GoSlash27

Claw, I've got another airplane/ rover combo I'd like to try out, but they don't want to mate together in the VAB due to the docking ports. Would it be okay if I mate them on the tarmac out in front of the VAB and then launch from the runway? Best, -Slashy

Oh, I've gotcha! *facepalm* That looked like 4 rams in the pic... Looks like you've got it wired! Best, -Slashy

Starhawk, Great jorb! It's neat seeing such a big plane get into orbit with so little engine. What's your OMS rocket arrangement? I can't really tell from this picture. FWIW, you really shouldn't need that many intakes. It won't hurt your performance any, but once you get past "enough to do the job", they get a bit spammy. 0.0013m^2 intake area per tonne of aircraft should be sufficient. My entry is using 5 radial intakes (4 was on the ragged edge but worked) and that's equivalent to roughly 2 ram intakes. I'm looking forward to seeing your mission report! Best, -Slashy

My entry is up. The idea was to see how much I could get away with using just 1 turbojet. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/PeacefrogIII http://wikisend.com/download/261372/PeaceFrogIII.craft It is extremely docile and stable to fly with no major vices. I delivered 13.5 tonnes of fuel and oxidizer ($964 worth) to a 103x103km orbit while expending $362 in supplies. 1.88 units of monopropellant ( $2.25) 417 units of fuel ( $333.60) and 144 units of oxidizer ( $26.18) This works out to $26.81 per tonne. Not sure how you want to calculate that, so hit me up if you have any questions. *edit* fuel units delivered= 2,100 Flight expense= $362 Markup would be $0.17 per unit on top of the base $0.46 per unit on the ground, so fuel in orbit is $0.63 per unit ( a 37% markup). Best, -Slashy

Knowledge is meant to be used, so release the hounds Best, -Slashy

Thanks, I'm glad you like it! It turns out that Pork jet made an error with the configuration files and scaled the drag coefficients for half sized parts. 4 half sized tanks make the same drag as 1 full sized tank. Best, -Slashy

Darn it! I built an entry for this only to realize belatedly that it needs to be crewed. If anyone wants a practical stock drone SSTO spaceplane tanker, here ya go: http://wikisend.com/download/570898/PeaceFrogII.craft Starting over... -Slashy

haha "Apollo Kerman" Best, -Slashy

Nah. Harder than stock, but not anything that could really be called "hard". The guy you want to talk to about this is Wanderfound. He's kinda the resident guru of FAR SSTO spaceplanes. *edit* In fact... Here ya go: Your one- stop shop for all your FAR SSTO spaceplane needs. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread Tell 'em Slashy sent ya Best, -Slashy

Aye. This is all about thrust to drag, which is essentially thrust to weight in stock KSP. The turbojet generates more thrust to weight than the basic jet at all speeds above 230m/sec. I was late to that party, but the turbojet is definitely the way to go. I also concur with "less intakes". Adding intakes in this exercise brings nothing to the table but more drag. Finally, my spot on the leaderboard should read 363 m/sec, not 362. Best, -Slashy

I agree with all the others here. You are going too fast in the lower atmosphere, then transitioning to rockets too early and climbing too steeply. That is also way more engine and intake area than you actually need for that size airframe. The best way to avoid asymmetric flameout issues is by using a single engine. This is adequate for up to 20t of aircraft, though 10-15t is more common. Also note how little rocket is actually needed for this job. Try this profile: At takeoff, pitch as steeply as you can to maintain 100 m/sec airspeed. Keep increasing pitch as necessary to maintain this speed until your climb rate hits 500m/sec. Maintain a maximum climb rate of 500m/sec until you hit 20km altitude. Reduce climb rate to 100m/sec, and maintain that to 27km altitude. Reduce climb rate to 50m/sec, and maintain that to 32km altitude. Reduce climb rate to 10m/sec, and maintain that until your angle of attack is 15* At this point, your engines will begin to flameout. Throttle back incrementally to keep them lit and maintain 15* pitch. You should hit a suborbital trajectory around 40-45km altitude. Switch to map view and throttle back as necessary to maintain a 72km apoapsis. Eventually you will be unable to keep the jets lit. Switch to rockets at that point and throttle just enough to maintain a 70km apoapsis. When you have drifted up to 70km altitude, complete circularization. Best, -Slashy

I think it depends greatly on how many of the parts are copied and pasted. Best, -Slashy

Left is "left" (abandoned) and right is "right" (correct)? Best, -Slashy

My "legit" Eve lander was 52 tonnes. 48-7S asparagus sitting on top of an aerospike asparagus. My highly cheaty Eve SSTO is right about 2 tonnes. Combination infiniglider and kraken drive. Best, -Slashy

When I started out I was all about doing it exactly like it's done in real life, down to following the Mercury/ Gemini/ Apollo progression. Since then, I have tended toward minimalist and cost-effective modular designs with a heavy emphasis on infrastructure, while real life has tended towards disposable single mission designs. I also haven't been shy about using the tools that KSP gives me at the expense of realism. For example, all of my lifters are SSTO turbojet designs that don't bother with streamlining, payload shrouds, or reentry shields. I'll have a steep learning curve when 1.0 comes out Best, -Slashy

n.b.z., Oh, you've got the problem wired. I think the reason they're making headway is because of their control surfaces. Their mere presence on the craft induces an infinigliding effect, even if they're locked. I used absolutely no control surfaces on mine in order to avoid that. Best, -Slashy

I was impatient to get home all day. I finally caught on that the reason he was so fast was the turbojets. I had assumed that the basic jet would make better thrust/ drag at "low" speeds, but never checked to see where the crossover happened. The answer is 230 m/sec; something you all had apparently figured out So my first turbojet entry is 362m/sec. *edit* http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/GoSlash27/SpeedyIV2_zpstaeawego.jpg 363. I don't think I'm going to be able to make anything that can beat this speed. Best, -Slashy

haha I'm just being intentionally cryptic Best, -Slashy

Wow, 361?? That's blazing fast! I'm gonna have a hard time trying to catch it... *edit* Oh, wait (facepalm) I see what you did there. I'll have to give it another go this evening. Best, -Slashy

n.b.z., Kudos and well- done! Best, -Slashy

No Kerbals?!? We can beat that > Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - Okay, this is about the end of the line for me. Things are starting to undergo rapid unscheduled disassembly. 349 m/ sec oughtta hold a spot on the board for a while... Best, -Slashy

As long as we've got this much thrust/ weight, why even bother with wings? 326 m/sec. Best, -Slashy - - - Updated - - - In stock KSP, mass is drag. Your fuel tanks even get aerodynamically cleaner as they drain! Since streamlining doesn't exist, your best bet is to put as little mass as possible into the aircraft. Best, -Slashy

QPDO, Negatory. Pressure has always been logarithmic in KSP and FAR uses the same atmosphere, it just changes the behavior of the parts themselves. I think the source of this confusion is from people referring to stock aerodynamics as "souposphere" in comparison to FAR, but in reality the atmosphere itself is not altered. Best, -Slashy

First entry on the boards, and it's supersonic. Barely... All stock, no infinigliding (or other physics exploits), and manned.

I'll post an entry on this one. You should specify no infinigliding, because it's easy to break Mach 1 that way at low level. Best, -Slashy