ssTALONps

I believe screenshot shows us an asteroid reentering. Also, I think the sequence (6585, 21, 7, 29, 7, 22) refers to asteroids; 6585 O'Keefe, 21 Lutetia, 7 Iris, 29 Amphitrite, 22 Kalliope. All of them (except 6585 O'keefe, couldn't find info about its size) are quite huge, diameters are at least >100km. Kalliope even has a moon. Still don't know why 7 is repeated...

Wow. 15th place? Twice better than I expected for such an unusual design! I was originally expecting something like 30+ place And for the final vote, I'll vote for Mallard. It incorporates essential design techniques (angle of incidence, abort action groups, etc) and has good handling characteristics.

Side ports are primarily for ground refuel duty. It can also serve as auxiliary refuel port when docking with heavily occupied space station. I'll give bonus points to any SSTO that can be used with General Purpose Tanker system, i.e. having Jr. docking port at correct height. See screeny below if you can't understand what I'm saying. I'm quite surprised by my Volley's consistent top 10 ranking among voters. As Rune said, it's quite unorthodox and may not serve for beginners to learn ordinary SSTO design. However, with Dual Engine Serviceability, I thought it can be easily modified and expanded by user's will. I was originally going to submit recently recommissioned STX-3B Lynx (engine changed from 2x LV-909 to 4x 48-7S), screenshot below. The main reason I didn't submitted it is that, apart from aesthetics and name conflict issue with another contestant, it's just a generic turbojet SSTO. It didn't have that much 'edge' over others.

I believe it's caused by Module Manager. That's why I'm not using Hot Rockets, etc.

I'm planning to rank everything from 1~50 or something, ties included.

Exactly what I'm thinking. It's cool to have like ~2km/s of dV on orbit or pulling off 9G maneuvers at full tanks, but I think that's not the spirit of Aeris 4a... Most of biplane-ish submissions do not even has struts or support structure linking upper and lower wings somewhere midpoint along wing. I guess they didn't wanted to ruin 'aesthetics' of their craft whilst removing one set of wings seems more attractive to me than biplane. Some crafts have joined wingtips. I would only allow it for wingtip-less boxwing derivative design, which NONE of the submissions use. For body lift, I do have wing overlaying for body lift listed at exceptions.

Of course. Tell me if you saw hypersonic biplane in real life I honestly can't understand why people build space biplanes. Most of them flies just fine without upper or lower wings except for heaviest designs. Also, I think if one tries to sorta cheat his inherently low maneuverable design into supermaneuverable design by simply making it biplane or using wing clipping, it is a procrastination. A procrastination to forcibly cheat out of basic aerodynamics instead of looking for other designs e.g. delta + canard. An obsession and over-reliance, I should say. But that's just me, others can agree with you on that matter.

From now on, anyone else requesting for reassessment should PM me with entrant name and reason stated in order to not spam the thread. Thank you.

Due to the overwhelming amount of entrants, some mistakes can be made. I'll check again.

Alright, I'll check again and PM you if any changes in score and rank are made

Now that's the flaw of my scoring system. Some do need to be flown in order to determine tweakables on control surfaces have negative or positive effect. Due to RL matters, I should leave that to other voters although I'll revise ranking if one requests reassessment.

I have to disagree with you with 'reach KSC from any point of Kerbin after deorbit' part. I think beginners should learn how to deorbit efficiently so that one can arrive at least 300km away from KSC. But don't worry, I'm not the only voter here Others could agree with you on that. On the other part, I might have to do some flight test for that. Second Pass won't start until Tuesday, anyway. If there's change in your rank, I'll notify you with PM.

Those categories are not penalties but bonuses. Your submission didn't gain those bonuses. As for the lack of use of tweakables for fuel and oxidizer, I tend to minimize abundant liquid fuel and oxidizer out of balance (0.9:1.1, I remember). Those are just dead weights on orbit especially oxidizer. Liquid fuels do have impact on cross range performance, however, it's still a dead weight on orbit. Thus I concluded that, if one did not use tweakable on this, one did not tested enough that himself does not know how to minimize dead weight on orbit. And as for the lack of use of tweakables for control surfaces, if one does not assign individual maneuver axis (pitch, roll, yaw) for individual control surfaces it will result in sudden loss of acceleration (=G force) when performing combined maneuvers. That may result in fatal crash if one's close to ground. This is currently unavoidable as KSP's control surface does not support custom movement angle i.e. its maximum deviation is limited. I try to give this bonus to anyone did that. Also, elevons and other 2-axial control surfaces do gain this bonus because some design inevitably needs those and others have spare set of dedicated elevator, rudder and ailerons that using single set of 2-axial control surfaces do not significantly affect maneuverability and result in catastrophic crash near ground.

Can you clarify your question?

Yes, although I'm sure most of them will make it to orbit without upper or lower wings. I once thought about making them to monoplane by removing upper or lower wings and then begin flight testing and scoring...