Tarmenius

Wanderfound: I really like what you did with the Oscar-Bs on your Kerbobee! The whole craft has a sort of MiG vibe to it, too. Awesome. I'd really like to see how much mass the Turbojet can push around with FAR, to see what difference there is in practical terms between the two aero systems.

So much awesome while I was away on RealLife obligations! I had no idea that the Turbojet could be pushed so far; I'm super impressed. I also couldn't be happier about the discussions taking place. Later in the evening, when I have more free time, I'll be taking what I've learned here and applying it to a new design. --- Most of my actually-operational SSTOs do feature airbrakes to help manage heat and prevent grossly overshooting KSC on re-entry. The few that I've brought down without them have lost parts, though that was before 1.0.2. I imagine that modelling a descent after the real-life Shuttle's (high AoA + S-turns) will help mitigate some of that heat, though I have yet to try it.

Cool! I was hoping someone would bring an RCS-powered variant! Neat tailsitter! Have you considered adding landing struts, or does that induce too much drag? Either way, I like the design. In my experience so far with 1.0, the Structural Intakes are now the least effective, having more drag and less intakeAir than even the Radial Air Intake. Of course, I could be just using them improperly

It wouldn't be much of a challenge without the participants, so thank you for joining in! I'm really impressed by everyone's entries so far; these Forums never disappoint

No question, the RAPIER seems to out-class the Turbojet everywhere it counts. Hopefully by the end of this challenge, we'll have a pretty clear picture of just how wide the gap is between the two. Genuinely, thank you for the input; it's always welcome. If the challenge favored "most massive" craft, then toward the end it would become essentially a piloting competition as the winner would be whoever could pilot the most efficient ascent. Don't get me wrong, that's a perfectly valid challenge to have, but more limited in scope than I wanted this one to be. On a roll, indeed. How long did it take you to adjust to the new aero? You've been designing (awesome) spaceplanes for quite some time; I imagine some of that skill had to be re-learned. Either way, that Arrowhead is rather impressive. match: Well done and congrats! It reminds me of a pusher aircraft. Batz_10K: I love the look of your K110 Backlash! It's like a mix of the ME 262 and the Corsair II. How long did it take you to balance it?

RuBisCO: Let me know if you want your own name for the craft to be on the list. And what kind of flight profile do you use with it? Does it start fully-fueled? Well that's one of the things we're here for anyway, so good work! zarakon: Well done, indeed! It looks like there's even enough fuel left to de-orbit. How narrow is the margin for error on the ascent?

Maybe not, but it's still pretty cool. It looks as though I had been starting my turns a little too late. I've been finding more success on flights that end up at 20 degrees or so by 9km than I had previously. --- I'm curious to find out what the smallest craft of this configuration will be. Before 1.0 there were some truly diminutive SSTO spaceplanes.

Congrats Bill Zarr! I really like the offset engine on the X6, though I wouldn't want to be the one flying it. Is the SAS enough to keep it from tumbling when the Terriers are on?

I wouldn't say cheating, exactly. Exploitative, sure. But the goal here is to see how far we can take a single Turbojet, and the techniques required to achieve it. So while the performance itself may not be as impressive as it first might seem, the clever exploitation of physics makes up for it in my mind

zarakon: I guess that explains how wing parts don't obstruct intakes... juzeris: Impressive work on the Fierder 3! I'm glad to know there's more room for improvement than I thought.

Out of curiosity, what kind of ascent profile do you use? And does it launch fully fueled? Few of my craft ever get cool names. It's like naming characters in RPGs... I'm just bad at it. And thanks for the detailed piloting instructions, that's very helpful. Well that explains the large amount of drag I experienced in earlier iterations. Also, in the Thud vs Terrier test, I wonder what would happen if a tail connector was used above the Thud in the same manner as for the Terrier. I think I'm going to start up KSP and try it out. It certainly is that, good work! ----- I've added everyone's entries to the list, and included the masses of each craft (might be useful to know later on). Let me know if I've gotten the numbers wrong, forgotten anyone, or if you have some ideas for fun categories to design for.

