Spricigo

Green mark on build a new station, seems good to go. Odd that it appears for a station supposedly built before the contract was accepted, but if the game is counting as new I don't see reason to not use it. Some considerations(of course, just my opinnion): Seems like you have about 2000 units of monopropellant. That is a pretty good amount of monopropellant IME, maybe you should, at this point, to consider to maneuver the other ship instead of the station. off course if for whatever reason you want a big reserve of RCS, Mk3 or/and FL-R1 are much more convenient than Stratus-V Consider removing all RCS/RW from the station. and use separated thugs that can dock and maneuver to different modules. This way you don’t need to add RCS/RW to each single module you launch in the future. In my experience RCS works way better if each thruster can only affect only translation along a given axis with reaction wheels dealing with rotation. Consider to Add Angled Docking Ability to Docking Ports to keep RCS aligned (there is a module manager patch supposed to do this there, and this mod and the already mentioned Konstruction). If you are not patient enough for the small torque provided by reaction wheels, an other possibility is a set of Rotation Only RCS that you can turn on/off with a action group. while there is advantages for a single big station that do a lot of things, there is also the incentive for multiple more specialized stations.* You may take a look at what other player did to plan the next module of your station. *well, as far as there is reasons to use stations. IMHO, there is no big incentive in the stock game (Science farm research, refuelling, somewhere to change vessels)

WARNING: KSP's vessels are structured in a tree hierarchy . That means that each part (except the root) has exactly one parent part. that means that probably one of your tricouples is attached to a single part while you expect it to be attached to all three stacks. You may fix it with struts or a mod but in stock game it will cause structural and aerodynamics issues. I'd consider something (adjusted for your requirements and available technology) more like this: PS: If you like, it holds 14 astronauts. Change the parachutes for nosecones (you can decouple then when in space) and add a docking port. Make a 2nd module with complementary fuel tanks and battery, dock then in orbit and delivery it in the required orbit.

The important bit, when you open the contract window while in control of the station the "build a new station ..." is checked? If yes that vessel are considered new. Otherwise well, you can change a lot of things but not how old a station is. Another point: there is build a Station contracts and expand [Station] contracts. While I didn't check it for myself nothing says, in the later cases, the modules you need to add need to be new.

Reaching Eve, and even landing at Eve is actually easy at this stage. Its the return to orbit from the surface of Eve that is the big deal. from the wiki: In short: is (by far) the hardest planet to launch a vessel from. My advice: explore Gily, Ike and Duna instead, maybe even the Jool system (and there is rumours about another celestial that you can also visit). Or use one way probes. Eve is not a destination, its a challenge.

I usually don't mention Hyperedit because in my mind it is basicaly "debug menu plus". I don't have something against it, rather rationalize (a mod is not necessary to do it, alt+F12 is enough. That said is a rather powerful solution for a myriad of 'issues' with the stock game, that one should consider if immersion breaking is not a problem. BTW; find another option for editing the Station, Save Ship Splicer*. I think the fact that you can can copy the in flight version of the station, open in the VAB for edition, and then import the revised version into the desired orbit is a huge advantage IMHO. *If you find the other mods useful, that is a bonus.

While, for obvious reason,I don't contest the analysis made in this thread, it is often misinterpreted. (irony at its finest) I suppose OhioBob didn’t intended to replace the old "rule" everyone used without thinking for a new one equally mindlessly used. He pointed that the "rule" was not always true, food for thought. So he said: What is fine for the analysis he was doing but don't tell the whole story. Take a periapsis of 100km around kerbin, what is the orbital velocity(Vorb)? Answer: take the vis-viva equation V2=GM(2/r -1/a) ...and notice the missing data: semi-major axis(or apoapsis if you prefer). He just considered circular orbits and continued his analysis, and for what he proposed it was the simple end effective. Its just when people use it for something else without considering how the situation is different that problems arise. Moral of the story: It is not the hard and fast rule that everyone seems to thinks it is. (and tanks for @OhioBob for sharing a bit of his expertise with us)

