KissSh0t

SSTOs! Post your pictures here~

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AeroGav said:

Both craft have a novel feature called "self destruct".    It's on the Space Bar

That sounds interesting: A *controlled* way of making your ship break appart! Has anyone told Werner van Kerman about that yet?

 

Oh an while I'm at it, a small update on my SSTA design: Since I already have OPT installed I tried to create a ship using the Dark Drive. Size of a Mammoth, thrust of a Mainsail, ISP and thrust behaviour of a Whipslash. Basicly I built the same ship I have posted earlier, but without Rover Bay, instead it uses 2x Dark Drive as only engines. Honestly, I felt like a dirty cheater. Those beasts got me onto Eve soil without launch window, gravity assist or aero breaking. After some ISRU same on the return. Just hit the gas and the incredible ISP made it possible, even tough she's LFO. Is Eve really *that* kind of a b**ch, forcing me into such an engine? #Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shadow dream said:

n while I'm at it, a small update on my SSTA design: Since I already have OPT installed I tried to create a ship using the Dark Drive. Size of a Mammoth, thrust of a Mainsail, ISP and thrust behaviour of a Whipslash. Basicly I built the same ship I have posted earlier, but without Rover Bay, instead it uses 2x Dark Drive as only engines. Honestly, I felt like a dirty cheater. Those beasts got me onto Eve soil without launch window, gravity assist or aero breaking. After some ISRU same on the return. Just hit the gas and the incredible ISP made it possible, even tough she's LFO. Is Eve really *that* kind of a b**ch, forcing me into such an engine? #Sad.

Ah shadow that reminds me,  I installed the OPT modpack myself and had a play with it.    The parts are beautiful and the IVA views just awesome,  it's also much easier to create fully functional ships with lower part count than stock.

But....

The J fuselage (admittedly , the only one i tried since it's the smallest one with all the cool IVAs) has horrendous drag.   I can get 3.7:1 lift:drag ratio out of a mk2 in stock , and they are renowned for being draggy, but careful flight profile, large wings, using incidence etc.  I can still achieve passable performance.   These things are twice as bad.    They only work because OPT include some seriously juicy engines,  but it's almost at the stage where you're better off launching them as rockets instead.      I didn't try the other sizes.   Maybe the developer is taking his cues off stock parts - the 2.5m stock parts are really good for drag, so maybe the OPT 2.5m parts are also good?  

I also reinstalled Interstellar.   Now as you know, in career mode this includes a lot of far future concepts - beamed power, fusion, antimatter, it's even got a warp drive.

But, the most basic new tech it introduces is something i find quite plausible.    The thermal turbojet is something you attach to the back of a nuclear reactor.  Up to mach 3/20km it functions as a nuclear turbojet, and uses no fuel at all, running off intake air.   Above that, you switch mode and run it as a nuclear thermal rocket off whatever fuel you're carrying.  I went with Ammonia because it's fairly dense , storable, doesn't clog the reactor with soot, and gives about 600 ISP.   

The mod includes tweakscale and i found the reactor TWR doesn't scale linearly with size - smaller reactors are a bit rubbish.     The 2.5m Molten Salt reactor (the lowest tech one) is quite nice when running on Thorium.      The next reactor up is the Pebble Bed reactor.   It's acceptable at 1.25m and when scaled to 2.5m is downright OP.

Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out the IRSU process.  Conflicting mods may have broke it.

My OPT  J plane  with a 2.5m Pebble Bed Reactor and Thermal Turbojet 

 CiedKP9.png

I couldn't resist stuffing the fuselage with every cool IVA module there is.   I basically made a doll's house in space.   All I need now are some Star Fleet uniforms for my Kerbals.

qIITb5L.png
The passenger cabin 

Spoiler


JHr7XHQ.png

 

The Science Lab... which one's Spock ?

aDbwXpH.jpg
Turbolifts ! Pneumatic doors ! (that's the boarding ramp module, so you can exit with style - no more scrambling up ladders)

Spoiler


slvgm2Wg.png

 

He likes the new cockpits as much as I do ! 

