TeeGee

WHOA Looks like the shuttle from mass effect! - - - Updated - - - Whoa looks like the shuttle from mass effect!

I have some advice, maybe make the Kerbodyne KR-2L Advanced Engine ignite twice since it is mostly an interstage engine for the larger fuel tanks. That's the only rationale I can think of for this.

But I thought that as long as fuel pumps into the combustion chamber with hypergolic propellant, they will always ignite because they react on contact. If that's true, then that means hypergolic fuels don't need ignitors... right? If so, then that means when I use hypergolics, I should be able to ignite my engines as long as I have fuel. This means that I don't need ignitors anymore, but that's not what I am seeing for real fuels/stockalike/engine ignitor.

Landing dust.

I part clip my ram intakes.

older version: I'm very proud of this craft. FAR, DR, engine ignitor, stockalike rf, real fuels, TAC life support etc. The main engine ignites (kerolox) only once, brings craft up to ~ 1700m/s, oms engines (mnh/n2o2) circularize. Remaining fuels dump in orbit before reentry. Has 7 days worth of life support. Takes very large number of kerbals and supplies up into orbit. I'm planning on using her for rotation of crew and supplies when (if) I get my space station built. Reentry is a blast thanks to FAR. I retroburn then use aerobraking to glide back to ksc without ANY fuel (just like the space shuttle).

Can this plugin work on craft/stations already in orbit? Or is this only something we can apply in the VAB/SPH?

No. Aliens don't exist until they do. It's not a good idea to accept that aliens are real due to the fact the universe is so massive and old. We don't even know how life on THIS planet started, so how can we generalize that instance to every other planet in the universe? That's point number 1. Point number 2: To believe in aliens requires the experience of said beings in an objective situation. In other words, I'll need to have seen them, touched them, heard them, etc. with multiple other humans next to me. The basic quality of corporeal life forms is that they can be objectively confirmed by multiple parties to actually exist. IF someone claims aliens are NON corporeal entities, then yeah I'd admit it is absolutely possible they exist but I cannot confirm objectively they are real or not. Until I see one with a group of people next to me to confirm what I am seeing or they happen to land on earth and allow themselves to be studied by us, I won't believe in them. Regardless of whatever Stephen Hawking or whomever phd says. Point 3: If alien life (microbial or multicellular) exists out there in the vast universe, chances are we will NEVER run into each other in our species lifetime. That's like trying to find an electron in the universe, it's not going to happen no matter how hard we look. We'd have either become extinct due to some global cataclysm or died off from our sun evolving into a red giant. Our species days are numbered, we will not be around to see the end of our stars life much less evolve to a degree that allows us to travel the distances required to reach other stars. It isn't within our species limited intelligence to master spaceflight to the degree required for off world colonization. We are too focused on money and cost and too narrow minded/stupid to invent interstellar engines that are capable of getting people from our solar system into another within a humans lifetime. The human brain is very limited and dated computer. Yes it is the most powerful computer we are aware of, but in terms of limitations, it can never understand the universe, not completely.

Well I think that if we open up space monetarily, our orbits will be gunked up with a LOT of space crap. Orbits will be rented to companies. I forsee that something like Planetes (anime) might become a reality.

How about hypergolic fuels? I noteced using real fuels and the like that engine ignition is still dependent on the engine and not on the fuel type. Is there a mod or script that accounts for this with regards to engine ignition?

I'm beginning to think that ssto's, while technically possible, are not worth the engineering effort. They can't lift very much payload, are extremely complex, and relatively inefficient lifters. I also worry about WHEN we develop SSTO's like the skylon, we'd make space more accessible to private companies who otherwise wouldn't be able to pay to put things into orbit like a satellite. The easier the access to space, the cheaper launches will be and the more junk will be floating around in orbit up there. I think SSTO's should only be used to ferry people into space like commercial jet liners. Tickets to get into space would be cheaper and we wouldn't be putting something up in orbit on a permanent basis to gunk up our orbital lanes.

Same citation as the lower quote Nathan. Yeah I know this is a game but I'm learning the basics of rocket science through a form of entertainment. Kerbal truly is a very special videogame.

