Slugy

That is both very impressive, and a nice looking design! As a single stage can only barely ascend from Eve (and SSTA descriptions generally exclude Eve ascent altogether) I think you can be justified in calling it a fully recoverable SSTA, with a note on the split for Eve. The Val->Tylo trip was when I was really surprised, and realised just how much dV you had, is it around 6k on the Rhinos only? p.s. Many quicksaves used for that Eve ascent/docking?

Post some detailed specs of the laptop, or people are left guessing. 4Gb of RAM is plenty to run KSP on any OS, unless you go mad with mods, so don't even think of trying to upgrade RAM yet.

[quote name='tewpie']If by "human hands" you mean hands assisted with SAS and "hands on" autopilot ala smart a.s.s., then it is very possible to fly this plane, even achieve orbit with the same payload fraction if you time everything right. If you mean naked controls, then no, probably not, but then neither are a lot of other entries and also real world spacecraft ;)[/QUOTE] I was thinking with just stock SAS and controls - but that is just my personal bias showing :) It's an excellent result, with some interesting techniques. The note about HOTOL suffering from CoP/CoM difficulties had passed me by - explains SKYLON's engine placement ...

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Thanks for updating, this one is compliant and I've added it to the leaderboard. I calculated your fraction using KER's kg-accurate numbers, brought it up to 31.37%. :) The most objectionable clipping in this vessel to me is the LV-N into the LF tank, but it seems to be more of an aesthetic choice rather than an exploitative one so I'm allowing it. Clipping of structural parts I don't mind at all. The tri-adapter offset is also acceptable to me. The front node of the adapter is still on the back of the Mk3 adapter, a better aero model would treat the same thing done with radial attachment points the same as this is treated. I think of tewpie's entry as stretching the rules to their limit in search of better fractions, which is kinda what this challenge is about. :)[/QUOTE] The rear node offset is cunning, and opens some interesting possibilities. The clipping of the LV-N is the one that I'd be most tempted by for aesthetics, they look silly hanging off space planes. The clipping of most of the Rapiers into LF tanks seemed dodgy (it is very back heavy even with all the forward clipping) - time for a rule update?

[quote name='Val']Thank you :D I'm not sure I want bigger wings. A single pair of shuttle wings are comfortably enough for crafts up to 100 t take-off weight, and 150 t as long as you don't plan to land with cargo or lots of fuel left. At least for configurations were you have take-off weight at no more than 22 t per RAPIER. But I would like a set of larger, thicker modular wing panels, so we can build larger wings. It's always bothered me that the shuttle wings don't look so good when combined with other wings or just trying to use multiple pairs. I haven't tried. Haven't needed to, with the parts I use.[/QUOTE] We have different approaches to winged craft :) The current wings are ok for a shuttle type craft (chunky glider), or a Skylon style craft (high TWR), but they are undersized for a large plane imho, and building up large wings, and tweaking angles is both fiddly and ugly. By way of comparison a 100t craft with 4 rapiers and 2 big S wings will only just scrape into the air at the end of the runway (with luck and hard elevator use) - that is roughly similar to Concorde take off speed, runway length, and TWR (at the low speed). More engines helps - but the TWR is very high for an aircraft then. A longer runway would help too. Bigger wings, and bigger modular panels would both be welcome, assuming procedural parts are never going to be introduced to stock. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='tewpie'] Takeoff Mass: 274.17t Payload Mass: 153.00t Payload Fraction: [B]55.80%[/B] Some highlights: - Single LV-N and 11x RAPIERs. - Uses only 2 shock cone intakes, they are a bit OP. - Uses the new mk3 engine mounting plate and tri-adapters for significant drag reduction (see the triforce in the back?). - (Unclipped) Rapierspikes for further drag reduction. Restricted gimbals to avoid damage. - Minor clipping and offsetting for wet/dry CoM balance. - Uses shielded docking port and cargo bay doors as pseudo airbrakes during landing. - Flight is almost completely automated via kOS. Only manual portion is jettisoning the cargo (and only because I needed time to take screenshots).[/QUOTE] A great fraction, but it does have quite a lot of clipping of tanks, engines, and adaptors at the back: Isn't this against the rules? I'm also curious as to how offsetting the tri adapters is regarded - it's clever but doesn't that fool the aero model into treating them all as attached to the bottom nodes? The automated flight is very cool too, but it would be nice if it was flyable by human hands.