VWlhpdX.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OPT is to draggy? well, I guess I can see that somewhat. Below are 3 of my Career OPT machines. Nothing to special performance wise - all 3 are SSTO's but will not go to far further without refueling, depending on ascending profile leftower DV is at 600-800m/s. 

Retriever rev.4(J - fuselage)  deltawing
Purpouse - as the name suggests retrieving stuff from orbit. o
Crew: Pilot and Engineer (the latter can attach KAS ports to whatever is contracted to be retrieved and winch it into cargohold)  
Propulsion: 4 X B9 Saber S (small) engines. looks awesome
with about 500Dv left after reaching to 80x80Km orbit. enough to rendezvous with whatever needs to go back to KSP . after refuel was also used during "Bring Ore from Minmus to Kerbin orbit" contract (Ore was lifted from surface by dedicated lifter craft)

Spoiler

its still early morning. Roomy

screenshot4

Running UP!
screenshot5

Tanks Away , I did drop them that early for the picture however. usually they are jetted at 15K during hard acceleration.

screenshot9

 

Tavor SP5 (J - fuselage) V tail.
Purpose - Fulfill "New Orbital Station " contracts. I had no need in yet another station around moon, landing the plane after bagging the ontract recovered all the funds. cargohold can be reconfigured before flight to fulfill contract requirement. 
Crew: seating for 13. additional accommodation in cargohold as needed (as flown contains 4 X mk1 passenger modules)
Propulsion: atmospheric -  OPT "J92 Nebula scramjet", vacum ARI-75b. I know ARI works (and works well) in atmo as well, but i'm using it purely for vacuum because frankly, it is best-looking engine to fit that hull and 340isp is not balance breaking. 

Spoiler

ready for  takeoff

screenshot10

 

screenshot12

Nebula is spooling up
 

screenshot13

"Fireball from below"

screenshot14

Solar panels deployed

screenshot16

things begin to glow -  Reentry with some numbers . somehow i managed to build a plane that is very stable on that part of flight as well. notice almost no input from the  gyro Wheels is required

screenshot19

and managed to screenshot this as i try to pitch up few degrees to increase drag :rolleye:

screenshot24

Transitioning to horisontal flight
 

screenshot26

screenshot27

still a bit to go till KSC

screenshot28

i don't have time, but i have bunch of LF left - fire that nebula!

screenshot29

things move fast while you at mach 5.

screenshot32

Preparing to butter that bread

screenshot34

screenshot35

 

12
 

Tubas Jumbo (K- fuselage) 
Purpose - Fulfill "New Surface outpost on minmus" contracts. same story here, had no need for yet another base especially with accomodations for 20, so I built it in form of plane to bring it all home for refund. 2 aerospikes on the belly (which doesn't help drag at all)
Propulsion: 2 x B9 Saber M (medium) main engines, 2 aerospikes on the belly for landing (which doesn't help drag at all) on minmus. with TWR of 3 on mun probably could get there too.
Crew -  seating for 10. outfitted with aditional crew compartment in cargohold to fulfill capacity of 20 + other outpost requirements (ISRU and cupola). during the mission it delivered construction rover (feline) and ISRU module to existing outpost, so the trip was not entirely useless
also perfectly able to reenter, but i had no patience to screenshot the entire flight this time :) 
amount if fuel used up flying that thing is just crazy

Spoiler

screenshot0

Getting up
screenshot1

top down

screenshot2

 


 

 

 

Flying with those B9 Sabers is quite touchy. my requirement for crafts in career  is easy handling and those 2 saber planes are very short of blowing that. at around 5000m attitude cannot be more then 4 or so degrees nose up, otherwise speed and thrust stop building up and it just can't greak Mach1 . which makes for longer ascend phase where I'm sitting and constantly adjusting AoA monitoring that engine thrust keeps increasing. luckily its just few minutes after which things get fast really fast.