While kerosene tanks can be 1% of the weight of their contents, hydrogen tanks often must weigh 10% of their contents. This is because of both the low density and the additional insulation required to minimize boiloff (a problem which does not occur with kerosene and many other fuels). The low density of hydrogen further affects the design of the rest of the vehicle  pumps and pipework need to be much larger in order to pump the fuel to the engine. The end result is the thrust/weight ratio of hydrogen-fueled engines is 30–50% lower than comparable engines using denser fuels. ME: I can't believe I figured this out in a VIDEOGAME! - - - Updated - - - While single-stage rockets were once thought to be beyond reach, advances in materials technology and construction techniques have shown them to be possible. For example, calculations show that the Titan II first stage, launched on its own, would have a 25-to-1 ratio of fuel to vehicle hardware.[8] It has a sufficiently efficient engine to achieve orbit, but without carrying much payload.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit#Examples

I love this analogy!

Jeez guys, SSTO = Single stage = NO STAGING. When I say ssto that cuts back on cost, I mean a reusable craft that returns after achieving orbit in 1 stage. What is the point of an ssto that makes it into orbit with a small payload and can't return? That's just silly. Payload fraction is payload fraction.

Hl iva is awesome!!

GORGEOUS! Which space shuttle mod are you using?

These are all fantastic comments, I'm learning a lot. I guess the point of the skylon sabre engine is to cut out the initial delta v from standing to mach 5 at a thinner atmosphere than at SL before switching to rockets, but even so, the payload fraction in comparison to weight is super small. Rockets will ALWAYS have a better payload weight than sstos BUT rockets are disposable, sstos are not. If we were to build a station in space using smaller modules, I think it would be more cost effective to use an ssto to build it bit by bit rather than use 1 large rocket to push a larger payload up all at once. All we have to worry about is fuel cost and maintenance. But that's besides the point. The issue with airbreathers is that they are altitude and speed limited. Assuming the sabre engines perform as they should, that will be amazing achievment for merely an airbreathing engine to do. As far as I know, only rocket technology has been able to break the mach 3 barrier, unlike the much slower airbreathing engines. And the more complex we build these airbreathers to go faster, the heavier they become. So I thought to cut out the airbreather altogether and use heavy lift rockets with great ISP at SL. IF I/you/we can build an ssto using pure rocket technology in RSS and show you guys it can be done, maybe we can settle this idea. If anybody has done so already please post your craft!

Kerolox would allow engineers to build a smaller spacecraft. Look how massive the skylon will be just to put up 33 tons. All of that extra volume is used to house liquid hydrogen. ANYWAYS, how can the venture star be the only attempt at building an ssto? Here is a stupid system I used in my heavy payload ssto rocket launches: 1) for heavy payloads I attach SRB's to the spaceplane and launch it without activating the 1 time ignition liquid rocket 2) wait until I hit the max apoapsis with the srbs then jettison them, ignite the liquid and continue up. That buys me a lot of delta V I know that's not an ssto anymore, but I've been able to get payloads up into LKO with just rocket on winged aircraft using ferram aerodynamics and real fuels etc. After I did this my mind started wondering why this wasn't done before. All of this designing came from my successful building of a space shuttle with a similar design. It was such a pain in the butt however I finally created a functioning shuttle. She had TONS of delta v after reaching 200 km apoapsis and thought that I could prob match that orbit with a single stage craft, and I did so. Most of this spacecraft is payload bay and kerolox fuel. The last 2 tanks are hypergolics for the oms. I dunno, maybe I should give RSS another go.

Uhh yeah I know that. I was making the point that shuttle OMS circularized with less than 300 m/s delta v in its tanks.

Using real fuels, stock alike engines, engine ignitor, FAR, B9 parts (deleted all engines), AJE and DR. ONLY STOCK ENGINES. Yes that is an empty cargo bay.

How did the OMS engines get the shuttle anywhere? It had a deltav of 300 m/s/.

Right but I'm not saying to build a small SSTO, obviously it would be huge but if we use kerolox fuel on a high ISP high thrust engine it should be possible.

Hi everyone. Question: Why don't engineers design a purely rocket ssto? Step 1) Use an engine with excellent thrust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-171#RD-171) Step 2) Attach kerolox fuel (highest thrust to volume fuel) Step 3) Add wings and a cargo bay Step 4) Launch like a rocket Step 5) Land like a glider I've done it with KSP using RF, Stockalike, FAR, engine ignitor (with 1 ignition on my main engine), B9 parts, DR and stock engines. That way we can get heavy cargo into space without sacrificing thrust. I know I am not an aerospace engineer but I was wondering what the technical limitations of doing what I am proposing has. Anybody can comment, I welcome any and all opinions.

Yeah I noticed the same thing but how I corrected it was to use circular intakes for the jet engine and the ram or airscoops for the turbojet. That fixed it for me.