Spricigo

I'd say is cheating if you start to say how someone else is supposed to enjoy then game.

Maybe I'm just trowing ideas thee, but did you tried to substitute that miner for something different (less parts, similar mass, just to keep the balance)?

There is nothing extreme about using that one. Specially if you are already using the teleport "cheat". On the other hand, you may try to stop the physic easing a bit above the ground. It seems to me that is a issue with physics kicking in, rather than the actual impact.

You don't need to assume, you can press F12 and take a look at the aerodynamic overlay. You may also take a look at the debug menu, under >physics>Aero: Display Aero Data in Action Menu Display Aero Data GUI In any case, at some time you need to start to make the compromisses that allow your craft to actually have a chance to make orbit. Keeping that exposed node is not making things easier.

Is too much drag in the back too. Open/mismatched nodes are horrendous for drag on any orientation.

No, you didn't. That is how it would look: And that Engine cluster adapter is killing that craft. A painful death it seems.

In a glance, it seems to me you have no wing incidence. (section 7 of Aerogav's guide) . The main benefit is to reduce fuselage drag but incidentally may also solve your take off issues.

I consistently launch rocket with more launchpad TWR than what people usually call "reasonable" in those forums. TWR as high as 3 or more can be fine if you know what are you doing. Yes you may have more engines than needed and getting more aerodynamic dag than you need, but if you can afford it, why not? Put those engines to good use instead of being afraid of being "inefficient".

Well, the simplest communication setup is strong enough direct antenna in the craft and planning/hoping to not lose contact at some critical moment. The question is if you can afford that risk. (Giving the question, I assume you are not exactly willing to do so). That seems like a more elegant setup than what I do: spamming Gap Relays: cheap probe core, HG-5 antenna and solar panel. And, if available*, I use remote probe control points* instead of long range relays. If you want to try something even more elegant consider a single relay in Tundra_orbit. *There are mods that provide it quite early. **for Moho, Duna/Ike, Dress and Eeloo an HG-5 in the control point is enough. Eve/Gilly can be covered with an RA-2

Well, the discussion is about how to reach the Mun with lower deltaV cost. Those are both cases of not reaching the Mun. @JebIsDeadBaby is correct when he says it depends on TWR (or rather, Excess Thrust) because a more powerful rocket reach the required speed faster. However what he gets wrong is that even with insanely powerful rockets we don't want to go straight up, that is not the direction we are already going. As we know, the most effective way to raise the orbit is to burn prograde at the lower point of it. But there is inconveniences to do so from the launch pad, such as the lower part of our orbit being somewhere below the surface. Overheating because atmosphere is not quite what we are looking for either So, what is left for us to do is to try to get that ideal trajectory, that is not shallow enough to suffer with high atmospheric drag and not steep enough to suffer with gravity drag.

Not really. Those contract can come much earlier than mining/refining tech. (I get offering before setting foot on Mun/minmus). Also, if one don't have a mining base may not be really worth the time to setup(and manage) one just for those contracts. Usualy at this point, funds is not a big issue anymore.

I'd rather go with "grandparent". since the heaviset part can change as you burn fuel. Also, the option "allow advanced tweakables need to be checked in the setting to autostrut be available

You need to cut a lot of dead weight if they are costing that much.

My 0,02 in regards of elevators vs canards: The idea that one is dramaticaly superior to the other don't hold waters. Is not what we see in challanges, shared crafts and general experience with the game. People come up with a lot of "reasons" why their prefered method is better but if a difference in performance realy exist no one was capable of demonstrate it yet.

Do you own a Chevy Sonic?

Point is, that elliptical orbit is an orbit around the Mun. But for reference, your orbit around Kerbin would look something like this: That assuming it's a pretty circular orbit, it can be a lot messier with high elliptical ones. Still, the important part is: it will be close enough to Mun's own orbit while the craft stay withing Mun's SoI. The only trajectory that matter is around the Celestial Body you are within, the only exception is when crossing a SoI boundary and then only for the purprose of crossing the boundary. So we don't see where the orbit goes around kerbin, because for all the game is concerned we go nowhere but Mun's SoI. It's pretty obvious you are burning the wrong side. Just look how the orbit around Kerbin is raising as you increase the burn.

Either a glitch or you misunderstood something in the contract. Some mistakes I see people doing before: * have a different part than the one the contract asks for, *not meeting all the conditions when performing the test *reverting the flight after the test (effectively undoing the contract) In my experience the contract completes if you activate the part by staging if it ask for run test or the other way around, but have seen people telling it was a issue before. Also, the general consensus is that if you did the work is ok to use the debug menu to complete a contract.

Excuse me, but how landing in the helipad is supposed to be difficult? I mean, people do it with starter rocket (Capsule, flea & Paracute) Anywas, It's a old thread but AFAIK most (if not all) of it should still apply (no mention in the patch notes of significant change in how heat is handled): It also mention a even older challenge for lowest solar orbit that may be worth reading too

Point is: navball is already always in "locked mode". You walways see in the middle of the navball and always perfectly horizontal. Actually that is the "obvious thing" you are missing. You expect the controls to match the camera when it almost never do and fail to notice the controls always match the navball. So, the trick to undertand what the navball is telling you is: forget the camera exist. Lets take an example with Navball Docking Aligment mod: Relative to the craft direction of travel is foward-left, target is up-right. So instead of having our controls matching both we end up with our controls matching none?

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/182950-tutorial-how-to-install-mods-manually-ckan/

And let's hope the tech tree is not maxed out by the time you do all that.

That thing of avoiding doing wiki by suggesting someone else take care of it seems fun.Can I play too?

Delta-V map refers to vacuum Delta-V. Make sure you use the same reference for consistency.

Actually the98x68k orbit at end of execution is pretty close to the predicted 94x72, specialy if we consider the small inacuracies in piloting. Mind you, that is easier to notice when not in a hurry to set up and execute a maneuver. I still think that rule of thumbs needs to account for Moar Thumpers. For reference: Bester, launchpad TWR2.5, 45º at ~800m, 25º at 10km

Nice that does exactly what it says on the tin. Very convenient for craft that have multiple possible control directions.