Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'skylon'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL





Found 10 results

  1. The Ultimate Skylon Challenge I was browsing the forums, and I thought, is there a skylon challenge? So I looked around, and yes, there is, but I decided that I wanted to make an improved version, and I wanted to make a challenge anyway, so here we go: Rules: Basic rule of thumb: it has to resemble a skylon. If you're really not sure, check the picture above, or do a search. It must be able to carry some sort of payload into orbit. It must have SSTO capabilities. No parts mods, autopilot mods, or cheat mods allowed. Graphic mods are okay. No cheats, reverts are okay. The Challenge(s): This is basically a bunch of challenges clumped together, for the skylon. Basic Skylon: Must get into Kerbin orbit and follow all the rules listed above. (+50 pts) Extra points for: Docking 2 skylons together (+20 pts) Can carry a Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank as a payload without using any of the fuel in the tank (+20 pts) Can carry a Rockomax Jumbo-64 Fuel Tank as a payload without using any of the fuel in the tank (+30 pts) Landing at the KSC or Desert Airfield (+50 pts) Mun Skylon: Must get into Munar orbit and follow all the rules listed above. (+50 pts) Prerequisite: Basic Skylon Extra points for: Landing on the Mun (+50 pts) Docking 2 Skylons together in Munar orbit (+50 pts) Not using an ISRU (+50 pts) Can carry a Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank as a payload without using any of the fuel in the tank (+30 pts) Can carry a Rockomax Jumbo-64 Fuel Tank as a payload without using any of the fuel in the tank (+40 pts) Landing at the KSC or Desert Airfield (+50 pts) Minmus Skylon: Must get into Minmus orbit and follow all the rules listed above. (+50 pts) Prerequisite: Basic Skylon Extra points for: Landing on Minmus (+50 pts) Docking 2 Skylons together in Minmus orbit (+50 pts) Not using an ISRU (+50 pts) Can carry a Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank as a payload without using any of the fuel in the tank (+30 pts) Can carry a Rockomax Jumbo-64 Fuel Tank as a payload without using any of the fuel in the tank (+40 pts) Landing at the KSC or Desert Airfield (+50 pts) Interplanetary Skylon: Must orbit least 3 celestial bodies (other than the Mun, Minmus, or Kerbin), and follow all the rules listed above. (+50 pts) Prerequisites: Basic Skylon, Mun or Minmus Skylon Extra Points for: Orbiting a celestial body other than the Mun, Minmus, or Kerbin (+50 pts each) Landing on a celestial body other than the Mun, Minmus, Kerbin, Jool or Kerbol (+100 pts each) Not using an ISRU ((Excluding Jool or Kerbol) +50 pts for each planet landed on)) "Land" on Jool ((Enter the atmosphere) + 100 pts) "Land" on Kerbol ((Same with Jool, but I don't really know if this is possible, congratulations if you do it) +200 pts) How to enter: Have a picture of your Skylon on the runway, so most parts are visible. Have a picture of your Skylon completing each objective you decide to try, so extra points can be properly awarded. Calculate your point totals. Submit your entry (Post) before June 31, 2020 (The deadline). Notes: If you have any suggestions, or questions, feel free to ask or give them. Leaderboard: Basic Skylon: 1.ralanboyle, 120 pts. 2. vyznev, 50 pts. 3. _ 4. _ Mun Skylon: 1. _ 2. _ 3. _ 4. _ Minmus Skylon: 1. _ 2. _ 3. _ 4. _ Interplanetary Skylon: 1. _ 2. _ 3. _ 4. _
  2. :: ALBUM :: DOWNLOAD :: The age of RAPIER Clustering is near its end. SABRE Sterling brings power, functionality, efficiency and style that has not yet been seen in KSP concerning SSTOs, and brings your part count under control if you want visually accurate yet "stockalike" SABRE/RAPIER assemblies. This part pack when released will provide two families of parts for building out a SABRE: The "Advent" series (in 2.5m, based on the official thing which is marked for production, with testing expected to begin in 2020). The "Precedent" series (in 3.75m, the early concept, super-sized, curved engine with 4 bells for the Closed Cycle rocket mode. The 3 in "SABR3" comes from here). What the SABR3 can do for you: Offer the engine in both composite form and component forms (separate) for more fluidity of operation of Air-Breathing and Closed Cycle modes. The nacelle and intake will provide a velocity driven function for producing Oxidizer like the real thing will, featured in Thor Tech. Adjust its performance envelopes for effective use in upscaled systems. Currently, only the intercooler adjusts, and will even show it in its part description. Optimized for 2.5x. Aiming for real scale.
