Gauss H2K

1) a) Try to build an aircraft that has all its fuel at it's CoM, or moves the CoM forward while draining, this makes transitioning from flying full to empty much quicker. You want control surfaces to be set up like a real world aircraft for better performance. This means ctrl srfs inline with CoM but out to the side controlling roll. Either ctrl srfs far behind, or far forward in front of the CoM (The greater the distance the greater the control due to torque), These control pitch. If using FAR I'd recommend either a forward canard or a rear canard that alter it's shape as going super sonic causes the CoL to shift back, potentially nullifying any elevators back there. Finally you want a ctrl surface inline with the CoM but as far behind, and acting as rudder, controlling yaw, or side to side movement. From personal experience the yaw and roll ctrl srfs are mostly used to stabilize, or steer. The pitch is where the majority of your flight will be controlled and special attention should be given to those ctrl srfs. c) Drain excess oxidizer from your space plane in the hanger as extra LF means more fuel for air breathing engines, whereas excess O means dead weight. My advice is to use LFO tanks only instead of LF tanks, as they usually have better Fuel to mass ratios even with all the O drained, and they allow the potential to be refueled to allow your space plane to have more fuel while in space. 2) The answer to this question is the same reason anyone does anything in KSP. They do it for the fun/challenge/roleplay/whatever, it all boils down to we do it because we want to. I personally like doing things this way because Space Planes are kinda Sci-Fi like the x-wings that just go into orbit or wherever and can land on anything they want. They only thing they lack upon returning from something is just fuel, which makes them cool.

Well a higher orbit means you'll have less radial velocity, but it means you're fighting gravity more. Since the atmosphere is so thin around Duna, it might not be a bad idea to use basic kinematics formulas to figure out the range at any altitude since air resistance will be very little. If you're not opposed to mech jeb, it has a module that predicts landing sites.

Good Luck, I was only recently able to put a 90 ton SSTO into orbit, I found that more engines=more problems, so I've been really looking towards the one rapier SSTO's for their part counts and ease of build.

Aren't the B9 SABREs essentially made for SSTO's? Why not use them, and save some weight since those turbojets become dead weight after 20km, and the rockets are deadweight before that. Also you might try adding more intakes, 20km is high, but not high enough. I would also aim for 1.4-1.5 km/s at 25km before switching to rockets.

I have 2 large Tail fins at the back, which are two delta wings with two small standard control surfaces, Edit: In an attempt to improve flight characteristics even better I added a larger Tail Fine with 4 standard surfaces for better yaw control. It flies better now, or at least FAR tells me it does... since the same problem persists. The large standard control surfaces are being used as Ailerons, not elevons. The forward canard and rear elevators are there to help at mach speeds It weighs in at 80t, 4 rapiers is just enough for TWR, and the LV-Ns are to suit it's purpose of being a shuttle between moon bases in Jool's SOI It wobbles in both scenarios, I do believe it's something to do with the hardpoint wheels. It flies just fine, I've built many an SSTO so I know how to design them to either remain at the same level of stability as the fuel drains, or become more stable. I won't try a vertical ascent because it has 1-1.1 TWR on rapiers. It does weigh a lot, as the SSTO's I build are usually <40t. This one is 80t, but I am quite proud, as aside from the landing gear, the FAR data tells me it flies very well.

I know about this, which is why I placed them on structural pylons, attached to the radial fuel tanks. I've also already "over" strutted the wings to everything on the ship. On the earlier model I had, I had 2 front wheels attached on pylons, I removed them because with 4 wheels, it was still yawing. I used snap-to to place all of them making sure they would be straight and only rotated the front gear by 180 degrees. If it were the case that the snap to didn't cause your gear to be straight by default, then this issue should've plagued the other 5 spaceplanes I made, but alas this isn't the case.

Here is my SSTO Here's my query, during takeoff this vessel likes to yaw left and right randomly and violently, what about my landing gear placement is causing this? Edit: since it's not apparent in the pictures, the back wheels aren't attached to the wings. They are attached to a structural pylon attached to the distal fuel tanks. Further Edit: After increasing the size, and control authority of the rudder, I was able to rule out the rudder as an effect, as the problems persisted. Furthermore I saw that at 4 wheels, the back wheels tended to "break" under the weight. Adding more wheels prevented the breaking, but didn't solve the yawing problem. At this point I believe it has something to do with using the small hardpoints themselves, since there were no wheels that were inverted or at an angle other than 90. Final Edit: Look at these pictures: The only thing changed about the landing gear, was switching from a small hardpoint to 2 cubic octagonal struts. Landing Gear problem solved. Don't use small hardpoints.

