Andetch

If you can cheat a ship into orbit then there is no challenge whatsoever. Anyone can strap together a load of tanks and engines, then cheat it into orbit. Making something that can survive the stresses of launch is a major part of any craft development!

Also, on this point - it is a great shame that there is only your word, and a broken link to imgur to prove your claim. Any images of your craft? KerbalX link?

So a 1 degree difference in angle from the wing disqualifies?

So do you think is possible to land this without fatalities?

So, does my angle on the tail count? FYI, I'm working on an enhanced design that can fly slower and remain stable, and therefore hopefully land...

Yeah, thanks. Don't feed it after midnight, or get it wet!

Just a warning to you guys following this - I am traveling tomorrow about halfway round Kerbin *ahem* I mean, the earth, that real planet I live on.. haha So I might be off grid for a few days. If someone wants to volunteer to look after things, that'd be sweet Karman line is 70,000m. So measuring distance above is easy - max height - 70,000 = distance above

Those fins with the yellow stripe don't actually offer any active control, they're passive, so I would go for that, and possibly add the other passive bit you get early on, but not to allow vert wing bits, as even though they're passive I can see that being exploited to defeat the challenge. Also, maybe adding a requirement to actually be able to land the bloody things? To say landing mine is "a bit tricky" would be an understatement. Flying wings do not like slow flight! Touching down slow enough to not destroy everything, but fast enough that you don't stall is hard - a very fine margin.

Like most KSP challenges, the rules and scoring system will need to be worked on I think. This is a fair point. Also some definition of "vertical surface" would be nice. 90 degree from horizontal, yes that's vertical, but how about 89 degrees?

I think we're definitely moving in the right direction.. A multi score system would be better I think - then craft like mine that can cross the Karman line multiple times and carry more people have some relevance, rather than just a pod on an engine winning it all as we are seeing come up many times now... What I want to do is find a way of eliminating anomalous results, and understanding what caused them, and if we can make it a "class" @Fett2oo5 welcome to challenge! Nice attempt! Did you self score yet?

The issue with that is fuel load and changing centre of mass and I doubt that the judges have time to drain a craft with a few thousand km range!

But it has vertical stabilizer. The ones going straight up. You need to angle them over.

So straight up and turn left it is then? Lol

We saw, we liked.... We copied...... Not landed it yet as I don't have time - but I will later! Need to adjust the amount of LF/O it carried as I took a whole load of oxidizer to orbit with me that I can't use! And I am having imgur issues and it wont let me upload all the pictures..

With SSTO it is all about having the COM and COL aligned properly so you don't spin out coming back empty. It is something a lot of people miss.

The cockpit also has reaction wheels - I don't think the probe core has so much reaction wheel control. What I would do is instead of the cockpit, add a long pointy shaped fuel tank, then a reaction wheel, then a tail piece, turned around, so then it has a really long pointed nose..... Oh, and I would also adjust the wing position to account for the new weight distribution, and possible adjust the flow priorities so the fuel in the nose drains slower, keeping the COM from moving so rapidly.

As the rules stated at the moment it just needs to SSTO I think.... I would try this, but my expertise is exactly the opposite of what this challenge requires. This challenge needs skills at making really heavy stuff. I tend to go the other way, and make stuff as light and small as possible...

I agree it looks great! I am not so good at making good looking planes. I tend to just go for the most pointy nose I can find and then it is all about functionality! I see it can be used unmanned as it has a probe core, have you considered scrapping the cockpit and adding fuel tanks in it's place? Will you be putting this onto KerbalX for people to download and play with?

That looks like a well developed SSTO However, be careful in making an even longerer version - the length parts add some weight which has fuel implications, and then it will also throw off the COM/COL balance, so you will have to spend some time to reposition the wing, and then that can have knock on effects for handling, especially when you come down....... And in the end you will end up with a completely new design! It is very hard to make variants that work!

No-one got any idea's on how to get them to go faster? Or good enough to adjust angles so it works from 1,680m/s?

When I created this as a challenge, I liked the idea of scoring on the amount of time spent above the Karman line but had no idea on how to measure it. In terms of the amount of time spent above the line being directly correlated to height - I am not so sure. When I use things like my Caveman Tech SSTO, the AP is usually below 71,000 (or you don't have enough fuel to circularize), however it spends ages between 70km and the AP as the ascent angle is usually around 1 - 2 degrees. It also can keep getting lift from the wings up to around 60 - 65 km (so you can actually raise the AP to above 70km without use of the engine once you're going fast enough). The point of this explanation is not to say how brilliant I am for making a Caveman Tech SSTO (but I do feel rather chuffed with the achievement) but more to show how you can get above the line without going straight up. For example, if you can get your plane up to around 25,km then accelerate to above 2,500m/s at a near horizontal AoA, you will probably cross the Karman line. Yeah, heating then becomes an issue, but it is a different way to get up there. I am also really appreciative of the efforts put in by people to get a good scoring equation - I would prefer a communal decision on how to score this properly rather than myself making a despotic decision. Also, for anyone wanting to do multiple entries - I have no issues with putting multiple scores up next to your name.

I suggest you do use data from current entries, see how you can work it so mine is number 1 *ahem* I mean, so it is a fair and even contest.

Anything fast I have built needed to go slowly through the lower altitudes, and would burn up lower than 20km and loose power higher than 22km. Radiators always seemed to add enough drag to mean you didn't go fast enough to heat up anyway - defeating to objective. The only solution I have found is in the engine pre-cooler. But even then around 1,600 - 1,700 m/s is as fast as I can get under 20km without burn-up.

I appreciate all the above mathmatics thanks for the contributions.. There is no reason why I can't change the scoring to mean higher (or lower) is better. I chose lower because it was how I saw my equation working - but I am open to making this more fun and challenging by any* means, so...... *to a given definition of any

Like the maths there.... (note to my American friends, mathS with and S - as in plural, therefore dealing with more than one number or sum. Can definitely try and get a nice scoring where you get a penalty for building too small.... It's the Kerbin Express Airways Sub Orbiter Challenge! lol... Any other thoughts on the numbers here?