As do mine. And congrats on completing the challenge! You've been added to the list. I typically design mine to be capable of return from rendezvous at 100km without refueling. But for this configuration, just getting to orbit in the first place was a challenge for me. I barely got mine to 75km x 75km.

Wanderfound: Awesome use of the Service Bay! I knew there was a way to use it to launch small satellites... zarakon: It was a fight to get within 100 m/s of reaching even a 75km orbit. After that, I was stuck at about 50 m/s. The difference was made by shaving off a mere 0.5t coupled with a nice, flat speed phase at about 11-12km.

Looks like I'll have to load up the Thudmeister to see just how much of a difference there is between the two. And your Hiflyer is one of the designs I iterated through (but with a Turbojet, obviously) to get to the Finch. It performed similarly to the twin LV909 setup I ended with, so finding the "right" ascent might move it beyond sub-orbital.

Thanks for the submission Wanderfound! Out of curiosity, how do you think the Thudmeister would perform in stock? I've never used FAR so I have no experience to draw from for comparison.

I looked around the Forums (admittedly, I may have missed some corners) for an example of an SSTO built around a single Turbojet, like the one pictured above. Having built and seen so many of them before 1.0, I was surprised to find it so difficult to find any. Granted I was struggling myself, but always within about 150 m/s of reaching orbit and I'm not the most skilled pilot by a long shot. But now that I've found success, I figure "If I can do it, then many others could probably do it better (or may already have)." So, the challenge here will be to, as you may have guessed, build an SSTO spaceplane which uses only a single Turbojet during the atmospheric portion of the ascent. Only stock parts may be used though mods for information, pilot assistance and/or visual enhancement are perfectly acceptable.As this is less of a performance competition and more of a "Lets see all the crazy stuff we can do here" type of challenge, there will be no traditional scoring. However, all who complete the challenge will be listed, and "Top Three" entries could be maintained for various categories (largest, smallest, most delta-v, FAR, etc). Added as necessary, I suppose. The true goal here is to see the range of designs possible while using just one Turbojet. So to get things started, here are the fruits of my struggle: Now, lets see what the rest of you talented builders can come up with! CATEGORIES (Added as warranted by the submitted designs) LOWEST MASS (on takeoff): Foxter "Munchkin 1" (4.41t) zarakon "Mini SSTO 1.0.2" (5.2t) georgTF "TurboJet Cheapskate" (8t) HIGHEST MASS (on takeoff) Falconer "KerbODactyl" (45.6t!!) GoSlash27 "TJSST3" (19.6t) georgTF "Double Trouble" (18.3t) OUT-OF-THE-BOX DESIGN (In no particular order) "Rembor III" -- RCS-powered! "K110 Backlash" -- Double-fuselage "Double Trouble" -- Twin Nukes! "Spinoctyl, type J" -- Also twin Nukes! And a trip to Laythe! "Munchkin 1" -- Not actually a spaceplane "Shark Mk1" -- Also not actually a spaceplane "Pogo 2" -- Vertical launch/land "Fierder 3" -- Clever use of cargo bay ---------- PARTICIPANTS (STOCK): NikkyD "Shark Mk1" (4t) Foxter "Munchkin 1" (4.41t) zarakon "Mini SSTO 1.0.2" (5.2t) Postremus "Rembor III" (8.1t) (RCS-powered rocket phase!) SkyRender "Tourista" (8.4t) Kuzzter "Pogo 2" (8.7t) georgTF "TurboJet Orbiter" (9.9t) and "TurboJet Cheapskate" (8t) and "Double Trouble" (18.3t) Hotaru "Duckling Mark 1" (10.2t) match "SSTURD" (10.3t) Starhawk "Rescue 2" (10.7t) Bill Zarr "X5 & X6" (10.8) & (12.6) respectively RuBisCO "[Top Secret]" (11t estimated) Batz_10K "K110 Backlash" (11t estimated) redsh "single-turbojet" (13.6t) ABalazs "STJ entry" (15t estimated) juzeris "Fierder 3" (15.4t) and "Spinoctyl, type J" (25.1t) SirJodelstein "Rhacophorus" (15.8t) Rune "Arrowhead" (18.2t) GoSlash27 "TJSST3" (19.6t) Falconer "KerbODactyl" (45.6t) PARTICIPANTS (FAR): Wanderfound "Thudmeister" (18.9t) and "Minithud" (11t) and "Kerbobee" (CLASSIFIED)

