inigma

Oh please oh please. SSI could use this.

Great job! I was meaning to send you a PM to see if you'd like to submit this as a prototype candidate for our Shuttlecraft Type VII series in the Shuttlecraft Systems Inc general catalog. But you already posted there that you would! Thanks! See my response in our SSI thread.

Awesome craft. Care to join a building coop to expand upon your ideas? Check out Shuttlecraft Systems in my sig below. In the meantime, I tried dissecting your craft, and realized you have the clamp o tron as the root item? How did you manage that? Is there a computer core hiding in there that I'm not finding?

The TAC Fuel Balancer mod did it. Thanks!

Is there an easy way to dump fuel at the runway? I am designing a stock SSTO and need to balance its empty weight, but emptying the darn thing by flying it takes forever. Is there a faster method to dumping fuel?

I wanted to post in General Discussion about the feasibility of such little spacecraft, and I know not very many people here check out the Rocket Builders forum, so I thought I'd post a plug here to see if we could get some feedback: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/41898-New-Startup-Idea-STOCK-Shuttlecraft-Systems-Incorporated-Waiting-for-Your-Input! We've been trying to get this thing into orbit in .21. It's the SSI Shuttlecraft Type 1 Protoype 2.1. Has anyone else designed such craft before? Do you have a shuttlecraft-like sport spaceplane you've developed that might look similar? If so, are you interested in helping out or submitting new ideas for this project? We'd love your feedback, and any comments of those who might be able to lend a hand with testing, or providing support.

Fixed the naming schemes. Also if you're interested in joining SSI as an engineer, or test pilot, or in submitting a craft for SSI certification and inclusion in our to-be-published General Catalog, please let us know here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/41898-New-Startup-Idea-STOCK-Shuttlecraft-Systems-Incorporated-Waiting-for-Your-Input!

Time to create a save file just for testing designs!

I created a startup to help fund these kinds of ideas. Let me know if you're interested in designing, tweaking, and testing: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/41898-New-Startup-Idea-STOCK-Shuttlecraft-Systems-Incorporated-Waiting-for-Your-Input!?p=539439#post539439

Updated OP with further development, now the Mk IIa which can get into 80km orbit without using any RCS. Can anyone help me find the best flight profile for this thing?

i updated op to say SSTO spaceplane.

Its all in the http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Cheat_Sheet

The Mark II flies up to 22km between 45 and 33 degrees with the jet engine all the way, gaining speed to 1000km/s, even down to 0.01 intake. I then burn at 45 degrees decreasing down angle as the 909s take me to 80km suborbital. They run dry. I then use the RCS to get orbital. Once circularized near 80km, I have enough RCS fuel to change orbits, rendezvous, and dock with a target (I think) at 100km-120km - I just haven't done it yet, hence why its still in development (my station is at 140km with no way to burn lower easily). I haven't tested docking yet but I need to in order to refuel at the station and call this design a success, else I have to burn my RCS to get home. My one and only success was with four RCS tanks. I tried adding another set of 2 tanks, and that's where things go nuts with the balancing. Argh. I want to get orbital with fuel alone, not RCS. Hence my question in the HOWTO on the best ascent profile for a small SSTO.

My SSTO gets to 22km without flaming out, and can climb to 90 degrees from runway easily. I just wonder at which point or angle do I ignite my space engines - do i just treat the plane like a rocket at that point?

Man, designing this thing is hard. I'm trying to find the right ascent profile as currently the Mk II.5 is just unable to get into orbit. I've tried different engine configurations. Maybe it has to do with all the weight this little ship carries. Argh. Anyone have an idea on the best SSTO ascent profile for such a ship above?

I just can't figure it out. What is the optimal ascent profile for a standard small SSTO spaceplane?

Ok it lands ok. A tough little ship. I created this SSTO because I couldnt find a compact SSTO on the exchange. I designed this to be small and compact, as if it were your own personal shuttlecraft. Its a joy to fly and highly maneuverable.

