Spricigo

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fc37tpa8w594pke/Old Spice.craft?dl=0 auto gravity turn, just press space and let it fly to space (stagging as necessary) raise apoapsis to 85km and coast to circularize. transfer to duna, aerobrake with 18km periapsis to capture, at apoapsis raise periapis to 25km and procede to landing. Returns to low duna orbit with 800m/s left

Not simple at all. What make no sense for one person makes all the sense for others. Any defined operating environment will be arbitrary. Personally I think is reasonable to know my wheels will not stop work while still in course to the planet I want my rover to explored or that the jet engines available will not have an issue with the water. This is not to say there is no room for improvement, rather that is not so trivial or even a pressing issue IMHO

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/TR-18D_Stack_Separator

@WanderingKid I launch then individually because contracts. I thought a BACC would be enough to put 3 in LKO but turn out I was mistaken. When I tried rhe best I managed was That . Mind you it's not the most convenient way to setup a triangular formation around Mun/Minmus. At least it covers the part of launching a light and bulky payload without flipping.

Testing a heatshield at launchpad don't make sense either but no one is complaining.

Same conclusion there. Also, if there is lot of activity on Duna surface and a lot of interplanetary departures it may be the case to setup another mining base or at least a secondary depot

A huge one for what is needed around the Mun. I use: 1xAnt engine, 1x Oscar-B tank, 3x solar panels, 1X OKTO, 1x HG-5, 1x thermometer. Light enough to launch one on top a Hammer or the entire constellation on top a Thumper, and still have enough deltaV for the subsequent maneuvers (no balance issue, the off-center thrust is not strong enough to overcome the probecore's reaction wheel)

THIS ^ a communutron 16 can link to a HG-5 up to 1580km away, HG-5 to HG-5 its 5000km away, HG-5 to lvl2 ground station 15800km away.

If I'm not mistaken this works with RSS

That is the point, the heatshield will not be effective in all circumstances (which seems . Give enough time (or give a lot more heat than it can support) and it will explode. To avoid that is necessary to eliminate the causes of heat (slow down or leave the atmosphere) everything else is just buying time. Ablator in particular are more efficient at higher temperatures, so a 'slow burn' waste it with lesser effect (similar to using a vacuum optimized engine at sea level). But any other form of heat dissipation is also more efficient at higher temperatures.

While there is a fair amount available, worth keep an eye on the propellant fuel while EVA'ing. If I understood correct Valentina's ship will be abandoned, but for the other there is the option to reboard to replenish fuel.

While I don't completely agree on how you outlined, that are the factor to consider. Depending on those factor one will heat/cool quickly and long enough to explode/survive. How to avoid overheating in practice will varies from case to case. Ablator can dish a lot of heat quickly for a short amount of time, good for a short time of intense heating. For a longer time of moderate heating other options need to be considered.

KIckback+Dawn, single stage to orbit , multi stage from orbit. A 'small inconvenience' its that it seriously limits where you can land (specially if you want return from where you landed). "What give most deltaV? " Is a question that misses several points: 1st: deltaV you don't have a use for is just dead-weight you carry around needless. It hinders you: maneuvers takes more time, you have less control and so on. 2nd: What is efficient in a situation can be very inefficient in another. You can have a lot of deltaV and still be unable to reach several destinations. Its also worthless to have a huge deltaV to waste everything landing(/lifting) with pitiful TWR in a high gravity body (e.g. Tylo) 3rd:It worth nothing to have a theoretical higher deltaV if in pratice you lose that to steering and gravity. It make you no good to have X% more fuel and consume (X+Y)%. 4th:deltaV budget alone will not define what a craft can do and that is what really matter. A small science probe and a large tourist transport may both have the same deltaV butt their uses are enterily different. to sum up: 1.Decide what you want to do (e.g. explore Laythe). 2.Define the phases required for the mission (e.g 1 Kerbin Orbit>transfer to Jool> capture at Laythe> Land at Spot A > Land at Spot B > ...) 3.Design the vessel (or vessels) for the mission. Consider what is needed for each part and try to do it with the least expenditure of resources.

more discussion about landers and a few examples:

https://kerbalx.com/Spricigo/Gossiper Notice that is actually designed for Duna. But its not that different from once designed for the mun/minmus.

