Spricigo

Do you have line of sight? Do you have electricity?

I don't want control all the time. And I also don't want my time warping being interrupted exactly because I will have no control at the maneuver node and consequently will have nothing to do about it. Edit: actually why not make the consequences of the accident/mistake a bit harsher: maneuver node become hidden the moment you lose connection without a pilot on board. Also both can be dependent on the setting [require signal to control]

It don't need to make sense, it just need to not be an unnecessary annoyance.

Settings. If you find it too generous just tame it a bit.

Clicking one of the check marks(only available for the OP) will select the post as correct/best answer and mark the question as answered. You don't have too, but it may help people seeking and offering help. Similarly the little triangles are to upvote answers, those appear to all users. By default this subforum displays post by votes.

^this. IOW, what I said early in another thread: For me, the real question is: How much of my time (in real life) it will take to have the fuel I need where and when I need? Some people will bring fuel from the surface of [celestial body] with an efficient nuclear tanker. I'd rather use the effective TwinBoar powered supertanker.

As explained in the post right before your, just put the beach ball on top of the elephant. Really, how hard can rocket science be anyway?

That issue is easy to solve, just put the crew cabin on top of the command pod, not bellow. Even if you add an adapter is still much cheaper and lighter than a Mk1-2. Or even if you need a docking port, just use the other attachment node. But that is a moot point, what can be added to Mk1-2 can be added to pod+cabin (barring part count issues).

For me, the real question is: How much of my time (in real life) it will take to have the fuel I need where and when I need? Some people will bring fuel from the surface of [celestial body] with an efficient nuclear tanker. I'd rather use the effective TwinBoar powered supertanker.

a)yes, reading is too difficult. b)Unfortunately not available. Not built in game, just calculated deltaV and TWR of the stages with a spreadsheet. (I guess a picture of the spreadsheet will not tell much OTOH I think that is less than 1000 words, something like 200-300 maybe. ) c)IMO yes. Probably done before but I don't think that is a problem. There is also a few different ways to setup a challenge like that (limit or not tech, limit or not cost...).

@Geschosskopf and @Plusck covered that well. But I'd like to point out that you should have that decided before launching your satellites. There are several ways to setup comment, but each call for a different assortment (amount and type) of satellites. After launching 12 short range relays is a bit too late to consider an arrangement where you have use for only 4-5 of those.

Which unfortunately was not unlocked for the OP. My take: Stage 0(From the surface of the Mun Back to Kerbin surface): MK16 parachute, HECS Probecore, communotron 16, MK1 command pod (drained MP), 2x OX-STAT Photovoltaic Panels, TR-2V decoupler, ROUND-8 Toroidal fuel tank, Oscar-B fuel tank*, 2x z100 batteries, 2x Spider engine. About 1.6t, 1050m/s , 1.4 local TWR. Stage 1(From Mun intercept to Mun surface): TR-2v decoupler, FL-t200 fuel tank, science jr, mystery goo, thermometer, barometer, 4x micro landing struts and a spark (if you want, throw in some Octagonal struts, for 20funds and 1kg each, and make the landing struts base wider ). +1,6t, 1150m/s, 3.9 local TWR. Stage 2(From kerbin high atmosphere to Mun intercept):TR-18A decoupler, FL-t400 fuel tank, terrier engine. +5.2t, 2150m/s, 0.7 TWR Stage 3(from lauchpad to kerbin high atmosphere): TR-18A decoupler, 2xFL-t800 fuel tank, fl-t200 fuel tank, Reliant engine, 4xsmall nosecones, 4xspark engine, 4x wing connector type E. +12t, 1750m/s, 1.3 TWR I'd say it's more mid-tech, more expensive and more complex than it need to be, without much of a safety margin, but still a good example of how little(in terms of mass/size) is necessary for a Mun landing mission. Mind you, I designed it in a spreadsheet, it may perform not so well in KSP (maybe I did some stupid mistake along the way). At that point of career I tend to rely in satellites and rescue missions for funds. Tourists and stations can also pay pretty well. If you need help with those kind of contracts, the links are shameless self-promotion for some of my crafts on kerbalX.

Well, you have a plan and already sent the vessels...I guess you need to stick with your plan, at least by now. You may send something later to fix any significant flaw.

It's one of the parameters you can set, MNA.

I expect all the orbits to work right. Not only geostationary. @PrimoDev seems like an error at the save file. I'd fix it with the [set orbit] functionality at the debug menu and pretend it never happened.

Take a look at the burn together mod.

I'd rather talk about KSP than about religion. That's why I "waste" my time in those forums, not studying theology. But seems you're not interested in what I have to say about KSP. Good luck with you test rocket.

<rhetorical question> How do you expect people will interpret "This rocket get to the Mun just fine"? Moot point anyway. The opportunity you have to optimize the vessel is at the VAB, once you reach orbit you have to deal with whatever shortcomings it have.

You named the rocket "MOON SHOT" and said it "get to the mun just fine". But above everything else you said, and I quoted, you try to get the most Delta-V So, you stated objective is to have much more deltaV then necessary for the obvious mission of landing on the Mun and return. Your posts don't mention any difficulty doing the required manuever (except the gravity turn) required for a Munshot. Thus I have no motive to assume otherwise. Judging by the screenshots posted you used about 3.9km/s to put it in orbit. I suppose you could reduce it to 3.3km/s without much redesign.

So you are failing twice. 1st by overengineering the rocket, with much more DeltaV than necessary for the mission. You carry fuel you don't need, consequently you use more fuel. 2nd not following a good trajectory you pile up a lot of gravity and cosine losses. You can do your mission for a lot less, but you really need to rethink your strategy.

Strip symmetry is among the functionalities of

Yes. See how no one even talk about KSP...oh wait!

That's why I play KSP instead of running a real space program.

Why not just put everything inside a fairing(not staged)? And why not use only one bigger RW if the torque is necessary? Anyway, as mentioned above, the question is not how to provide the same capacities to other setups, the question is if those capacities will be necessary to begin with.