as "data for transmission" and "data for experiments". Every scientific instrument, including EVA reports and crew reports, generates "data for transmission" each time it logs a result. This can be transmitted bac to KSC, if you have an aerial and a path back home with enough (transmitting and electrical) power to reach home. When it arrives, you earn (a proportion of*) the science value. Essentially this is once-only per biome and situation, but some science can be run a further 1/2/3 times for a bit more science (not much more though). A scientific instrument can also supply "data for experiments" to a science lab. The science lab (with a lot of electricity, time and scientists on board doing research) can convert this into "science", then transmit that science back home (if it has comms). Now, this is the important bit. To be able to supply "data for experiments" the two things (as far as I know....) need to be physically linked together. It could be instruments attached to the outside of a science lab, or something on the other end of the spaceship, possibly attached by a docking port etc. It can even be a Kerbal holding that experimental data and physically transferring it. But I'm unaware of any way for a remote instrument to transmit TO A SCIENCE LAB, I've only seen them transmit their data back to KSC. *Note that for some scientific instruments, transmitting back home only earns a fraction of the science. For example surface samples. To get the full benefit, you need to return them home - either the instrument or the capsule/container its in. While others eg crew report/EVA report earn 100% so there is no further gain from returning it home.

Science labs don't need data transporting by a rocket. They don't actually receive data, they receive input from attached scientific instruments and TRANSMIT science once they have processed the experiments/data. Or are you confused on the terminology or thinking of something else?

The same situation occurred again today, here is a screenshot: This is how far the pilot had drifted once I'd done the swap: Yes they 'drift' once let go but at a slow rate. No need for big control inputs and easy/controllable to get back into the spaceship with minimal jetpack mono. Or, if you're really cautious, you can plan for the pilot to go in last so you never need to do an EVA swap. On the scale of complexity I'd put from easiest to hardest: Do an EVA spacewalk Rendezvous (a skill needed for a 'rescue Kerbal from orbit' contract) 'Rescue Kerbal from orbit' (once you've done a rendezvous above, the Kerbal needs to travel maybe 200m-2km thru space on jetpack, depending on how good the rendezvous was Docking Docking without RCS

That design of rocket/spaceship has a number of additional challenges to flying it. Its not (rotationally) symmetric, and it has wings which will generate lift sideways on ascent. Did you check the centre of thrust goes through the centre of mass?? I've never done a (working) spaceplane so I'll leave it to others to comment on those details, instead I've concentrated on "normal" design rockets. They're hard enough without the extra considerations. Additionally, the satellites appear to be unpowered (no fuel or propulsion). Satellites have these, so they can be lauched at a low orbit then reach a higher/different one, or change their orbit (or maintain it in the real world). I suppose in theory its possible to launch multiple unpowered satellites into orbit by putting the launch vehicle into the right orbit, but in practice there's a good reason why the satellite has a little engine and fuel on it.

I'm lost. I don't know what a T-12 is. Just for clarity: 1. What contract(s) are you doing? 2. What are the main parts of the vehicle you've designed, to fulfil this contract?

Is this the "tube"? https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Structural_Fuselage That's 100kg, to contain some batteries for a mission that doesn't need much electrical demand (and adds a bunch of length to the vehicle too). Unless its some kind of dual purpose mission I am not understanding. I have never found a use for that part. If I need batteries, I stick them on the outside and suck up the drag, or use the cylindrical ones and accept the length it adds.

...but if they're recovered after splashdown?

I used the Z200 battery. Yours probably had more battery capacity than mine (I am guessing you used a bunch of Z100s or Z400s?), but for the mission I was doing, the battery was enough and didn't run out. So no tube needed nor present.

Sorry, my vessel didn't have an empty tube - why would it? It just adds length and weight. I am not even sure which part you mean.

They don't float away (that much). I had a situation today where I did a 3 Kerbal rescue with a 3-crew vehicle (and only one hatch), because of the order I'd picked them up I needed to leave a Kerbal "floating away" while putting another into the vehicle. He drifted 10-20m at most, and was a non-issue to get back in. Once you're more familiar with the keyboard controls for RCS jetpack and [ ] to switch between Kerbals/vessels it becomes much easier and quicker.

Fair enough, its a game not a true-to-life simulator (although it as elements of a simulator). Unlike other games, there is a broad depth of different areas it can engage you in. Fair enough if you try one of these areas and don't like it or get frustrated by it. I spent ages playing before I got into "docking" and now I like it. Previously, my few attempts were a bit random. Its one of those things which you need a VERY methodical approach, otherwise it will quickly go bad. Similarly, landing (on another body) is somewhat elusive until you "have the knack" of it. Not helped by the limited controls and equipment you start with - but then that's a good simulation of the early days of space exploration so its fun and a challenge. I don't think its my place to tell another forum member what to do, all I can do is relate to my own experience in playing KSP, it has kept me engaged far longer than the average game and is quite challenging to succeed in all aspects.

Kerbin -> Minmus Orbit return, or Kerbin to Minmus landing and return?

Some engines are very inefficient in atmosphere, but are good in a vacuum. For example, the Spark is 16.543kN in atmosphere, but 60kN in vacuum. Your rocket probably took 3000m/s to get near/to LKO, then that remaining reported 1000m/s was actually 4000m/s in vacuum, thus is was enough to do a Minmus trip (numbers are approximate to illustrate the effect).

Rocket construction is a skill in itself. Rendezvous is a skill in itself. Docking is a skill in itself. KSP is great at simulating those things, so that you can play the game and get better at each. If you're taking shortcuts or using add-ons to compensate for the lack of skill/ability you're somewhat missing out on what KSP has to offer!