Well, in some sense I really am. But my intent its more to add to what you said and offer a more ample view for the OP (or anyone interested). The request for a craft file is because I find interesting (an opportunity to learn) to try designing/optimizing a ship according with a different 'directive' than mine and what works to someone else its a good starting point. Also I'm curious if for a reusable lander parachutes will be an advantage or a hindrance (at this point I'm slightly more inclined to think it will save more in the long run.)

Be careful there! The Oberth Effect its the fact that if on object change its velocity there will part of the change in kinetic energy will depends not only in the change in velocity but also on the initial velocity of the object. OP's issue is probably the fact the burn its not instantaneous, resulting in the maneuver happening along a curved trajectory. Doing the maneuver at a fixed direction means velocity and change in velocity are not aligned at all times, so part of this change in velocity is change in direction rather than change in intensity. On the other hand doing the maneuver following prograde / retrograde part of the final burn will be in opposite direction of part of your initial burn, cancelling each other. Its really a lose-lose situation, in any way the maneuver will be less efficient than the theoretical instantaneous change in velocity predicted. If you go higher this will be less pronounced, but also less Oberth.

If you don't mind, send a picture or a craft file and set some performance parameter you want it to meet. Let's see what we can design within those parameters.

Actually I suggest to bring less parachutes than for Kerbin. Parachutes also have mass and so requires fuel to move all the way to Duna. But just a few can ditch most of the velocity allowing for a trivial burn to finalize the landing.

Because I don't need to use action groups to run experiments. Also the buttons gives a visual cue, appearing only for available experiment with now-zero science points. And, finally, the report has its uses also.

Part sniping : trying to click on elusive parts of the craft to access an option. With [x]Science there is a small window with clickable buttons for running available experiments.

Unfortunately, so often is how these kind of conversation goes. BTW as user of [x] Science, I endorse your recommendation. While I use more to avoid the need for part sniping.

@GoSlash27 hint: check his staging. I support @Lelitu's idea, getting the periapsis . But save before, in case you end up unable to get back to the pod, or with a periapsis too low. I also hope this is not one of the flammable vessels you mention in the other thread ( if is leave it alone until you can get a rescue ship meet then.

Also don't have eyes sharp like that, but KER says 215kN. That's how I know.

@FullMetalMachinist he is using the Swivel. And I suggested to use the Reliant instead. Notice that I did it because I also suggest to design the rocket to be aerodynamic stable and capable to do a gravity turn, hands free, from the launchpad. (Also provided a working example a few posts before and again in this one) @jonpfl there is no dumb questions. 1.yes. center of drag and center of mass. I flipped enough rockets to learn how to eyeball it with some accuracy. In the editor, bottom left, there is 3 circular icons , the one with a weight symbol toggles the CoM indicator. Drag need to be estimated based on the exposed area (and some perks of KSP's drag model) 2.the only way to move it around its by moving around the mass/draggy parts. (e.g. fins at the rear, using less/lighter engines) 3. Lighter by 1750 kilograms. One way to increase deltaV it's to reduce dry weight (everything except fuel) . 4.using the rotate toll, the globe icon at top left. The four icons are for place, translate, rotate and reroot. You will need a Launch Stability Enhancer (Also known as Launch clamps, technology node General Construction required)to keep it in position until launch. Otherwise you will need to do the initial tilt manually (which is not as reliable as launch clamps) I will again offer kerbalx.com/Spricigo/Orbiter-Zero It fly itself to space. You just need a astronaut (a scientist or engineer will do) to point prograde near apoapsis. Also cheaper and carry more passengers than your current design. Also stable at reentry.