[quote name='Val']New entry without Rapier-spikes and including recovery. GTOW = 320.55 t Payload = 171.00 t Payload Fraction = [B]53.35 % [/B][/QUOTE] That's an impressive payload for a recoverable! The ascent video was interesting to watch - lots of engines, very high speed low, and careful heat management looks like a good plan. I had a quick play with old designs last night: looks like those 1200 C limit plane wings will no longer be very useful (bigger SSTO wings pls Squad). Are radiators any use in combating the friction heating?

The root part oddness is interesting - at least it sounds like an easy to fix bug. Drag does seem lower all round than 1.02, but that might just be getting used to it. For placing things in cargo bay Editor Extensions is really handy - you can easily toggle surface attachment with 'T' - not having it installed was why there was a stack separator rather than a docking port in the cargo bay.

Here's something simple. Two stages, Mammoth and Skipper, 284.74t on the pad, 67.28t delivered to orbit, for 23.63% Lacks pics of early part of ascent (then I realised it was going well) which is pretty shallow, pretty much forcing turn as much as I could risk from ~60 degrees at 9km iirc, to get near orbital prograde low and quick while getting time to apoapsis far enough away to give the Skipper time to run. Should probably have had a better name than "1" ... fraction_23 perhaps, although it did take a few less than that to get ascent right

Good spot, if only there had been a beta period for KSP to iron out these things ... Are those drag numbers from a setting in the debug menu? The Mk3 cargo plane I made certainly had less drag than I expected - but I put it down to the fixes for the excessive drag in 1.02 - so it seems quite likely that this bug was in effect. It might also explain why finding an ascent profile was hard, although that could just be me I wonder if there is any similar effect with other parts. FWIW it was a completely fresh unzip with Engineer as the only mod. Time to play with rockets not planes for a bit me thinks.

Really nice, amazing speed in the atmosphere. I was just building a similar sort of thing - but mine wasn't going to break 50% ...

Cheers, one of the biggest problems was actually getting enough speed to take off (really needed all the runway, and a bit more), even the 5 rapiers are enough for the main atmospheric part of the ascent, although a bit underpowered once in rocket mode. Also tried one turbojet on the back, but that really lacked once the air ran out. I'm pretty sure that it could have a slightly better payload fraction with a little more cargo and a better ascent. More wings seems to be a viable approach - how things change!

Well this is better than was managed in 1.02, with a payload fraction of over 41%: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116729-Stock-Payload-Fraction-Challenge-1-0-4-Edition?p=2039664&viewfull=1#post2039664 After you eat your helmet (ahem ....) try more wings again - they seem a lot less draggy, as do many things, and build speed lower if you need to - 4 rapiers should push 47t very easily.

Now that Mk3 parts are not so buggy I have a minimal Mk3 based SSTO cargo hauler. Still not worked out the most efficient ascent, the one shown was ok, but probably not optimal. 123.13t out the hangar (a bit less by the time the brakes come off) and 50.65t delivered to LKO for 41.15%, with a little fuel left over. In the pics below KER is badly confused - both on how many engines actually have fuel and how much dV there actually is (compare the circularization burn numbers, it was most confusing while I was testing it ...) I was surprised to find that there was never any danger of overheating the wings!

I bet you'll be getting a lot more out of that Longsword once you've tweaked it - the drag fixes (especially to the Mk3 cargo bay) should really help.

I'd generally agree that you should be able to play a game without outside reference - but to get the most out of many games outside references/tools are the norm for more complex ones. Think of character builds and strategies for MMOs. I've not played the tutorials, I did assume they covered the basics now. A basic dV readout in the hangar should exist I think, and perhaps some sort of intercept planner in map/tracking station.