Pecan

This needs to be added to the KSP Mantra: Moar Boosters Moar Struts Moar Airbrakes

Prepare to be disappointed then. It was in the old demo, it isn't in the new one. Now you get precisely two SRBs, one LFO engine and no gimbals. That's enough to land on either moon and return though, as my design in that thread demonstrates.

HSI and ILS mod - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/85353-1-0-2-NavUtilities-ft-HSI-Instrument-Landing-System-v0-5-1-RC-1-%2AJune-2015%2A

You can build rocket SSTOs more or less the same way you've always done, although taller and thinner is better and some fins or other draggy stuff on the bottom will pay off.

All the current demo's parts are listed here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130790-How-can-I-orbit-kerbin-and-the-moon-in-Demo?p=2124519&viewfull=1#post2124519

The current version is "1.0.0.813 Demo" according to the main menu display, based on - IIRC - version 1.0.0 of the game (eg; aerodynamics). According to the readme.txt, however, it's "Version 0.90.0 Beta" (which is not true; just don't trust the readme there). The OLD, pre-1.0, demo was "Version 0.18.3 DEMO" according to its readme and was last updated before tweakables and even has the old-style KSC buildings.

Because no-one else seems to have done one, here's my SSTO to Eeloo, the "SS* you don't need to know what TO** means": http://imgur.com/clnqYS2 Standard launch and gravity turn, jettison launch stage once in orbit, spend a looooong time getting anywhere. Untested but i) T-45s work well with light loads, ii) KER wouldn't lie to me. [*So Simple, **To Orbit]

Surface samples and resource transfer are indeed the R&D tier-2 extras

Doh! I feel stupid now; just assumed this was about the current demo. Now I have to install my oooold demo version again, as I haven't still got anything from that. Spinning/flipping in the old atmosphere was pretty impossible though, so it's an odd one. Similar, but simpler, than the more recent demo Mun-lander. Straight up to 10km, then 45-degrees works fine for this one in the older version: Transfer and lander - no need for legs when you have stable tanks to land on ^^. Launch vehicle This exercise in history and lack of instruments doesn't half make you glad to get back to the full game and MJ :-)

Demo Mun return lander -> http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130790-How-can-I-orbit-kerbin-and-the-moon-in-Demo?p=2125733&viewfull=1#post2125733 Getting into orbit is not easy - flying a proper gravity turn is a skill you have to learn like any other. Practice, be patient with yourself. You'll get it and, once you do, messing about in space is comparatively easy. Until you come to landing or docking ...

Cargo/service bays are random, aren't they? They don't appear to have any other function like heat or drag reduction, so I assumed they were just there to add failures. (Sadly, only half-joking. More or less given up on them, since it's almost impossible to convince KSP the things you want in them ARE inside, and the rest outside).

Er, title? Here's an LF only engine. It doesn't need building.

My suspicion would fall on this tri-coupler, which I can't see. You could attach the tank-side ports directly, with symmetry-3 so the coupler isn't needed. If it IS there though, presumably you've clipped it inside the tank itself and, possibly, to a different node inside the tank. This is what makes me wonder - is that coupler getting any fuel feed in the first place? Certainly, if it is, the 1->3 feed and transfer via the ports should work.

Like any mnemonic, it's only useful to the extent it works for you. Once you've practiced docking a few times the chances are you won't need to think it through at all, it becomes pretty instinctive quite quickly - however hard it is to learn in the first place ^^.

AND place things that don't use symmetry-4, like the fuel lines, singly instead of using the symmetry you started with, hence "if you can, it'll be a lot of hassle" in my post.

As RIC said, the pendulum fallacy is not about the same at all. Pull is more stable in KSP because if you pull a piece of string it straightens out rather than collapsing. The pendulum fallacy, on the other hand, refers to directional stability; the fallacy being that the 'train' of parts behind the engine will help it point in the right direction.

Most mods push my install past memory limits anyway, parts mods aren't even to be considered! Welding, on the other hand, by reducing the part-count makes things work better. When it works.

There are two meanings - the obvious one not being the one you want ... i) 'Pull' vehicles, usually space-tugs or similar have the engines attached radially towards the front, with the mass of the payload/structure behind and between them. This means the force is applied ahead of a potentially-wobbly load and it stretches straight. Engines at the back, conversely, encourage wobbles like trying to push a piece of string. This is a 'pull' tractor: Tractor Medium Delivering Fuel Module To Mun Station ii) "Push retrograde, pull prograde" refers to manoeuvres to adjust your direction of movement (prograde), as shown on the navball, towards a target also shown there. I'm afraid I don't have a link to a picture handy but if your prograde is to the left of the target, for instance, you want to burn the other side (to the right) of the target to bring them together - hence you are 'pulling' the prograde market towards your vehicle's heading. On the other hand, when reversing and braking towards a target, if the retrograde (backwards) marker is to the left of the target you want to point your heading even more towards the left and burn there to 'push' the retrograde marker towards the target.

You don't need fuel-lines between the upper/lower tanks in each stack. More importantly the lines from each stack to the centre are wrong, only the last-jettisoned stage (2 stacks) should have those, the rest just feed via their neighbours. Hmmm, looking at it a bit more; you've used symmetry-4 to position the decouplers. You can't do that, then try to treat them as symmetry-2 (or, if you can, it'll be a lot of hassle). Part of what makes asparagus fiddly is that you HAVE to place opposite stacks using symmetry-2.

Not sure I'll play MP very much (broadband capacity limits) but what I'm looking forward to is space-station traffic control. "Kerbin station: All vessels clear station normal, service tug launching for crew-shuttle rv" "Minmus Heavy to Kerbin station: PTA and dock?" "Kerbin station: Minmus Heavy CTA retrograde and hold 1 km. Docking will be on Radial 3 retrograde. Contact again In Position" etc.

After much messing around I decided I just couldn't come up with a design I was really happy with - so here's three! The design requirement I used was to be land on Mun and return, not just fly-by it. In accordance with my usual policy for landings, that also implies orbitting first, not just coming screaming in at high speed. Note that in general the parts used are the only ones of that type available in demo mode - and unlike the other designs given in this thread (except the fly-by probe) this these only use demo parts ^^. Lander: The lander design is common to all three transfer/launch vehicles. The only thing that needs to come back to Kerbin is the pod and to do so safely it needs a parachute - so that's all that is above the decoupler. Since it can be hard to find somewhere flat to land on Mun, especially if you're new, this has a low Centre of Mass (CoM) and widely-spread landing legs. For both these reasons there are three fuel tanks radially attached to the decoupler, with the engine immediately below it. Fuel ducts are required to feed fuel from the tanks to the engine. Finally a 1x6 solar panel is also attached to the decoupler. Thrust is obviously high. This amount of fuel is sufficient for the final Mun landing phase, re-launch, re-orbit, transfer to LKO (71km), re-orbit there and de-orbit burn. Once that's complete stage to jettison the tanks, legs, engine and solar panels, fall through re-entry until speed is below 250km then stage again to deploy the parachute. Transfer: It takes a T30 about 6 tanks of fuel to transfer the lander from LKO to Mun, establish orbit there and de-orbit/almost land. It seemed sensible to use the lander's own engine for this, since there's no choice of engine anyway. Keeping this clear, putting the tanks under the existing radial stacks was a simple decision. Fuel ducts are required to connect these up to the lander's tanks, and so to the engine using the ducts they already have. Launch Vehicle A: Extending below the lander and transfer stages' three stacks for the launcher, more T30s can only push another 7 fuel tanks each, which just isn't enough. Fins on each stack are simple enough, but fiddling-around with the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) got a bit messy. For a start, they need to be placed with mirror symmetry, not radial, or they'll clip into something 'with hilarious consequences' when you try to separate them. Secondly, I still had to asparagus them - and adjust the thrust-limiters in the VAB to match the liquid fuel consumption - in order to get acceptable performance. Note that although they are not visible in the picture there are struts connecting the bottoms of the main stacks, so they don't spread and wobble during flight (see variants below). Ho hum. This looks impressive at launch and minimises drag (once you lose the boosters) because there are just the three serial stacks, but it's complicated to build. Flies quite nicely, but I wouldn't bother if I were you. Launch Vehicle B: If not straight serial staging then asparagus is always an option. For the second attempt I made a core stack with 6 tanks. The lander and these tanks is a fair load for a single T30 but this stage is only used for the final ascent and circularistation, where shear power (Trust to Weight ratio, TWR) is not so important. Radially attached to this in the North and South positions - symmetry 2 = asparagus - are stacks of 12 fuel tanks, small reaction wheels, nosecones, fins and, of course, T30s. You can see how these are strutted together at the bottom. Being an asparagus arrangement, fuel ducts connect from these to the core stack. Identical stacks are finally put in the East/West positions, with the fuel ducts feeding their neighbouring N/S stack (and on to the core). The first-placed/last-jettisoned stacks are N/S so their fins give most benefit during the gravity turn, those on the E/W stacks are less useful. This launch variant has the best performance (dV) but is most expensive (and has the most parts). Launch Vehicle C: This is an almost identical design but moves the transfer fuel-tanks down from the lander to the core/circularisation stage. This saves three decouplers and fuel ducts BUT the struts from the asparagus stages are vital, or that long core stack flops around like wet spaghetti. Although a slightly easier build the core launch stack is now used for the transfer stage, so must lug a load of empty tanks all the way to Mun. Hence, despite the reduction in weight and parts, the performance is not quite as good. In case you are wondering, I have kept the core stack 'high' in the centre, rather than bringing it level with the asparagus stages, for one, some or none of the following reasons: Jeb likes the view As the centre stack is kept full by the asparagus fuel ducts the CoM stays high/forward, so the flight is more stable The lander starts a bit closer to Mun this way By being further back from the CoM the fins on the asparagus stages are better able to stabilise the vehicle during the gravity turn Use this or the previous version as you prefer - there's not really much to choose between them. Comparison of vehicles (total launch stats): dV (m/s) Cost Parts Mass (tonnes) Launch A 5,178 36,508 107 83.263 Launch B 7,218 48,783 113 81.05 Launch C 6,995 37,301 111 80.95 ETA: Oh yes, I've just been reminded that you should try Minmus before Mun - although it is harder to get there (more dV, and you need to plane-change), it is so much easier to land on and re-launch from and has such large, flat areas that it is a much easier target for your first landings. The ideal progression would be (once you can get into Kerbin orbit in the first place!); orbit Mun first, then Minmus, land on Minmus, finally land on Mun. The full game has many more places to visit, of course.

Just Passing Through

The readme for the latest demo version I have says version 0.90 so I'll have to download the new one. Working on it ...

Still using basic fins most of the time here - I hate structural mass ^^.

SSTO rated for 105t. If your station is aerodynamic enough to lift with anything, that'll do it -> http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/130438-SSTO-Cargo-to-Minimus?p=2115922&viewfull=1#post2115922 Quite correct. I should have simply said that rockets and spaceplanes are two completely different aspects of KSP that have little in common but have a lot of appeal for different reasons. Sort of 'yes' to everything you said, except why didn't you start using SSTOs before you got airbreathing engines?