Spricigo

The obvious solution is to drop most of those ion engines. Yes, TWR will suck but what did you expected with engines that have more weight than thrust to begin with? If reducing the number of engines is not an option you may try to add some batteries to the mix and see if you can make it sustain the engines "some time" so you can still do your mission dividing the longer burns in multiple maneuvers with time to recharge between consecutive maneuvers.

And I thought my condition was not contagious...

My guess: craft is using the pitfull built in antenna, either because no antenna was added or because it is retracted. That assuming that the craft dispayed as relay actualy have operational relay antennas.

IMHO maximizing fun/gametime is the only efficiency that matters.

no. Because "convenience" is subjective. Personally I find the whole ordel of setting up a minmus mining base very inconvenient, since I can just lift it from Kerbin. (by the time ISRU is available, Funds is not an issue anymore) However if you want to understand more about the oberth effect and the maths behind it, this thread is a good start:

There is many ways to do the trick. It's up to you to figure out what is more convenient to you. Personally, I like the idea of combining the reffueler with the transfer stage. Work like this: 1. Launch the interplanetary ship into a high elliptical orbit, that comes near Minmus without entering Minmus SoI 2.Launch refueller from Minmus into a rendezvous&docking with the interplanetary ship. 3.Do the transfer burn at the periapsis to get the Oberth Effect. 4 Release the interplanetary ship and burn retrograde with the reffueler to stay within Kerbin SoI. (eventually get it back to Minmus, no rush there) That method don't require to get the interplanetary ship all the way to minmus or the reffueler all the way to LKO. But getting the correct launch windows can be tricky (need to get right when launching from both Kerbin and Minmus)

I have to disagree. That is not lack of choice, it's your preferences to not take a choice in particular. Also, the Kickback have a saying about the alleged uniqueness the Skkiper have in terms of thrust. As the BACC for the Bobcat. And a quite strong voice if the subject is 'cheap and cheerful'.

Is taking longer than I anticipated to see crafts using open farings on KerbalX.

I'm doing a rework in my line-up. The new SLVs can be found in KerbalX, in Spricigo's Toolbox hangar. Currently available: Currently in development, Orwell. (uses kickbacks and a poodle to lob 25t in orbit)

Krakatoa is an exception (As I assume tankers in general are). It is big to allow everything else to be smaller. My regular payloads grow to maybe100-150t mostly because I don't need anything bigger.

Just over 0.5kt. Krakatoa I'm reworking my "toolbox", and planning to design launch vehicles for bigger payloads. But given the limited game time I currently have, Krakatoa will still be my biggest rocket for awhile.

Should be no surprise that the mod that allow to project your trajectory like that is called

I go it. When I say it don't make sense for me, that is because the way I design my launch vehicles. I don't need the central gimbaled engine since my rockets have a tilt set in the launch pad to start the gravity turn automatically. It don't seems to be "standard procedure" for others and I'm well aware most people don't share that (quite strong) bias. In any case, nice to read about the reasoning behind that part.

Quite old but still good tutorial: Mind you, I don't agree 100% with the guide. But its a good starting point to start to figuring out your own preferences. And that...well, I know all those words, but put then together and the resulting sentence don't make any sense for me (a glance at my crafts make evident why). Anyway, I can't consider it "an error" since apparently gimbals are the cheaper source of control, whatever the reason people want it in launch vehicles. But it really bother me that it kinda contradict with the recommendation of SRBs.

That is exactly what the game is assuming. So, we have the current stage with engines but no fuel left and the next stage with fuel but no engines left. 0+0 =0 Which bring up the question: Why is @antipro using decouplers there? It serves no purpose, since the side tanks can be directly attached, with the advantage of a less bendy connection. If its for spacing it's just a matter of a small adjustment with the gizmo (put some cubic struts there if the disconnected look bother you). You may also use structural/wing parts , use a MK0 Fuselage, which can have some effect in drag/weight but hardly a big one. At the very least, disable staging for those decouplers. I know, whatever works for you, but i fail to notice how messing with the dV readout and giving an opportunity to dropping all your engines by mistake before using all your fuel can be called "working". And just to not waste my "criticizing momentum": For that last craft, you really need 5x Advanced Inline Stabilizer? And an extra in the LV? If yes, is probable you are piling up steering losses during launch. That is quite different, there you have both the fuel and the engines in the current stage and none of it the last stage. You can make the same in the other vessel pumping the fuel from central stack to side tanks.

https://spacedock.info/mod/1010/Xenon ISRU

You my also put "control from here" in an action group.

Since KER show torque >0kN for all stage it is evident you have some asymmetry in your payload. Take a look at what it may be and try to offset it to the centerline, if that is not possible have something to act as counterweight.

Maybe with a MM patch but you are correct on how stock decoupler crossfeed works. In any case it just means you need to watch the tanks resource level (looking at PAW or something) to know they are empty instead of getting that clue from boosters stopping to boost.

Maybe a Module manager patch. Take a look if you can adapt something the community already did

Nope. Neither the lander or the probe have relay antennas and KSC is just too fat away to reach with a Communoton 16. An hg-55 would work (given that it works for you probe in orbit). in any case what you need is a relay with actual relay antennas, either RA-15 or RA-100 for Eve. Same deal, get some proper relays deployed.

I'd rather ban the worse ofenders (ore tanks, beams,panels,some engines) or even create a list of allowed payload parts (e.g.1.payload must consist of a number of fully loaded fuel tanks).Thus allowing for a wide range of dummy payloads without need of previously designed payloads. In any case, the prefabs payload would not be a problem for me. (But designing for mass fraction not really my cup of tea)

You need to reach the designed orbit and this orbit cannot cross the orbit of any planet. Google translate: Necesitas alcanzar la órbita diseñada y esta órbita no puede cruzar la órbita de ningún planeta.

yep, but in vacuum and for stage S3. That is after 6.releasing a pair of launch clamps 5.releasing another pair of launch clamps 4.dropping the side tanks. 3.using set orbit to put that thing in space. so... yes. [atmospheric] button need to be pressed and staging need to b corrected to give the correct seal level statistics. Need to be at least 736kN to get that craft of the pad. Edit:when asked nicely, Google told me the emancipator is from kerbal-atomics and have 621kN at sea level. IOW moar booster are required. Aso, had you tested it in space? It's possible that is a issue with that particular engine/mod not working properly.

Just for clarification: when people post config like the one above they are not telling you to modify the original files but to use a mod called Module Manager that allows loading custom configs. In any case, that means the rover will have modded wheels if the config is used. You are correct that it can be a issue if you plan to publish (amenable, but still). As for the feeling of cheating, that is up to the player to decide, since it's a single player game.