Jimbimbibble

1: No, there isn't. 2: Kerbin City (not sure if it's still compatible but it's worth a look) 3: No, there isn't 4: Texture Replacer

You could get Kerbal Attachment System. It allows you to place/remove certain parts on EVA, one of which is a strut. You can dock it all together, then place struts between the docked parts.

Yeah, that is odd. Red Iron Crown's idea seems like it will work, though. 7% is a pretty big margin so you should be fine (unless it's 7% of 0 in which case you're hosed).

You also need to aim farther in front of it. Start your burn when you are about 60 degrees behind the mun (as opposed to the typical 90 degrees you would use for best efficiency). It's definitely less efficient, but it's safer in real life because if the engines fail on the way there you won't get stuck in space.

Also, make sure the probe's battery is not dead when you release it.

Congrats on making it to orbit! Unfortunately, if you have guys orbiting the sun, they're pretty much screwed. It's possible to rescue them by intercepting them with another ship, but it's one of the more difficult things to do in ksp. Start with smaller things like landing on minimus or mun (there are a lot of great tutorials). When you can land on Duna and return, then you might be ready to rescue that guy. Ksp has a pretty steep learning curve so just keep having fun and eventually you will get good enough to do the hard things.

You can actually use explosive decoupling. Put a couple of SRB's on top of each other. Stage when you're a couple of seconds away from burnout and it overheats/explodes the previous SRB.

That textbook is going to be useless for stock because stock KSP aerodynamics are not realistic at all. I think that a 45 degree AoA would be most useful for stock KSP, but that's going to be hard to maintain. The real advantage of having wings is your initial TWR can be much lower. A rocket needs an Eve TWR of 1.5+ at launch while a plane can get away with a lot less, which means you can pack more fuel for the same amount of rocket power.

What you're describing is about as hard as doing a J-turn into a parking spot between 2 cars. Your best bet is to raise your AP to the desired altitude, then do the plane change there and slowly bring up your Pe over a number of orbits. This will also allow you to position the satellite exactly where you want it (especially if you want them spaced a certain amount). You can calculate your required orbital period to phase into the desired spot.

Definitely sounds like a part clipping issue. Are your landing legs (or another part) clipping?

B9 has a lot of great spaceplane parts. You can get 50+ tons into orbit all inside a pretty looking cargo bay.

Another thing is the horizontal stabilizer is quite small for a plane of that size. It really should be 3X as large with some big control surfaces. Try using delta wings with the standard control surface instead of those winglets.

To answer question 3, the game is just rounding in mission control. The decimal number is the actual number.

Congrats on your landing! Some advice: get Kerbal Engineer if you don't already have it. It will give you a lot of useful data to help you build better spacecraft.

Also, keep in mind that you have a good chance of missing your launch window if you're trying to hit Duna via Mun or Minimus. I would do whatever is easiest to pilot because we're only talking about less than 200m/s here. Your best bet is just to go strait from LKO rather than potentially miss the window by days and have the burn cost a lot more dV.

Also, you don't have to do every contract. You will get a bunch of them so just pick the ones you want. As for the OP's problem, it seems like it's just your luck. The contracts are all random so eventually this would happen to someone and it looks like that person is you. If you keep playing you ought to get some of them eventually.

A good rule of thumb is to start burning half of your burn time before the node. It's not perfect but it usually gets you close enough. You will almost always have to make course corrections as it is no it's not such a big deal. A mod that could really help is protractor, which gives you information about phase angles and when to start you burn. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

The real issue here is that the rocket gets very narrow and then expands again where the payload is attached, causing it to buckle. Also, if SAS is on it actually exacerbates the wobble instead of making things better. Try putting a large probe core lower in the stack and control the rocket from there. Also, try not to use SAS on huge payloads (you can hold F to toggle the SAS for a few seconds if you need it). What happens is your SAS is reacting late because it is trying to damp motion where you're controlling the craft, but the engines are generating most of the torque. If the craft is not stiff enough, SAS control inputs are out of phase with the motion of the rocket.

If the parts in question don't have attachment nodes, you could create them by editing the part files. If they already have nodes, then do as Taki suggests.

I think we are confusing terms. When I say 1st stage, I mean the bottom stage (first to light). So what a moon lander looks like it 1st stage=4500m/s, 2nd stage=4500m/s, 3rd and 4th stage do the rest. What I do is have a service module with enough to get from Leo to low moon orbit with the lander and return without it. The lander has about 4700m/s.

You really need kerbal joint reinforcement for RSS to be playable or it will wobble to pieces as you have seen. Also, you probably need to reduce your TWR. 1.2 off the launch pad works pretty well and your second stage should be around 0.6-0.8. Your first and second stages should each have about 4500m/s.

Typically, a forward rudder causes unstable equilibrium and a rearward rudder causes stable equilibrium. Think of it like a weather vane. Do weather vanes ever point backwards?

Another option is to just increase the maximum persistent debris in settings. Unless you're running ksp on a dinosaur it should be no problem (and be careful how you design to reduce debris clutter). The game should only delete stuff on an impact trajectory.

I agree with Claw. It looks like the bottom node of the decoupler is mounted to that engine, which explains why it wouldn't work.

13-17km sounds right for stock. If you're using FAR it's much more difficult to predict and the trial and error method is your best option.