I'm an idiot who cant get to the moon

[Prahmasyp]

i've tried my best, really. i just cant safely land on the moon let alone make it back. i just dont have enough fuel. here is my rocket http://imgur.com/b6U8HAt

(staging is - thumpers, they detatch, more thumpers, outer liquid fuel, inner liquid fuel, last payload pod to make it back)

what do i do?

(vanilla careers mode btw)

thanks in advance.

(edit: solved!)

Edited August 31, 2015 by Prahmasyp

[Glaran K'erman]

Welcome to the forums!

Don't feel bad we've all had our struggles and started somewhere. First off I would highly highly recommend that despite you not using mods that you download MechJeb (has an autopilot and other nav assistance) or Kerbal Engineer (just readouts no function) as an aid when building your rocket. These will add no functional parts or features just very helpful readouts of some the important stuff. Namely dV and TWR which are invaluable.

[Corw]

Dude, you have no idea how overbuilt that is... It is not lack of fuel that is your problem, it is too many engines, among other things.

[jiminator]

Hey, you may want to look at a tutorial. If you are just going to do it blind, ok. for some suggestions, you have made the landing stage large, which makes the rest exponentially large.

you want to replace the engines on your lander stage with terrier engines. All you need for space. in fact a single terrier underneath the top fuel tank can replace the three side tanks/engines. Do you need the lander can? can you drop it?

With asparagus staging you should be able to completely drop the boosters and make the segments to be 3-4 tanks max.

Simple is your friend. The best solutions are not going to be in adding more tanks, etc, but in taking non-essential stuff away.

This is my generic lander (nothing special), works for mun and minmus. You would put a somewhat larger tank on top for mun but otherwise is sufficient.

[Mastikator]

Scott Manley did a comprehensive vanilla career tutorial.

features a munlanding. Worth watching

[Superfluous J]

At the very least, dropping the Swivels/Reliants on the top for Thumpers Terriers will net you a lot of extra dV. And not just in the return stage, but in the rest of the ship as well.

I would also suggest your first Mun lander be a 1-man pod. Your ship is almost 2x as large as it needs to be because you're sending and returning almost 2x the mass. Start small and build up from there!

Edited August 31, 2015 by 5thHorseman
I sad "Thumpers" origially when I meant "Terriers." Sorry about that!

[Chaos_Klaus]

First and formost: For orbital maneuvering, use a light and efficient engine. The LV909 is the perfect choice in early career. It has low thrust but is very efficient and light. You only need a single one!

More boosters only give you more thrust, not a lot more delta v. They are terribly fuel inefficient which means they are relatively heavy for the delta v they give you. Use them on the lowest stage only, to assist liquid fuel engines that don't have enough punch to lift off from the pad.

Don't bring the extra reaction wheel.

No need for the second capsule.

Building light is the most important thing. Every kg you save will make your fuel last longer.

[Prahmasyp]

ok i've taken everything into account and here is my revised boat http://imgur.com/SdsEaTN

the second capsule is for careers mode stuff, its not that heavy it shouldn't be too bad right? i can do without it but i'd rather not.

lets see if it works.

[Thomassino]

Keep trying. KSP, especially when you are a new player, is mostly about trial and error. In this case, Jeb's motto will help you: "Moooar boooosters!!!"

Also, try to land on Minmus first. It needs only a bit more fuel to get to, but its miniscule, so you can land and return with much less fuel than from the Mun.

And don't call yourself an idiot. Everybody has been there when starting to play KSP

[Superfluous J]

That does look better, yes. It feels like that extra pod is not that much more, but you have to think in terms of your payload. What is your payload? What percentage of your payload is that lander can? Just eyeballing it, I'd say your lander can is somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 of your payload. That means your rocket must be 1/4 to 1/3 larger to get it all the way to Mun and back. Is it possible? By all means. Should you be trying it when you have not yet ever returned from Mun? I don't personally think so. Learn first, in the easiest manner possible, and then extend from there.

