GoSlash27

Yessir. Best, -Slashy

kinnison, Running stock, the rules of thumb are pretty well established. You want 1 turbojet for every 15 tonnes of aircraft. If you have this and you're having difficulties, it's either because 1) You're not using optimal parts somewhere else 2) You're not using the correct number of parts somewhere else, or 3) You're not flying an acceptable profile. There's lots of info out there on how to build efficient and effective stock SSTOs and how to fly them for maximum effectiveness. Just give a holler if you want some guidance! Best, -Slashy

Step #1: Establish yourself as a resident expert on some facet of KSP through achieving things that have never been done before and compiling a unified understanding of KSP physics and systems. Step #2: Pass your knowledge on to other players. Step #3: Directly contribute to another player achieving something you couldn't do on your own. Until you do this, you haven't actually accomplished anything at all. Best, -Slashy

If the guy (or gal) is in orbit, he's not exactly a flight risk. What's he gonna do, jump out of an airlock and make a run for it? Arrest them after landing. Best, -Slashy

Our government is spending $1.50 for every $1.00 they collect and inflating the money supply just to keep operating at current levels. "Only" $20 Billion dollars?? When was the last time you heard of a public works project that *didn't* exceed it's initial estimates by at least a factor of 10? And of course once you get it started, it's impossible to kill it no matter how obvious it is to everyone that it's a boondoggle. Setting aside the (not inconsequential) fact that it's impossible with current tech, How many tons of material would you have to orbit in order to make this cheaper than what we're doing now? Space elevators are awesome... if you love shiny theoretical space toys and can't balance a checkbook. For the rest of us, they're a disaster waiting to happen.

^ Expanding a bit on the launch profile: Although Kerbin's atmospheric pressure logarithmically declines with altitude, in practice spaceplanes behave radically differently in different sections of altitude. Below 10 KM, it's a thick soup. From 10-25KM, it's noticeably thinner and thinning at a rate that helps you climb ballistically. From 25-32KM, it's very thin and makes lift difficult to achieve Above 32 KM it's nearly vacuum and makes thrust hard to produce. Below 10 KM, you won't be able to accelerate much. You just want to climb as quickly as you can without losing your stability. Pitch as steep as you can without it getting wallowy and maintain a minimum airspeed of 100 m/sec. 10-25, it's easy to ballistically climb and get yourself too slow, so you want to limit your climb rate and build speed. Maintain a climb rate of 100 m/sec. 25-32, your wings are struggling to maintain your progress upwards. It's important to limit your angle of attack to manage drag and let speed build while taking whatever climb rate you can get. Maintain an angle of attack of not more than 22 degrees. Above 32, your wings no longer serve any purpose and you're trying to keep the engines lit. The good news is you're going so fast that the centrifugal force is helping you climb. It's just a thrust vectoring thing at that point. Limit your climb rate to keep your apoapsis ahead and keep the engines working by throttling down. Keep a positive rate of climb and get all the speed you can. Once you get to the point where your speed is no longer increasing, your jets have done all they can for you. Time to switch to rockets and close the intakes. Best, -Slashy

Drag has a lot to do with it. Once above 32KM altitude, it's all a matter if drag. If you're having issues with it slowing and falling, it could be insufficient wings (1 CL per tonne), insufficient intake area (.01 M^2 per engine), insufficient engines (1 turbojet per 15 tonnes) or you're too nose heavy (CoL should be centered in CoM or just behind). If all that is good, it's your takeoff profile. Limit your climb rate to NMT 100 m/sec and do not allow your angle of attack to exceed 22 degrees. You want to be doing about 900 m/sec when you cross 20 KM altitude. Best, -Slashy

My favorite airplane has already been mentioned, so I'll move on to my 2nd: The Convair B-36 Peacemaker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruE8yhkHke8 The thing was so freakin' big it should've had it's own area code! Back when nukes weighed more than most bombers and WWII technology was state- of-the-art, small communities of flight crew would inhabit these flying apartment complexes and fly missions measured in days.

