5 hours ago, Baker said:
1. This craft has more fuel than needed. Where can I optimize?
You don't need that much booster to go to the Mun. Keep a Twin Boar for the centre (they are actually the best general lifting engine for cost versus a lot of parameters) but you can probably do with a lot less rocket on the sides.
Alternatively, you can shift somefuel load to the upper stage and use it in drop tanks for your hopping issue.
5 hours ago, Baker said:
See AlsoKSP 2 Discoverables - Kerbal Space Program WikiBiome - Kerbal Space Program WikiMun - Kerbal Space Program WikiMinmus - Kerbal Space Program Wiki2. My lander is pretty big. Mainly because I struggled to build something that (a) has a science jr for materials studies and (b) carries two Kerbals for piloting and science jr reset. Can I get this down to a smaller design and hop all over the Mun for many samples?
If you're willing to accept a taller-but-narrower lander, you can use a Mk. I pod on top of a Mk. I lander can. A lot of my early designs use a set of three FL-T200 tanks arranged radially around a Science Jr. under an FL-T100 tank with a decoupler and usually a set of Spiders. The landing legs, lights, and perhaps other experiments are on the outer tanks, and when I take off for the last time, I stage away those outer tanks and the Science Jr. If I really want to avoid a tall lander, I use angle snap and replace one of the 200 tanks with the Science Jr., though that makes getting the landing legs correct a bit tricky. On the other hand, three legs guarantees zero wobble, so I don't need to get them exactly correct.
However, the Mun has enough gravity that biome hopping is almost not worth it. It can be done, but you may want to consider a rover.
5 hours ago, Baker said:
3. The lander+return is modeled after Apollo 11. But I'm unsure if KSP actually needs this design. Is there a design that will hit many points in the Mun and have fuel to return to Kerbal? A design that allows for a Science Jr. that can be reset by a scientist.
See AlsoCollecting science from the Mun
KSP does not need that design; I once accidentally tried a Mun landing with a rocket modelled after Apollo8. Think about that for a second.
It worked, though I don't recommend it. (The accidental part was that I forgot the lander; I landed deliberately because I didn't want to reload if I didn't need to do so.)
While I don't like taking unnecessary parts home with me (they were purchased before the mission and I wouldn't do the mission if it didn't make money; I don'tneedto bring them home), I have been seen putting a Science Jr. on the bottom of a one-seat pod or on the top of a three-seat pod. If you get rid of the Mk. II lander can and Poodle engine, you can have a combined lander/return rocket that has the fuel of both stages at the cost of a bit more parasitic mass.
You may also consider taking a one-seat pod for a scientist and using a probecore for a pilot.
5 hours ago, Baker said:
4. With the lander+return design, what Mun altitude is optimally fuel efficient? I usually prefer very low Mun orbit (<10k) but in playing around with the lander's return to the return ship it appears a higher orbit is more fuel efficient. Is it?
Not exactly, but it is easier. It will always cost more fuel to go to a higher orbit. However, rendezvous tends to be more forgiving at higher altitudes because it costs less to match planes and the orbits themselves are slower, so a slight mismatch does not result in so drastic a difference in relative velocity. I usually don't have a problem with rendezvous, so I find fifteen kilometres to be a good all-round parking orbit altitude for my missions to the Mun, but I will vary between ten and twenty-five, depending on what I'm doing.
6 hours ago, Baker said:
Thank you for any help!
Additionally, for the love of aerodynamics, get rid of that sudden wasp-waist constriction in the middle of your rocket. Put the Science Jr. into a service bay, or a fairing, or else neck down your rocket and put it there.
Otherwise, welcome to the forum, and please enjoy your stay!