Our very first SSTO, and it's being developed with .21 in mind: Several itenerations of the Shuttlecraft Type I Prototypes have made it into 80k and 100k orbits with the ability to return safely. Currently I'm working on the only tried and true method of return: parachutes. Small craft with small wings don't land on their gears well. Neither do the parachutes treat the craft well until you can get below 60km/s, and this requires fuel for the landing which isn't possible yet. The idea of the craft is to bring a man up or return a man from a space station or other spacecraft orbiting between 80km-120km, with the station refueling the shuttlecraft. If I can design the landing better, the craft should allow a fully fueled starting descent from orbit with enough fuel to get back into orbit - a true Star Trek esque shuttlecraft. It also sports a computer core so it can pick up stranded Kerbals from the surface below and bring them either up into orbit and rendezvous, or back to the KSC. Below are images of the Shuttlecraft Type I Prototype Mk 2 as it goes through several stages of development. Let me know what you think, or if you have any suggestions. The goal is to avoid unrealistic part clipping too. In case you're wondering, the Mk. 1 is just that - a shuttle with no docking port or RCS and is meant to EVA your Kerbal to its target or return him on a manned landing (not possible without chutes yet). The Mk. 2 carries a docking port and RCS. It flies very well, very fast. My goal is to complete development on this before .21 since if I can make it work without the new SAS (and it does so now very well), then it will shine very very very very well with the new SAS - it might even be possible to land the thing without chutes. UPDATE: Ok here is the Type I Prototype Mk 2a Craft file: http://www./download/avlyu1dvscoaq0c/Shuttlecraft_Mk_IIa.craft Fly it up at 80 degrees until near flameout at 17km, then ignite the aerospike and burn into 80km orbit. You should have practically no fuel left, but lots of RCS. Still under development though. If you can help me find the best flight profile, let me know! Right now it's an atmosphere-escape class shuttle, with the intention that the jets are only meant to get you out of the atmosphere as fast as possible.

Kylab from the Wiki Campaign: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Campaign:_Kerbals_in_Space

2am here in when I did this. heh i relate.

updated. its nice to see a list of what all categories of stuff people can make in this game for a space program.

updated op. any other categories of vehicles?

EVAing the Kerbals... now why didn't I think of that?

About to dock with my first station... perfect intercept, perfect everything, 100 meters from the docking port, went to align the vertical approach.... and accidentally hit the spacebar, instead of thrusters... and my orbiter exploded into a dozen pieces as the clipped parts torqued away as my separator ripped the helpless and unpowered command module with three Kerbals inside into an uncontrolled spin amid a cloud of debris headed for the station. So I took the station to chase after the floating command module figuring I could dock with it, only to realize I would eat up all remaining station RCS doing so if I even got lucky. I figured I could launch a rescue mission, so I gave up, hit reload to try again (contrary to the rules on the wiki for the wiki Campaigns) and tried again. My second attempt I docked, but then I wanted to fix my station's altitude since my chase from the previous episode left it in an elliptical. I wanted 140km circularized. So I circularized it. Then I must have left the darn engine running (the low rumble should have been a clue). I turned off the engine and checked my periap which was on the otherside of Kerbin from my view point. I thought I read 140km. Whew close call. No need to worry. I left my two Kerbals on board, and returned one Kerbal home. And on the way home I was wondering why the station was at a lower altitude from my returning spacecraft... so I toggled back to the station and checked the altitude 40km!!. It was burnin' in the darned atmosphere! *Smack Head Here* the station left said atmosphere but next time around, I knew the station would die. There was no hope of a rescue... so I figured I'd just quit the game for the evening and come back to it when I have a plan. Only I hit end mission. Realizing my mistake I went to the Tracking Station. All that remained of my escapade was the debris from my ripped up Command Module. argh. Not sure if I'd count that as losing a Kerbal yet in my ribbons, as I am sure I could have mounted a successful rescue mission, but instead I lost my save with nothing to show for it except debris.

I am using Subassembly, and I created a few lifters. Oh the joy of not having to rebuild lifters. It got me thinking: what if a space program was designed to be completely modular - using the same modules and parts to accomplish bigger and better things? But that got me thinking further: What all do I need to design for a modular space program? So far I've got: Lifters (5ton, 10ton, 20ton, 50ton, 100ton, 200ton, 500ton, 1000ton) Orbiters (1 man, 2 man, 3 man, 4 man, 5 man, 7 man) Landers (airless, air, water, high g) Station Cores Interplanetary Probes SSTO Shuttlecraft Interplanetary Drive Cores Satellites Refuellers Emergency rescue craft Tugs Planet surface modules: - Habitat - Communications - Fuel/RCS storage - Science - Electric generator - Battery/Electric storage MODS: Mapsats Kethane Sats Planet surface modules: - Mining - Kethane refinery ... essentially I need a list of categories so I know what needs designing.