Pecan

Posted in the right place and pretty clear what you mean - no worries. Jovus has it nailed as far as I can see too; exhaust hits ship = no thrust. Which is why those of us who build with engines designed to pull put them on out-riggers to keep them clear of the trailing payload: Tractor Light With Two Fuel Modules

1. Fuel mass for the required deltaV is the first consideration. Choose the engine with the best vacuum ISP (Ion, if you have it, then LV-N, aerospike and LV-909, ...) to save as much as possible. 2. Thrust for the desired TWR is less important. Unless you're launching or landing a higher TWR just means you can do ejection, adjustment and injection burns faster - the actual transfer will take the same amount of time in any case. TWR can therefore be as low as your boredom threshold; I often use 0.5 as my minimum, giving burn-times of 10-20 minutes. Look at how many of the engines chosen in the first step it would take to give you a useful TWR. Move on to the next-best engine if you can't reasonably fit that many on your ship.

See also http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82581-Stock-How-to-Make-Craft-with-Five-Sided-Symmetry%21. Editor Extensions mod remains the controllable way to do this and more.

~:sandbox:~ because stock tech-tree

Well it doesn't add any mass or cost, but then again it doesn't improve your streamlining. What measure of 'efficiency' are you interested in?

It is too big if it is any bigger than it needs to be ^^. Start small, design stages 'backwards' and only fit what you need on each stage; any excess mass has a huge knock-on effect when building lower stages. Rockets may only be 10% efficient - "payload ratio" = mass placed in orbit compared to mass at launch - so adding 100kg to the payload could mean an extra tonne of launch vehicle. More specifically there are two statistics you need to design for; neither of which are shown in stock KSP. First, Thrust to Weight Ratio (TWR) - if your engines can't thrust up more than gravity is weighing you down you aren't going anywhere. Secondly, deltaV, the amount you can change your velocity - broadly, how efficient your engines are and how much fuel they have. "Standard" advice is that you want a launch TWR of 1.4 - 1.8 and at least 4,500m/s deltaV. Installing an information mod like VOID, KER or MechJeb (which is also an autopilot) will display these figures for you. You may like to look at the tutorial linked in my signature for 30-odd vehicle designs, from a basic rover to orbital satellites, lunar landers and an interplanetary space-station infrastructure.

Welcome. Your comments and questions are also welcome in the tutorial thread. Thanks Volcanix :-)

Welcome. Everything you need is in the tutorial in my signature, read until bored then explore your own ideas :-)

Get rid of those huge RCS tanks. They're enough for an entire space programme, let alone a single mission. The monopropellant in the lander and command pod alone should be sufficient.

How to get to Mun from LKO: Switch to map mode (M), click on Mun and 'set as target' Create and execute a manoeuvre node at the next AN/DN burning normal/anti-normal (pink icons) to match planes with Mun (makes the new AN/DN difference 0 degrees or, if perfect, 'NaN' which is computerese for 'Not a Number') Create but do not yet execute a manoeuvre node anywhere on your orbit burning prograde (green icon) to raise your apoapsis to Mun orbital height (should be around 940m/s deltaV). Drag this manoeuvre node around your orbit until it gives you an intercept with Mun. Point to the manoeuvre node on the navball and start the burn half the burn-time before you reach it (eg; if KSP says it'll take 1 minute, start the burn at T:-30s) Timewarp until just before you transition to Mun's SOI then wait at normal time until you have switched Make a small burn (shouldn't be more than about 50m/s deltaV) to set your periapsis at the height and orbital inclination you want (8km is good) Create a manoeuvre node at your periapsis, burning retrograde, to circularise the orbit at that height (should be roughly 230m/s deltaV) Burn as indicated, starting at the appropriate time before you reach the node Once circularised separate your lander, pick your landing site and go for it! Which of these gives you the problem? (See Chapter 5 of my tutorial for a couple of designs that are suitable for Minmus and Mun landings and return if you need ideas).

The stock tech-tree is insane so I almost never play science or career mode. When I do the most desired part is a solar panel, the most 'wrong' a ladder.

Looks good. I'm rushing to work then off for a stag party but I look forward to reading this properly over the weekend.

Well the separatrons are firing straight down and their exhaust is hitting what's below them. That results in no thrust, damage tand, eventually, destruction of the part. Try it again and press F3 once the separatrons fire - you'll see several reports like "xxxx was damaged by exhaust from ..."

Since you've added the engines I highly recommend your chutes are drogues. They should slow you down so much that your engines are left with very little work to do.

Did you set it to do anything using the 'abort' action group? In the VAB or SPH there are three tabs at the upper-left of the screen: parts, action groups and crew. To edit action groups click that tab. In your case then click the 'abort' group in the list, click a part that you want to activate on your rocket, then select the action you want back in the list on the left. If there are any more parts you want to activate at the same time, click them in turn. Typically for a LES you want to click a decoupler under your command pod and select the 'decouple' action, then click the LES itself and select 'activate'. Click the 'parts' tab to return to the normal view.

Gah! No, you're right - I was misreading. Sorry for the false alarm.

Welcome to the forums. A return lander for Eve is arguably KSP's hardest challenge. Getting back from orbit is no harder than getting there in the first place - but it might take a long time to get a transfer window. You might like to try alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ to find the best time to go.

Welcome. If you want something simpler ... It is easier to orbit Mun than Minmus (Kerbin's other moon) but it is so much easier to land on and take off from Minmus that overall Minmus is the easier mission. This ship will land on and return from either Minmus or Mun, but it can be harder to find a safely-flat landing site on Mun: LV-6-S + Long Tom Launch Better for Mun is a wide, low lander like this, which can handle slopes up to about 40-degrees: Fat Sally Lander Stage See the tutorial linked in my signature for those (Chapter 5) and a whole design campaign from driving around KSC to an interplanetary, space-station, infrastructure. And ask questions :-)

Nice job :-)

Yep - there are many different criteria for 'efficient'; lowest mass, cost, part-count, fastest, etc. etc. Yours is actually optimised more than mine, but mine is fully recoverable. I've moved on from this but I think you'll see the similarity *grin* they're almost brothers.

B9 has been updated today.

Did the contract require you to stage - as you did - or 'run test'? If the latter, you need to right-click the part and click the 'run test' button when all the test conditions are met. If the former, and you're sure ALL the conditions were met, then it could be a bug, yes.

Congratulations. It looks like a nice modular design and I think I made something similar for 40t when I started making SSTO rockets. The 1x2 engines aren't too efficient but they do make a simple and reliable design :-)

I'm not sure landing is even the question here, but the whole process of flying to Mun, or anywhere else. So, OP - how are you going to Mun at the moment? Hohmann transfer from LKO or what? Where do you have the problem - getting an intercept (presumably not), orbital insertion (probably) or landing?

There's a mod for that. Alternatively, Nav Utilities adds HSI and VSI in a popup window or, with RPM, in IVA