So close! (... to a mission where I could have made it to the Mun and back)

[AdamGM]

--Removed--

Edited June 22, 2013 by AdamGM

[softweir]

Hello and welcome!

The poodle makes an ideal engine for Mun landers - a wee bit too heavy and overpowered, but it can do the job just fine. One 909 is a bit too weak: you could arrange a few using the BZ-52 Radial Attachment Points (the ones described as badly-built docking ports) on the bottom of the fuel tank.

My personal preference for Munar landers has three Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tanks, each with one LV-909 Liquid Fuel Engine, one tank and as a core stage, the other two attached with radial decouplers, with fuel pipes carrying fuel IN to the core stage. Attach your landing gear to the radial tanks. Arrange the staging of the engines so all three are in use to start with, so all three are available to take you down. ONly the radial tanks are drained during descent. Then for ascent, you fire up the engines, ascend until the radial tanks are empty and drop them, their engines and the landing gear all in one. You now have enough juice to get you back into orbit and (if you got your landing right) enough to get home.

[AdamGM]

I will go through this with care when at the computer next and report back!

[Fel]

Really, the 909 is not a bad engine... it just takes patience to land something. It is much more efficient than the poodle in terms of weight, thrust-per-weight, and isp... although people might argue that stopping on a dime for a vertical decent is easier than a "orbital landing". For the former, the poodle is better; the latter is better for weaker engines.

Also, you don't need a large amount of fuel if you do an Apollo style landing, (just wondering if you have too much fuel there).

[AdamGM]

Oh, this was moved. A mod can delete the thread when they see this.

Edited June 26, 2013 by AdamGM