As an aside, and this is an opinion so take it with as many grains of salt as you feel are warranted: I don't think career mode is the best mode to learn the game. The punishment for failure is steep and the constraints are hard. I think until you are comfortable with - say - a Duna mission you should probably play in Science mode. Science mode is a great middle ground between sandbox (which can overwhelm you with parts) and career (which can overwhelm you with constraints)

[bigcalm]

Looks better --

* I would add some OX-STAT solar panels if you have them (or you may run out of power)

* I'm a little concerned about your re-entry to Kerbin -- one small parachute might not be enough for all that mass. You might want a bit of a re-organise (and possibly decoupler and heatshield).

* If you use MechJeb or Kerbal Engineer (you don't have to use any other bits) it'll tell you in the VAB whether your vehicle should, in theory, make it. You want a TWR > 1 (preferably higher) and total delta-v of around 8000 to be safe. (4500 to orbit Kerbin, 800 to transfer, 300 to circularise, 600 to land, 600 to take off, 300 to return from the Mun, and add 10% because of inevitable mistakes!).

[Harry Rhodan]

ok i've taken everything into account and here is my revised boat http://imgur.com/SdsEaTN

You don't need the fuel lines if you're going to ignite the core engine after separating the boosters. And don't stack too many medium size tanks but use the largest tanks possible because every joint between parts will make your rocket more wobbly.

And you might want to use a information mod like Kerbal Engineer, VOID or Mechjeb if you don't want to rely on trial and error or manual calculations.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Harry Rhodan

[Chaos_Klaus]

That design might work, however the actual lander part is very tall and the landing legs are not spaced very well. It will propably fall over on the mun's surface.

There are several ways to get a wider base for your lander. You can use larger legs or you can use radial parts to attach the legs to.

[bigcalm]

Hmm. I built a replica here ( http://imgur.com/0tKP3V5 ) and I don't like the total delta-v number MechJeb gives me. If you pilot it perfectly, you'll have enough but only just. If you're like me and not that great a pilot -- you'll probably run out of fuel on ascent from the Munar surface.

[Chaos_Klaus]

Well, that is right. You could do it if you were really efficient but given the fact that you've never been to mun ... you will run out of fuel on the return trip.

The craft will propably not be able to reenter the atmosphere and land safely.

[Belphegor]

i would use asparagus staging on your lifter for some extra dv.. (google it if you are not familiar with this) maybe even use 6x symmetry. fire all engines at once but don't give full thrust so you don't gain too much speed while still in the dense part of the atmosphere, also like chaos_klaus said your lander is pretty tall, you would have to land on a flat surface with no sideways movement at all or it will tip over. it's possible but it will be a lot easier if you widen the landing legs a bit

Edited August 31, 2015 by Belphegor

[tbarcello]

ok i've taken everything into account and here is my revised boat http://imgur.com/SdsEaTN

the second capsule is for careers mode stuff, its not that heavy it shouldn't be too bad right? i can do without it but i'd rather not.

lets see if it works.

It will fall over on the surface, sorry. It takes a very flat surface and percise controls to land something like that.

Of i may suggest: put the same kind of lander capsule on top of the pottom lander with nothing between them. Your capsule has 8 sides: put 4 fuel tanks radially so they dont block the hatch. Then put 4 landing legs on those tanks. Then put a small tank under the capsule and put an engine. Make sure side tanks are low enough put for landing legs to touch the ground before the engine. Add reaction wheel. In case u have no reaction wheel - you'll have to replace the top landing capsule with the original one after all. Reenforce tanks with struts. Connect fuel line from 4 tanks to the small tank. Add batteries, solar panels and parachutes on tanks. Then save design and test in KSC. That's your lander.

[Prahmasyp]

Thank you everyone, i made it! i ended up ditching the second bloke but i made it! next stop minmus!

thank you all!

I'm Happy!!

[Reactordrone]

It will fall over on the surface, sorry. It takes a very flat surface and percise controls to land something like that.

It shouldn't fall over, the big reaction wheel under the capsule will hold the ship upright even on a slope provided the pilot doesn't get out. If you decide to asparagus stage the boosters you might want to move the fins onto the core stage otherwise you'll lose directional control as you drop the first set of boosters.

[bigcalm]

Ok, I've tried to stay true to your tech levels and general design - and here's something that should work - https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50581433/Lander%20Mk7.craft

In the VAB -- http://imgur.com/cidexsn

On the Mun (with 1200ms remaining) - http://imgur.com/qQOkLN1

Some notes:

* Yes it will tip over on landing. However, you've got enough reaction wheels on the craft to get it to point the right way up so it didn't really matter.

