Spricigo

That is the whole point. No matter what you do gravity will be there doing its thing. Instead of trying to overcome gravity the idea it's to flight in a such way that the effect of gravity will not hinder you. Once you have enough orbital speed you will not be falling toward kerbin instead you will be falling around kerbin. It's kind like not swing against the stream pushing you away from the beach but getting out the stream in the first place.

Disclaimer: since @bewing addressed his OP at me this post is mostly to reply to his arguments. Because of that may look that I disregard something in the previous replies and the post may sound a bit harsh. But it's not my intention to disrespect anyone's opnion in any way. First of all : I'm not interested to prove you wrong. Just what you said in the other thread don't convince me. As said there I feel it may be true for a few cases but hardly something that I wold rely on for every single launch. This challenge really will not change this. It gives me no incentive to prove you wrong, nor I feel challenged to put a random vessel in orbit around the Mun. That said I really like to discuss gameplay, it's a nice mental exercise and a very good opportunity to improve some mental skills that can be used elsewhere. Particularly there is a lot to learn from other people's approach. OK now about the discussion between vertical ascent Vs gravity turn: Let's be clear: assessment of efficiency base in deltaV used or deltaV left in orbit it's just silly. Just don't pull the strawman. No. The upper stage it's not what mater, it's the payload. You can't use half of this fuel and claim to be more efficient than someone that just noticed half of the fuel it's unnecessary and removed it before launch. Neither he can claim to be more efficient than the guy that noticed the payload it's just the scanner satellite and brought it with a tweaked ComSat_LX. And that is why I find the challenge so uninteresting. Gravity turn it's already tested and true. Also we just scratch the subject, once in orbit you can refuel or use a previous launched tug what will make single use in general and SRBs in particular even less competitive. Well, not all SSTO are spaceplanes and not all recoverable vehicles are SSTOs. Maybe a comparison between SSTO rockets Vs Falcon style wold yield better arguments against the efficiency of perfect gravity turns. Finally I'm thinking about a challenge for some time and this one give me some insight to improve a bit my original idea. Thank you.

I didn't commented before because I have seen it as a self imposed challenge, but now it looks more like you just over complicated things for you without necessity. Why are you dealing with atmosphere and stronger gravity if the idea is develop a Mun lander? Or even yet, why you are trying to design a single vehicle to land in two so distinct celestial bodies? If the idea it's to use the same crew compartment to land in different bodies just add a docking port so you can match with different vehicles according to what you want to do next. Put a probe core in each vehicles so you can control it after decoupling (and since each will have a docking port you may also keep some parking slots in your station) If the idea it's to test your Mun Lander at kerbin just strap a pair of drouge chutes in a decoupler and let then go when they slow you enough.

I'm pretty skeptical that can be a general case instead of works for me kind of thing. Also seems you really didn't bother enough with gravity turn or lower TWR designs to have a good parameter to compare your approach. Like @foamyesque said show me the money. Give us an example craft or at least some info so we can test your idea. You casted doubt in the meaning other use of "efficiency" and "efficient" and end up using it in the exactly same meaning everyone else in this discussion. Why? It don't change how true or relevant your point is but surely make it less clear.

Good luck to you, but given the challenge is about a year old I don't think people will care much. Also it's supposed to be attempted in version 1.0.5 so maybe you should start a new challenge instead of revive this old. If you decide to do so try to develop the rules more than OP and make the challenge more interesting since this one don't seems to gather much attention.

It's a kind of contract, tourist is add to your host and you need to bring it along to the required situation(E. G. Suborbital orbit) and back to kerbin to fulfill the contract. There is at least one Tourism contract pack that expand it a bit (personally I never tried it, if interested you need to look at it by yourself) In stock tourists are as real as a temporary max ship crew penalty can be. As usual you need some imagination to have fun at the sandbox. At least they can be a dirt simple way to get funds.

It explains a whole lot more than what you intended to do. It's astonishing how often the problem a player face it's because he got adding vectors wrong.

I think a spaceport and refuel station wold give more opportunities to dock, even more if you want to learn rendezvous & dock. Just add a big tank with docking ports to the station and you are good to go. You may launch it empty and dump excess fuel from returning vessels before deorbiting or send a bit of extra fuel in each launch until you fill the tanks. Add a hub module then add a cupola pointed to the desired view. Any part with docking ports around it may do but habitation modules with hatches as nodes seems less immersion braking. Then add the cupola pointed to the view you want to show. Tourists can't control the ship nor EVA, you need autonomous vehicles or a pilot and also make sure you can transfer the turist among ships (don't use Clamp-O Tron Jr) Something made of skid with Kraken in the name would be amusing. That said IRL freefall will affect what one can eat, at least until acclimated, and your menu may take that in consideration. At least anything you serve will be real astronaut food, e. g. real astronaut potatoes

While most people's answered with enough to something kind of statement, the #m/s answer is rigth in the secound post. Also while the answers may be a bit repetitive if we call that spam, how to call the daily new help with rendezvous question?

Nope. Good tutorials in YouTube covers everything you need to know about it. Also extensively explained in the forums. My usual answer to how to this kind of question it's usually just link a Good tutorial. A Good tutorial is not difficult to find.

