Spricigo

The fact there are ways to deal with it don't mean is not a issue. Chose your approaching and deal with the consequences. Going higher means forfeiting some Oberth Effect, spliting the burn means increasing complexity, more engines add to the dry mass... No necessarily, it depends on how much more fuel (and tanks) is necessary for the vessel with those engines need to have the same deltaV. If 12t of nervs are not powerfuyll enough, maybe one should consider 3.5t of Poodles or 9t of Rhinos. well, I prefer to fully avoid game parts that are less fun than grocery.

There is more to consider than just Isp. A engine with better TWR would allow you to complete the burn in a much shorter time. It allow you to make more of oberth effect (no need to go to higher obit) or make your mission simpler (no need to divide the burn). IMHO more relevant, it free player time to use with other things in the game instead of an hour long burn. Notice that doing the maneuver along a curved trajectory have an inherent inefficiency. Either because of the variable angle between the Thrust and a Velocity or because part of the early burn is canceled out by part of the later burn. A low thrust maneuver will sweep a larger angle thus suffereing more from this effect. It will be more or less relevant depending on what you do to deal with it (higher orbits, divided burn...) and how much of a 'safety margin' you have available.

a small inconvenient : your orbital period is 32min Imagine that you point at the maneuver marker and start your burn, At first you maneuver marker is pretty close to prograde and you raise your orbit (a painfuly slow rising). But as you perform your burn those will deviate more and more, after 8min they are perpendicular, after 16min you are pointing retrograde. And that is your problem, half of the time you are lowering your orbit instead of raising it. My advice is to go back to the drawing board and redesign your entire mission. Rethink what is necessary to archieve the goals of the mission and what is just dead weight you can cut. Try to have just the necessary for each phase of the mission with a small safety margin. Particulary for engines, remenber to consider Thrust and Weight (Nervs have high Isp, but are heavy and weak). edit: for help with the redesign, please describe the mission objectives/requirements and provide a few images of what you had built so far.

I think that's a particular case of capturing with low pe. Or rather a potential added advantage.

Not that much. The smaller satellites are ~2200funds and .5t each. The same basic design with a different antenna (the 'expensive' part) is used for the long range relays in polar orbit. That gives excellent coverage (loss of signal at one pole when both long range relays are over the opposite pole, pretty much that's it. ) , is infrastructure that will be used for lots of future missions. Of coarse you, concerned with more immediate needs, may be satisfied with less coverage( e.g deploy a pair of long range relays in Eve's polar orbit.) In any case you may consider how it can be expanded/improved later.

As Antenna Selector points out when Kerbin and Eve are in opposite sides of the sun your signal drop to 0. I guess that more than 90degrees apart the signal is considerably low. A satellite just a bit more powerful (2xRA-2 or a RA-15) should do the tricky. My typical Network have around each planet a pair of long range satellite s in high elliptical polar orbit (one north, other south. One at Ap, other at Pe) able to reach kerbin and four equally spaced small satellites (single HG-5) in equatorial orbit . It give pretty good coverage with not much trouble or cost to setup.

First let me say thanks for One Window. I really appreciate that you mentioned me but thatbwas not necessary. Actually @Foxster is the one that had the idea (here). My part was just to bring it to the attention of people with skills to make it happen. Also I think, and risk to say Foxster probably agree, the fact the idea was realised is more important than any recognition given to us.

And more good news: This idea is now reality in two different mods. I think only thing left to do in this thread is to say thanks to @DMagic and @linuxgurugamer. And also to @Foxster. He is the one that had the idea (here). My part was just to bring it to the attention of people with skills to make it happen.

There is external tools like KSP-TOT and FlybyFinder. I never took the time to experiment with those but seems to be good tools. In any case I think that will be troublesome to pull off. It's a sad fact that most of the time the moons are just in the wrong place.

I didn't because in my experience that's not much relevant. But my experience is limited mostly to fairly light, probe controlled crafts, coming from 80km orbits, with over 60degree pitch up. Btw, welcome back.

You missed the point. You don't need to slow down with this rocket because it is not powerful (or draggy) enough to reach the critical velocity before getting out of the dense part of the atmosphere. Try switching that Reliant for a Vector and see how it goes. Apart from that, I have to agree with @Alshain that the way you fly exacerbate the gravity losses. If you want to demonstrate how a "faster" ascent is better than a "slow" ascent, don't let the effect of a vertical ascent be so pronounced.

I used Better Crew Assignment for a while and is one of these mods that should be stock. The only reason I removed BCA is to experiment CrewR&R, which supposely is not compatible. I'm still getting used to cR&R but so far I liked. IMHO both can solve your issue, the choice is a matter of taste.

Also worth noticing: that's when Isp become less important.

Since isp is just how much thrust/fuel comsumption the engines can produce it'll not change if you expend n times more fuel to produce n times more thust.

Two most common causes: -shifting CoM fall behind CoD as fuel is empty -CoD in front of CoL because of unaccounted drag (either drag unrelated with lift or differences due AoA) As always a picture of your craft (in SPH with CoM and CoL enabled) and a brief description of its purprose is the ideal to craft specific advice. Also point if there is some restriction (tech, mass, cost...) or particular requirement (%recovery, deltaV in orbit, RCS ....)

Well, not sure about how MJ fare but Kramax or KOS certanly make things easier (IMHO a lot). In any case, as I see it, is more a matter of how much 'computer aid' you feel acceptable. Your chalenge, your decision. Btw. MJ can be setup to not require non-stock parts. In my limited knowledge seems to be the general rule for this kind of mod.

Was about to suggest a look at haystak. @swjr-swis was quicker. (I don't use it, but seems like what better fit the request) For the purpose of locating a specific vessel I sometimes rely ob KER target selector function to choose the target in a list and then switch to or view in TS. There is better (mod) ways, this just happens to use a mod I already have for other purposes.

You don't mention it but I suppose no autopilot mod. Also think is a good idea to define your instance aboout info mods to avoid confusion. Seen like a fun challenge that I'd like to participate. Unfortunately I don't foresee timr available for it.

As you may notice there is a lot of opnions about how high/low the periapsis should be and what AoA to keep. But the idea is the same: expose a lot of area to avoid heat to build up in a single point and to slowdown quickly. Figuring out what works better for you may take some time . Notice that some crafts can avoid overheating rushing to the lower altitude where you slow quickly toba safe velocity.

Maybe experiment tracker ? The last comnent of the author about an update to 1.3 was that after a few tests it should be released. But he also made very clear his time for this is very scarce , his words:

And why are you telling him to land in the most fuel inefficient way? He is using MechJeb and consequently can use its features to make a eficient and precise landing near the target. Its not only the info necessary (e.g. time to suicie burn) but the actual autopiloting thing the mod is about.

First of all: Define "near". For my typical needs anything bellow 5km can be considered near, but I doubt that will be enough for you. More info in general certainly help us to understand your situation. You said you are using \MJ to help you, any problem using the features it have for it (landing site prediction, autolanding, ....) or figuring out how those works? Any reason to not quicksave and try until you are satisfied? Or landing not so close and hoping close? (i think @bewing was about to suqgest it)

The contracts are quite generous about what is a rendezvous. In any case it will be useful to learn doing it well for future missions that may require EVA transfer and/or docking. So, practice, practice, practice... And if you want a good explanation/reference:

Didn't occured me to check it before but now that you mentioned seemed like a good thing to do. My test and results: I created a simple craft (pod, fuel tank 1, fuel tank 2, engine) and set higher priority in one of the fuel tanks, saved, disabled advanced tweakables, loaded a lauched. The fuel respect the priority previously set.