You're lucky, in an effort to reduce crashes, I end every program on my computer except KSP, and play with only FAR installed. In my case, nukes are so much better for anything larger than a pea. It's not too hard to build an ion plane/probe/rover, the difficulty is then finding a practical use for the new creation. I mean why use an ion plane, if not just for the challenge? It's not practical for exploring kerbin, nor for SSTOs so the only real point to building an ion plane is to say that I've built an ion plane.

Ions wouldn't be so obnoxious if you could leave them to burn while switching to a different vehicle, and come back to them after the burn. As it is, for ultra lightweight craft they're pretty good, the problem being that there isn't a whole lot an ultra light can do. Also I believe the Interstellar Mod has plasma thrusters, and other engines that are similar to ion engines, but scaled up for 1.25m parts.

If you're intent on modularizing it, I would recommend not sending it up all together, and just build the SSTO stage that can be swapped out for an IP Stage, then re swapped for atmospheric return. It would reduce part counts, complexity, and dead weight (assuming you're using turbojets for atmo).

I use the Rapiers with a LV-N engine to create an SSTO that has engines that aren't just dead weight on non oxygen atmo worlds. I also use FAR and I think I've gotten much better performance from using the RAPIERs due to it.

KAC is really helpful, and I recommend it. I don't think anyone will call you out as "cheating" for using an autopilot, since all KAC does is allow you to set alarms, allowing for better handling of multiple missions. It doesn't automatically set "perfect" maneuver nodes at the transfer windows, nor does it autowarp. It doesn't alter any of the physical parameters of any of your vessels, so any craft can benefit from it while still being completely made of ONLY stock parts.

Build redundant systems, like RTGs and Solar panels. Wings and Parachutes. Landing Legs, and Plane Gear. Because you never know when the second system you thought was just extra weight and had no necessary applications, saves your ship, and or crew from total destruction.

If we're going that route, deadly reentry for career mode is another suggestion.

Try aerocapture with either Jool, or Laythe, all it requires is you get your periapsis just dipping into the atmosphere, which will slow you down, and if performed at the correct altitude (I would use quicksave to find it), it will allow you to achieve an orbit with little delta v required. Also when I do reentry burns, I aim to get my periapsis just inside the atmo, and let drag do all the braking. Also if you aren't already using it, I would recommend MechJeb, if you just want to see how your designs work because you're a rubbish pilot, it has functions like an autopilot, if you're a great pilot, it has other features like predicting where you'll land, preventing jet flameouts, and other little things that reduce some of the workload when piloting vessels. Without refueling, something like only 8000 delta v is needed to go from launchpad to Laythe orbit

You are absolutely right about there being no stealth in space, but there can be tactics and equipment designed to hide certain craft from other vessels. When I first suggested "Stealth" I mentioned ships already motionless waiting for a target, like a trapdoor spider. They would have to be concealed in a "debris" cloud, and the other vessels that weren't supposed to be hiding would do everything in their power to draw all the attention to themselves, so the feint could work. Stealth doesn't conventionally work in space, but deception does.

The little ones, maybe, but remember bigger vessels have bigger profiles, also solar panels are reflective surfaces meant to absorb energy, meaning any solar panels are not stealthy. Thermal generators can't be exposed on the outside of the vessel for the same reasoning. The RCS is due to it being a gas used as a reactionary force, "Stealth" fighters then need to carry enough RCS, and thrusters to be able to have a few hundred meters delta v

Light doesn't bend around objects (most of the time), debris could be hid behind, which is a simple, but effective solution. Also it takes some time to fully scan an area, and if things are rushed like during an escape, the only intel may be from a previously scanned area, which if extreme care was taken, like setting up "convenient" debris/ electronic warfare to cause holes in the sweep. Stealth vessels are possible, its just that you can't declare one sneaky.

Or an unmanned/decoy fighter could launch into a carrier task group in an effort to force the carrier to flee to an obvious retreat point, at which point an ambush set up by a few stealth ships "subs" to destroy/capture the carrier. If the carrier is destroyed, the subs need then to only focus on escaping to a point where the swarm of fighters would have to make a choice of chasing the stealth vessels that are at that point theoretically unarmed, but might be able to rearm, and do another ambush strike on another high value target, but then they ignore the mostly undamaged enemy force. However if the carrier bugs out with support, then the task group loses its power, and as long as the carrier doesn't accidentally close within visual range, the stealth ships could still remain stealthy by doing nothing. Hence its a win-win scenario for the side with the stealth vessels. This is based on there being a concept of stealth ships, whose stealth comes from having no reflective surfaces, angled surfaces to deflect radar, remain motionless to not give off thermal energy, whose only "propulsion" is RCS when trying to run quiet, which they can't use when under scrutiny as motion will surely give away their position, and they can't use their own sensors/radar to detect other vessels as its not hard to detect where a radar wave is coming from.

