Pecan

Behold, it is done (link in OP). Comments still welcome.

First - the Windows 64-bit version of KSP/Unity itself is buggy, so you're always likely to have problems with it. That's why a lot of mod-makers don't support it and Squad themselves don't recommend it now either. Second - choosing mods and the style in which you like to play is very much a personal choice, so while lots of people will make recommendations there's nothing that will be 'right' for everyone. Third - CKAN will indicate compatibility problems Fourth - the best overview of published mods is probably http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55401-Community-Mods-and-Plugins-Library, stickied in the add-ons forum.

Sandbox, because the current tech-tree is so awful and I can't be bothered with 'visual survey' contracts. However, for anyone just starting I'd recommend Science mode if they are overwhelmed by the number of parts in sandbox. Science gives tech-tree 'progression' without the hassle of contracts, funds, reputation, strategies and building-upgrades. That's a lot of extra stuff to think about if you're just trying to work out how to get to orbit. @worir4: "I just like reading the science experiment reports." - they're available in Sandbox too now.

It is key on a machine like mine, but I enjoy seeing you having fun the wrong way ^^. Does that mean my enjoyment spoils yours, lol. More seriously, does anyone really get angry about how you build? You've got all those green lights for showing-off your creations, after all.

Telling people what to do. All of you sit down, and stop having fun the wrong way. Now!

Sounds like MJ to me too. Please tell us what happens after you've followed Starwaster's advice. Apart from that though - TWO FL-1R tanks!? That's a huge amount, and mass, of monopropellant. You also say a stack decoupler AND a docking port - you only need one of those to separate the vehicle and payload.

Aesthetics. Why are you bothering with FAR? Lol, it's just about style. Anyway, back to the problem, if the fairings are generating lift it must be because they have positive AoA. I find it hard to believe they are generating enough LIFT from that to make the ship flip or otherwise be uncontrollable. Isn't it more likely that it's the DRAG from incidence of the air on the underside of the fairings that is pushing it further nose-up and increasing AoA more until something gives. Solution, keep the AoA very small in the first place, so airflow is from as close to ahead as possible and therefore symmetrical.

RemoteTech makes things a lot more complicated in the beginning, while solving a communications problem you only have if you install RemoteTech. Note that you can't control unmanned probes AT ALL if they are out of communications so mission-planning and preparation before you have a full satellite infrastructure is quite a bit more complex. Once you've solved the problems RT introduces you're back to operations as normal. SCANSat (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80369-0-90-SCANsat-v10-0-Real-Scanning-Real-Science-at-Warp-Speed%21-Jan-29), on the other hand, adds mapping satellites which tell you the surface height, slope and biome. This is useful for science, or just safer, landings and it's fun to get extra information from the game without extra complications. SCANSat also locates and identifies 'anomalies' (Easter eggs in the game), if you want to hunt those. NB: if you don't want to work for it, http://www.kerbalmaps.com/ gives you the same information outside the game.

I'm confused - where is this lift coming from. PF fairings don't generate lift do they?

With a decoupler, separator or docking port. The simplest way is centrally under the lander, which would therefore use multiple engines. If you have a single-engined lander it's usually easiest to fit two rovers symmetrically, for balance. There are lots of alternatives but 'a rover' and 'a rocket' don't give us much to start from. If you have designs already please show screenshots.

If you can land reasonably close to, or at, KSC a SSTO rocket only needs an extra 200m/s dV or so to do a 2-drogue-assisted powered landing for ~98% recovery of costs.

Look in the 'Induction To Construction' guide linked in my signature. Chapters 1 and 4, particularly, talk about the folder structure, making copies and important files to note.

That is exactly what I would recommend, with probes and a lander that you can send down when necessary.

Welcome to the forums at last. Perhaps you could practice your writing with dramatised reports in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/55-Mission-Reports

My main problems with this are just being able to read it. I'm still not sure what the objective is - are these meant to be particularly cheap? If so, shout it! Part names, for instance. What you refer to as "The 250 SRB" is an RT-10. Part names and (SRB) burn times are listed on the wiki: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts The spreadsheet in the OP tells me nothing. I can't tell how lines like "5 S 650 (87), 1 S 650, 1 S 250 - Kerbin orbit - 9.7t (0f) [$14000, $1445/t]" relate to the pictures, if at all. Apart from that. A suggestion - you can probably save some mass and cost by attaching SRBs in the same stage directly to each other, instead of using the girders. I haven't had any overheat yet. A possibility - you seem to have a lot of parachutes arranged to land the returning stage on its side. I've had better luck with just a couple of 'chutes and landing on the engine, using residual fuel for a suicide burn. And a question - roughly what recovery percentage are you working on? (It should be shown in the recovery window).

Then unless you're going to orbit (~4,500m/s dV), leave altitude-dependent missions until you have wings and do them with a plane that can fly at any altitude, control its speed better and use very-efficient jet engines. THE problem, as the others have said, is that there are so many unknown variables affecting your flight, especially those dictated by your ascent path. If you're actually doing the 'achieve an altitude of nnnn' contracts then ... overbuild. Launch something you KNOW will go higher and watch the apoapsis marker in map view. Cut engines when it reaches your desired altitude, using tiny bursts of power to keep it there.

Career mode is still in development. KAS, MJ and other mods certainly aren't taken into account. Targetting and SAS should work if you've got the necessary building upgrades and a sufficiently experienced pilot.

And almost two years old! Once you create your initial manoeuvre node double-click on the target body (eg; Minmus) to focus the view on it and see your orbit within its SOI. Then make minor adjustments to the node to approach the body the way you want to.

Aerobraking may take more than one orbit. If your first doesn't slow you enough just go round again. Every time you enter the atmosphere drag will slow you down.

If you'll be starting with it; save it as a normal ship. If you're adding it to something else; save it as a sub-assembly. If both; then both. I agree ship/subassembly-saving could be looked at but I don't have much trouble keeping my fleet co-ordinated. With the re-root tool being stock I find the easiest way is just to save everything as a ship then make it a subassembly when it's needed. Being able to use different folders would be my favourite addition to filing ships though.

Well, I could fix the Americanisms but its a Sisyphean task. Otherwise, there's not a lot I can do unless you or someone else actually points-out an error.

With this much diagnostic detail I think I can confidently say: 1) Fairies sneaked in and stole them while you were asleep. 2) Pics or it didn't happen. Installs? Games within an install? Quicksaves within a game within an install? NMI.

Congratulations! Obviously, I'm too late to help then. Oh well, my first comment was going to be "You are on the right track" anyway. Feel good about that, you did understand (almost) everything already :-) ETA: Incidentally, I had a mess around with an 18t payload and to keep it low part-count would probably go with core+2 stacks of orange tube and skipper engines. With large probe core and decoupler for the payload, radial decouplers, fuel-lines to core and separatrons for the booster stacks that's a launch TWR of 1.47 and well over 5km/s dV. Over-engineered, but simple.

It'll have to be demolished - it's on the wrong side of the VAB. Trust government contractors to mess it up ^^.