NoobTool

So this one's not an SSTO, but it could easily be made to be by dropping one of the passenger compartments, adding oxidizer and switching the Wheesley for a Rapier (I've done this). I'm going to post it here because it's fun. It was designed to fit in a MK3 cargo bay for transport to Laythe where it was to be used as a commuter / transport for ferrying kerbals between surface outposts. https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Stinger Can land on and take off from land or water. It's remarkably stable on the water. I've achieved speeds of nearly 270 m/s before the craft spontaneously lifted off the surface on its own accord. This is pure dumb luck, I haven't been able to replicate this type of performance in any of my other hydrofoil designs. It's also stupid fast in the air for something powered by a Wheesley. It can reach speeds in excess of 600m/s, though this is not recommended. The engine overheats at this speed and that heat is transferred through the fuel tank to the passenger cabins. Exceeding recommended cruising speed (~510m/s) for long periods can void warranty. It also has quite a range. Flying at cruising speed at >8000m altitude, it circumnavigates Kerbin with a comfortable fuel margin. I've had a lot of fun with this little craft, and probably spent way more time "testing" it than could ever be justified. Funny how the simplest designs can be the most rewarding.

Here's something I built for a long-planned mission to Laythe (that I still haven't done yet). https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Eagle-Ray Carries 6 Kerbals and a full science payload, has a fair amount of ^V in orbit (I was hoping for more tbh). The first pic is takeoff, not landing.

I was a bit disappointed today. Started off well enough, payload tested a new design: Was able to lift 511 tons and change to a 100km orbit, and I think it can probably do a bit more. I was hoping to get 500 tons out of it, so that wasn't the disappointment. I wasn't satisfied with the craft's aesthetics, It's a bit too angular and blocky. I wanted something a bit sexier. A redesign was in order. I think I nailed the sexy: The disappointment was that according to KSP's aero model, exhibit 1 is vastly superior to exhibit 2. Even modifying the engine layout for much more thrust at the expense of efficiency, it struggled to crawl past 400 m/s. It might (barely) make orbit with an empty fairing, but only just. I may revisit the sexy version at some point in the future, I don't think I can bring myself to carve into it right now. It's just too pretty. For now, I'll focus on the one that works (still more work and testing to be done there).

Something I've been working on recently: It doesn't have a name yet. The fuselage design is shamelessly stolen from heavily inspired by Perseus 2 by Shotch https://kerbalx.com/Shotch/Perseus-2 (although nowhere near as pretty). The balloon is empty, this was just an initial test flight. I have yet to do payload testing, but I anticipate payloads of >500 tons to LKO to be feasible. Of course it is designed to take more moderate high volume payloads much further afield. There is a ventral opening cargo bay under the forward portion of the fuselage meant to store mining gear for surface refueling. Still a fair amount of work and testing to be done, but I was excited to get it to orbit.

I would like to see the resource dropdown menu open the resource transfer window for tanks containing a specific resource, instead of just displaying the amount of resource in each tank (maybe only when the box next to the resource is checked). This would make fuel transfers on large vessels with many fuel tanks much less tedious than alt-clicking each individual tank.

I was happy to see this challenge. I was toying with the idea of creating a similar challenge myself. I would like to make an argument for ore as cargo though. Many people raise objections regarding the utility of lifting ore to orbit, and while I tend to agree in most circumstances, I think cargo spaceplanes present one scenario where lifting ore could have merits. If you have a craft using cargo bays, and said craft is capable of lifting more mass than the amount of fuel that can be crammed into the bays, then it makes sense to use ore lifted to an orbital refinery when using the craft as a tanker. This allows for the maximum amount of fuel to be lifted in a single flight. There is also something to be said for the versatility of using ore as a storage medium in an orbital refueling station. Raw ore can be converted to varying combinations of fuel, allowing for different types of craft to be refueled at the same station without any of the storage space having been wasted. In truth, I'm only making these arguments to benefit my own entries, which weren't designed for this challenge, but were the inspiration for my intended challenge. They also have multiple cargo bays, which means that the cargo is carried up in 2 pieces (not sure if this is rule breaking), but I dock them together for deployment. Submission the first: Czar Galactica Mk4 https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Czar-Galactica-Mk-4 http://imgur.com/a/5fKEk Capable of lifting 301.8 tons to the required 100km orbit, then returning to land at the runway. The second submission I will add later. I haven't uploaded any images of that one yet, but the Mk5 is capable of lifting 450.8 tons to the required orbit and again returning to the runway. Ore being excluded, both are limited to the 8 orange tanks that can fit into the cargo bays (approximately 288 tons). I haven't worked out the funds/ton operating cost for either flight, but I think these craft are more suited for the max tonnage portion of the challenge anyway. They are ridiculously over-engined, and not very efficient in terms of design (although the Mk 5 manages better than 35% payload mass fraction, which I'm reasonably happy with).

I've tried using the extended radial decoupler and structural pylons (clearance is needed for the aerodynamic control surfaces). The residue from both of these does seem to affect performance. I may try a regular radial decoupler attached to a girder segment or some such for clearance. I actually tried doing it this way and frustratingly, the pylon remained attached to the smaller craft. Perhaps I did something wrong. I'll have to fiddle with it some more. Thank you for your responses!

