Slugy

That is both very impressive, and a nice looking design! As a single stage can only barely ascend from Eve (and SSTA descriptions generally exclude Eve ascent altogether) I think you can be justified in calling it a fully recoverable SSTA, with a note on the split for Eve. The Val->Tylo trip was when I was really surprised, and realised just how much dV you had, is it around 6k on the Rhinos only? p.s. Many quicksaves used for that Eve ascent/docking?

Post some detailed specs of the laptop, or people are left guessing. 4Gb of RAM is plenty to run KSP on any OS, unless you go mad with mods, so don't even think of trying to upgrade RAM yet.

[quote name='tewpie']If by "human hands" you mean hands assisted with SAS and "hands on" autopilot ala smart a.s.s., then it is very possible to fly this plane, even achieve orbit with the same payload fraction if you time everything right. If you mean naked controls, then no, probably not, but then neither are a lot of other entries and also real world spacecraft ;)[/QUOTE] I was thinking with just stock SAS and controls - but that is just my personal bias showing :) It's an excellent result, with some interesting techniques. The note about HOTOL suffering from CoP/CoM difficulties had passed me by - explains SKYLON's engine placement ...

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Thanks for updating, this one is compliant and I've added it to the leaderboard. I calculated your fraction using KER's kg-accurate numbers, brought it up to 31.37%. :) The most objectionable clipping in this vessel to me is the LV-N into the LF tank, but it seems to be more of an aesthetic choice rather than an exploitative one so I'm allowing it. Clipping of structural parts I don't mind at all. The tri-adapter offset is also acceptable to me. The front node of the adapter is still on the back of the Mk3 adapter, a better aero model would treat the same thing done with radial attachment points the same as this is treated. I think of tewpie's entry as stretching the rules to their limit in search of better fractions, which is kinda what this challenge is about. :)[/QUOTE] The rear node offset is cunning, and opens some interesting possibilities. The clipping of the LV-N is the one that I'd be most tempted by for aesthetics, they look silly hanging off space planes. The clipping of most of the Rapiers into LF tanks seemed dodgy (it is very back heavy even with all the forward clipping) - time for a rule update?

[quote name='Val']Thank you :D I'm not sure I want bigger wings. A single pair of shuttle wings are comfortably enough for crafts up to 100 t take-off weight, and 150 t as long as you don't plan to land with cargo or lots of fuel left. At least for configurations were you have take-off weight at no more than 22 t per RAPIER. But I would like a set of larger, thicker modular wing panels, so we can build larger wings. It's always bothered me that the shuttle wings don't look so good when combined with other wings or just trying to use multiple pairs. I haven't tried. Haven't needed to, with the parts I use.[/QUOTE] We have different approaches to winged craft :) The current wings are ok for a shuttle type craft (chunky glider), or a Skylon style craft (high TWR), but they are undersized for a large plane imho, and building up large wings, and tweaking angles is both fiddly and ugly. By way of comparison a 100t craft with 4 rapiers and 2 big S wings will only just scrape into the air at the end of the runway (with luck and hard elevator use) - that is roughly similar to Concorde take off speed, runway length, and TWR (at the low speed). More engines helps - but the TWR is very high for an aircraft then. A longer runway would help too. Bigger wings, and bigger modular panels would both be welcome, assuming procedural parts are never going to be introduced to stock. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='tewpie'] Takeoff Mass: 274.17t Payload Mass: 153.00t Payload Fraction: [B]55.80%[/B] Some highlights: - Single LV-N and 11x RAPIERs. - Uses only 2 shock cone intakes, they are a bit OP. - Uses the new mk3 engine mounting plate and tri-adapters for significant drag reduction (see the triforce in the back?). - (Unclipped) Rapierspikes for further drag reduction. Restricted gimbals to avoid damage. - Minor clipping and offsetting for wet/dry CoM balance. - Uses shielded docking port and cargo bay doors as pseudo airbrakes during landing. - Flight is almost completely automated via kOS. Only manual portion is jettisoning the cargo (and only because I needed time to take screenshots).[/QUOTE] A great fraction, but it does have quite a lot of clipping of tanks, engines, and adaptors at the back: Isn't this against the rules? I'm also curious as to how offsetting the tri adapters is regarded - it's clever but doesn't that fool the aero model into treating them all as attached to the bottom nodes? The automated flight is very cool too, but it would be nice if it was flyable by human hands.