 

Edited by agrasyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ agrasyuk: What is it that you have put under the wings of your Tubas Jumbo? Looks like a mount you could hang another engine onto without altering the design too much. A bit more TWR helps with the speed issue you mentioned. Alternatively that rear ramp has a variant that can mount MK2 parts. If you use the MK2 to K (i think) converter you can put 4x 2.5m engines onto the rear. Well, it puts the CoM quite far back, but it sure fixes you problem with thrust. That's what I do and my craft flies quite well (as long as I don't stall it). Screenshots are a few posts back.

@Aero Gav: yep, those OPT parts are really nice! qudos to the author!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shadow dream said:

@ agrasyuk: What is it that you have put under the wings of your Tubas Jumbo?

-snip-

If you use the MK2 to K (i think) converter you can put 4x 2.5m engines onto the rear. Well, it puts the CoM quite far back, but it sure fixes you problem with thrust. That's what I do and my craft flies quite well (as long as I don't stall it).

The pointy things under the wings look like upscaled B9 Mk1 nose or tail cones.

I can't see such a think happening. Do the K cargo ramps have Mk2 attach points? I doubt and I'm sure @agrasyuk makes good use of the ramp that it can't be traded for engine mounts. I know the Humpback cargo ramp has Mk2 adapters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadow dream suggested more thrust to brute force and use the cargo-ramp that trades fuel capacity for mk2 hardpoint (yep there is such thing) and stick pair of engines. this will create config such as below. the downside would be ISP, 340 for the ARI vs 380 for the B9 Saber + there is that dead weight of nebulas, my attempt with sabers was mainly to try  and avoid that. but the proposed setup looks well balanced, pretty much x2 scale of my J setup. i guess i'll try it too and see how it reenters. thanks!

Spoiler

 

TJ04S 04

 

 


as presented before. nothing scaled as i don't like the scaling mods. pointy things are drop tanks made of B9 parts

Spoiler

TJ04S 01

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More OPT shenanigans.  Perfectly balanced, 1K Delta V in orbit, handles like a fighter plane.  (Although those engines really are quite cheaty, I think.)

m1umZ4z.jpg

IP7Vwmc.jpg

HhqV25R.jpg

sdpi21d.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Speed_Kerman said:

@Jett_Quasar I gotta know, how do you make those crafts hover off of the ground with pure stock parts?

The wheels are actually there, they're just really well hidden, you can download the craft and see...  I just posted another SSTO that hovers, it's the Dragster this time...

Image may contain: 1 person

No automatic alt text available.

To see how they fly, enjoy the video below.

 - Jett

Edited by Jett_Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://kerbalx.com/AeroGav/MK1-Griffon-Deep-Space-Crew-Shuttle

Don't know if a minor update has sneaked  out recently, but couple of things seem to have changed

  • shock cone is now once again the lowest drag thing you can put on a mk1 stack, better than any other intake or nose cone
  • drag from rapiers and nervs is now much less.   It is no longer worth putting cones on the back of their open rear attachment nodes , because the nose cone itself makes more drag than you save by closing the node.    This can only be good news - no more part clipping, one less counter-intuitive drag trap for the unwary.
  • deployable solar panels have huge drag when stowed - more than a mk1 crew cabin.   For this reason service bays are in fashion once more - even if you're only putting a single solar panel in there.

Anyway, with this in mind,  I build a new mk1, since i've been focusing on my mk2 spaceplane tutorial recently and wanted to familiarise myself with how mk1s perform again.

Clipping strakes to the back of the wing allows a narrower chord at the wing root , giving room for the NERV exhaust.      I was going to make it a V tail ship, with the main wing pushed as far forward as possible to free up more space at the back of the aircraft for the engine exhaust path, but  that resulted in too much fuel mass up front.     A lot of vertical stabilizer strakes were added to give it neutral fuel burn off characteristics, but that resulted in an excessively aft CoL so I had to make this one into a canard again.

