multi stage vs single stage.

[CalculusWarrior]

Single-stage landers are pretty much a requirement if you need to transfer crew between a ground base and an orbiting mothership. However, there is something about leaving behind the lower stage of a two-stage lander on the surface which appeals to me; it's very Apolloish.

[Brofessional]

Typically I just do single-stage for simplicity, but two-stage is always more fun if you feel like putting in the extra design effort.

[magnemoe]

I often end up using my transfer stage for deorbiting and tuning the landing spot. Then I only need a tiny amount of dV in my actual lander for landing.

This is called a crashing stage as I understand.

The other option is to use the lander engine and drop tanks below the side tanks.

Tend to build all my launders in the style of this rover.

Gives improved stability and I can drop the side tanks on takeoff.

[jwenting]

Last few have been hybrids. Single engine with 3-4 fuel tanks around it feeding into it. Landing legs on those tank, which get discarded during ascent (or later in the mission when empty).

[Caelib]

Why carry a bunch of dry-mass on your ascent? While it may not be absolutely necessary for the Mun or Minmus, it's good practice for other celestial bodies.

[Jouni]

Why carry a bunch of dry-mass on your ascent? While it may not be absolutely necessary for the Mun or Minmus, it's good practice for other celestial bodies.

Tylo and Eve are the only planets, where multi-stage landers are definitely helpful. Kerbin and Laythe too, if you don't want to use jet engines. On smaller planets, the benefits from multi-stage landers are marginal and possibly even negative, because you're carrying extra mass all the way from Kerbin.

Of course, building a separate lander may also be inefficient. Often it's just better to leave unnecessary payload and fuel tanks in orbit, and land using transfer stage engines.

[malkuth]

I like single stage, but you could make some very efficient multi stage landers, might be more important in .24.

[Red Iron Crown]

I like single stage, but you could make some very efficient multi stage landers, might be more important in .24.

I'm thinking that the greater reusability of single stage will be a win when budgets matter. Hard to be sure until we know more.

[malkuth]

I'm thinking that the greater reusability of single stage will be a win when budgets matter. Hard to be sure until we know more.

True, if you have a CM and lander and keep lander in orbit. Next launch you just need to launch CM with extra fuel. You would have to be very efficient at docking though.

[magnemoe]

I'm thinking that the greater reusability of single stage will be a win when budgets matter. Hard to be sure until we know more.

Single stage is also nice if you do multiple landings.

The rover I showed was designed for that, transfer stage had spare fuel for multiple landings so I do east farside crater with canyon, back to orbit then mostly do two and two areas.

i still dropped the wheels and side tanks then done as I was up at polar crater and the transfer stage was empty anyway.

However at this point the rover had done its work anyway.

[Russoft]

From my experience, the most useful setup is a lander with radially mounted drop tanks and science modules. I land, transfer fuel, drop the fuel tanks, do science, drop the science modules, and return to orbit with a lighter lander. Since I rendezvous with my capsule and leave the lander in orbit anyway, it probably doesn't help much to drop weight on the planet's surface. A staged lander makes more sense if the lander is going to make the trip all the way back to Kerbin.