700NitroXpress

I think so, but I've had trouble with them redeploying in the past. The best way to do it is to set up an action group for them and in that action group put deploy for all of the parachutes. Then when you go to land, you can either hit the space bar for the stage or you can never hit the stage at all and activate them with the action group. Then they can redeploy easily without failure. Here's the craft file of that lander that's designed based off of yours if you want it, then you can just tweak it as you need to. I didn't test the RCS system, but it should work. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vTRL2n8wvzSFZBVm5jczBWS0k/edit?usp=sharing

Holy cow, there's your problem right there. It's shown in the task manager. Are you using windows XP? How much CPU usage is each one taking up? Are there any that are suspiciously high?

Yeah something about that low part count is suspicious. You might also want to check the integrity of the game cache, you may have not gotten a piece of the last update. Go to your steam library and right click on Kerbal Space Program, then click properties, then click the Local Files tab at the top, then click Verify Integrity of Game Cache. See if it finds anything. Also Sirine's suggestion may be a cause, you can check to see if it's running through task manager. Also, an adobe flash plugin may be slowing your computer down. You may also have something else.

I really don't understand why you guys are running into problems with such low part counts. I can over 1000 part ships and still get about 10 fps at launch. 800 parts and it's about 20 fps. Core load is about 30 - 40%. Even with an i5 you should still be able to get at least 500 - 600 part ships. All the physics calculations per part go to the processor, the parts themselves are stored in your RAM, everything else graphics wise goes to the GPU.

Alright, so to save you time and effort, I did a test flight for you at Duna. The craft deployed parachutes going in excess of 350 m/s towards the surface and slowed down to about 25 m/s without anything ripping off, so that's an extreme stress test for you. It took a little burst from the engines in order to land softly at 6 m/s. It then had more than enough fuel to achieve orbit of Duna with the asparagus fuel lines. So if you like this design, it's good to go for Duna. You could cut the fuel in half and still get good results, but this one works. It will not make it off of Eve or even get close. It might get about 2,000 meters off the ground at Eve if it's lucky so don't take it there, Eve is a different monster to tackle. The results of the test are posted below. You'll also see in this redesign that there's room for an attachment or docking port on the bottom of the long fuel tank, so you could move the docking port around. If you use the same fuel tank for all 5 engine parts, so the outer 4 and the one in the center, you'll cut down on the weight and you'll have more than enough fuel for the job with this same design. You'll also bring the craft closer to the center of mass which will give you more control.

Yeah, I went ahead and real quickly recreated your lander with the changes I had in mind for it. So this is how I would do your lander to make it more efficient. Still weighs about 24 tons, but it flies on Kerban and lands well. I put on the engines and set up the RCS placement. I also used the smaller landing legs as they were more stable when the craft was deployed. I also added electrical generators instead of solar panels on the sides of the pod and changed the docking port to a shielded one. In the VAB shot, the asparagus fuel lines are set up, but notice that the craft is all one piece so there's no staging. It will behave like an asparagus staged craft, but you don't have to stage it if you intend on reusing it. Normally I would have and SAS module on it, but this was stable without one so you should be fine. You also don't need to add any struts at all to something like this because it's already solid.

Even though your craft you have now didn't get into a full orbit, I can tell by the numbers you posted that it's more than enough for Duna. Whatever you have now is good to go. If you don't want to stage the tanks, then that's fine, you could probably make them permanently attached if you want to use the whole thing over again. Just switch the engines into different stages and use action groups to control them. Use one set for landing and help with takeoff, then the next set should be more than enough for orbit. It doesn't take much fuel for a transfer stage to get to Duna. That station I have there got to Duna with that amount of fuel you see in the image and it's somewhere around 160 tons. Your lander is lightweight so all you should need is one or two of the 1440 capacity fuel tanks with one nuclear engine each and that should be enough to get to Duna and back to Kerban. Edit: Oh yeah, what you have shown is more than enough for Duna, you'll be just fine with that craft. If you make all of the tanks permanent, set up the asparagus fuel lines, but don't stage the tanks. Keep them attached and it will still work really well and you can reuse it. My transfer pod is 77 parts and 17.85 tons. Those aerospikes are probably way to powerful for your purposes now that I think of it. You could replace those with the LV-909 engines and it would be more efficient. Doing this would also allow you to get rid of some of the excess fuel tanks. The FL-T100 fuel tanks on the outer engines could go if you switched the engines to the LV-909's, but both will work. If weight is a concern then the LV-909 is the way to go. You could also shorten the craft by getting rid of the LV-T30 and using 2 Mark 55 radial engines.

Yeah, I like my lil transfer pod.

