Spricigo

Or you can stack 3 Mk1 crew cabin and send 6 at time. You can design a functional vessel for Mun /Minmus orbit and back with just 1.25m parts (in particular Reliant, Swivel, Terrier liquid fuel engines and SRBs) while reentry heat is a concern.

Not possible in stock, that functionality is offered by this mod: edit 2...and just inserting it again worked. Computers are temperamental b.

Given the fact no landing is necessary and also the possibility of refuelling (maybe also ISRU), the task is possible (even easy) If that is practical/efficient/convenient is the question to consider.

BTW: after several in game years of mission my save suffered a acute case of Chronic Update Disorder. I'm yet to find time, and specially disposition to start over.

Nice metaphor and sound reasoning. Drag depends, among other things in exposed area, with means stronger forces acting in a big parts like the inflated heatshield. I'm not saying that heat will necessarily build up faster(there are other factor to be considered) but mechanical stress for sure will be stronger.

Just got a new lesson: Say something with enough conviction and the right amount of jargon and people will think you are specialist. Serriously, there is lot and lots of phase of effect, while in close view are vague and shallow the significance they carry is very strong. For sure many were already mentioned in this very thread. I tried and found no such mod. May you provide a link?

I think you missed @Reactordrone point. Launching to east is cheaper than to west since we got that "head start" from Kerbin's rotation. Assuming a infinite thrust and no drag whatsoever that difference would be the cost for reversing the actual trajectory or twice the Rotation velocity (~350m/s). In reality because of higher drag and gravity losses, the difference is even higher, but for the sake of the discussion lets just assume a perfect trajectory. Two rockets, identical at the launch time, are launched in opposite direction, both end up in circular orbit at 75km. At this point East Rocket have 350m/s higher deltaV budget. Now West Rocket need to raise to expend x m/s to raise it's orbit apoapsis while East Rocket will need expend (x+y) m/s, where y is the cost to reverse trajectory, to reach the same orbit. For some target orbit y=350m/s, lower than that West Rocket need less deltaV, higher and is East Rocket that have the upper hand. Assuming that unrealistic optimized situation I find the critical altitude to be 11 500Km, conveniently about the orbit of the Mun. I'm courious about Reactordrone 8 000km ballpark, since it probably assume a more realistic set of parameters.

Phusical warp x4 at least feels like someone switched the whells for those: I beg pardon, is rather about Momentum. (granted, maybe what exact physical variable is still up to debate)

Even if is not enough to completely avoid trial & error, sufficient to reduce it by a fair amount. Often, theory only comes so far as to a prediction with small but noticeable error

Maybe consider Extraplanetary Launchpads mod (or similar) at this point. Yet another option: instead of full fledged orbital construction just refuelling in LKO orbit.

The promise to not doing it again is unnecessary. If one think the debug menu can "fix" an unfair situation just carry on. @modybird to reverse orbit you will need twice the orbital velocity. It's a lot simpler than start over, if you have enough fuel.

Well.. Doing it often without problems. Wheels pogo sticks with physical warp is a bit worse.

My two most recent Mun rovers: Magallean is transported inside a 2,5m fairing on top a fuel tank+engine . The lander touchdown, tip over and deploy the rover. Roach do the same but without the fairing. Mind you, those are fairly small, respectively 1,8t and 0,4t.

I see.. Because the "head start" you got launching east and the low cost to invert the high orbit. While I know the concept behind it never took the time to know the exact "turning point" (forgive the attempted pun). Did you considered the orbit reversal at target altitude or raise it further higher (edge of SoI) for even cheaper orbit reversal?

[snip] As for good references: I like the videos from @NecroBones playlist at YouTube (the videos itself are from various people) a good chunk of basic and relevant info. @Kottabos mod reviews are very handy (more than once I decide to get a mod because of those reviews) and @kosmoNOT's How to Land , is a classic. Many others deserve mention, unfortunately this thread is not big enough.

In his defence: he didn't said it is necessary. Didn't t even claimed to be related to the question. @CrisCopper Yes, MJ is useful. But many people prefer to not use autopilot. Also, basic understanding of orbital maneuvers and parameters are useful with or without MJ.

