Prepper-Jack

Well, I think it's all been answered - though I might add that it's more efficient to try and match the angle of Minmus while you ascend from the planet into LKO. Takes a bit more doing, and frankly I'm too lazy/forgetful to do it myself, but it is what it is.

And my point is that baseline cost is going to vary with what you want to do on your Munar mission. The costs can only be judged in terms of what they accomplished. "Bang for the buck" as it were. In my example, what I did was pretty cost effective for my particular needs, even though it had a substantial up-front cost. I got 80-90 landings out of the deal, obtained over 2 million in contract funds, completed the Mun as far as science goes, and have the core of a fuel base with 20k LF and 20k Ox space sitting in a low equatorial orbit - awaiting further attachments and fuel deliveries from my eventual highland crater mining operation (I can't mine Minmus - it's hard mode, and it only has small amounts of ore in the slopes). If it wasn't for the fuel depot requirement I could have opted for a polar orbit (I moved it in the end), and performed the same task (well - perhaps with less missions) with a single big red tank at a much reduced cost - or many, many more missions with what I decided on. If your intent is only to complete missions, most can be done with probes. A simple one with a single experiment (therm, seis, etc), can last 4-5+ missions (that include surface data) easy for around 20-25k, and net you many hundreds in profit. If you need to do EVA and surface scans, well - to knock it out in one hit, you need a fairly substantial lander, as those require landing once and hopping 3-4 more times. If you're carrying any science equipment at all, this is usually more than double the cost of a good probe. If your intent is to solely collect biome data, that's a sunk cost as you aren't getting a return on it. Nevertheless, a small polar fuel base option ends up being quite the bang for the buck if you want to go that route. All Munar science can be had for around 150k with a decent design - or around 10k per biome. Building an entire mission over landing a single time, just so you can be as cheap as possible, ends up being cost (and time) inefficient. Better to build a more robust solution, and get some returns on investment along the way.

Also, if you're hard up for science, and are uncomfortable with moving to more challenging environments, you can always use policies. Upgrading the administration building to level 2 will allow you to transfer up to 75% of reputation or monetary gains from contracts into science. Then you do tourist sub-orbital flights and rocket part testing for a fair cash and science boost. In a recent hard-mode game of mine, I transferred 25% of reputation into cash, and 50% of rep into science - it worked well. Heading to Munar or Minmus orbits yields far more science, of course. For that, I might suggest upgrades to both mission control and the tracking station if you haven't done so, so that you can set up maneuver nodes.

In the stock game, you can usually get away with the base model for most purposes. There are certain situations where higher throughput might be helpful, however. If you're sending probes out and about, it can be tedious to send everything over a single base antenna. So, you either add a few more, or go with a faster dish. But, really, the top of the line model is most useful for research stations, which can have the power resources that are required. Transferring 500 science takes forever on the base model.. If you play with RemoteTech, they're a bit more interesting.

Considering a full complement of science equipment, even excluding non-applicable stuff for the Mun, plus capsule costs more than that, I would wonder what I would do on those 25 missions - collect eva reports and surface samples only?

Heh - my highest cost Mun mission was around 500k. But, it was pretty cost effective as I collected data from all biomes and completed about 11 missions while I was there. Basically the transfer stage was a rather large fuel depot that I stuck in a polar orbit. Think it's still sitting there with a few drops left. It's only costly if you can make a cheaper alternative to do the same thing.

I assume you mean more than one identical report, as multiple reports of different experiments works fine. You can always transmit the first batch of data for a portion of the science gain (100% for crew and eva reports), and store the next wave in the crew cab. Afterwards, there's usually not a huge amount of science to gather, but you can, as mentioned above, keep the science equipment attached. You want to keep the experiments in for re-entry anyway, since they're kind of expensive.

When doing Mun orbital refueling, I like to have my landers more around 4k dV. This way they can hop to a couple different biomes and complete a temperature/gravity/whatever mission to boot (or simply more biomes if so inclined). Making a number of short hops is more efficient than going in and out of orbit, and docking every time. Also, remember that your initial orbit (unless it's polar) isn't going to be able to reach everything. Many of the biomes will require normal/anti-normal corrections, which will cost a great deal both ways.