The main reason I had trouble with too much fuel mass at the front was my practice of putting mk1 liquid fuel tanks between the nose and the passenger cabins to protect them from hypersonic flight heat.    Perhaps the one on the main fuselage wasn't needed as we got a shock cone, clamp o tron and service bay ahead of the cockpit.    The only crewed bits to get hot were the side cabins.  I think that was heat soak from the NERVs rather than hypersonic flight,   I did put a reaction wheel between the cabins and the NERVs but I guess that's not quite enough to stop all the heat.

Jet wise,  it has a RAPIER and Panther clipped together.  Mainly because I'm too lazy to work out asymmetric thrust issues.

Comparing it to the most recent mk2 build

- about 37 tons instead of 33 tons for the "lamb".

Both crafts have 2 nukes but the mk1 has a rapier and a panther, the mk2 just one whiplash.

The mk1 seats 11 Kerbals vs 6 for the mk2.

The mk2 does have an RCS translation system in the cargo bay and a bit more room for science instruments.

The mk1 has over 3000dv in low kerbin orbit, the mk2 about 2000.

The mk1 is about 7 minutes faster to orbit.   Flying it, that's the main impression.   Don't know how much of this was due to slicker fuselage and how much is down to the rapier/panther engine combo,   but it reached mach 5 in about 7 minutes,  the mk2 needed 7 minutes to break mach 1 !   Once we fired the nukes up,  the mk1 was more confidence-inspiring and left you in no doubt that it was going to space, will a large surplus of thrust over drag and lift over weight.

The music playlist for this video spans 80s Prog Rock into 90s Prog House, but due to unexpected performance you never got to hear a 20 minute bass pedal solo.    If I ever get my flyback booster TSTO rocket working,  punk rock might be more appropriate..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2017 at 11:38 AM, AeroGav said:
  • shock cone is now once again the lowest drag thing you can put on a mk1 stack, better than any other intake or nose cone
  • drag from rapiers and nervs is now much less.   It is no longer worth putting cones on the back of their open rear attachment nodes , because the nose cone itself makes more drag than you save by closing the node.    This can only be good news - no more part clipping, one less counter-intuitive drag trap for the unwary.
  • deployable solar panels have huge drag when stowed - more than a mk1 crew cabin.   For this reason service bays are in fashion once more - even if you're only putting a single solar panel in there.

Gosh dangit, I have to relearn drag mechanics again? :mad:

Thanks for the info there at least. I'd probably be wondering why half my fleet had stopped working when I went back to my SSTO game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 9/30/2017 at 8:38 PM, AeroGav said:

Don't know if a minor update has sneaked  out recently, but couple of things seem to have changed

  • drag from rapiers and nervs is now much less.   It is no longer worth putting cones on the back of their open rear attachment nodes , because the nose cone itself makes more drag than you save by closing the node. 

I don't observe this in 1.3.0.1804, cones on terminal nodes still substantially reduce drag and increase craft performance... Which version of stock KSP did you perform your testing in?

 

11 hours ago, Jarin said:

Gosh dangit, I have to relearn drag mechanics again? :mad:

Thanks for the info there at least. I'd probably be wondering why half my fleet had stopped working when I went back to my SSTO game. 

As far as I can tell, the aero adjustments introduced in 1.2.x are still the most recent ones. @Gaarst wrote a comprehensive analysis on drag that seems up to date.

Edited by Yakuzi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yakuzi said:

As far as I can tell, the aero adjustments introduced in 1.2.x are still the most recent ones. @Gaarst wrote a comprehensive analysis on drag that seems up to date.

Yeah, that's the info I'd been working from. I haven't flown much in the way of precision-engineered craft since 1.3 though, and Aerogav has been flying spaceplanes long enough for me to suspect that something must be up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jarin said:

Yeah, that's the info I'd been working from. I haven't flown much in the way of precision-engineered craft since 1.3 though, and Aerogav has been flying spaceplanes long enough for me to suspect that something must be up.