For small modification (e.g. changing a docking port Jr for a regular one) KIS/KAS may suffice but it become very unwieldy for more extensive modifications. ExtraPlanetaryLaunchpads let you build entire new vessels and recycle old. If you feel that all the new parts added by EPL is a bit overwhelming, if consider simple contruction (what the name suggest) You may also take a look at Kontruction for the its construction docking ports, pretty convenient when you want modules launched/contructed separately to be united permanently. and don't forget the Alt+F2 option: -Design the Upgraded Station in VAB -Deploy it with the cheat menu -Remove the old one -If you are concerned about the cheating part, launch a dummy mission to account for the costs and time it takes to do it "fairly". (but there is no cheat in a single player sandbox)

well, my comment was based in my intuition (a.k.a. poor substitute for experience). I'm not surprised if I was wrong. However I'd try to look for LMO=20km since that is what the Op is using to be sure (let alone all the detail we can include in the analyses). In any case, what he attempted is something I never considered in my own game (if I'll use refuel I’ll do at Minmus followed by an Oberth Dive to LKO) so, while I hope my guesswork to be somewhat helpful, take it with a grain of salt.

I'd expect higher cosine losses in LMO than in LKO. And for the same reason more trouble getting the ejection angle right. Unfortunately the transfer planner don't take that in consideration

I don't dare, British reaction over something like that is not good.

No, you don't need. Actually all the drag and mass is seriously hindering that plane.

Non sequitur. See, excessive use of Latin and now you think I'm a pendant.

Which math problem? The questions were: 1.there is some alternative methods? ( Yes, as explained above, make an adjustment after first orbit to get an encounter) 2. OP computed something wrong? (Yes, 15:8 ressonance means a encounter each 8 kerbin's orbits) Notice that while you explored a mathematical explanation, the question itself was not formally a mathematical one. @kermand you may use Eve gravity assist to reduce the deltaV requeriment. But be careful, it may change the inclination and apoapsis in such way that will end up being retuning to kerbin even more expensive than the deltaV you saved in the way down. Moho, giving the smaller gravity and higher inclination, probably better to be left alone.

Yes. But Jeb will die if I say it.

BTW if you landed on the Mun, you also can land on Minmus. And deltaV and technology wise Duna, Ike and Gill are a step further. For this size of station I'd launch in one piece and refuel in space. But assembling in LKO or Mun orbit also work. (matter of preference, I think)

I think I used true asparagus just enough to convince me to not use it anymore. OTOH crossfeed enabled on radial decouplers that holds SRBs and fuel tanks on top of SRBs are standard design.

. To be fair, it's not really rovers that are broken. The problem is that funds are so easy to obtain, there is not enough reason to take a cheaper option.

Congratulations. It really don't matter if you were "inefficient" this time, remember that not reaching the Mun would be 100% inefficient.

You can't transmit or the antenna is retracted and you can't deploy? If the later just deploy before launching.

Both. Just keep in mind excessive use of Latin can make make you looks pendant.

IMHO moot points, getting a ballpark based on the table is as good as getting a ballpark based in an exploratory probe. Personally, I use a reference value found in some table for the exploratory probe.

Kudos for you for playing how you want instead of how people think you should. Now about the difficulties you are finding: A craft will in atmospheric flight will tend to go heavy side first, drag side last. You need Center of Drag behind Center of Mass*. Keep in mind that CoM will shift as you burn fuel (and ditch stages) and CoD will shift depending on angle relative to airflow. Landing is just the reverse of lift-off. The problem is that you need be much more precise in your timing. *Necessary but not sufficient enough for stability.

Why do you ask if you know the answer? Personally I prefer fairings. Also don't forget the electricity cost.

Let alone the fact that it need to be approximated values (to account for gravity losses, steering losses, bad timing...), yes you are reading it wrong as @Gaarst pointed out.

For some reason that remind me of Sean Connery playing English Spy, Russian Submarine Captain, Spanish Immortal, ...