Belly landers for airless muns?

[Skorpychan]

So, I was reading up on space stuff, and came across this concept: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/embarking.php#id--Belly_Lander (Scroll down a bit)

Naturally, most Mun landers land on the main engine. But with the new aerodynamic rules, you then have to make your rockets tall and slim instead of short and stubby, to get things up there in the first place. This is an Issue; the Mun is bumpy and uneven, and ladders are a pain. And with a tall, skinny rocket, you risk knocking it over as you jetpack up to the door.

So, maybe a belly lander is the solution. This would, however, run into the problem that the powerful main engine would then be 'back' instead of 'down'. That's where I'm stuck. Do I use radial rockets the whole way down instead of the main engine? Do I eschew a 'main' engine in favour of radials? Do I use monopropellant engines instead?

Also, once again, aerodynamics for takeoff with the landing legs. They'd all be on one side, and the landing engines all on one side as well.

Any suggestions?

[Wanderfound]

Because most airless worlds are low-G, you only need a tiny amount of thrust. You do most of the landing on the main engine, and only flip over to the ventral thrusters at the last moment. Vernors are usually the easiest way to do it, but a few of the little Rockomax radials will work if you don't have Vernors.

To demonstrate:

[Gaarst]

I'd say to land normally, your rocket facing upwards and letting it fall down to the side (using landing legs or RCS). And for take off, if your lander is not too heavy, use RCS to get it back up and take off normally.

This would solve the problem of landing stability as you want to make your rocket fall down but at the same time, no radial engines needed outside RCS (most radial engines in KSP are bad anyways)

[Grumman]

I have landed spaceplanes on Minmus by the "tailsitter, then tip over" method. I would be inclined to use Vernor engines the next time around.

[Dreambish]

Also, all the "lander not aerodynamic when chubby" problems can be solved by launching it to orbit in various parts (#hoorayforfairings) and then docking

[SanderB]

it is possible tilt a vehicle up 30-45° degrees with a few nanonewtons of upwards thrust (at the furthest point from the center of gravity) if only the main landing legs are directly under the center of gravity. With some fuel transfers between tanks and again center of gravity being over a pair of landing legs, it is possible to do this. All a rocket would need is a single thruster (RCS or otherwise), torque wheels, or center of gravity shifting through fuel transfer. Once the rocket is tilted 10° or more is should be a fairly simple procedure to turn around in whichever direction and go full thrust on any low or non-atmospheric body.

[Skorpychan]

Also, all the "lander not aerodynamic when chubby" problems can be solved by launching it to orbit in various parts (#hoorayforfairings) and then docking

Not at the 'first mun landing' point in the tech tree, though.

[Laie]

But with the new aerodynamic rules, you then have to make your rockets tall and slim instead of short and stubby,

Never mind the new aerodynamics. I found that you can still bring the weirdest contraptions into space if you just apply enough power. If you don't go over the top, the premium for bad aerodynamics is entirely bearable. I also found that it's better to design a good spacecraft and cope with the lifter issues rather than the other way round.