I've built a small aircraft that I want to take to Laythe in my cargo spaceplane. I'm having issues securing it inside the cargo bay. The smaller craft doesn't have a docking port, I intend to refuel it on Laythe via Klaw. I've tried various decouplers, structural pylons etc, and I've tried different methods of attaching them (small craft first, large craft first, subassemblies etc.). It seems no matter how I attach it, when decoupled, the decoupler leaves bits attached to the smaller craft. These bits do indeed adversely affect performance. I would much prefer it if the residue were left inside the cargo bay, since the cargo vessel will be flown home and recovered after making the delivery, but the smaller craft will remain on Laythe as a long-term asset. Any ideas?

I remember hearing rumors of electrohydrodynamical propulsion technologies as far back as the 90's (the rumors were associated with the aurora project if I'm remembering correctly). As I understood it at the time, the proposed system would use a powerful electromagnetic field to turn the atmosphere in front of the craft into an ionized plasma, and then use other fields to pull the plasma around and past the craft nearly eliminating drag. This sounds like a similar technology, or perhaps a better explanation of the technology. I hadn't heard of this project or this company before. Thanks for sharing!

I've been considering taking a run at this challenge. I'd be doing it stock, probably in sandbox (I'd like to do it in career, but it would likely take me an inordinate amount of time). I'm thinking of using my heavy lift spaceplane platform as the workhorse, maybe even using it as the sole lifter/transport vehicle for the entire challenge. This of course adds another challenge: making everything fit inside Mk3 cargo bays. This means modularity will be key. I was playing around with some designs for a modular skycrane system today. Maybe this isn't be best place to share and I'll try not to make a habit of it, but I wanted to share this. Thanks for reading!

Thanks!

The Czar Galactica Mk4 Capable of lifting 300 tons to orbit. https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Czar-Galactica-Mk-4 http://imgur.com/a/5fKEk

Czar Galactica Mk 4 Capable of lifting 300 tons to orbit and returning safely to the runway. Imgur album: http://imgur.com/a/5fKEk

I have a new entry: The Czar Galactica Mk4 (I'll stop soon I promise) 301.8 tons to orbit, landing back on the runway. Full album: http://imgur.com/a/5fKEk

@sal_vager Added a craft file!

A recent craft (a spaceplane) has been changing control points when I switch to map view. It doesn't happen every time, but it usually happens during ascent (at the worst possible time). Any ideas on what might be causing this, or suggestions for preventing it from happening would be appreciated. My install is fully stock v 1.2.1 64 bit from Steam running on Windows7. My system is a 1st gen i7 (a 950 I believe) 12 gigs of ram and a gtx 760 ti. I've also been experiencing a high number of game crashes since the latest update, something that wasn't really an issue before. I turned off highlight in settings, and reduced aero effects to minimum, hopefully that will help. I'll try to update this with pics and a craft file soon. Thanks, Noob Edit: Here's a craft file: https://kerbalx.com/NoobTool/Czar-Galactica-Mk-4 It was switching from the cockpit to the lander can inside the ventral bay. I don't know if it would make a difference, but it was while it had a substantial payload on board. If anyone would like flight plan details, I can provide them as well. Like I said, it didn't happen all the time, mostly only at a certain point during ascent.

Today I conducted a second air drop test, with a slightly different deployment method. Honestly, I was pretty shocked that it worked on the first try. Thanks for reading!

@Jarin I have a few (somewhat ambitious) missions planned for my heavy lift spaceplane platform. The one I'm most excited about right now is landing a large surface outpost on Laythe. Last night I performed a test of my intended deployment method. While I still have some wrinkles to iron out, I was pretty pleased with the results. The Craft: Czar Galactica Mk 3 EX The test: I'm pretty happy with these initial results. I have a few ideas for making it work better. If you have any ideas, I'd be happy to hear them! Thanks for reading!

@Jarin I'm planning on individual modules all deployed from the cargo bay in a single stack. They'll be connected by staged docking ports with parachutes and landing legs on each module. Once out of the bay, I'll switch to the stack, deploy all the landing legs, and stage through, each module deploying its chutes as it separates from the stack. It should allow them to come down close to one another, but not right on top of one another. I'll assemble with vehicles on the surface. Likely a little ambitious, but that's the fun!

@Jarin Sweet! Thank you so much! I'm planning on dropping from below 3000m at less than 200 m/s. From this: I'm hoping to put a surface base on Laythe with it. Thanks for your help, it will allow me to focus my testing.

Hmmm... 25km should work fine. I'll have to give it a go. Thanks for your answer! Is anyone able to confirm that radius for atmospheric despawn?

I'm wondering how despawns work when doing airdrops in stock 1.2. Is there any way to do an airdrop without the payload or parent craft despawning? Or will I have to use a mod for this?

@Somtaaw I hope it works for you. I recently tried moving the craft file of one of the derivative variants to a new save game, and it seems that not all of the strut connections made the move. It had me concerned that the same would happen with the uploaded craft files. Pretty disappointing, strutting the main wings on was a major pain. If you try it out, let me know if it works for you. I would also recommend the Mk 3 EX variant. Many of the lessons I learned from flying the Duna mission went into that, it should be a more capable craft. They're built from the tail forward to allow the dorsal and ventral fuselages to be fairly easily reconfigured (if you wanted more passenger space than the EX offers).

@boolybooly Makes perfect sense. I didn't even consider the rendezvous aspect. I fully agree, not the same. Thanks for your reply. And thanks again for managing this thread.

Thanks! I was surprised the first time she loaded onto the runway and didn't immediately fall apart. She has yet to cease to amaze me. And thanks to @boolybooly for posting this thread and continually updating it. ...I hate to quibble, but doesn't docking + runway landing = Advanced Pilot Precision Award 1st Class? And might it be ok to list the payload mass with the Utilitarial Commendation?