Spricigo

Pretty much it... The center of lift is just in front of the center of mass. And the center of mass itself is somewhat behind of the geometric center. I also suspect there is a considerable drag in the front of the plane not accounted by the stock center of lift and that as fuel is burn the center of mass shift even more rearwards. Not necessarily problem but not to my likings is the somewhat limited leverage of control surfaces and landing gear placement. Is a good looking vessel, but there is a lot of work to turn it into a plane.

KER can be a bit overwhelming, lots of info. May take a bit of time to figure out how to setup in a way that you understand and like. In any case there is several ways KER may present your deltaV budget (I like deltaV C/T, where C refer to current stage and T for total). To know how much is required to land in a celestial body you may take a look at a deltaV map, keep in mind that your first attempts will probably cost more, given the piloting errors.

The only suggestion I have is to put all satellites in polar high elliptical orbits. Coverage will be pitiful on the periapsis side and good on the apoapsis side. Not 24/7* coverage but close enough. If you decide to later visit the other side of the celestial body you may either put extra satellites in a mirrored way (or just reposition the existing ones if you keep enough fuel). And after that a triangular formation formation of weak relays (1x HG5 each) will give you a very good network, with only small gap on the poles once a while. *or the kerbin equivalent 6/whatever

No. There is several ways to figure out that. Trial and error, doing the math, look in a deltaV map, using a mod. Which one interested you?

Well, I admit my statement used a bit of rethorical emphasis (aka exaggeration) . In any case Duna may not be difficult but is awkward. If you are trying to find the 'most efficient way' to do things in Duna, there will be a lot of headscratching.

Out of curiosity, how much the rover weighted? And how fast it touched down? BTW: 2x drogue chute 150kg 2x spider engine 40kg, OscarB tank(empty) 25kg, Fuel ?? Seems like a close call.

Everything that OhioBob said. And also: for what? An efficient lifter and an efficient interplanetary stage will have very distinct characteristics. *by whatever parameter

I think you are missing the point, the "deadspots" are not relevant for the "powerfull" satellites in polar orbit. The satellite in high elliptical* polar orbit, are setup one with pe over south pole other with pe over north pole, also they are setup so at the time one is at pe the other is at ap. So one of those will always have LoS to kerbin. While is not the intended purpose, those satellite provide good coverage of the surface polar regions. In any case since those satellite will be most of the time a fairly high altitude over opposite sides of the celestial body a triangular formation of weaker satellites (1xHG-5 each) around the equator will easily handle the majority of the gaps. Every half of the orbital period of the polar satellites a pole will be incommunicable, but not for very long and an extra pair of weak satellites can close this gap if that is really necessary. *For some reason I brain-farted 'inclined",

Maybe too powerful. It really depends on the weight of the rover and amount of parachutes used. After all it don't need to be able of a complete stop, just slow down enough for a safe landing. I'd use the cheat... test menu to experiment a bit. My first bet would probably be a parachute and 2 spider engines.

Why on every vessel? 2 satellite in high inclined polar orbit around Kerbin, 2 satellite in similar formation around the Mun to stablish a constant link. The other vessels don't need to reach Kerbin, just the relay in polar orbit, which will have a nice 14M antenna power (a craft with a communotron 16 can reach it up to 2.37Mm away, pretty much anywhere in Mun's SoI).

If you are asking "[strategy] is worth?" the answer is probably not, regardless of which strategy we are talking about. Chances are that you didn't understood the adjustments to you gameplay you need to get most out of the strategy.

Worth noticing that the fact HG-5 are good for surface to low orbit relaying make it such an useful antenna. Put a triangular formation in 1Mm equatorial orbit around a celestial body and this surface is pretty much covered. Since the poles are blind spots, put a pair of satellites in high elliptical polar orbits with antennas strong enough to reach Kerbin and you will have a loss of communication once in a century and never in a millennium. Can't say is a bad antenna when 3/5 of my relays are those. BTW, under normal settings a HG-5 in minmus can connect with ground station lvl2.

Another method is to have "bumpers" that can survive impacting at higher velocity (e.g. Girder segment). And while that is clear not the intended purpose fairings are virtually indestructible (but not the base)

I think you missed his point in a few ways. But more relevant: How good a particular design is in VAB/SPH means nothing. Is when you fly it that you can evaluate how effective it really is. Its when you fly a design that you may spot thing that are not self-evident in the VAB and you build experience over time. So a novice consulting deltaV charts and using some formulas may be able to build an effective ship for Mun landing and return after a few tries. A more experienced play do it in the first tries without the need to consult deltaV charts. An even more experienced do it without consulting charts, estimating the results, fly the mission without the assist of maneuver nodes and with a ship that is 10% cheaper....then someone do a Eve landing and return using only Solid Rocket Engines. What actually seem now like a lot of guesswork is just some simple aspect that are not exactly self evident (and some even counter-intuitive). But you like the experience to see then as it. Sadly there is not a simple answer for 'how much wing I need?'. Let's take an real life example, those iconic aircrafts: The first one have 18m2 wing area and max take-off weight 13t, the other have 90m2 and 18t. KSP planes are not that different. (actually KSP replicas of both crafts are common) There is several ways to design a functional plane and anyone advocating some "true way" is just boasting his preferences. For what is worth I tend have less than 1lift for ton, ~4/1 between main wing and tail (very rarely use canards), almost always have a few degrees of wing incidence and often TWR>1. The purpose of my planes, with very few exceptions, are either science collection in Kerbin or delivery of a payload/crew at LKO.