  3. This is a stock 1:1 replica of the SABRE hypersonic precooled hybrid air-breathing rocket engine currently being developed by Reaction Engines Limited. This engine is slated for prospective use on a variety of hypersonic aircraft, although most famously for the Skylon launch vehicle. I would suggest throttling down slightly before switching over to rocket mode, this isn’t strictly neccessary but I found that the sudden burst of thrust from the Vectors occasionally caused the engine to explode. This engine is powered by 8 R.A.P.I.E.R.s and 4 KS-25 engines. SABRE Engine Information: Download Link: Part Count: 110 Replica Thrust Rocket-Mode Vac: 2940 kN Replica Thrust Jet-Mode SL Mach-1: 1920 kN Replica Gimbal Rocket-Mode: 1.6° Replica Gimbal Jet-Mode: 3° Replica Mass: 38.9 tonnes Real SABRE Thrust Rocket-Mode Vac: 2940 kN Real SABRE Thrust Jet-Mode SL Mach-1: 1960 kN Real SABRE Gimbal Rocket-Mode: Unspecified Real SABRE Gimbal Jet-Mode: Unspecified Real SABRE Mass: Unspecified
  4. There's quite a bit more info to be found on academic papers on the internet than is currently to be found on Reaction Engine's website. The problem is, a lot of it goes over my head To keep things simple, the SABRE engine is like a jet engine, except it uses the supercold hydrogen fuel to chill the incoming air before feeding it to the compressor. This keeps the compressor light and compact and allows it to work to higher mach numbers than conventional jet engines. The combustion chamber and nozzle look a lot more like that of a rocket engine than a jet, but ultimately have the same function. This engine can run a little over mach 5, a significant improvement over the pratt and whitney j-58's "a little bit" over mach 3. What's the limiting factor? Is intake drag reducing net thrust to the point it'd be more efficient to go "closed cycle"? Or is it the old enemy, heat? In conventional jets, the incoming air stream gets compressed in the intake as it gets accelerated to the speed of the aircraft. This happens before it meets the turbine's compressor stage, and since gases get hotter when compressed, there is a temperature limit. You can make the compressor out of the same heat resistant materials as the turbine, but that adds a lot of weight (over aluminium alloys that would otherwise be used). Also , since the air is hotter before fuel gets burned, it will be hotter still after combustion, and you could then run into turbine limits , which are already using the most heat resistant materials available. The only options then are to reduce fuel added in the main combustor and burn more in the afterburner, or lower the engine compression ratio, both of which hurt performance and fuel consumption. An SSTO engine needs high TWR or it's going to add too much dry mass to the orbiter. Would it be correct to say that in the intake, as the air is sped up to the speed of the airplane, kinetic energy is being converted to compression and heat gain in the air. Theoretically, that energy gets returned back to kinetic as the gas flow expands through the turbine stages and back out the nozzle. But in practice there will be losses, which set the limits for air breathing propulsion of any kind. Apparently, at mach 8, the kinetic energy of the intake air is equal to the chemical energy that can be released by burning fuel in it to use up all the available oxygen of that intake air charge. So unless your ram compression/expansion is perfectly efficient, you can see how hard it is even for scramjets to make max thrust. Speaking of Ramjets, the SABRE has "bypass ramjets" surrounding the four combustors/bell nozzles. Apparently, more liquid hydrogen is used needed to cool the incoming air , than the main engine can use. So the excess hydrogen is burned in the bypass ducts. They are sometimes known as "bypass ramjets" but apparently the goal was "negative drag" not thrust. Even so, do they provide more power at higher speeds? I'd be interested to know how the power characteristics of the proposed engine would look. Certainly the Kerbal RAPIER has a mad 8x thrust multiplier at high speed. The only info i could find on the SABRE, stated that the core mass flow rate was pretty constant over the Skylon's flight profile, varying only by a factor of 1.6 or so. However it's possible these bypass ducts change the overall picture. Even so, it cannot possibly replicate the crazy power rush of the RAPIER, since apparently the Skylon would need 2 hours to compete the air breathing phase of flight, reaching mach 5.2 or so at 22km. One other little fact slipped out during a discussion about nozzle design - apparently combustion chamber pressure doubles when switching to close cycle. I don't know enough about rocket engines, but i suspect power increases at least that much - sounds like a real kick in the pants...
