An amateur's spaceplane, the SP-12 Explorer

[Joseph Kerman]

Greetings to all, my fellow kerbonauts, may I present to you, the SP-12 Explorer.

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

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

 

This SSTO is capable of achieving LKO, and then some. It has at least enough ∆v to get to the Mün and back. Powered by 10 R.A.P.I.E.R.'s and 2 Nerv motors, this can really pack a punch, especially at low altitudes. Just don't overdo it, or you will be seeing hot, hot fireworks on your screen.

In the link above, you can see all the procedures to fly the Explorer, but the landed plane picture isn't there because of pilot error (stupid me).

This set a record for airspeed flying in the atmosphere, at ~1650 m/s. But at that point, the heating is threatening to destroy the plane if I go any faster.

 

But the rest of the stuff, you can check out by downloading this link ---> https://mega.nz/#!VrYwRZiT!vemu3HSSNN2Sg3d85318WJ15y3bn7KdNf2kMDVCHWrA

 

But now, thanks for reading, and don't forget to send me improvements if you have. Now it's time for me to go, so, bye.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Joseph Kerman

[Torquimedes]

If you're willing to break the Mk2 lines of your nose, using a landinggear as a shockwave shaper will allow even Mk1 parts to reach 1670 m/s.  You can make the protrusion more subtle than this example by having it extend from below the Mk2 chines.

Large/Extralarge anding gear have the same heat tolerance as Mk3 parts, 2700 (vs Mk2 2500).

[Joseph Kerman]

11 hours ago, Torquimedes said:

If you're willing to break the Mk2 lines of your nose, using a landinggear as a shockwave shaper will allow even Mk1 parts to reach 1670 m/s.  You can make the protrusion more subtle than this example by having it extend from below the Mk2 chines.

Large/Extralarge anding gear have the same heat tolerance as Mk3 parts, 2700 (vs Mk2 2500).

The problem is, the aerodynamic and aesthetic quality will be damaged. I got the plane balanced so the fuel at the back burns first, and that is the only other way I kept it pointing prograde.

An attempt was to use radiators, but that alone already ruined the profile.

Now you want Landing gear?! That will mess up the design and performance aspects of the craft that it was designed to be stable at high AoA's at re-entry speeds. Landing gear might push the center of pressure forward in front of the center of mass, making it point retrograde. And landing gear cannot be made to not activate by the Gear action group.

The only way it survived re-entry was that I made the nose point roughly 38 degrees above prograde, the theoretical "safe" angle for spaceplanes. I only point prograde when the speed is below 1500 m/s.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Joseph Kerman

[Rath]

On 4/26/2017 at 5:22 PM, Joseph Kerman said:

The problem is, the aerodynamic and aesthetic quality will be damaged. I got the plane balanced so the fuel at the back burns first, and that is the only other way I kept it pointing prograde.

An attempt was to use radiators, but that alone already ruined the profile.

Now you want Landing gear?! That will mess up the design and performance aspects of the craft that it was designed to be stable at high AoA's at re-entry speeds. Landing gear might push the center of pressure forward in front of the center of mass, making it point retrograde. And landing gear cannot be made to not activate by the Gear action group.

The only way it survived re-entry was that I made the nose point roughly 38 degrees above prograde, the theoretical "safe" angle for spaceplanes. I only point prograde when the speed is below 1500 m/s.

Landing gear 100% can be disabled from extending when G is pressed.

[Joseph Kerman]

@Matt Lowne Um,... no reply?

 

BTW, tell me what you think once you've tried it.

[Matt Lowne]

On 2017-4-28 at 6:07 AM, Joseph Kerman said:

@Matt Lowne Um,... no reply?

 

BTW, tell me what you think once you've tried it.

I liked the topic, I ain't obliged to reply to anything..

[Joseph Kerman]

1 hour ago, Matt Lowne said:

I liked the topic, I ain't obliged to reply to anything..

Why?

 

Also, why do you add "unrelated" footage on your recent videos?

[Matt Lowne]

Just now, Joseph Kerman said:

Why?

 

Also, why do you add "unrelated" footage on your recent videos?

Why am I obligated to reply to every thread I like? And the unrelated footage is a joke.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Matt Lowne

[TheDestroyer111]

@Joseph Kerman looking at the pictures, I see that your plane is way too stable in atmospheric flight, as your center-of-lift-without-pitch-surfaces-that-are-mounted-behind-this is apparently well behind the center-of-mass both with full fuel and with the smaller amount of fuel that you had in the last picture. You don't really need that much aerodynamic stabilisation for the plane to face in the right direction during reentry.

Edited April 29, 2017 by TheDestroyer111

[Joseph Kerman]

On 4/29/2017 at 11:00 PM, Matt Lowne said:

Why am I obligated to reply to every thread I like? And the unrelated footage is a joke.

I just seems to be my psychology. I feel that the likes given to the post are incomplete, and I wouldn't know if one really likes it without a comment.

 

On 4/29/2017 at 11:13 PM, TheDestroyer111 said:

@Joseph Kerman looking at the pictures, I see that your plane is way too stable in atmospheric flight, as your center-of-lift-without-pitch-surfaces-that-are-mounted-behind-this is apparently well behind the center-of-mass both with full fuel and with the smaller amount of fuel that you had in the last picture. You don't really need that much aerodynamic stabilisation for the plane to face in the right direction during reentry.

Why so? And how much stability? I already had the problem of auto-retrograde due to the imbalance.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Joseph Kerman

[TheDestroyer111]

On 5/1/2017 at 3:29 AM, Joseph Kerman said:

Why so? And how much stability? I already had the problem of auto-retrograde due to the imbalance.

Can you give a download link again? The one you gave in the OP is broken.

[Joseph Kerman]

ASAP.

[ccoel]

Wow

[Joseph Kerman]

tiny bump

[Chel]

I find the SP-12 really useful, but in this topic I am distracted by the little argument above me by two users, over replying to topics.

[Joseph Kerman]

21 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

I find the SP-12 really useful, but in this topic I am distracted by the little argument above me by two users, over replying to topics.

Useful for what?

[TheDestroyer111]

On 5/9/2017 at 5:28 PM, Joseph Kerman said:

tiny bump

 

13 hours ago, Joseph Kerman said:

Useful for what?

y u no... give download link

[Joseph Kerman]

Unfortunately, I cannot do so at the moment.