Yes, time warp kills throtle. Notice that applies to regular time warp but not for physical time warp. If you are interested, I'd like to see the complete rocket, and know where are you going, so I (and others) may give more tailored advicebut on top of my head consider: -Removing the marked parts and adding a couple of fuel tanks instead. By my math it'll drop the deltaV budget from ~2km/s to 1.95km/s. Minimal difference. Try to focus a bit more in collecting science in kerbin different biomes -You are reaching 80km with just 350m/s. To archive orbit you need horizontal velocity, the only reason to going up is to avoid drag*. That means you should use more energy to build up horizontal velocity and less to climb while reducing losses by drag/steering**. Since Kerbin have an atmosphere a gravity turn is advisable, right after launch tip the rocket a few degrees east and let it follow prograde (the exactly time and amplitude of that initial tilt will depend on the particular rocket. Some a rule of thumbs: reach 10km at 45, maintain time to apoapsis ~1min). The main advantages are maintaining the thrust aligned to velocity and maintaining your ship mostly parallel to airflow. -You should consider to focus a bit more on collecting science around KSC to unlock a few parts that will make your attempt to orbit easier (e.g bigger fuel tanks, more optimized vacuum/atmosphere engines(terrier/reliant), stronger SRBs(thumper), radial decouples, nosecones, control surfaces). *collision with the terrain is just a particular type of drag for that purpose. **some will add gravity losses. Which in some sense is just to say that one want to go horizontal fast as quickly as possible.

another possibilities: - Your staging sequence is not correct and you activated a different engine higher in the stack (which have the nozzle blocked and produce no thrust) -the game consider the engine inside a cargo bay/fairing because a clipping issue or it decoupled from an closed bay/fairing. Just for the sake of completeness, because seems you are in very early career (given the fuel tank you are using and how you are piloting)Edit, after looking at the screenshot the first one is possible. Definitely don’t sound like the start of an interplanetary mission for me. In any case, a picture* of your vessel and a description of the goals may help us to you. We may spot a problem that you didn't even notice, without delving into details that are not relevant for the task at hand. *you need to put the picture in a external host (like the popular imgur) and post the link to the image file.

I just checked and actually they have the same Max temp *. Also the lower mass helps to slowdown. A bad trajectory may be a problem, but pretty safe from LKOish. Although the lower mass of the material bay may make it get hot quickly. I admit my understanding of KSP's heat is flawed at best.

Those are common dependencies for several mods (often bundled together for convenience) . AFAIK nothing in your list need those, so I wonder why CKAN suggested it.

I think that is what the mod Kopernicus is for.

None. Parachite, probecore, antenna, solar panel, goo canister, material bay, heatshield, decoupler, fuel tank, landing legs and terrier. I guess, given or taken, 400kg he want to recover and 700kg below it. The weak point seems to be the material bay. Keeping it shielded from heat may be tricky. If it had the same heat resistance of a Mk1 Mk1 command pod it would be be easier because of higher drag and lower weight.

Got it! Need to burn downward to go faster while burning outward to stay in orbit. I thought was exactly the oposite

Raise your periapsis as much as needed to not burn, if that is not enough to capture just make more passes. The fuel left use for the eventual adjustments at apoapsis. You can also send a kerbal in EVA to collect the science.

A basic understanding of the concept is certanly usefull, but actual number are much less important IMHO. Rocket optimization is a long ongoing discussion around there. The closest thing to a conclusion people reached is "depends" . SRB are cheap, pack a considerable punch, have a considerable dry weight and low Isp. It mostly relegate then for when a kick out off the launchpad is nedeed(/is usefull). That kick may be just to the first hundreds of meters or enough to put the rocket in the space depending on the design. Some tasks are easy done with planes. But nothing you can't do, or choose to not do, without planes. maybe a mod feature, but I use offset tool to put it out of the way when necessary. Is a good solution... If you don't mind that the pieces physical holding your rocket are visualy 5m away. You may like to know about KSC microbiomes. Those are ground only biomes in the KSC gorund, they are tied with particular buildings in the complex (e.g. VAB Round Tank; VAB tanks) , meaning that as you upgrade the facilities you will unlock new ones.