[quote name='Val']New entry without Rapier-spikes and including recovery. GTOW = 320.55 t Payload = 171.00 t Payload Fraction = [B]53.35 % [/B][/QUOTE] That's an impressive payload for a recoverable! The ascent video was interesting to watch - lots of engines, very high speed low, and careful heat management looks like a good plan. I had a quick play with old designs last night: looks like those 1200 C limit plane wings will no longer be very useful (bigger SSTO wings pls Squad). Are radiators any use in combating the friction heating?

The root part oddness is interesting - at least it sounds like an easy to fix bug. Drag does seem lower all round than 1.02, but that might just be getting used to it. For placing things in cargo bay Editor Extensions is really handy - you can easily toggle surface attachment with 'T' - not having it installed was why there was a stack separator rather than a docking port in the cargo bay.

Here's something simple. Two stages, Mammoth and Skipper, 284.74t on the pad, 67.28t delivered to orbit, for 23.63% Lacks pics of early part of ascent (then I realised it was going well) which is pretty shallow, pretty much forcing turn as much as I could risk from ~60 degrees at 9km iirc, to get near orbital prograde low and quick while getting time to apoapsis far enough away to give the Skipper time to run. Should probably have had a better name than "1" ... fraction_23 perhaps, although it did take a few less than that to get ascent right

Good spot, if only there had been a beta period for KSP to iron out these things ... Are those drag numbers from a setting in the debug menu? The Mk3 cargo plane I made certainly had less drag than I expected - but I put it down to the fixes for the excessive drag in 1.02 - so it seems quite likely that this bug was in effect. It might also explain why finding an ascent profile was hard, although that could just be me I wonder if there is any similar effect with other parts. FWIW it was a completely fresh unzip with Engineer as the only mod. Time to play with rockets not planes for a bit me thinks.

Really nice, amazing speed in the atmosphere. I was just building a similar sort of thing - but mine wasn't going to break 50% ...

Cheers, one of the biggest problems was actually getting enough speed to take off (really needed all the runway, and a bit more), even the 5 rapiers are enough for the main atmospheric part of the ascent, although a bit underpowered once in rocket mode. Also tried one turbojet on the back, but that really lacked once the air ran out. I'm pretty sure that it could have a slightly better payload fraction with a little more cargo and a better ascent. More wings seems to be a viable approach - how things change!

Well this is better than was managed in 1.02, with a payload fraction of over 41%: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116729-Stock-Payload-Fraction-Challenge-1-0-4-Edition?p=2039664&viewfull=1#post2039664 After you eat your helmet (ahem ....) try more wings again - they seem a lot less draggy, as do many things, and build speed lower if you need to - 4 rapiers should push 47t very easily.

Now that Mk3 parts are not so buggy I have a minimal Mk3 based SSTO cargo hauler. Still not worked out the most efficient ascent, the one shown was ok, but probably not optimal. 123.13t out the hangar (a bit less by the time the brakes come off) and 50.65t delivered to LKO for 41.15%, with a little fuel left over. In the pics below KER is badly confused - both on how many engines actually have fuel and how much dV there actually is (compare the circularization burn numbers, it was most confusing while I was testing it ...) I was surprised to find that there was never any danger of overheating the wings!

I bet you'll be getting a lot more out of that Longsword once you've tweaked it - the drag fixes (especially to the Mk3 cargo bay) should really help.

I'd generally agree that you should be able to play a game without outside reference - but to get the most out of many games outside references/tools are the norm for more complex ones. Think of character builds and strategies for MMOs. I've not played the tutorials, I did assume they covered the basics now. A basic dV readout in the hangar should exist I think, and perhaps some sort of intercept planner in map/tracking station.