It depends on a lot of external factors. A properly designed spaceplane can cover almost the entire load with jets, only needing 100 m/sec for circularization. The altitude your jets will get you to is a function of your wing loading, drag, and intake area... but the altitude doesn't matter as much as speed. If you can get over 2,300 m/sec, you'll need almost no rocket DV to finish the job. Best, -Slashy

http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/DoubleDipper The SX DoubleDipper. Runway to orbital docking to runway to orbital docking to runway to orbital docking to runway. I believe that's 6 advanced pilot precision awards Best, -Slashy

First triple SSTO spaceplane. Just accomplished it tonight! December 2nd, 2014: GoSlash27 flew from KSC to orbital docking to KSC to orbital docking to KSC to orbital docking to KSC. That is, 3 entire round trips. Without dropping any parts, refueling, or physics cheats using stock parts and stock installation. While carrying 2 flight crew and 4 passengers. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/DoubleDipper Best, -Slashy

Voyager55, I just ran a *double* on Kerbin using the SSTO spaceplane I posted earlier. KSP -> orbital docking -> KSP -> orbital docking -> KSP -> orbital docking -> KSP. No refueling or dropped parts. http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/DoubleDipper Best, -Slashy

40 units of o2 left. I think that's enough... Made the deorbit with 20 units of o2 left. I have plenty of fuel, so I should be good as long as I don't hose the landing. Made it!! So that's KSC->orbital docking -> KSC -> orbital docking -> KSC -> orbital docking -> KSC with no refueling, no parts dropped and 2 crew/ 4 passengers. Total mission elapsed time 5 hours 15 minutes 47 seconds. /iWin -Slashy

http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/DoubleDipper 3 hours, 6 minutes, 25 seconds total elapsed time for Groundhog Day mission. It looks like I might have enough fuel for one more cycle. I'll try it and let you know if I make it or not. Best, -Slashy *edit* This is gonna be very close. Not a lot of margin for oxidizer here. If I can make the rendezvous, I have plenty of fuel and oxidizer for the rest of it. If not, I'll be lost in space.

Zipmafia, The Double- dipper weighs 12.56 tonnes at launch. Total mission time is a question mark, since the ET clock resets every time I undock. I'll try keeping track of the UT next time. Best, -Slashy

Pretty much what Numerobis said, except that the mass needs to be considered twice. Not just because it, along with the cross- sectional area and air mass, are used to calculate drag, but also because it is mass that the wings must lift (creating more drag from the higher angle of attack) and the engines must accelerate (incurring a DV penalty). This is why empirical results tend to differ from the theoretical predicted results. XM-G50s usually out-perform all the other intakes on spaceplanes in actual practice. Not by much, but it's there. But more to the point, whatever intakes you use should be in the back on spaceplanes and preferably a little high for high speed stability. This is difficult to achieve with other intake types, whereas it's easy for the XM-G50. This is why I recommend that if you want to build an efficient spaceplane, the #1 choice should be the XM-G50 intake, the fewest possible needed to get over 2,250 m/sec orbital velocity. This usually works out to 4 intakes per engine. Going over that number *can* yield additional kinetic energy by getting closer to 2400 m/sec and higher altitude, but you end up burning more fuel in drag getting them up there, so it's a net loss. Best, -Slashy

Check to make sure you have the wheels rotated correctly. That's what usually causes this problem. Best, -Slashy

It has to do with how the game calculates drag. You have to multiply the sine of the angle of attack by the drag coefficient and mass. Treating the angle of attack as equal for comparison purposes, the lowest drag/ lift is achieved by the structural D, strake, and swept in that order. Best lift to weight is achieved by the same 3, but in reverse order. The overall best wing is the strake. As for the Delta deluxe, yeah, it's superior to all wings... but only because it's a control surface and all control surfaces exhibit infiniglide properties. This is why using control surfaces as wings is banned in so many challenges. As an aside, the small control surface is superior to the delta deluxe as a lifting surface. Best, -Slashy

Question: If I demonstrate 2 complete cycles (KSC-> orbital docking -> KSC -> orbital docking -> KSC) without refueling or gatecrashing, can I get double commendations on precision piloting? Also, if I do it while carrying 4 passengers and 2 flight crew, does that count as utilitarial? Curious, -Slashy

How about this one: Single stage to Groundhog Day. Single stage to orbit and rendezvous with a station in LKO, landing back at KSC, and *another* single stage to orbit and rendezvous with a station in LKO with landing back at KSC. All in one piece with no refueling at any point. With 4 passengers and 2 flight crew.

