Smallest SSTO Challenge

[Kergarin]

23 hours ago, agrock said:

Gee Bee. Its a famous overpowered rotor-engine aircraft for acrobatics.

...

 

 

 

Hm... But... What would i call this one then??

Spoiler

Which goes to orbit...

With a lot of fuel...

And beyond... 

sorry for off topic, this does not really count as small

 

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by Kergarin

[HeliosPh0enix]

I've never made a working SSTO before, but then again, I've only tried making huge ones that could haul 2.5m station parts.  I guess it doesn't hurt to start small.  I will have to experiment with this over the weekend.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

9 hours ago, Kergarin said:

 

 

Hm... But... What would i call this one then??

  Hide contents

Which goes to orbit...

With a lot of fuel...

And beyond... 

sorry for off topic, this does not really count as small

 

 

I love it! Craft file?

Gotta go to sleep, and then school, but I'll whip something up tomorrow afternoon. That's a promise, unless it isn't.

 

[agrock]

(REMOVED)

Edited November 28, 2017 by agrock

[agrock]

This is the SMALLEST SSTO that I built AND it actually managed to go to orbit. Admittedly it took me a long time to actually even build this one. I strugged for like two weeks lately (and played this game for years) to actually build something flyable. Aerodynamid stability, landing gear fulcrum, ...took me a lot of time to learn how those work. There is little incentive in game to actually build SMALL SSTOs. Early in game you dont have the tech for it (switchable engines like RAPIERS) and later on what you want/need is haul cargo. Since then I build a double sized version of it, because 25t cargo is considered erm insufficient. I should also add that I have a refueling station in low orbit (that produces fuel out of thin space) so I dont need to build anything that has plenty of deltav and is SSTO at same time. Only cargo haulers and mission specific spaceplanes (that are rocket only, therefore not SSTO which implies jet/rocket hybrid). Also in career mode, there are no contracts that specifically incentivise small ones. Just wanted to share my thoughts on why I think this thread is somehow erm eccentric. 

[linuxgurugamer]

19 hours ago, agrock said:

ust wanted to share my thoughts on why I think this thread is somehow erm eccentric

Ummm, most challenges are.  But it is fun, and made you learn something new,

The space shuttle was the first reusable spaceship.  It was big, and not cost efficient.

Eventually the Air Force had the X37 made, whic is, in essence, a tiny space shuttle.

[Piatzin]

Oooooh, I will try to do this stock

[agrock]

10 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Eventually the Air Force had the X37 made, whic is, in essence, a tiny space shuttle.

Actually I was reminiscing X15, which only flew suborbital (so I guess its sub-SSTO) but it was pretty small. Oh and it did require a Stratofortress to carry it through first stage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15

What made me "thumbs up" for this one, was that they put a landing gear (not takeoff gear) on it. Meaning on its tail, not a proper fulcrum for takeoff. The X37 has takeoff gear even tho its not made for horizontal takeoffs. This was probably the only spaceplace (real one) that actually had "landing gear".

See? Takeoff gear.

[Kergarin]

This is definitely not the smallest SSTO I can build, but that GeeBee design got me 

https://imgur.com/a/92UwG

Crew: 1
Cost: 15,557
Weight: 6.089

Modifier for landing without parachutes and power ?

 

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Kergarin

[agrock]

18 hours ago, Kergarin said:

This is definitely not the smallest SSTO I can build, but that GeeBee design got me 

Its not only smallest, its also cheapest. Also I cant imagine anyone building anything smaller... 1 cockpit 1 engine 1 tank. Smallest wings. Smalest gear. There is literally nothing that could be stripped off this plane. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by agrock

[JacobJHC]

I sent this thing to Gilly at one point

 

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by JacobJHC

[Kergarin]

7 hours ago, agrock said:

Its not only smallest, its also cheapest. Also I cant imagine anyone building anything smaller... 1 cockpit 1 engine 1 tank. Smallest wings. Smalest gear. There is literally nothing that could be stripped off this plane. 

This one is smaller, but does not look as cool as the MiniBee
And I'm sure someone could build an even smaller one.

https://imgur.com/a/Airjg

Crew: 1
Weight: 5.295
Cost: 15,335

Edited November 30, 2017 by Kergarin

[swjr-swis]

A minimalist entry for this challenge, the Tiny-SSTO-1a.

Spoiler

 

(Full imgur album)

Crew: 1.

Weight: 4.178t.

Cost: 9040 funds.

Modifiers: safe, powered landing at KSC runway.

Score: 1 * (9040 / 4.178^2) * 10 = 5178.83 points.

Craft file: Tiny-SSTO-1a

 

The scoring system seems... weird. I'm sure I got it pretty small and cheap, yet the score seems incredibly low compared to the other entries here. Unless that's the goal for a minimalist entry? Either way, I could easily "game" the scoring by eg. replacing the solar panels by a single RTG, which blows up my score for this exact same craft to 17688.43. Or add a gravioli detector.

Also, the powered flight modifier being based on throttle is counter-productive: any minimalist SSTO is going to be so light that at full (or even half!) throttle it's going to burn itself to a crisp. I do like the idea of rewarding flight time, but not based on throttle setting.

[Kergarin]

Yes, the scoring does not give small SSTOs a high score.

If I build a large long range passenger plane that's also an SSTO, it can fly for hours after return from orbit. That will score higher than any small craft

[swjr-swis]

I just now saw this when rechecking the thread:

On 10/16/2017 at 12:41 AM, Thor Wotansen said:

There's a few optimizations I could make but you won't get lower than 4.5t on the runway with a kerbal onboard.

Sorry to disappoint.

I think it's even possible to get under 4t. I'm already tantalizingly close with a derivation of the one I posted above (just short 100m/s for a 80x80 orbit, trying to optimize the ascent trajectory now). So let's do this, under 4t "SSTO".

I've already been trying with a Panther - .4t less engine mass sounded like a nice advantage, but it flames out at almost 700m/s less and several km lower than the Whiplash, and the additional LF/Ox and tankage to compensate in closed cycle ends up heavier.

Edited December 1, 2017 by swjr-swis
Why do we keep calling these 'SSTO'...?