Spricigo

You already said it: The delta deluxe is lighter. Also cheaper with a larger relative wing area. You just didn't realized those are often bigger advantages than larger control surface area. In other words that " adding control at the bottom of a rocket-stack" is far from the only purpose that the delta-deluxe can fit. Examples given: https://kerbalx.com/parts/143

Mind you, all that is optimal, since you can compensate for a low yield with extra drills or/and time. I

It's up to each individual player to decide what is cheating in his single player game. Effectively a new part was created in version 1.6 to substitute the old one. But, since there are people with the old part in their craft, the old part was hidden instead of removed. Personally, I just consider it like any other "modded" part. And I'd rather use the version that can holds fuel most of the time.

Yep. If you get the science into a science storage or crew capsule (or just transmit it) then you can discard the instruments. It goes without saying that KSP, being a game, is quite different from real life.

you have a example of a craft with a 2nd pair of docking ports. ...just those ports are not connected. We can clearly see how those ports are clipping thru each other

This is expected (when you burn retrograde your periapsis drops, them it start to raise again after the velocity drops to zero and start to increase in the opposite direction ). The escape trajectory is a bit odd but the fact you were holding retrograde kind of explain it. For Minmus RA2 are enough. And since you are planning to deploy a few extra satellites, I wouldn't bother with the ones in the station. It may be conter-intuitive and a bit overwhelming at first glance but if one keep practicing it will "click in" at some point and become second nature. Granted that a well setup RCS goes a long way to facilitate the process but that is also something expected to be figured out at some point

As pointed out by @theAstrogoth you correctly identified the problem and a viable solution. You also have enough deltaV left to put it in practice. In other words: Yes, you are going the wrong way and can indeed just "do a U turn". The method mentioned by @radonek saves fuel but takes more time and effort. However, you don't seems to have a use for the fuel savings. About @bewing comment: You may reverse the initial orbit anywhere and later adjust it to match the target orbit. But if instead you let to do the reversal when the initial orbit crosses the target orbit you can combine the reversal and the matching in a single maneuver.

Not in the situation @Reactordroneand I were referring to: in vehicle construction (VAB/SPH). If that is what the OP is doing, as pointed out:

Yep. Quantity is a very important quality sometimes.

The contract asks for run test or activate trough stage?

You cannot attach a craft to itself. Since the is already a link between the first pair of docking ports (and a chain of connection to each port in the second pair) the second pair will not connect. Struts are the exception.

@RoninFrogMaybe I'm arguing semantics here. But, if SAS turn off because the craft is not setup to have SAS in the current situation, I don't call it 'SAS fail".

Well, in stock KSP it wouldn't fail. As "step zero" you need to deliberately ignore the option is available (either by refraining to use it or adding a mod that include failures to the game.) Even you don't have SAS avlable, just a brief activation of time warp makes all rotation goes away. It works even better than SAS for this particular purpose. It may also be useful (step .1, I guess) to have Advanced Tweakables enabled to limit reaction wheel's authority and/or thrust of RCS (maybe tied to an Axis Group you are not using otherwise)

@LineOfRahl, mind you that is a quite old thread. While some people may be interested in your modded parts, people in this thread before your post probably move onto other things long ago. There is an entire subforum for mods, and also rules you need to follow. Make sure you undarstand it before posting. As you describe, my impression is that you modified the actual config files in the Gamedata/Squad/Parts folder. Those are SQUAD assets the EULA forbids to modify/share. (Seems unlikely to me that someone will knock door if you keep it for yourself , but it is actually a violation) However the effect (minus the EULA violation) can be achieved with Module Manager patch (that don't modify the actual game assets, but change the parts at loading time). So, you may take a look at how to write a MM path and share those as a "MK2 drag tweak mod" (I'm not aware of something similar, but I wouldn't be surprised if it already exists)

The main reason to not have 3 relay satellites in polar orbit is "less than 3 relay satellites in polar orbit is enough", Just for transmitting science from the surface of Mun/Minmus a single relay may be enough if one don't mind to wait for the sat to get into position. More satellites will just increase coverage. So, it's a matter of how much you want the extra coverage vs how much you are willing to take the extra funds/time/effort to setup the relays.

But did you still meet the requirements while running the test?

That's not how the stock ion engine works, it uses both electricity and xenon gas at the same time to operate. Maybe you are referring to some modded engine you have? Also, the "don't use under a sphere of influence" sounds strange, since all celestial bodies, including the sun have one. (Just the case that the Sun's is for all practical purposes infinite). Maybe it is the case that under higher gravity one will have bigger losses with an ion engine but the Isp (and consequently potential deltaV budget) is so much better that it become a very manageable issue anyway, the real problem is that with very long burns it become difficult to be precise (not to mention the risk of being bored to death)

I disagree. In layman terms it's just "the same change of velocity produces a greater change in kinetic energy if going faster" What is a lot more complex to figure out is how much of an effect it will have in the actual maneuvers, specially when we also consider several other factors that will affect it.

Oh, I'd love ta have a explanation for that too... Some usual tricks are to use trim, the deployment angle slider of control surfaces and briefly pressing F to disable SAS, doing small adjustments along the way. But most of it is to design the craft and pick the ascent profile to avoid those adjustments as much as you can.

Only because you are going for ludicrous level of precision, for such a single RV-105 offset to the CoM is the way to go and extra weight you don't ditch before the circularisation can actually increase the precision. For practical purposes spiders/ants can handle it just fine, people often don't even bother to get any lighter than the spark.

Well, I know it is not what you asked but you may actually be better swapping this RCS paraphernalia to a Oscar-B tank and a pair of ant or spider engines in each satellite.

Mind you it may as well be a moot point. The thing is that even if you get the orbital period synchronized to such precision, it may suffer from rounding errors when the orbital parameter values get registered into the save file. This is often the reason why player go for a "good enough" and, if they really want to maintain the synchronicity, use a mod or save edit to zero out the final difference, while others just send redundant satellites (me included).

Actually there is no "same" (or even same), the conditions are: Mine required amount of ore on Body1 have the required amount of ore on Body2 One could get a contract to mine ore on Eve and bring it back on Kerbin, and expect it to be a logistical nightmare. However it's fine to let the miner stranded on Eve and just load the ore at KSC launchpad.

Well, it's a game.

Try to go t the setting and enable the [allow advanced tweakables] options.