First: what other mods that change gameplay? This info help us to give better tailored suggestions. Ideal height for station: In general and optimal are somewhat conflicting concepts. If you plan to most your spacecraft with just enough fuel to orbit the station should be at something like 80km circular orbit, to process data collected on Minmus a surface lab will work much better. Optimize your station for what it's most needed and use other vessels to fulfill other needs. I personally think is a bad idea to try to make the station an important piece of your satellite network. If you make the station the centerpiece of a satellite network once it gets eclipsed all the network is gone. You don't want centerpieces, you want redundancy so you stay connected even with some eclipsed satellites. Enough antennas to make your station an improvised satellite may be OK but making it a fully-fledged Master Satellite needs several compromises. Wear thing: What exactly modules show this? They are part of some mod? Are using some mod that add malfunction chance (e.g. Dang it! or kerbalism)? My best guess is that have something to do with a mod that add malfunction chance. Experience: By default (stock) astronauts only level up after recovered, Field experience mod change it so you just need switch to another vessel and back. Delta-v and payload If you think the same amount of delta-v you let you reach different locations you get it wrong. You payload need to be taken in account to calculate delta-v so changing the payload change the delta-v. It take X delta-v to reach Y location. Elíptical orbits and docking. It will make docking harder, not only you need better timing but it will make matching speed more difficult. The station will be faster at periapsis then vessel in circular orbits at that height and you speed will change faster since it varies with height.

@NecroBones Explain it way better than I may dream to do. Hope it helps you. (definitely helped me)

Wrong Also wrong. Where you put reactions wheels don't matter. You misconcept torque. Torque is cross product of applied force and distance between rotation axle and where the force is applied(arm lever) In mathematical language: [torque] =[force] X[arm lever] The misconception here is that actually there is such thing as applied torque. Torque is the effect of an applied force, arm lever and angle between both. This effect don't need to have the same "*point of incidence*" of the applied force, it actually has an "*axle of incidence*" that by the proper definition of torque act in perpendicular direction of both force and arm lever. Now to the OP problem. This heatshield is causing too much torque. You need to reduce it or counter it. To reduce torque you need to either reduce drag force, distance from CoM (lever arm) or deviation between vessel alignment and airstream (angle of atack). Any of this will be a challenge without a complete redesign. To counter it you need a opposite torque. There is the poblem of HS's torque being variable in intensity and direction so you need to counter it with an also variable restraint-torque. Fortunately there's a easy way to accomplish that, drag behind CoM as others pointed in previous answers. Other advices: I don't see any ladder in your ship, don't forget it.

Thismod may interest you. (haven't tried it myself, but seems to be what are you looking for)

IMHO don't look like is the case based in the info given by OP. But if that is the problem maintening some thrust up on the later ascend and after apoapsis sometimes is enough to keep fighting gravity for sufficient time to reach orbital speed. Usually one end in this situation because of piloting error at earlier parts of the launch or bad designed rocket. Fortunately recovery it's possible

Previous posters already answered the question, so I will just try to add a bit of perspective. We quickly notice, after few attempts, reaching orbit it's not so easy as reach space. That's is because climb to space is a lot easier than to reach orbital speed. To make it worse the effort to Climb to space don't help at all with Reaching orbital velocity and vice-verse. To climb you thrust up, to get to orbital velocity you thrust laterally. This is somewhat hard to realize because our intuition says gravity bounds everything to the ground, also our intuition is tuned for speeds and distances way lower than what we are dealing here . We may even know the theory but it takes time until we become confident enough to act accordingly. Another thing you should notice: since surface it's not plane, but curved, burning horizontally will push the vessel away from the surface. To prevent your apoapsi to raise even further you may point your vessel an bit inward (how much depends on your thrust)

Oops! Tapped send by accident, browse don't let me edit..... As I was saying:bring the heavy machinery. It's just a matter of scaling up the forklift, or just go for a crane+flatbed combo. Actually, since you at using KAS even turning the payload in a hover it's a viable option.

If you're doing big construction work, bring heavy machinery

I'm also under the impression that a forklift would solve OP's problem easier than a puller. Some ideas I liked in This challenge may interest, look at the discussion about the refurbish vehicles.

A trick to prevent used stages to stay around as debris it's to let then in collision course with a celestial body. As examples staging lifters just before reaching orbit and completing the orbit with upper stage, or de orbiting the lifter after reaching orbit (it can be done if you include a probe core and a bit extra fuel in the kifter it or using separatrons like @LN400 said.) Notice that console's performance issues it's something we, pc gamers, don't have much awareness and knowledge of, for obvious reasons. Take a look at Technical support (consoles) for more accurate/detailed information.

Pretty please, use paragraph and punctuation. It makes a lot easier to us to help you. Help us to help you. About the tutorial and how hard is to follow the instructions: -Take your time and make sure you understood what is said. Read twice, thrice, how many time you need to fully understand the instructions. You have plenty of time to it. -KSP use several 'technical terms' (prograde, periapsi, ascending node,... ) find out what they mean before doing the tutorials that require this knowledge and if necessary take notes and keep it available. -Make a special take an effort to fully understand the navball. It seems confuse at first but as soon you overcome that a lot of info will be your at a glance. For the small experience I have the tutorials, if anything, may lack detailed required knowledge and you will learn sections at the selection screen. (anyway, how difficult rocket science can be?)

Well, no offense but I think it's a moot point. While there is no inequivocal statement of the existence of contract types it isn't needed either. What really matters it's that types exist, and we know it. Knowledge is power. Some people find this important info because of the Metadata (wiki, forums, game files, etc), other just figured it out while playing and other yet just didn't notice. This is the answer to the question how could I've known about the reputation contract unlock?

Us making classifications because we noticed how Squad used some types(/templates/models/...) may not be exactly the same we figured out but clearly is a real thing. Anyway... Semantics

Was about to say exactly that but felt like building confidence is more in need than design testing. I still remember my first landings and how 'creative' they turned out because I was too nervous to follow my own plans.

Someone give more likes this post, I can only give one