The thing is, from the tests that I've performed in stock 1.3.0.1804, I don't see any evidence that Aerogav's claim is valid.

 

Are you playing this 1.3.0.1804? If so, could you send me a SSTO craftfile that:

1. Performed well in a previous version (please specify which one, e.g. 1.2.1).

2. Describe how it performs differently in the current KSP version.

 

This way we can actually test if there are actually differences instead of acting on suspicions and assumptions. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yakuzi    here's some test shots from the craft in the above post.   BTW,   I put a KerbalX link to that craft in the post as well

 

3VZEWzI.jpg

It appears that in 1804,   putting an Aerodynamic nose cone on the back of a NERV is no longer worth it - whilst it reduces the drag of the NERV, the cone itself adds more drag than is saved.       I'm pretty sure this was not the case until very recently.    Of course, it is possible that not only was the engine's drag reduced, the aerodynamic nose cone was made less aerodynamic.   It indeed appears to be a poor performer now.     It looks like a NERV with a shock cone clipped to the back might have 20% less total drag than a bare NERV,  but a shock cone is significantly heavier than a nose cone.    Then again, you might not notice the weight loss much,  with 6 tons of NERVs all those wings.

f93lnf5.jpg

For completeness sake,  I wanted to see what happens if I use the rotate gizmo to make the left cone point backward, as it logically would be capping off an engine bell,   and the right one face forwards.    Exact same drag either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised this thing even flew

s6mxdjQ4QmaeRaWTQhY2MQ.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, __Ultimatum said:

I'm surprised this thing even flew

s6mxdjQ4QmaeRaWTQhY2MQ.png

Wow. I don't know how I can beat this. Well done. Have some rep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler
10 hours ago, phoenixr said:

 

I've built a couple variants on the outrigger design, but that's a pretty slick example of it. The Mk2 cockpit adds some style, too. What's your orbital Delta-V look like with the pictured cargo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jarin said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 

I've built a couple variants on the outrigger design, but that's a pretty slick example of it. The Mk2 cockpit adds some style, too. What's your orbital Delta-V look like with the pictured cargo?

Around 900dV remaining - with the nukes of course - with a cargo a bit over 100t (3 full orange tanks).

https://kerbalx.com/tdqss/Outboard-SSTO-100t-noMJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a little crew transport SSTO that works quite well for LKO passenger delivery

igWUCUh.png

3UDA13V.png

CalculatingMedicalInexpectatumpleco-max- 

Download

Edited by selfish_meme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@phoenixr I too have tried my hand at the dual hull SSTO, and I have learned that unless you plan on going beyond LKO nukes aren't worth it.  On my Pteradactyl Mk2 heavy lift SSTO I used a mainsail for extra oompf once the rapiers ran out of air.  The extra thrust is needed for such a craft because the payload, in this case a 3.75m fairing stuffed with up to 100t, creates a fair amount of drag.  Sure nukes will get the job done but it takes far longer in real time to achieve the same orbit and the the margins are often such that the ascent profile is very finicky.

For the Borr I just used the rapiers.  The Borr is a refueling SSTO with a 140t payload (in internal tanks).  It actually sucks at hauling external loads, probably because of drag and the fact that rapiers perform best in open cycle at around mach 3 and are kinda bad at rocketing.  The only reason I didn't use a more efficient rocket engine is that I would still need all the rapiers I have, but I would also need whatever other engines I chose and that means more weight and drag. 

I've also been messing around with this thing.

HJ40Ajg.png

I'm toying with the idea of making it a modular exploration vessel with various packages I could stick in the inside area.  I might also make the rapier pods detachable so I can leave them in LKO and save dead weight for the NERV engines on the long range package to push around.  Actually fitting ISRU equipment and landers in there is kinda tricky though, maybe I need to brush up on my tetris skillz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now