It does make folks go and look up/learn about those things - which is pretty good going. And many will at least get some idea of why you need stages (although less so now ...) and that you don't get to orbit by going straight up without looking anything up.

Well thought out argument, with a clear explanation of your position: well done.

On average you could say that, but how far would you have to look to find a kid who was better than you at, for instance, chess, or a 2nd language, or CoD, or writing a poem, or gymnastics, or acting, or for that matter, KSP? And that leaves out the rather obvious one of learning and remembering new things ... So "Broader audience by making it child-easy?" - yes, that is a patronising, and stupid, statement, that's why I commented. IMO it used to be more easy and more easily accessible: the more forgiving pre 1.0 aero model made silly shaped rockets and rapid atmospheric turns common. Lower dV to orbit is not the only thing to consider. There is a difference between making something that is easily accessible, and something that is easy - KSP is a good example of the former, and it can be as easy or as hard as you make it. An educational and absorbing game that can appeal to a bright 10 year old, and a 60 year old is a fine thing. I'd have loved it at 10, shame it was decades too late.

The main thing is that you have learnt how to build a better rocket since those days. Try it in .90 (or whatever version you first started with) - you will find it easy now. "Broader audience by making it child-easy?" - it is meant to be a game accessible to children, and that is a pretty patronising sort of statement. The lowered dV to get to orbit certainly helps, but it also makes getting the turn (and shape of rocket) right more important - not a terrible balance, although the size of rocket required to get to orbit has always been rather small imho.

I can provide no maths, but while a steady max thrust burn at (or very near) prograde will be most efficient for a rocket that needs that time to build speed, burning below prograde (and even as low as below 0 degrees) can be the best option with vehicles that have excess thrust (which most do in KSP). It really does depend on the thing you are flying.

Thanks, a good point, and one that should generally be followed. But I did do (almost) that that with the first build, and swapped because of - yaw! The problem is that it tends to want to yaw/roll when any control input is supplied - it's manageable, but annoying. It's also something that can affect rockets, even if gently flown. I'm certain that the build is absolutely symmetric, and swapped to the tail piece because I was suspicious that lift was getting applied to one side preferentially when using the small bits used in the canards. Also tried reattaching/rotating things to no avail. Then I started a new game and copied the plane over - tendency swapped direction! So I will blame Squad/Unity for this one. It will probably go differently next time I load it ...

Cheers, I was genuinely surprised when I did the numbers: after the first test flights I was pretty sure it would be quite good Two things I forgot to mention: it was quite easy to get the engine thrust so high (>550 each) that they would overheat very quickly. That's not a problem I've had before. Also that building speed and thrust whilst dipping as low as 7km can work, although that's not how I flew this one (see first point ...) EDIT: Also wing and canard angle is really important. And EDIT 2: Nice job testing the Rapier - I know this plane gets to ~1400 ground speed.

I feel the price is too high. Not because it isn't worth it, but because it is way over the impulse purchase level for many (certainly is for me). It might make the inevitable summer sales figures impressive though. In the end only Squad know how sales have gone since release.

I've been playing with space planes today, and have a Skylon inspired one I'm pretty pleased with (apart from the random yaw, probably induced by engines on the end of wings and KSP physics). For this run it's carrying ore into space and is not fully fuelled, 35288 Kg at launch, 14000 Kg of which is cargo (or 14100 Kg if we count the struts as KSP seems to be doing): giving 39.75% (or 39.96%) payload fraction. Most of the run is done with only the nose intake and the inline ones open, the shock intakes on the engines are opened briefly at high alt, if temperature allows: It gets quite warm Engineer gets quite confused about how much fuel is there too. - - - Updated - - - I do like the style of the longsword - it looks like a proper cargo plane

Tend to agree with this, they really shouldn't be the most efficient vertical lifters. Although as many are attached to cargo carrying ssto planes I can't imagine them getting much of a nerf.