  5. Hi! I came across a very well thought-out design for re-usable launch vehicles, describes in this article: VISION. The concept involves solving the problems SSTO spaceplanes have by separating the vehicle into two sections: a hypersonic carrier plane and a nose-mounted rocket-plane. The innovative part is to mount them end-to-end. The booster plane carries the rocketplane to a high altitude and gives it about 3km/s initial velocity. The rocketplane stages and completes the climb into orbit, unburdened with air-breathing jet engines. The propellants selected were RP-1 and H2O2 for their density and non-cryogenic storage, important factors for an airplane that needs to fit its propellant tanks into wings. For overall simplicity and technology readiness, no scramjets are used. Instead, simple turboramjets bring the booster plane up to supersonic speeds. Rocket engines take over at high altitude and add about 2km/s until the booster stage runs out of propellants. The second stage is a pure rocketplane that can deliver 6km/s of deltaV. Payload is about 450kg. Re-entry is made easier with the massive airbrakes the rocketplanes has on the back. My suggestion is that we slightly modify the propellant choices and the ascent profile for a massive boost in performance. Due to the propellant choices, air cannot be cooled and liquefied like in a SABRE engine. There needs to be a reserve of liquid hydrogen to provide the heatsink for this to happen. However, there is a way to liquefy air without using liquid hydrogen. Heat pumps can be used to cool a metal heat sink down to cryogenic temperatures, using evaporation and compression cycles. When air is run through the heat sink, which acts as a heat exchanger, oxygen condenses on it and can be collected. This costs power to run... power which can be derived from the turbo-ramjet's turbines. Of course, equipping heat pumps large enough to fill the entire booster and rocketplane with liquid oxygen as it flies up through the atmosphere instead of simply using liquid hydrogen as a heat sink is a massive mass and power penalty. This penalty can become minor if we only equip pumps capable enough to fill up only the rocketplane with liquid oxygen. About 5 times less liquid oxygen would be needed. By collected liquid oxygen this way, you can launch the upper stage with RP-1 tanks full and liquid oxygen tanks empty. The liquid oxygen tanks would be larger than peroxide tanks by about 22% in volume and be slightly heavier due to insulation. The benefit is a 30 to 50 second jump in Isp and about a 50% drop in rocketplane mass on liftoff. This means smaller booster plane engines and wings, larger payload and so on.
  6. Hi guys! hope everyone's doing great! I was wondering if someone ever managed to build a Skylon or similar SSTO spaceplane with the B9 motors and configs provided in RO. I only managed to get to 4.5km/s, almost half way to orbit - I can't seem to get the fuel fractions right and also don't think my ascent profile is quite right, I only manage to get to the engine's airbreathing temp limit at about 25km up in the atmosphere, which I think is a little low. I was just wondering if it's even possible EDIT: I know SSTO spaceplanes are pointless and impossible to build with current tech... but hey it's for fun that I'm trying!
  7. Skylon Download Link : Large SSTO can carry 34t payloads to LKO, inspired by Skylon, Reaction Engines LTD. Usage : Takeoff, set pitch to 10~15 degree. (FAR : 20 degree). When slowing down or on your timing, press Abort to change Engine Mode. Tinylon View many other pictures of this plane Download Link : Small SSTO can be changed payload type easily. inspired by Skylon, Reaction Engines LTD. Usage : Almost same with the Skylon. Changing payload is easy because main wings and engines are attatched at rear rocket fuel tank. Detaching it makes other every vital flying parts be detached, and will be attatched to new payload easily.
  8. Hello, this is my first thread in the ksp forums, but ive been lurking a while. So ive been reading and reading, and whenever the subject of ssto, cheap reuseable lifters or promising new space craft is discussed, skylon hardly gets mentioned. If it does it gets dismissed. why? The last i heard it was showing a lot of promise as a cheap, short turn around, fully reuseable moderate load lifter. Did i miss a press release or something?
  9. KSP 1.0.5 Ever good at building airplane / rocket ? How about balancing it for a change The challenge : The goal is to pitch to max of 10 degree and stay stable for more then 10 Second without falling below 0 degree In other words you cannot use SAS or mechjeb or any mod that control the craft, ( no triming either ) Look mom, I'm flying with No hands Rating : There's no easy mode for this at it is hard enough already so, To be qualified for the challenge you should last more then 10 second in stable flight and the rating will be based on total weight of your craft Da rulezzz : The challenge is open for all mods and all cheats, Feel free to do it in anyway you want Here's my example and try : Skylon M Please submit a video or screenshots on this thread to enter the challenge Check me out here
  10. Salutations, KSP land! New forum user here, decided to show some of my creations, figured someone might think they're alright. I use the name Petroglyph Avionics, because I use a flag that my father originally drew as a tattoo for me based on Finnish petroglyphs (cave paintings). Spaceplane Mk1 'Pylon' Parts: 98 Mass: 160.1 t Height: 10.5 m Width: 15.6 m Length: 35.5 m It can ferry payloads into orbit and land pretty much on any flat surface, and it's based on the real-life Skylon concept. I use it to build my space station. Its latest mission was to carry two Orbital Module Attachment System units so that in the future I don't have to include RCS in every single module. - Personal Jet Mk1 'Syzygy' Parts: 20 Mass: 4.9 t Height: 3.9 m Width: 8.6 m Length: 10.4 m This one is called Syzygy because in astronomy a syzygy is a row of three celestial bodies, and it's a reference to Eclipse, a real-life personal jet. This one I use to fly to mark anomalies on Kerbin. So, what do you guys think, should I post more? I know these two are pretty basic, but useful. Horn