After playing KSP since 0.13, adjusting to the new aero is taking some time, but I think I'm beginning to get a handle on it now. And so I present my 1.0 entry, the Jatayu: A less-than-optimal ascent left me with little fuel for orbital maneuvers, and so most of my RCS had to be used to for the rendezvous. But re-entry was quite manageable with only the intakes threatening to overheat, and I intentionally overshot KSC in order to conserve fuel and test the airbrakes. Gliding to the runway was really easy thanks to the lifting body fuselages and landing was achieved at a very gentle 55 m/s. The "test flight" of this craft (which included the payload) had a much smoother ascent, though, and so had plenty of fuel for rendezvous and de-orbit, but there was no station to dock with at the time so it went undocumented. Thanks (again) boolybooly for continuing to host this challenge!

My guess is some sort of discovery mechanic. HarvestR talked about needing it when asteroids were being introduced, and the base system is already there. I'm hoping that's the case, and that camera equipment (for telescopes or unmanned probes) is coming along with it.

This was my impression as well and I was a little disappointed when I discovered that it wasn't the case. Not only that, but unless it was changed in 0.90, the fuel amounts can only be adjusted to certain threshold values. Feels like a pointlessly limited system to me. But on the topic at hand, I am (as many others are) having a very hard time figuring out why this was done instead of simply creating a new tank. My guess is that this was a spur of the moment decision with little thought put into it, and it will end up being reverted before too long.

I'd have to say that given the scale of features to be added, bugfixing and general optimization should be the top priority. Since any remaining "placeholder" code will need to be cleared away during this update, it should be the fist thing that gets done. From what I understand of game development, this will allow you to work from a code base that is relatively solid, streamlined, clean, and easier to maintain. Programming new features will be easier, debugging will be faster meaning that more features overall will be able to be added. After that, I'd say the Overhauled Aerodynamics is likely to inflict the greatest change in balance, so get it out of the way first and leave balancing for last. Lastly, I'd like to thank SQUAD for making a truly great game and for involving us in the process.

I'm really loving the new design options afforded by the new spaceplane parts! And this craft is quickly becoming one of my favorite creations. It reminds me of a muscle car from the late 50's: sleek yet powerful. I call it the Thresher: It's pretty much only good for pleasure trips to LKO, or to rescue kerbals in style. But it flies well and as long as the intakes are closed at high speeds, it glides well, too.

One look at the aircraft plus this comment, and it seems to me that the canards are the culprit here. On such a light craft with low fuel, they will easily wreak havoc with a plane's stability. I'd bet a lot of Funds that replacing the Winglets with Tailfins will resolve the control issues, assuming that the CoM and CoL are then properly arranged.

Maybe a pair of options could be added to the Command Pods (and Probe Cores) labelled "Enable/Disable RCS Translation" and "Enable/Disable RCS Rotation". That way, those could be toggled on-the-fly during flight, or set up during building. Or perhaps an "RCS Control System" part could be made to handle that functionality, as well as actively balancing the RCS thrust to minimize yaw or pitch during translation. I know Caps Lock balances the RCS thrust to some degree already, but that's not exactly common knowledge. Having a part (or the Pods) handle those things would not only solve the issue, but bring one of several currently-obscure functions into the toolboxes of more players. I think a dedicated part would serve this purpose better, as there would likely be an issue with any craft having more than one Pod or Core.

That's been half the fun for me. I usually stick to building reliable craft that work and which are reasonably efficient. Adding complexity and scale just for the sake of adding them doesn't much appeal to me. So, without incentive to build any other way, my designs tend to have very similar looks and behaviors by the time I'm done with them. With the odd combinations of altitude and speed, there's now some incentive to design craft that wouldn't make much sense in any other context. Embrace the craziness!

You can simply tweak the Thrust Limit to zero of any engine you don't want to have factored into the calculation. That's what I do in those situations. Just remember to reset it before launch!