Kryxal

If you do that, it might be worth running the center engine alongside the boosters and adding extra fuel on top of the boosters. Cross-feed on the decouplers and instant drop-tanks!

It's too bad there are no inline engines with about half the thrust of the Reliant ... I wonder if using Thuds instead and closing off the now-empty back node would be a good idea? Then again, if you're managing a good gravity turn, maybe just leave well enough alone, but fuel is cheap, engines are expensive...

If you're unable to capture cleanly with a "usual" orbital insertion burn, just start early and probably angle somewhat radial-out ... Dres is small, so Oberth isn't going to be a big deal. Although why you're going to Dres in the first place, I don't know, it's a boring place.

Back off some before rotating, you'll appreciate the extra space if a corner would otherwise clip you. Maneuvers in close proximity to a station are a pain if you have to go around, but you may not have a choice if the station doesn't turn well.

One thing that would make this a whole lot easier is an "overhead" shot, from above Kerbin's pole so that the orbit is better-displayed. As-is, you're not close enough and need to catch up more, beyond that's difficult to say.

I'd probably launch direct to required AP and a pair of 4-hour orbits for the first sat, direct to AP and a single 4-hour orbit then circularize for 2nd, and direct to AP and circularize for the 3rd. On second thought, circularizing and changing your AP to that required for stationary/synchronous at a fixed point will probably work better.

It's with respect to the orbit of Dres. Transfer Window Planner (online version): https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ Olex's interactive interplanetary guide and calculator: http://ksp.olex.biz/ For your purposes, you want to look at Olex's page, and the ejection angle. I think I was actually wrong above, and the calculator is specifying that you burn 88 degrees before reaching the "retrograde" position relative to the Kerbol-Dres pair, from a prograde orbit. Then again, in this instance that's not going to be all that far off a retrograde burn. Just plug in Dres and Kerbin on that page and it will give you a (rough) solution that will help you visualize things.

You're not going to be able to keep your pilot in the capsule. If either of the others is a pilot as well, put your pilot in the crew cabin, transfer over the non-pilot, put that one in the crew cabin, transfer over the pilot. This will, however, mean you only have stability-mode SAS. If you want to land with your original pilot in control, EVA that pilot (and let go), then bring the other two into the crew cabin, then return the intended pilot.

88 degrees retrograde means you'll want to eject almost directly retrograde, with (I believe) a slight "upward" component, so your apoapsis comes a bit after ejection. Probably the easiest way to do this is, match the magnitude of the ejection burn, then slide your node around first to eject retrograde, then to adjust the apoapsis and periapsis as called for. Add a second node for fine-tuning halfway there before executing the first burn, and if you're not seeing a fairly close approach, play with it a bit to see what's going wrong.

Actually, for level 3, orbit Mun, land on Minmus, leave Kerbin's SoI is enough. 2+3+5.75+6=16.75

Making your adjustments on the fly involves bringing the thrust up with SAS active and seeing which way it ends up trying to turn to counter the imbalance. That's a great deal easier with a longer burn.

Thinking it through, I'd expect the 2:1 resonant path to launch later than the Hohmann transfer. You'll be reaching the target sooner and with a "flatter" path, which counter each other somewhat, but I think the net result will be launching later for the flyby. Also, be careful if you do a low flyby, ANY flyby is going to change your path and a low one even more so.

For this sort of situation (it was actually an asteroid, but it's the same idea) I used 4 nukes (no swivel) with plenty of thrust and adjusted engine thrust levels by hand. It lets you get FAR closer to true retrograde thrust, such that the reaction wheels can dampen any remaining torque.

Switching the staging and fuel connections might be enough, if it's not I'm pretty sure adding extra stacks WILL be. I don't like the pair of landing cans myself, the cabin's a better option ... up until you possibly flip. If you go with the cabin, you need a heat shield (the weight actually helps your alignment), and if you end up flipping anyway, align PROGRADE and pitch up to use body lift to slow descent, because you're not getting back retrograde.

Also, it's worth checking WHICH icons are being displayed ... if you're not showing Kerbals on EVA, you're not going to see that Kerbal except visually.

You might want to use the Mk1 LF-only tank ... I believe fuel transfer rate is proportional to the destination tank's capacity, by the way.

As I read it, crossrange capability is the ability to reach a landing site off the orbital track.

One thing to note, if you push your apoapsis past the Mun, you can manage to get yourself into a bit of a mess ... hit it just wrong and you'll end up with a surprise Mun encounter when you plot your ejection burn. Always plot your ejection burn while still low on the way up, so if you need to you can adjust orbital period to avoid such an issue.

Chase after the ride home indeed ... I tend to not bother with a rendezvous, and might just pass by at 200 m/s. Switch craft in passing, burn to come to a stop relative with the jetpack, then add maybe 30-50 m/s straight at the rescue ship...

Also, the other reason for a gravity turn (because in old versions, people were fine with going up to 10 km and making a sharp turn) is that now it's very hard to MAKE that sharp turn unless you go a lot higher, and there's less need for it (the lower atmosphere isn't as "soupy"). Now, depending on your rocket design, it's going to be either near-impossible to get more than a few degrees off prograde or really dangerous to try, and either way it raises drag. Above maybe 25-30 km you can DO it, but try to avoid it unless you're coming up a bit short on your launch.

If you already have your close approach, just burn to negate your relative velocity, assuming you have enough delta-v. If you don't have that close approach, the FAST way to near-match the orbits is using mostly radial in/out, but the SIMPLE way is burning around where the greatest difference between orbits is to make the other side roughly tangential and set up a cleaner rendezvous. This way, you'll automatically have different orbital periods so one of the orbiting objects can catch up to the other.

I'd probably consider raising the PE to maybe 600 km, and bringing the AP down to match ... you'll be able to do a nice burn from there, and get longer burns to circularize anyway. And then there was the time I grabbed an asteroid and took it to Moho without bothering to circularize anywhere...

It sounds like the idea is to send the lander to Mun orbit on its own, then send Bill to meet it there in an SSTO. You should be able to launch the fueled lander with an SSTO, then the lander can head to Mun orbit for not quite as much delta-v as landing (and taking off again) will take.

If your AP is above the PE of the other orbit, or your PE is below the AP of the other orbit, you MAY cross it ... if your AP is above the other AP and your PE is below the other PE you MUST cross it. Really, it's best to just keep an eye on the orbital tracks and be sensible. By the way, if you go straight to the higher AP and only do enough circularizing to set up crossing paths, you save fuel and later modifications are easy enough.

I'd call it more like 75 degrees to start for Mun, but in any case, it's easy with maneuver nodes. Drop the node, get the apoapsis you'll need, and slide the node around for a good intercept.