Yeah that's the problem with SSTOs, you want the center of thrust exactly in line with the center of mass. If the CoT is below the CoM the vessel will pitch up in high atmo, conversely if the CoT is above the CoM the vessel will pitch down. You can build your vessel like an airplane, but airplanes are only built for atmosphere, so problems arise when you try to leave the atmosphere. Some solutions to try to combat this problem are below: Let O represent the central fuselage of your space plane, here are three basic ways to attach wings to your craft; -O- the common way, but sometimes this doesn't generate as much lift as the next two, >O< the xwing design gives you more lift, but you run the risk of wing strikes on takeoff <O> I prefer this method as you gain the advantages of both Then there's the ultimate method where you combine the above 3 designs where Lift is necessary at all costs These are some tips, but if you want help building large space planes the one to ask is pa1983

I don't think it will work well in KSP due to part count limitations, but the numbers advantage has its appeal. I designed one of my SSTOs to be a simpler, lighter craft so that 5 of them would be just as complex, and carry just as much as a combination of the other two (3 vs 5). The thought was there are going to be engagements where having more fighters is more important than having a deadly ambush. These next arguments are ignoring certain attributes of KSP that given the "rules" are somewhat cheap. If droids/AI/unmanned vessels are used en bulk, as mentioned earlier there should be a "central drone command" "controlling" them. Otherwise they could be too powerful, and if/since this is the case the swarm strategy is limited by the command vessel where if its taken down, the drones become inert. The other way could be small, simple one kerbal fighters, but then a plethora of problems accompanies that. First most is gathering all the kerbals (unlimited "recruitment" aside) the next is building simple ships, the simpler the ship the more that can be used, but since they're manned, and you "have" a limit on kerbals, you want to make them reusable, which means more parts, and less ships. Then you have to arm these ships, and if they're to be rearmed (something most people would want, as oneshot fighters aren't efficient in the long run) that means the armament has be simple, yet be able to be reloaded. In short: If "droids" are used then the risk of the command center being targeted means you still have to worry about maintaining and protecting valuable ships, and if manned vessels are used you want to make sure that the vessels aren't just flying coffins. However I think a "swarm" smaller manned fighter ships with a central command hub/refueling station/carrier is more cost effective than larger ships with more firepower, since the less overall losses are incurred when one small fighter is destroyed vs a larger vessel. Where the larger vessels come into play are destroying other larger vessels like the refueling station/ central command hub/ carrier, severely reducing the longevity of the fighters.

I call it the falcon, since I made it to be the all around fighter while the other two are supposed to utilized in more specialized roles. I also think it looks more like the YF-23 than the F-22. I like how the biggest one [The Night Hawk] looks. I mean look at this

I would try to get your fuel tanks on or near the exact CoM, so that when the fuel drains you don't need to worry too much about CoM changing. You should also avoid having your CoT ahead of your CoM, as that also leads to instabilities (talking about your SABREs), also adding more air intakes turn your vessel into an air hog that can get to near orbital flights on jet engines alone.

I would build a central command hub that would be akin to a Supper Carrier/ Refueling Vessel, that would be a forward base, but removed far enough from combat, and be protected by a battlegroup, so that direct attacks from anything less than another carrier battlegroup would be futile. What I would then focus on are smaller "assault" type carriers that aren't as big, or carry as much as the Spirit of Kerbin, but you can deploy more, they have more offensive armaments than just fighters, and a major part of your fleet isn't lost if you lose one.

My SSTOs do have small docking ports, 4 on the heavier class, and 2 on the smallest one. I still just consider them fighters, because they don't have room for bigger bombs. However I can see them not being anything smaller than medium fighters. As many vessels have their own roles, I would assume your interceptor is meant to reach target coordinates fast and fully armed, whereas these are more of a reconnaissance force more than anything. They each have around 4-4.5 km/s delta v, but their nuclear engines only give slightly above .5 TWR, they can use their radial engines as "afterburners" that put their TWR ~1.1 at the cost of severely reduced delta v, but combat is combat. I also didn't put ordinance on my SSTOs because the more effective torpedoes I made started to weigh too much to carry from the runway. Also I thought that it takes like half an hour real time, so a quick interception where speed is important, and there is no time to arm the vessel in orbit would be pointless if it takes that long to reach orbit. This is why I equipped my vessels with nuclear engines, so they could have the delta v after LKO refueling to potentially go to Duna/Laythe, and have more than enough delta v to perform reconnaissance missions.