Search the Community

I built a small and simple spaceplane. Flies like a breeze, and it functions as a proper SSTO. I parked it in a circular orbit at an altitude of 100 km. I did a de-orbit burn and then things started to go south. In short, I burned like a crisp. The question, how should I de-orbit to avoid this? My mk1 cockpit exploded due to overheating at 35 km (speed= 2070 km/h).

Hello! I spent some time making an SSTO VTOL with some mods and made a music video of it rescuing a capsule from Laythe. This is part 3 of the Laythe trilogy but it can be viewed separately. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4wzOJlYOok

You ever wonder, "Gee, why don't we have SSTO's IRL?" Well, here's my challenge to you. Install RSS, and any other mods you choose. (No cheaty ones) Make an SSTO. Fly said SSTO. Post pics or video here. Best of luck, the best submission will get featured on my YouTube channel.

I finally managed to get 100 ton to orbit using an SSTO. As you can see I only used rocket engines making it so much easier to "fly". Download

If you aren't familiar with the Chrysler SERV concept, check it out. Quite possibly the most innovative of the proposed Shuttle concepts, though it was never seriously considered. The military need for crossrange maneuvering during abort-once-around polar orbit launches, coupled with a lack of reliably restartable rocket engines, led to them adding dozens of jet engines to the design...which really doomed it. But with the air augmentation of a ducted rocket design, inner side-mounted deeply throttleable linear engines, and an overall ballistic re-entry profile, this could be promising. The crew-carrying variant would be mated at the top to a Dragon V2 capsule, while the cargo variant would hold an internal payload ducting would allow for weight-free afterburn injection to increase launch thrust for larger payloads with an extended upper fairing: The ducts at the top would allow maximum airflow and thrust augmentation without adding significant drag: The lower base would have a passive heat shield, dissipating heat both around the body and up through the heat-resistant ducting. The linear engines are positioned in such a way as to make maximal use of the atmosphere, from aerospike effect and thrust augmentation all the way up into vacuum operation, without needing to use any moveable flaps or panels: Downstream injectors (not shown) allow for added thrust at takeoff, using a denser fuel (yes, I favor hydrazine) to combust with the existing exhaust stream and the airflow. This would be used when the extended fairing holds a heavier payload and requires additional thrust. Although this requires a greater weight of fuel, thrust augmentation would be significant enough to increase the T/W overall and keep the total dV constant. Due to the possibility of afterburn-style thrust augmentation, this vehicle can have its thrust increased dramatically at the cost of reduced delta-v, making it a fantastic super-heavy lift first stage. After reaching orbit and ejecting payload, re-entry would take place using the base heat shield, landing on a hover at the launch pad with the throttleable main engines. In no case would re-entry be manned, as the capsule would re-enter separately. Since orbit would be achieved on virtually all missions (with the exception of super-heavy lift scenarios as noted above), this wouldn't have the SpaceX downrange problem or need to land on a barge; it could just abort once around and come back to the launch pad every time.

I know this question has been asked time and again, but I have dug deep and yet to find a clear cut answer to the question: Are pre-coolers capped with an aerodynamic nose (advanced nose or tail connector) less draggy than the same amount of shock cones per intake area? That seems to be the two greatest issues is intake area vs drag on any high speed vehicle. Testing the same vehicle with the same weight, does intake area even count towards drag on the pre-coolers that are streamlined? I guess what I'm asking is how the heck drag is calculated, especially if you can't directly tell from the debug part menu? This is the single most difficult issue preventing an SSTO to the outer planets is the drag on Kerbin.

Grace. I didn't set out to create this craft. I was working on a thrust pod for a mega lifter, but one of the wing configurations I came up with in the process quickly evolved into something more. When all was said and done, I was quite smitten with the looks and gave it the first name that came to mind. While not groundbreaking in its capabilities, the Grace lives up to its name in more than just asthetics. At just 58 parts, it's easy on the CPU. Despite that, it can achieve a 100 x 100 with plenty of fuel to spare. The RCS is also carefully balanced for minimal torque when translating, and CoM and DCoM lie very close together. It can easily adapt to other capabilities as well - the shown configuration is just a reference; the docking port, cargo bay and crew cabin can easily be swapped out with other modules as you like. The only thing that needs to be done in that case is strutting the forward fuel tank to the fuselage. It's quite a forgiving flyer, though you do have to be careful of tailstrikes. It can hold about a 10 degree AoA on re-entry, so you'll want a long, slow re-entry. Incidentally, the trick I used to achieve the smooth lines of the rear nuclear engine are outlined here: Overall, this turned out to be one of my neatest builds. Heck, it's even the Mk1b - just the second revision of the design! That never happens to me. Craft is available on KerbalX, if you're interested. I hope you enjoy flying this plane as much as I enjoyed making it.

