MustaKotka

This one needs some explaining to do: late 60s was the time when people went to the Moon. Everything was possible, most people believed we'd live in space by 2000. So here's another one of Gerry Anderson's visions: the Zero-X. A craft that splits into four parts (two remotely controlled wings, main body and a landing craft) that was sent to explore Mars. Here's the original: And here's what I came up with. The reason why this is an SSTO is because the craft and its lifting bodies are all separately SSTOs. The movie Zero-X docked the wings mid-flight at Mach 5 or so but with KSP you have to dock them in space. Getting the wings into space is finicky, docking everything is insanity and reentry is just madness. Getting to Duna? Theoretically. Have I tried? Not yet. Enjoy the pictures!

THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO! It lands realistically, too.

So here are two space planes that share a common theme: wing design. They're not exercises in beauty - one is a quick mock up and the other wanted to imitate X-29s looks. Let's walk through them: People often ask about the delta wings and how they're having problems getting CoMs and CoLs where they need to be. Well, here's a solution. Use Mk2 parts in the front, taper them to 1.25m towards the back and slap on simple delta wings. Clean and efficient. This one has ample room for error in getting to orbit. It's powered by two Panthers and a single Swivel. I was just playing around with wings and copied the X-29's famous forward sweeping wings and canards. I was shocked how stable this is. Whether I'm going 100m/s or 2000m/s I have full control over pitch, roll and yaw. I was able to enter a spin by being stupid but I definitely recommend trying weird configurations with canards; they're so versatile and stable. I see it now that I don't have a picture of the finished craft with all the science gear jammed in, but it was 16t and powered by a single Panther and six Sparks. I hope these space planes served as an inspiration to you!

I made a tiny SSTO plane, this time with a cockpit. Beautiful flying and also the smallest one crewed craft i've taken to orbit! 3.85 tonnes, 18 parts, 180 units of Lf

Hello again! I promised I wouldn't be able to do much regarding these...so we're not stock anymore and we're sticking to mods that say they're fairly stock friendly. You be the judge of that. They mostly fill holes in the stock part catalogue: Modular Rocket Systems and RLA Stockalike Recontinued! Because who would want to see a tweakscaled Rapier, the most OP thing ever? Anyway, enjoy! So what is this? It is the Tiny Speedbird: 0.625m turbojet 0.625m thermonuclear engine ×2 2.753t 98Lf

Well, I assume there's a million of these, but who cares. It takes a full large Kerbodyne tank up. This Super Refuel LKO makes it to LKO 70x70 with around 800m/s remaining + leftovers from the Lf for short cruising in atmosphere too. It's actually quite nice to fly.

This 3.4t vessel that can take a kerbal to orbit. There's quite a lot of surplus delta-v left at LKO. It's not useful for anything but it's "best" because it's probably the lowest mass that takes a kerbal to orbit. If you're willing to use the EVA pack for circularization I can see further savings by ditching the Ant, Oscar and batteries/panels and just leaving the seat.

This will be the last entry in the now-miniseries of super light SSTOs. The margins are getting thin and I don't think I can do much more in the realm of superlight SSTOs after this. As always, completely stock game. 7.03t, 18 parts 200 units of fuel 1 Nerv and 1 Rapier, air-breathing only Two seats. No luggage or carry-ons. The "Space Bird" by UK Space Agency. The name comes from the fact that it is almost like the Concorde, but not quite at all. Please enjoy. Please, please tag me if you find a way to orbit with less than 200 units of fuel (that's Liquid fuel and Oxidizer combined, I just happen to have no Oxidizer).

So this Panther thumper has evolved. Actually I'm naming it Panther Thumper from now on. Behold: Panther Thumper II It has several improved features: Consumes (and carries) less fuel Seats an extra kerbal or instruments and solar panels Has much better heat tolerance Higher TWR Lower drag Lower weight Even upfront cost is down by 4k (28k->24k) - provided that you land it near KSC your only cost is ~400 units of fuel (to LKO and back)

I'll just remind you guys that there are other mathematical functions available, too. Roots and logarithms, for example... The coefficients are just a matter of politics but really, those kind of functions would stop mindless spam and make other options more lucrative. Even KSP itself uses nonlinear functions for calculating things like reputation.

One improvement you could make is add brakes to LY-05. Often times my designs call for two small wheels in the rear and a single in the front. The 'single' front gear looks hideous if it has to be two LY-01s just for the brakes. LY-05 seems to support weight better (well, unsurprisingly since it's a compressive load instead of tensile) and I think we should be able to use the LY-05 as main gear and a less rigid wheel in the front.

Most useless Panther + Nerv Liquid Fuel only contraption. Do what you will with this information. Oh and who needs wings when you can have winglets everywhere?! I just had an obsession with a really light SSTO. That had to be Liquid Fuel only. With Panthers. Don't ask why. Flies really well, though! You could probably fly it better by ditching the unused Monopropellant and a little less aggressive ascent profile but either way, 700/ms delta-V left: 11.94t takeoff mass (7.94t dry), √ 29900, CoM and CoL nicely together: EDIT: The Evolution version has a clipped tank inside the cockpit and replaces the tail cones with nose cones and adapters. This one makes it to LKO with 1400m/s remaining, which is actually already starting to be useful.

The Hypersonic Luxury Airlines ...definitely not inspired by the British Airways Concorde. Score: 1736 Extreme luxury with mind bending speed! The spacious cabin offers safe flight for 112 kerbals at a cruising altitude of 25km. The future is here! Six permanently afterburning Pratt & Whitney J58s propel the highly aerodynamic plane to Mach 3 cruising speed. Your safe journey is provided by two experienced pilots and a seasoned flight engineer - just like it was back in the day.

How about taking a square root or even cubic root (with appropriate multipliers to balance different aspects) of distance and passengers? That way you could spam all you want but with diminishing returns, forcing you to focus on a balanced design. EDIT: So how about: log(distance, km) × (passengers)1/3 × 1/100(speed, m/s) + bonus For example a 200-passenger plane capable of going 350 m/s and covering 1000km would give log(1000)×cubic rt(200)×0.35 + bonus = 3×5.85×3.5 + bonus = 61.425 + bonuses. Another example: 30 passengers, 1500m/s and 400km = log(400)×cbcrt(30)×15 + bonus = 121.28 + bonuses. I just think that distance should be punished the most since it's relatively straightforward to add moar boosters - well, in this case more wings. Passengers are also easy to add but not as easy as distance, hence cubic root. Speed is only divided by a hundred because you've got two options: loads of kerbals going subsonic or fewer going supersonic. If you don't want to point your engines straight up you're also kind of limited by orbital velocity as in how not to get ejected out of atmosphere. Mind you that in my examples any supersonic craft always runs the risk of disintegration or burning up so they lose out on the bonuses.