SX Kerboliner Craft file Based on the same technology, the Mainway Aerospace SX Kerboliner. Place your Kerbals on board your Kerbal Space Station at a mission cost of √29 per Kerbal! Shuttles 12 Kerbals up and 12 Kerbals down (not counting flight crew) per mission. 13.2 tonnes and √37,700 fully- loaded.

A few more things to add: 1) Never use the Rapiers. A turbojet with a couple tiny rockets is definitely preferable. Not just because the turbojet has better thrust to weight and is cheaper (even accounting for a couple small rockets), but mainly because it will continue to accelerate to 2,400 m/sec. The extra 200 m/sec DV you can get from the turbojet/ rocket combo accounts for a huge amount of fuel and O2 you have to bring with the rapiers. 2) Always use the XM-G50 intakes. They have the best airflow to drag at the top end. 3) Always use the Porkjet strakes. They have the best lift to drag at the top end. #2 option is the Porkjet Structural D wing and #3 is the classic swept wing. Best, -Slashy

http://wikisend.com/download/876322/Kerbilander.craft This is a VTOL double SSTO for Kerbin. The trick is sticking the landing due to the turbine lag of the jet engine. If you can stick the landing, it'll do 2 full SSTO missions without refuelling. Ascent is just a matter of maintaining 100M/sec climb rate, throttling as necessary to keep the jet lit. Then switch to rockets and perform a radial burn at target altitude to circularize. O2 reserves are adequate to do 2 each of circularization burn, inclination correction, intercept, rendezvous, and deorbit. Monopropellant is adequate to do 2 full orbital dockings. Fuel is adequate to do 2 SSTO launches, 2 landings, and 2 of all orbital maneuvers. If it were up to me, I'd go with the spaceplane design. Not only better mass ratio and efficiency, but it is much easier and safer to land exactly where you want to be. Best, -Slashy

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/101426-Slashy-s-quick-and-easy-recipe-for-an-SSTO-spaceplane-(for-25) The ratio I have in this is pretty generous for a standard LKO orbital rendezvous. The #1 thing that will throw off your fuel/ oxidizer is the velocity at which you begin to use oxidizer in the launch. Starting your rockets at 1700 m/sec will burn a huge amount of o2 and fuel, whereas holding off until you're over 2300 will hardly cost you anything and only a couple units of fuel. Best, -Slashy

SX Double-Dipper craft file This SSTO spaceplane will conduct 2 full round trips to LKO with inclination correction, intercept, rendezvous, and docking. It can then de-orbit, cruise to KSC, and land under it's own power both times. Carries 2 flight crew + 4 passengers. All stock parts and installation. Action groups: 1) Toggle intakes 2) toggle docking collar, docking lights, and solar panels 3) deactivate rockets Takeoff: Maintain 100 m/sec airspeed to 40* pitch At 10 KM altitude, pitch down to 30* at 15 KM altitude, pitch down to 20* Pitch as necessary to maintain 100 m/sec climb rate, but do not exceed 22* pitch At flameout, throttle down until restart. Maintain flameout/ throttle down/ restart until airspeed is no longer increasing Should be about 2,300 m/sec Stage to engage rockets and hit action group 1 to engage rockets. Reentry: After retro burn, open intakes (action group 1), Retract solar panels, close docking bay doors, and turn off docking lights (action group 2) and disable rockets (action group 3) After reentry heating subsides, throttle to 1/3 for cruise. There's plenty of fuel to cruise back to base. After landing, reset your staging, reactivate the rockets, and lather/ rinse/ repeat. Best, -Slashy