If you have not completed the tech tree in total, I might suggest sending up an orbital station with an MPL, and a ground research station each on the surface of Mun and Minmus. Filling each with data should be relatively simple - the orbital station can collect from LKO, HKO, then high munar orbit. On Mun or Minmus, data from a single biome is more than enough to fill the data stores. After that, transferring to another system will net you a rather large chunk of science in the background. Also, setting up a large orbital base around Minmus with supporting ground mining operations can be helpful. Due to the low gravity, it's a choice spot for assembling and fueling large interplanetary ventures. The cost savings from sending up only partially fueled vessels adds up fairly quickly. Also, good practice for setting up similar operations on Gilly, Ike, and beyond.

In addition to what was said above.. As for the engine overheating - it seems to be one of the traits of the Twin Boar. It's not as noticeable if used as a single stage, but it will get quite hot in asparagus staging as it runs longer. For aerodynamics, consider something other than the large cones for your big orange rockomax tanks. They're apparently no better than a flat surface at the moment, and this may be causing significant drag issues. Otherwise, what speeds are you hitting at the flip altitude? For stability on large loads, I've been trying to keep things only a little above 300 m/s below 10k, max of around 500 m/s by 15k, and max of 800 or 900 at 20k. Are you heading straight up, or doing a gravity turn? Large and long, unaerodynamic loads may benefit from later turns (where there is less air). Aerodynamic shear can cause massive instability if you step outside the prograde vector with such a craft (even sometimes within the circle itself). Are those control surface wings on the bottom (it's a bit hard to tell)? Between engine gimbal, electronic steering, and control surface - the SAS may not be able to handle it, and you'll begin to wobble back and forth as it overcompensates every movement. Try deactivating gimbal, or electronic steering, or replacing fins with some immobile wing.

Well, I would imagine 1500-1550 is pretty much the most reasonable sustainable max speed range one can expect in atmospheric flight - and that only at the very high altitudes. I've build small RAPIER test jests that go 1600+ in a slightly lower environment, but they eventually melt. Turbos, of course, are worse. I've gotten one to around 1500 before, slightly sub 20k, but it doesn't last long at that speed at that altitude (again, heat). Most of my tests were very small and light probes stripped down to minimal fuel for absurd TWR. After some testing, I found that making the plane larger (adding more engines) would increase theoretical top speed - but it would just incinerate the plane even sooner. Precoolers everywhere helps - but it doesn't stop the eventual overheat. For maneuverability, I've found that basic elevons used as elevators, tail fins, and canards are enough to handle super high speed flight.

Don't forget that you can also get better efficiency through staging engines that are more correct for whatever environment you are in. For an early example, you could have a Swivel or Reliant launch to 30k, and have a Terrier take over where the atmosphere becomes super thin. As long as TWR is adequate, you save on fuel efficiency by both dumping the dead weight and switching to a more efficient engine (which can be done before many people, I believe, assume). There are also other considerations of course. Say you're making an expedition to Mun. Your lander has about 3k of dV with reserves of 360 fuel. You could build a relatively cheap lifting and transfer stage, land once (and move once or twice) and be able to make it home. Alternatively, you could overbuild your lifting and transfer stages, have some junior docking ports on a massive transfer stage, and use that to refuel from Munar orbit - leading to 5 or 6 times the number of landings for perhaps only 2x the cost. Here, the utility of creating an extra 15-20k dV can trump early atmospheric staging concerns.

Yes. You can go to the Astronaut complex, and hit the "Assigned" tab. Even if they're rescuees, while the number officially says "0", they're in there.

Control surfaces should move in opposite directions, if they are on opposite sides of the center of mass. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_%28aeronautics%29 for how the rear should be oriented (and why it works).