* I wasn't sure whether you had struts so I created the replica without them. This meant the ascent from Kerbin was a little hairy, but do-able. If you have struts, STRUT IT, it'll be much much more stable on ascent!

* I piloted using MechJeb and had about ~400 ms remaining after returning to Kerbin. Delta-v is still pretty tight -- to minimise what you need, launch into Kerbin orbit at 0 degrees inclination, land on the equator of the Mun, and don't waste any delta-v doing plane changes.

Edited August 31, 2015 by bigcalm

[Warzouz]

Yes, your lander is not stable enough. Flatter is better, especially for you first landing which might be a litte bumpy.

If your lander is too tall, you :

- need to be luck to get a less than 5° landing spot

- flip on the side right after touch down

- need to burn a lot of fuel to rapidly take off and find anohter spot.

Your additional reaction wheel is not needed. Both you pods already have torque. Too much torque may even be unproductive. You'll burn your electricity and never achieve stability.

My advice for a lander : Use the flatest rockamax fuel tank with 1 terrier, stick medium landing struts, add a landing can, all the science you want (put the lab on top your can to keep your CoM as low as possible. You should be around 3200m/s, enough to get to the Mun, land and get back. Add one or 2 toroidal tank if you want to be more comfortable.

It should looks like that.

Vaccum lander on Dres / Aero lander on Duna

Vacuum lander safely landed on Eve (PS.: no airbrakes, no drogue, no chutes… only Ker-balls:D)

And as other says : don't consider yourself an idot because you fail to get to the Mun. The first time I got there, I even didn't landed, just orbiting and said myself : "How the hell I'm going back to Kerbin ?"

Edited August 31, 2015 by Warzouz

[FyunchClick]

You don't need the fuel lines if you're going to ignite the core engine after separating the boosters. And you might want to use a information mod like Kerbal Engineer, VOID or Mechjeb if you don't want to rely on trial and error or manual calculations.

Totally agree on Kerbal Engineer or the like, but I think there's more to say about not igniting your core engine. Your handle brings back some childhood memories btw.

fire all engines at once but don't give full thrust so you don't gain too much speed while still in the dense part of the atmosphere

Hmm, I think that's a bit of pre-1.0.0.0 reflex, and doesn't apply anymore. I've done a test after it came out, by shooting up a small (as in typical of 2nd or 3rd launch in career mode) but reasonably powerful rocket straight up (one that could pull about 3 g or so even below the 10 mk mark, but with relatively little total dV (definitely less than orbital)), shooting it straight up and seeing where the apoapsis would end up, and doing the same but throttling it back to 2 g until clear of the thick atmosphere. I don't remember the exact numbers, but throttled down, your apoapsis ends up significantly lower than full blast. Unless you're pulling so much g you're going hypersonic at ground level, or finding you're running into stability issues hitting the sound barrier due to the shape of your payload, I'd suggest pedal to the metal until you clear 30 km (or your apoapsis is at the desired mark, whichever comes first).

If you want to save dV, do a correct gravity turn.

[tbarcello]

It shouldn't fall over, the big reaction wheel under the capsule will hold the ship upright even on a slope provided the pilot doesn't get out. If you decide to asparagus stage the boosters you might want to move the fins onto the core stage otherwise you'll lose directional control as you drop the first set of boosters.

It will also not fall over if he'll keep the main engine on just enough to touch the sirface with i strut, if you choose to call it a landing. I'm talking about an actual landing here where you don't have to stay in vehicle and pull it up constantly until ran out of battery.

[Warzouz]

And BTW, about flipping over, I noticed that if you "lock suspension" of the lowest strut (on the slope), it reduces the "bouncing" effect that make you flip even you CoM isn't outside your landing aera (I don't know how to explain that more clearly). You still have to touch down gently on your higher landing strut.

It's not magical, but it helps. I landed on bulky lander on a 27° slope that way.

If your CoM is too high, there is no salvation though.

[Nich]

BTW I have a bachelors in Aerospace engineering and mechanics and landing on the moon was still quite tough my first 15 attempts. Retrograde hold is your friend I have managed 2-3 landings without it but it sucks trying to do