I'm an idiot who cant get to the moon

[maceemiller]

For one, your NOT an idiot. Experience and practice is everything in KSP. I do think your lander is too tall though, however, if your going to take it to the Mun make sure you quicksave (F5) before you land. That way you can quickload (F9) and try again if all goes a little wrong make sure to post back here WHEN you land

[radonek]

For nice, stable lander get Mk1 pod with terrier, add 2x radial tank, 2x radial material bay and you have very wide, stable base. Only downside is lots of drag way up. If you add small tank on pod, put those radial parts on radial decouplers and set up proper staging, you have can squeeze quite a lot of d-v out of it.

[Scarecrow88]

This is my basic and reasonably simple rocket for the Mun.

1st stage and boosters are enough to get to Kerbin orbit.

2nd stage has plenty of fuel for Mun injection, Mun orbit and should have some left over for the initial de-orbit burn at Mun.

Lander has enough to de-orbit, land, return to Mun orbit and then return to Kerbin.

Don't know how much science you need to unlock the required parts if you are playing in Career mode, as I only play in Sandbox mode.

The image has been Photoshopped to remove the engine shroud above each decoupler so you can see which engine I have used.

[Fearless Son]

Thank you everyone, i made it! i ended up ditching the second bloke but i made it! next stop minmus!

thank you all!

I'm Happy!!

Grats! Do you have any pics? Milestones like this should be shared and celebrated!

[jackboy900]

Nice job, onto minmus (much easier)! One thing I would suggest is instead of a fuel tank and science jnr. stacked add 4 half-sized tanks around the craft on decouplers with legs and fuel lines into a central (also half-sized) tank below a science jnr. then add two nosecones (one on top and one on the bottom) to each outside tank and a 909 to the middle one. This design allowed me to run 5 biomes in one launch on my first landing (and I had half my fuel remaining on re-entry) . Then add the rest of the science gear and above all that add a decoupler-shield-pod-probe-chute (add some radial chutes to).

The reason you need the probe core is that having it means that a scientist can be in the pod and the probe will add SAS. With a pilot/engineer the thermometer/barometer/accelerometer/gravioli detector can have their data removed (on EVA) and then run again but only a scientist can restore the science jnr./ goo (once the data has been removed).

Edited September 1, 2015 by jackboy900

[Sharpy]

First, move the fifth engine into the first stage. The whole bonus of asparagus staging is that all the engines are burning, giving you good TWR, and you end up with full fuel after dropping each stage. Ah, and make it into asparagus - currently that's onion staging, less efficient.

So, first set of drop-tanks feeds into the second set of drop-tanks and only this feeds into the main stage. All engines burn from moment one (well, except the ones in the lander), and you drop stages as their fuel is exhausted.

That said, good luck landing a lander this tall and narrow on munar slopes.

Consider something more similar to the initial design, or even more squat: capsules and science in the middle, then two or three tanks attached radially to the sides, with legs extending from these.

[cantab]

Regarding wide landers, bear in mind that while yes a wider lander is easier to land without tipping it over it can also be harder to launch. This isn't 0.90 any more, aerodynamics matters, and if your payload is wider than your launcher then whether you use a fairing or not your rocket is going to want to flip during launch.

[tbarcello]

Regarding wide landers, bear in mind that while yes a wider lander is easier to land without tipping it over it can also be harder to launch. This isn't 0.90 any more, aerodynamics matters, and if your payload is wider than your launcher then whether you use a fairing or not your rocket is going to want to flip during launch.

You are right! Woth no fairings this will be more difficult. I'd say 1.1 TWR will be safe.

[Clipperride]

And please remember everyone has to learn - even NASA!

One of the early Mercury flights came down miles off target because no one remembered to add in the Earth's rotation during the flight and Gemini first attempt at station keeping with their spent booster went totally wrong*, so take heart. Even the professionals had to learn the ropes!

* I forget which flight without checking, but they separated from the final stage, gave a toot on the RCS to move away and then turned to face it. Once the on orbit checks were done, they gave the RCS enough to stop them, then some more to move back towards their target, now a mile or so away. They lost sight of the empty stage during the night pass, but were surprised to find, once back in daylight that they were now several miles away. They tried a couple more times before giving up and saving the fuel. What (and again these were the cleverest folks the USA could put on the problem) they hadn't realised was, by turning round and flying blunt end first, they were burning retrograde when they tried to close the gap. That slowed them down but also put them in a lower orbit. Lower orbits are always quicker than higher orbits, so the distance increased.

[AengorKerbow]

Regarding wide landers, bear in mind that while yes a wider lander is easier to land without tipping it over it can also be harder to launch. This isn't 0.90 any more, aerodynamics matters, and if your payload is wider than your launcher then whether you use a fairing or not your rocket is going to want to flip during launch.

I ran into this problem when I built wide. First of all, there is no fairing that you'll have available that will be able to cover it most likely. I got it into space, but it wasn't easy. If I didn't handle the incline perfectly then it would tumble out of control.