The small inline reaction wheel is as light as a thruster block. I usually use them inline with a couple of the cylinder batteries on my probes, and cover them all with solar panels.

IIRC, I was able to hit ~ 1500 m/s recently with a single turbo at around 20k. Perhaps it could have gone faster - as I was ascending at a 45 degree angle the entire way. The probe core also exploded shortly thereafter, due to all the heat. I relied heavily on pre-coolers for intakes (and fuel). Entire thing was very streamlined (and very light - lacking large fuel reserves and a cockpit).

Eh, well - no, I don't like bugs. But, your point about things failing is well taken. If I were to make a mod (or a suggestion for the game), it would be to have people to be able to engineer the parts themselves, with various components that have a number of properties, some of which are hidden. The hidden properties would only come out during testing - some being positive (like more efficiency from a particular nozzle), with some being catastrophic (instant destruct at a particular low temperature). If a bad property is found, it can be rectified by expending some science points - and the positive characteristic can be taken advantage of the same way. Once the components are assembled into a final rocket part, it too will get assigned some random issue and positive trait that should be explored before actual use. Of course, such things could often be comical - like science goo occasionally escaping and making the rocket glow green. Others could be a mission hindrance, like a hatch not being able to be opened in a vacuum. Others, of course, would be disastrous - turning rockets into tiny bits.

Yeah - your first suborbital flight should open up a whole bunch of tourist cruises and parts testing at the very least.

16k is pretty hard with the basic jet engine. More realistically, even with a lot of air intake, you're looking at 12-13k. Ramjet can do that altitude quite easily - but unfortunately that's way up the tree. Until that time, supplemental power is needed. Designing a forgiving aircraft is fairly easy. Throw some delta wings on the back with elevons on the back of those. Put a tail fin up top between them. If it's a longer craft, you'll want some controllable wings up front as well. Make sure the lift is a little bit behind the center of mass, throw on some wheels, and some parachutes if you hate landing, and you're set. If you want to add in the added weight of a rocket to get up to 16k+, you'll probably want 2 or more jets to facilitate that.

The doors don't seem to induce any lift or drag (that I've seen)- so it's useless for that in atmosphere. They can, however, have enough force to stand a small rocket up (or give a window to fire rockets) when they've fallen down on low grav worlds. That's kind of the only course correcting measure I've found for them.

Have to agree with the suite of SRBs being broken. Besides having a poor lsp, and being largely useless outside the very start of the game, they just burn wrong. Longer doesn't mean longer burning.

There are some very good video resources on youtube that can instruct better than written guides. Scott Manley seems to be one of the favorites out there - and he has material on a large array of topics, from the more basic things like getting into orbit to far more advanced topics. That said, you will probably have to tune your rockets to the more recent versions. Fins of some sort are kind of important on the bottom at present, for example - and this wasn't always so. Solid rocket boosters are no longer as strong as they once were, so using them in lower stages is no longer as useful. But, all you should really need is a fair number of fuel cans on the bottom with a swivel engine (a decent atmospheric engine that can gimbal), a few cans up top with a terrier (a solid engine outside of the atmosphere), and a pod with a parachute.

I would imagine a poodle would be more of use than thuds in vacuum, giving you more total dV with a bit less thrust. The thuds also produce a pretty heavy amount of drag on the way up - so streamlining can save you even more dV on your main stages. Aerodynamically, I believe those large nosecones are pretty bugged. They offer no benefit over a flat top. You might want to consider the Rockomax adapter and a smaller nosecone that actually works. The long plane tails make excellent noses. As for weight - the 1-2 command pod at 4.12 tons is really damned heavy for what it offers. You're better off using a Mk1 lander can and another hitchhiker can. 3.16 tons for 5 crew instead of 3. What's the dV of each of your stages?

That would lead me to believe they are indeed dragless. The turn is most likely coming from mass imbalance, as suggested above. Good to know - I've been shoving them in the service bay. Having them on the side of the rocket is much more convenient.

Heh - I must say, cigars offer a much more pleasant chewing experience.