I made a very simple SSTO. Wings, fuel tank(with some LQ fuel emptied), air intake in the front, and the RAPIER engine. So I take off and start maneuvering my SSTO into a 70 degree approach. All of a sudden, my SSTO starts to loose speed. I check the air resistance, and its pretty normal. I tried everything! Other engines other wings. Nothing works! I'm getting frustrated

Its big and pointy!

Been a while since I posted an SSTO, so I thought I'd share my latest design; the Wildfire Small Crew Transport. It may be tough to see, but the Wildfire has a Mk1 Crew Cabin between the main tanks and is capable of carrying three Kerbals to a 120K orbiting space station (just not with a great view ), and return. My goal was to see how small I could make an SSTO that could transport at least three crew members to orbit, doc with a station, and make it back to Kerbin. Please let me know what you think. Thanks for the look! Edit: Here's the .craft file for those interested. Wildfire.craft If you fly it, here's a few tips: Pitch for 30 degrees on takeoff and hold it there at full throttle all the way up. That's pretty much it for reaching orbit. Group 1 switches engine modes, but it's easier just to let them auto switch. At this point your Apoapsis should be around 67k. It becomes a bit nose heavy after all fuel is exhausted. With empty tanks it is still controllable, but requires a lot of lead time to get the pitch angle up for landing. Best to keep a bit of fuel in the rearmost center tank. If docking at a refueling station, I'd top off enough to make sure that that tank has fuel during landing just to make things easy. Comments and concerns always welcome! Have fun.

I'm in career mode, recently unlocked the Panther. If I make a twin-engine plane, how do I toggle the afterburners simultaneously? In sandbox I just make an action group, but I haven't unlocked that yet. Is there a key combo to toggle the afterburners?

Well, almost a Jool-5. A 4 1/2. Stupid Tylo.

This was one of the better contracts that's popped in my Career game. Take a single ship to Duna, Ike, Minmus and the Mun, land everywhere and return. So I made a stock SSTO

Leapfish Mk II .craft file Yes, it has many problems. Most of those are deliberate design chocies my engineers are quite proud of. It definately won't be the most graceful SSTO you ever flown. But one of it's silly properties isn't a planned feature: when I fire the rocket engine it veers slightly to the right. I didn't notice the plane doing it in jet-mode. It isn't a huge problem, as it can be corrected mid-flight, but it's an annoying thing I'd prefer to fix before we start mass production. I have taken the plane apart a few times, reatached everything with angle-snap, but I couldn't fix this phenomena, nor I could find the problem. Care to take a look? Attaching a picture too:

First post here; joined to discuss rocket designs, SSTO, and reusability. Air-augmented rockets (also known as ejector jets or ducted rockets) are a sort of cross between turbofan jet engines, ramjets, and pure rockets. Ramjets depend on a ram-compressed flow of atmospheric air for combustion, making them useless for launch and for orbital insertion. An air-augmented rocket uses a stream of atmospheric air only as added reaction mass, greatly increasing specific impulse in a fashion similar to a turbofan bypass. They can afford to use fuels with greater energy density, because so much of the reaction mass is external. Best of all, because their core is more or less an ordinary rocket, they have no problem functioning from a standstill or in a vacuum. (For reference, there was a prior forum post on air-augmented rockets here, though it didn't go into many details.) The most efficient turbofan engines are built with extremely high bypass ratios, exceeding 10 kg of bypass air for every 1 kg of airflow through the central turbojet. Of course, the primary difference between a turbofan and an air-augmented rocket is that the power is delivered to the air mechanically in the former case, but thermally in the latter case. Air-augmented rockets have not historically been very successful. In most cases, adding a shroud around the outside of an existing rocket was a large weight cost in exchange for only a modest increase in thrust specific fuel consumption, and because they weren't optimized for using the air as reaction mass, most of the added thrust was the result of secondary combustion between the fuel-rich rocket exhaust and the atmospheric air, making them essentially very inefficient ramjets. If, however, an air-augmented rocket engine were designed in an inside-out configuration with a central bypass rather than an external bypass, you'd end up with a much simpler, more compact, potentially much more efficient design: Such a design could allow a really, really high bypass ratio, causing thrust specific fuel consumption to drop ridiculously low. The combination of really high thrust and really high specific impulse is pretty nice. I wonder whether this could be made large enough that the thrust augmentation more than overcomes additional drag. Thoughts?

