Spricigo

Nah! increase to 150% and go do some aerobatics. Seriouly, for a plane that small probably using elevon 1 shuld be enough maybe just a basic fin for vertical stabilazer (either bank to turn or just rely on reaction wheels for yaw). Interestings. Mine is a bit heavier, with have more wing area, high tail and 3 degrees of incidence. Takes off with no control at 50m/s. A bigger difference than I was expecting.

That basicaly is the first step in the way to solve any problem. @Lord_Archaic https://kerbalx.com/Spricigo/KarlJatho similar to your design but with thrust aligned to CoM, wing incidence and inclined wheel base. Also 2 crew spaces for pilot & scientist. Very easy to takeoff and fly.

It's that difficult to respect other people opinions and preferences? Play your game wherever you like and stop being a duck.

Sadly, I agree. Better restart than fix If the OP is interested I have This one laying around. 4 passengers, single stage to orbit and back. No docking port or hatch (I use Crew Cabin Hatch mod) and somewhat low powered rockets (several options available to 'fix it', RAPIERs , Thuds, Terriers , Darts or even extra Sparks). Of course I'm not the only on e that have spaceplanes available on KerbalX. You may download a few, experiment then to discover what kind of design you like and only then try to apply the ideas on a design that suits your needs /style

Well, certainly less convenient (e. g. requiring relays in closer orbit, landing required to transmit science) but still pretty doable to explore most bodies with only a communotron 16 and built-in antenna. In other words: unnecessary but far from impossible.

The "no pictures, no clicks" motto applies for many people that would provide the help you seek. Personally, also like to know what the intended purpose of the craft is. How much cargo/crew to where?

@Snark for a craft of this size, just a couple degree of wing incidence seems to be enough and not much a problem for takeoff speed. Specially since most of lift is on front of the CoM(if wing incidence is added) and a considerable rudder causing a pitch up tendency. @Aegolius13 now that you pointed out, I have the same impression of thrust vector passing above CoM.

A minor difference, with all those ground station conveniently in range of the built in antenna. Then again, every difference between communotron 16 and 16S are minor anyway.

What they said... Also, for complete complaint sake: heavier.

As mentioned In Dmagic Orbital Science mod thread, the new experiments can be returned or transmitted like regular stock experiments. So, if not a basic issue (e.g. CommNet issues, lack of antenna), its clearly a bug/conflict .

This^ Not only managed to offend every other guide-maker by implying they are irrelevant, but also managed to imply that the solution to every single problem in KSP is Scott O'Malley, I have serious doubts. A big thank you for the people that take their time to help people understand KSP.

What make your craft take of is a net upward force. With wings and engines parallel to the ground you don't have enough upward force to overcome weight. (in part because how KSP's aerodynamic is, it don't simulate wing shape so all lift comes from Angle of Attack ) There is two common ways to solve it: (1)Have wings with some built in AoA (aka wing incidence). If you have enough lift to overcome weight you take off. (2)turn your craft up. Yes, I know is obvious. Yet pretty often inexperient players design planes unable to do it, and that actually is your problem also. Notice in your craft pitch is done (mostly) by the control surfaces at the tail. It pitch up by forcing the tail down. But since your craft touch the ground exactly below those control surfaces it only means the aerodynamic force is transferred to the ground resulting in bigger reaction force from the ground on your rear wheels. Personally I suggest to put some incidence in your wings, because it may also allow for a wider wheel base and avoids tail strikes. For this size and tech level I also prefer taildrager designs. BTW those wings have better aesthetics but worse performance. " looks good" is as good as any other reason for pick a particular part, just notice what the price is.

What can be given for a given craft is antenna power . Range will depend on antenna power of both involved crafts. The " range to ground station" in antenna description is sufficient for many applications. And while "range to a given relay" is useful, pretty often it is either much longer or much shorter then actual distance (in other words, exact range is not relevant). I already considered to build an extended reference table for range between common antenna power but, given the above factor(and some laziness) , still didn't care enough.

Actually just a mistake with your data. Maybe because OhioBob used kilometer and wiki uses meter.

Not necessary to start over change the setting and continue from where you are.

which, by NASA standards, is more like grossly putting yourself in collision trajectory before ramming your target

oddly enough: yes AND yes. Displayed 0.0m/s is not fundamental and absolute constant 0 so, given enough time, the crafts will drift away What you need to keep in mind is that you need to match velocity and position, not speed and distance. The difference is that the first pair are vectorial physics quantities, with magnitude and direction. What you are describing is just passing by the target. I would make a length description of how to make velocity and position match, but that was already been very well done, so I prefer to just link it: TL:DR version make coincide with and with while maintaining [speed]=k.[distance] In other words: as xyou approaches xtarget gradually make vyou matchvtarget

Oh My Godwin! Now I'm worried!

Incurring the risk to spoiling the fun for you some things to consider, from the top of my mind: BTW, I prefer this upper stage instead of the 2,5 variant.

Frankly, I had to check the game menu to be sure that option was a thing. I go directly to spacedock or

That distinction makes as much sense to me as blue size VS red size. Anyways, people build big vessels (e.g. 100 kerbals to Layte). Personally I prefer smaller ones.

Everyone is unique... like anyone else.

Arguable if it had a use before flipping.

My new vessel on KerbalX, inspired by this thread: https://kerbalx.com/Spricigo/FourteenAgain 14 tourists to orbit and back. Fun fact: it has m some of the flaws (but not to the same extent) reported in OP's original rocket (since it reach orbit almost by itself, with more than enough deltaV to deorbit and took like 15min to design that's good enough)

once upon a time I, like many others instaled KAS...over time I find other option for the functionality KAS provided. For "assemble at the destination" I like this one: