How can I orbit kerbin and the moon in Demo?

[BowWhalley]

Hello, I have got the demo at the moment to try out the game before I decide to buy the full version. I heard it is possible to goto the mun and orbit kerbin in the demo version. I looked at a few tutorials and found they had different parts. I am not sure if those parts were removed from demo in later updates or if it is different on the different operating systems. With the rocket designs I have made, the rocket ends up spinning out of control.

If it helps, I am running MacOS Yosemite.

Thank you for taking your time to read this post , sincerely Bowan

Edited August 6, 2015 by BowWhalley

[Vectura]

Well, the demo has only a tiny fraction of the parts that the main game has. And if I remember right, I THINK that the demo is based on 0.90, which has different aerodynamics to the current game.

[Weywot8]

The kerbal way is to use MOAR boosters! Although to be fair, there used to be a trick called explosive decoupling that might not work anymore in the latest version.

https://youtu.be/ZNXTFj3ozNY

Have a go and see if the video helps.

Maybe list out the parts that are available to you because I'm guessing anyone who can really help here doesn't actually remember what is/isn't available in the demo version.

EDIT: ninja'd and if it's version 0.9, explosive decoupling should still work!

EDIT2: Buy the full game - cause you're worth it! (and it's worth it too!)

Edited August 6, 2015 by Weywot8

[Red Iron Crown]

The demo is based on 1.0 now.

[JTpopcorn]

Just add more boosters.

I got to the moon in the demo for .13-.14 so if its based in 1.0 it should be easier.

Tall rockets with stages eliminate all drag.

[xtoro]

For this and future reference, there's an organized list of many different tutorials that can help you out with almost anything you'd want to do in the game here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28352-The-Drawing-Board-A-library-of-tutorials-and-other-useful-information

[cantab]

The current demo, based on KSP 1.0, has a very limited range of parts, but it is enough to do all the KSP basics. Remember that unlike older versions of the game, KSP 1.0 and later has meaningful aerodynamics. A streamlined rocket with fins at the back will fly better than a flat pancake. Some particular demo-specific difficulty:

No mods. If you want to know your TWR and delta-V you'll have to calculate them by hand. IMHO that's something every KSPer should know how to do anyway. Alternatively you could take the trial and error approach.

Limited control options - the demo has no gimballing engines and no aerodynamic control surfaces. Small rockets will be OK with the command pod's torque, but larger rockets or anything using the Stayputnik will need either reaction wheels or RCS.

No really good lander engines. The Reliant is heavy and the landing legs are too short so you'll have to either land on the engine bell or get creative with your design. The RCS thrusters aren't bad for Minmus but it's a bit trickier to land without variable throttle.

[Pecan]

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 ...

[BowWhalley]

Weywot8 > The kerbal way is to use MOAR boosters! Although to be fair, there used to be a trick called explosive decoupling that might not work anymore in the latest version.

https://youtu.be/ZNXTFj3ozNY

Have a go and see if the video helps.

Maybe list out the parts that are available to you because I'm guessing anyone who can really help here doesn't actually remember what is/isn't available in the demo version.

EDIT: ninja'd and if it's version 0.9, explosive decoupling should still work!

EDIT2: Buy the full game - cause you're worth it! (and it's worth it too!)

--------------------

Mk1 Command Pod

Stayputnik Mk 1

FL-T100 Fuel Tank

FL-T200 Fuel Tank

FTX-2 External Fuel Duct

Stratus-V Roundified Monopropellant Tank

LV -T30 “Reliant†Liquid Fuel Engine

RT-10 “Hammer†Solid Fuel Booster

RT-5 “flea†Solid Fuel Booster

RV-105 RCS Thruster Block

Small Inline Reaction Wheel

EAS-4 Strut Connector

Modular Girder Segment

TR-18A Stack Decoupler

TT18-A Launch Stability Enhancer

TT-38K Radial Decoupler

Aerodynamic Nose Cone

AV-T1 Winglet

LT-1 Landing Struts

Mk16 Parachute

OS-4L 1x6 Photovoltaic Panels

Pegasus | Mobility Enhancer

Z-100 Rechargeable Battery Pack

Communotron 16

Mystery Gooâ„¢ Containment Unit

SC-9001 Science Jr

Edited August 7, 2015 by BowWhalley

[Weywot8]

-------

Mk1 Command Pod

Stayputnik Mk 1

FL-T100 Fuel Tank

FL-T200 Fuel Tank

FTX-2 External Fuel Duct

Stratus-V Roundified Monopropellant Tank

LV -T30 “Reliant†Liquid Fuel Engine

RT-10 “Hammer†Solid Fuel Booster

RT-5 “flea†Solid Fuel Booster

RV-105 RCS Thruster Block

Small Inline Reaction Wheel

EAS-4 Strut Connector

Modular Girder Segment

TR-18A Stack Decoupler

TT18-A Launch Stability Enhancer

TT-38K Radial Decoupler

Aerodynamic Nose Cone

AV-T1 Winglet

LT-1 Landing Struts

Mk16 Parachute

OS-4L 1x6 Photovoltaic Panels

Pegasus | Mobility Enhancer

Z-100 Rechargeable Battery Pack

Communotron 16

Mystery Gooâ„¢ Containment Unit

SC-9001 Science Jr

Nice, I'll play round and see what will work for you but from just looking at the list - there are winglets, decouplers, an LF engine and parachutes! definitely doable.

EDIT : Some one else has already done an incredibly good job with almost all the parts listed. His design gets to teh Mun and back. swap out the central LF engine for the one you do have, add two side solid fuel boosters (Hammers) and that should work just fine

See image 6 onwards in this guys album

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited August 7, 2015 by Weywot8
Better pre-made answer!

[ghpstage]

@Weywot8

That rocket makes use of both the LV-T45 and LV-909 neither of which the OP has access to. Without a gimballed engine, flight control surfaces and a dedicated vacuum engine I suspect a lot of people with a fair amount of experience in KSP would struggle to get far!

@ the OP, I haven't tried the Mun yet, but I slapped together a simple unmanned satellite that can get into a low orbit and not much else, as well as a manned rocket that can land on Minmus (i'm assuming Kerbin's second moon is in the demo) and get home. The manned rocket could easily orbit the Mun, but would not survive any kind of landing attempt.

The lack of a decoupler below the command pod mean that re-entry, which I haven't yet completed will likely prove to be to explodey for Bill's tastes, but Jeb would probably love it.

It makes use of RCS for control during the ascent due to the lack of flying controls or vectored engines. Asparagus staging (thats what the fuel lines are for) is used as reaching the required dV without a dedicated vacuum engines isn't easy!

The asparagus might make copying it difficult for someone not familiar with the game.

In practice the solar panels on the manned rocket were a waste of fuel as all the engines had alternators..... but they may serve to rescue the worst reentry section I have ever built.

I could have dumped two of the engines on the initial stage too.

Once you have a design your going to have to learn how to fly them, both at launch and your in space manoeuvres. What you have seen in videos of the game post version 1.0 will give you an idea of what to do during take off and reentry, orbital manoeuvres are the same as always so most videos will give a decent example of what to do there.

Of my designs the unmanned rocket will not have access to SAS outside of sandbox mode, while the manned one will need RCS activated to control in the atmosphere but the rest should be the same as in most vids.

EDIT I didn't expect it, but the Minmus rocket actually made it home following a lengthy aerobraking manoeuvre. Bill was in space for over 70 days!

Panels proved useful in preventing an explosion

Edited August 7, 2015 by ghpstage

[Weywot8]

I stand corrected! Didn't notice the Terrier:sticktongue: as the joy of looking at a potential answer embedded in a fully fledged tutorial monetarily blinded me:cool:

[ghpstage]

I stand corrected! Didn't notice the Terrier:sticktongue: as the joy of looking at a potential answer embedded in a fully fledged tutorial monetarily blinded me:cool:

Easily done, I get confused all the time!

Back fiddling around with designs and now have something that on paper I think could manage to get a Kerbal to and from the Mun. Its the Minmus rocket plus 17 additional fuel tanks, the solar panels removed and a decoupler added below the command pod. I'm still assuming the demo allows for sandbox, as the parts count and weight limits will make even getting a Kerbal into orbit difficult under those rules.

Also, I can't account for changes in the physics since 1.0, so I don't know how comparable my results efforts will be.

EDIT - Finally got demo to work.

Edited August 7, 2015 by ghpstage

[Phil deCube]

Nice, I'll play round and see what will work for you but from just looking at the list - there are winglets, decouplers, an LF engine and parachutes! definitely doable.

EDIT : Some one else has already done an incredibly good job with almost all the parts listed. His design gets to teh Mun and back. swap out the central LF engine for the one you do have, add two side solid fuel boosters (Hammers) and that should work just fine

See image 6 onwards in this guys album

http://imgur.com/a/LHoNm

Hey thanks. That's my turorial.

[Weywot8]

Hey thanks. That's my turorial.

It's a pretty good one!

My own two pence of rocketry - the Munar Orbit Assist vehicle. Basically the rocket equivalent of training wheels and MOAR boosters that solve a number problems. The solid boosters provide stability in themselves and act as a larger base for more lateral attachment of fins. Also, the wedge shape tends to maintain your heading at 90 degrees although it's not perfect. At one point, it is horizontal at about 30-40km up, in my hands at least. But there is more than enough rocket power to get you into orbit and then to the Mun and back.

• central rocket that get's to the Mun, orbit and back
  
  • Command pod
    
  • 8 TL-200's
    
  • LV-30
    

  [*]2 liquid fuel side boosters

  • nose cone
    
  • 7 TL-200's
    
  • LV-30
    
  • radial decoupler attached as in picture
    
    • use the offset tool to push things up and down
      

  [*]2 Hammers that fire at the same time as the LF side boosters, capped with nose cones

  • attached to the central rocket
    
  • these run out before the LF side booster and decouple earlier
    

  [*]6 Hammers that are ignited first, capped with nose cones

  • attached 3 each to the two side boosters
    

  [*]stick the fins on as seen in picture

It fumbles a bit but below is the shot of what it should look like getting into Kerbin orbit. This manuever uses up the side boosters and is finished by the central rocket.

Enough remaining fuel to get you to the Mun and back. (2500m/s deltaV for those who like numbers). It's been a while since I built something without MechJeb and flew something completely by hand with no manuever nodes.

Keep everything in the central rocket for reentry, enter the atmo tail/engine first. Then decouple while 2-5km above ground level, open parachutes and Robert is your mother's brother.

Feel free to slap on a few solar panels and batteries, I run the LV-30 at low thrust to get some charge as required.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Weywot8

[Pecan]

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.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Pecan

[Thantos]

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2015 at 4:01 PM, Pecan said:

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2015 at 4:01 PM, Pecan said:

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.

 

um yeah thanks for the help but I can't put the SRBs on in mirror symmetry mode.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Thantos
improper grammar

[Thantos]

Oh and also can you put the staging for them on here.