So, how do you land your SSTO (space plane, with wings) in 1.0.5 (stock, no dynamics mods, no high-tech stuff) ? This is a question. I offer my answer. I very welcome YOUR answers and YOUR corrections! Its very useful to learn this, by going into sandbox mode, putting your plane in 120k Orbit, named quicksaving ([mod key]+F5) and learning to land safely. Edit: I think I found all the reasons to make descend 100% reliable and predictable. 1. Know-how Assume, the planet is Kerbin. 1.1 The number one factor is - angle/trajectory. The steeper you go down, the more heat will you absorb. The higher your speed, the better is to aim at near flat trajectory. For example, Jool with thick atmosphere will destroy any spacecraft aimed too steep. Airbraking trick via Jool to save fuel instead of retrograde burn is pretty known. As such, if your speed is more than 2100m/s in high Kerbin orbit (70k), you might consider air-braking loops around planet. a) If your angle is too steep, burn anti-radial. 1.2 The number two factor is - speed. Higher speeds at same altitude cause atmosphere to heat more and cool less. At 55k, your speed should be less than 2000 m/s. If your speed is higher than 2000m/s - you are at risk. Ways to disengage speed: a) if you have fuel, burn retrograde between 70k and 50k. b) if you have substantial surface amount (wings), position yourself as a cobra: nose pointing at angle between anti-radial and prograde, and carefully try to maintain this position as long as possible. There is some risk your plane flips, so be careful. This approach makes, basically, "AIRBREAKS" from your whole spacecraft. c) if you have nothing, the most efficient way is to position yourself normal/anti-normal, engage SAS on stability and hold rotation key (Q or E) permanently down. This is similar to cobra, but more stable - and rotation causes equal heat distribution. Parts with less than 2k Tmax may explode! 2. Methods 2.1 Blackbird - direct descend from high-orbit at high speed (pictures) Note: because of high speed, you will only stabilize at around 10k. 2.1.1 Target almost shallow trajectory to surface, preferably not mountains. Correct for about place you want to descend. 2.1.2 Plasma heat starts around at 55k. Set your course to prograde (currently - vector of descend) and lock it. If you can only stabilize - stabilize at prograde and over time carefully push down to be within prograde vector. From observation - any attempt to deviate against prograde at this altitude will result in more heating and shorter descend (more heating at lower trajectory). 2.1.3 Between 55k and 33k, any part with less Tmax than 2400 will overheat and explode. 2.1.4 Around 35k it is possible to shorten the descend by - switching autopilot to stabilize for some time, then switching back to prograde. Trying to do this manually can induce too sharp angles and cause flip, immediate overheat+explosion. 2.1.5 Around 15k, it is encouraged to do breaking maneuver as in (5) above. At this altitude atmosphere is actually capable to cool the SSTO more, than drag can heat it. 2.1.6 Stable trajectory is possible at 10k or continue descend + landing as a regular plane. Congratulations, you survived! 2.2 Shallow cobra (community contributed) Note: this method will only work, if you dropped speed below 2100m/s at 55k. Any higher, go more shallow. At certain speed limit, it does not help anymore. "I don't know about FAR but stock aero from Kerbin orbit, cobra reentry is the way to go. Set your periapse to 30 km, point the nose at the zenith and nothing gets very hot. " Outcome 1: descend from 200km Apo (stock method). My outcome - explosion. Proof: http://imgur.com/a/3TpBY Outcome 2: descend from 60km Apo (as in author image). My outcome - explosion. Proof: http://imgur.com/a/U1Cx9 Outcome 3: Additional test using more traditional (flat, with more wings) type of SSTO. My outcome - flip and explosion if nose at "zenith", yet SURVIVED if nose is between 45 and 0(variates depending on heat and stability). Proof: http://imgur.com/a/1Kpz4 The bottom line: deviations from prograde (descending vector) in 55-35km are deadly. 22km-12km - helpful. 2.3 Rotating apporoach (community contributed) Note: this method is superb, if you lack any wing area. Its very useful for orbital worker bots or re-usable rocket stages. "a reentry technique with as much chaotic movement as possible. The angle doesn't matter as your chaotic rotation will keep the heat evenly distributed and let parts cool off while they are occluded." "A demonstration with FAR, no damage due to aerodynamic stresses, craft is kept cold, works in 100% of cases with no part loss" "The actual rotation speed was about 1 rotation per 1-2 seconds. " Outcome 1: descend from 200km Apo. My outcome - explosion. Retested 4 times to be sure, same situation in the end, same outcome. Proof: http://imgur.com/a/15ffD Outcome 2: descend from 60km Apo. My outcome - SURVIVED. Retested 3 times, every time - survived. Proof: http://imgur.com/a/KcFa8 The bottom line: rotating helps a lot to distribute the heat equally.