That issue its easy to solve, take off and land in the grass. Much longer and perfectly flat. OTOH the instability you are experimenting may be more about your design than you are aware, wheels in particular are a bit tricky.

Different people learn in different ways. Based in experience I can say that mach busters with quasi-vestigial wings are pretty effective learning tools. (and fun as... mach buster with quasi-vestigial wings, I suppose) In any case that is not the point. A plane that fly poorly may be better than one that crash while attempting to take off, but is still much worse than a balanced design that fly properly. High or low lift don't matter if that is balanced with the other characteristics of the vessel. Different people learn in different ways. Based in experience I can say that mach busters with quasi-vestigial wings are pretty effective learning tools. (and fun as... mach buster with quasi-vestigial wings, I suppose) In any case that is not the point. A plane that fly poorly may be better than one that crash while attempting to take off, but is still much worse than a balanced design that fly properly. High or low lift don't matter if that is balanced with the other characteristics of the vessel.

There is a big difference between a lesser evil and a good thing. A slow plane uses more fuel and, much worse, eat more player time.

If DSN strength and Antenna Ratting multiplier is 6.4 range is also multiplied by 6.4.

Don't feel bad. There is so many ways to build a plane wrong, you need a fair amount of persistence (or luck) to finally find the some way to build it right. How cute... It took me more than a week to build my first "aircraft" that "flew" well enough to crash in the ocean. (let alone the time before that where I didn't dare to open SPH). The problem is that without guidance or experience you don't know if that bit there will make things better or worse. And given there is more ways to make things worse.... If your immediate goal is to have a aircraft that can fly around and complete some mission, you can take a look at KerbalX or the spacecraft exchange and look for something that fit your needs <self-promotion>KarlJatho this one is easy to fly, low tech, with science equipment and space for 2 crew (pilot & scientist) </self-promotion> If you really want know what is wrong with your current design, post pictures. Picture of the craft in the SPH with CoM and CoL.I displayed. Also a brief description of the intended purpose (e.g. Collect science [flying low] and [landed] around KSC). Craft file may be useful, but it requires people to download it and fire up KSP to provide advice. Experienced players may spot novice mistakes from a good picture while not able to open KSC. Don't feel bad. There is so many ways to build a plane wrong, you need a fair amount of persistence (or luck) to finally find the some way to build it right. How cute... It took me more than a week to build my first "aircraft" that "flew" well enough to crash in the ocean. (let alone the time before that where I didn't dare to open SPH). The problem is that without guidance or experience you don't know if that bit there will make things better or worse. And given there is more ways to make things worse.... If your immediate goal is to have a aircraft that can fly around and complete some mission, you can take a look at KerbalX or the spacecraft exchange and look for something that fit your needs <self-promotion>KarlJatho this one is easy to fly, low TECH, carries science gears and have space for 2 crew (pilot & scientist) </self-promotion> BTW : for help with a particular craft design, pictures are often more useful than craft files. Pictures are more accessible (no need to fire up KSC) and experienced player can often easily spot issue that are elusive for novices.

well, maybe you used like 2m/s to change inclination..that is 2m/s extra deltaV for the OP.. I guess, Chip and Dale (my two neurons) were fighting by the time I reached the conclusion that the change of inclination would have a significant cost.

you probably have heard of Goldilocks Principle when something is not too much or not too few but 'just right'. Well, Duna Atmosphere (like its real life counterpart) resting in the baby bear zone, not dense enough for landing only with parachutes, not thin enough for a purely propulsive landing, but just the wrong atmosphere. Goldilocks screw with you every time.

according to the wiki:

100% of mine goes in " full-fledged craft category" Because the unfortunately combination of not that much flexible with not that much necessary.

The solution seems simple to me. 1. Capture in a high elliptical orbit with apoapsis equal to the desired final apoapsis. 2.Circularize at apoapsis. 3.Wait until you are over a pole, release one of the satellites and lower the periapsis to the desired heigh. 4.Same for the other satellite at the other pole. 5.Tweak the orbit to get same orbital period but while one is at periapsis the other is at apoapsis. Notice that I didn’t considered what would be the 'ideal' height of the periapsis at capture time. That depends on your actual situation and desired final orbit. Probably too late by now, but I'd go with ant engine, no decoupler between the batteries and fuel tank, and a single Z-100 instead of 2x z-1k. That would be enough to squeeze an extra 200m/s out of each satellite. For further mass saving using TR-2V instead of TR-18A and putting the satellite in-line inside the fairing and getting rid of the adapter is 130kg less, the fairing itself will be bigger, but if you will be using it only during the launch from Kerbin (and use a 1,25m fairing that, depending on how you build it, may be lighter {-100kg the base, -2kg/m2}) maybe the end result is also a little extra deltaV. Instead I’d settle for not so eccentric orbit with apoapsis in opposite directions and same orbital period. The point is that in the same orbit there is a considerable time the area below the periapsis will be in communication shadow and the distance between the satellite can be much shorter, increasing the likelihood of both being out of LoS. Yes, this probably works very well. Most of the time the satellite will be high in the orbit (a result predicted by Kepler's 2nd law) and the moons of Jool will be conveniently out of the way. OTOH you ended in this configuration after a capture in equatorial orbit, approaching in a 'quite polar' means less change of inclination and even more deltaV available to place the periapsis over higher latitudes.

I find interesting that people have different ways to know when the transfer window occur but usually that way include 'thanks @olex' somewhere.