I launched a quick mission over to Duna to show how this transfer pod works and what to expect. I didn't use any RCS fuel in this flight, but remember that RCS can be used just as effectively as liquid fuel engines when the craft is small enough and has enough RCS ports. I still had fuel remaining after I achieved orbit. You also want to make an engine to deorbit your lander and don't use any of the lander's fuel. I was coming down fast on Duna, but a short half second burn from the lander engines slowed it down to 10m/s for landing. I broke 2 of the landing legs, but Jeb repaired them so it didn't matter. Also remember to repack parachutes and check your legs after the landing just to make sure that everything is fixed and ready for takeoff otherwise bad things can happen. Just right click on the components with the Kerbal in EVA and you can repack parachutes and repair landing legs if you didn't know already. You can also repair rover wheels too.

Yeah, that's way too much fuel for Duna. The SRB's you have on there could get you into orbit by themselves with no problem. Here is my Duna Transfer Pod that's docked to my orbiting space station as an example. I don't know the names of all of the parts, but I'm sure you can tell what's on there. This thing deorbits from about 80 km to the surface of Duna, then it goes back into orbit and docks with the space station and refuels. Since this is the goal of your ship, take this as an example of how much fuel you need on a pod like yours. Since mine seats 2 kerbals, it's a little heavier than yours should be. Of course, you could always use the aerospike engines for your landers engines and just add additional fuel in asparagus staging and you would get the same result as this lander, even better because you would have a little more fuel. Here it is attached to my orbital station at Duna.

For Duna, this is way overkill. Duna has 0.3 gravity so you don't even need half of those engines. Like the other poster said, replace the SRB's with liquid fuel engines. you'll only need 4 max for Duna along with your central one. Eve on the other hand... This craft won't even make it 15,000 meters off the ground, so don't land it on Eve unless you never want to see the poor Kerbal in that pod ever again. Eve's gravity is 1.7 so 70% more than Kerban. The atmosphere is also way thicker and doesn't end until 90 km. Duna has thin atmosphere so all of those parachutes will help, you'll actually land a little faster on Duna because the parachutes won't be as affective as they are on Kerban. You might land at 10 m/s or more for Duna. For Duna you need less. For Eve you need way, way, way more fuel (Do Not Attempt if it's your first time).

Flight Done! The LRS MK-V with the new improvements did really well. I could have done a better landing job, I overshot it, but I was able to do a sharp reverse loop and flip it over and land quickly so I'm happy with it. Can I have the 1 sec off for the time from the plane stopping for me to hit the button? FLIGHT TIME: 34:00

Only natural clipping, don't turn on the clipping in the debug menu.

Yeah, I got the right plane, I'm making a few tweaks to the design so it can go faster, fly higher and then I just have to get it to head towards the runway at the right time. I wasted 3-4 minutes gliding around because I was coming in too fast and too high. I need to come in fast, but I need to head down towards the ground way earlier than I did this time. I'll try again soon.

I beat my time with a different craft. I think I'll try again later because I spent a lot of time gliding to the runway so I could do better. But this is much better than the other entry. I lightened the craft and removed some fuel. This one flies perfectly straight at cruising speed and altitude. I'm not taking full advantage of the 30,000 meter limit either so, I think this could go down to maybe 32 minutes. LRS MK-II Flight Time: 36:28

I'm going to land my escape pod on the ground instead of in the ocean. I developed a really stable and wide landing base in my attempt to make something with a wide base with pontoons attached. I'm going to test it now and post the results if it succeeds. Wish me luck! I landed softer than a snowflake, but it didn't leave the ground...

Alright guys, the Leaderboards are now up and everyone's medals should be accurate on there, good job to all of you for doing this challenge, remember that you can get more than one gold medal, you'll just need another plane more than likely. Do not copy someone else's design.

For some craft, the weight of the payload isn't balanced properly between all of the engines. It would be cool if engines had individual throttle controls by means of a right click menu or an action group setting. This would allow you to put the engine, with the most weight on it, at full throttle while the other engines can be throttled down. I would only think that you would need three sets of these at maximum active at one time. Much how the recover craft menu pops down from the altimeter, you could just have the alternate throttles pop out of the side of the current throttle control once the controls are activated. Switch between one or the other by clicking on the throttle. Or to use both, click on one, then ctrl+click on the other, much how selecting multiple parts in stages works.

I admire your patience for using Ion engines on a full sized craft hulling payloads across the solar system.

Yeah, I'll throw it together. All KerbPaint is, is just colors put on the textures. Also, gradients. Bare bones basic stuff for beginners. GraviTykillz: copy and paste this as an image in your signature. http://i.imgur.com/B2wFdIE.jpg

The way to fix that is to edit the craft file with MS Word. Change the type to VAB instead of SPH at the top and bingo, problem solved.

You mean, just trying to get it into orbit?

Nicely done, that was cool! Challenge added to the list.

I designed another one that has the Air Force flight wings in the back of the number. Which do you like more? The one on the left or the one on the right?

Yeah, I'll adjust the template and make the words at the top more readable. His entry had all stock parts. All he did was change the texture colors.