Some background behind the craft. I put about roughly 120 hours into KSP pre-1.0 before I pretty much burned out. I'm not really a creative type of person so I mostly played along with Scott Manley, looked at ships on KerbalX, and copied a lot of designs to mess around and enjoy the game. But it really only took me so far. After I managed to send manned missions to Mun and Minmus, and an unmanned mission to Duna, I kind of lost interest. I started playing again about a week ago to see how the game was Post-1.0. I did my usual look up crafts, see what was interesting, mess with them, and become bored. After browsing around and seeing peoples blueprints of "This is my family of rockets" I decided I wanted a creation to be proud of too. I've always liked SSTO's and spaceplanes but never had the interest in really pursuing them because everyone says they aren't really viable except for shuttling to stations. I had tried making rockets many times and just grew bored of how utilitarian and ugly they turned out, so I decided to venture into the Space Plane Hangar. After many hours of finding out how CoM, CoL, wings, control surfaces, and drag worked I finally did it! I made a Mk2 based space plane capable of reaching 90km orbit with ease. The sense of accomplishment lasted some time, but eventually went away when I was struck with "What do I do with it?" From there I wanted to make a craft that would be able to get to orbit, refuel, and then go explore outside of Kerbin, but I knew fuel would be a problem. Some of the new things that I saw after coming back were the resource harvesting parts, which piqued my interest. I set out to try and create a harvesting system that would get me fuel once landed on a celestial body. I wanted this system to be integrated into the space plane I had just built and not a separate miner. After a few headaches and watching videos seeing how these parts worked, I finally made a mining assembly that would fit into the Mk2 Cargo Bay CRG-08. I haven't tested it out yet to see it's viability, but even if it doesn't work out too well I'm pretty happy that in theory at least I created something to self sustain my craft. I haven't taken it out to other planets yet to attempt to harvest and create fuel, but that's in the works! TLDR: Made my first real space plane that I'm happy with, and a conceptual way to make it self sustaining for longer term use. Thanks for letting me share!

Hello Guys! Today I wanted to show you my latest design. It's an SSTO that can transport crew or cargo across the kerbin system. It uses the famous B9 Aerospace mod. If flown properly, it reaches orbit with 2.8K Delta-V~ left, and returns home without any explosion (if you aerobrake carefully). The Crew version can carry 6 Kerbals to orbit and beyond, while the Cargo version carries two kerbals and a small payload, most likely a satellite. (MAKE YOUR OWN ION PROBE WITH A COMMAND CHAIR AND GO ANYWHERE YOU WANT!!) It also includes a docking port and RCS (Though still kinda unbalanced) ALL FOR THE PRICE OF ONE! here are the download links: Crew Version: https://www.dropbox.com/s/25ct89acol8k2jp/Jax%20CR0%20Crew.craft?dl=0 Cargo Version: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7htu60py1j55jft/Jax%20CR0%20Cargo.craft?dl=0 I forgot to mention. The name is a reference to Sons Of Anarchy.

Hi! I wanted to show you what I did today. I made an SSTO capable of reaching orbit with a lot of Delta-V. Making use of that, I plotted a Mun mission. Here are some pictures: Ascending into space: Almost there! : Yeah! : Look at those numbers!! : Preparing a free return manouver. This wasn't difficult at all since the mun's orbit has no inclination: Sweet! : See you in about 3 days! : Look at those views! (taken a little further away than the original closest approach because of time warp issues) : Second Atmosphere Entering (No photos of the first one because I was nervous as hell. I lost the front intake andtwo batteries on the first pass): Recharging the only battery left: Succesful landing!!: Mission stats: That's it!! please let me know what you think. if you so desire, I will upload the craft files. There is a crew and a cargo variant. The craft uses B9 Aerospace and Adjustable Landing Gears. EDIT: And I made it to minmus!!

Hey all, been a bit since I played KSP, and I decided to take a crack at making a spaceplane again, though with the aerodynamics changes I don't know if it will reach orbit. Anyways after failing to make a decent looking mk3 plane with lots of cargo room I decided to try making an mk2 plane to ferry people around, however since I've made some functional, but not very good looking planes in the past, I decided instead this time, I would turn off the com and col indicators and design one based just on looks, and fuel capacity. I think it turned out pretty good, and when I launched it, to my great surprise, it actually flies quite nicely. Turning left and right are a bit limited, due to my not wanting a vertical tailfin, but aside from that it's remarkably stable, I did check the com and col a couple times, but didn't really have to move anything to my surprise. So, I thought I'd get some opinions from you guys, and maybe someone who knows how to fly ssto's (I've only ever gotten into orbit three times, in previous ksp versions, it's probably way worse now) could give it a whirl and see how she does. So, I'd love to get some feedback on the design and the performance. Download the craft file here -> https://www.dropbox.com/s/w1sc1gwqb8cmjqn/Nighthawk.craft?dl=0 Future improvements will be some parachutes if you can't touch down somewhere flat, and an RTG for power once I unlock it.

I built about six different spaceplanes in 1.0.5 Career, trying to build one without the advantage of RAPIER engines. None of them could reach orbit. Then I built the Star Quake, and found that it could reach orbit with plenty of fuel to spare. I use it as a surface-to-LKO lifeboat and personnel transport. Right now, I don't have any craft that might possibly need more than three Kerbals, so this is great. Google Drive Download I cpouldn't find any other non-RAPIER SSTOs for 1.0.5 on the Internet, so hopefully this will help out anyone with a similar problem.

So after a summer-long hiatus I've decided to return to KSP to conquer Kerbin's moons, Duna/Ike, and Laythe. So I'm gonna have an SSTO carry base parts which are then taken and landed by a tug and a sky crane. Here's the issue: solar cant into space. I'm currently trying to make an MK2 spaceplane design for carrying 2t to orbit and returning. When burnout happens, I'll run out of rocket fuel at 25 kilometers above Kerbin. I've tried these ascent profiles: 45 degrees on takeoff, 25 degrees/10 km, 10 degrees/15 km 40 degrees on takeoff, 35d/600 m/s or 5 km, 30d/1000 m/s or 10km, 20d/? m/s or 15km, leveling at burnout Same as previous but no leveling (20 degrees/20km) 30 degrees entire flight SSTO designs: 6x Rapiers, 8x air intakes, very fast 4x Rapiers and 2x 45s, 4x air intakes, very slow (not pictured) 4x Whiplashes and 2x 45s, 6x air intakes, in-between speed Images below: So I need help perfecting this design because I also want to make an Mk3 part 40t ssto to go along with it. What are good parts for SSTOs depending on design? Engines (rocket and jet)? Air intakes? Wings and control surfaces? Stability (SAS)? My SSTOs are pretty agile because of the 1.25m SAS. What's a good spaceplane design for SSTOs? CoM and CoL distances? Position of wings? Fuel weight? Fuel oxidizer amount? And lastly, What is the best ascent profile depending on design? Please respond if you have answers to ANY of these questions. I could really use the help.

Okay, I admit it took me a long time before all the atmosphere rebalance, but I used to have a functional, even simple, SSTO spaceplane that could get to orbit, dock with a station, unload cargo/crew, return and land more or less safely. The atmosphere changes hit and suddenly I can't even get off the -ground.- Every spaceplane I design seems to hit a max altitude of 3km and then gives me the middle finger and sulks until I land it again. I'm seriously missing my old SSTOs. Is there -anyone- who can tell me what I'm supposed to be doing now? My old pattern was "45 degree burn to 15km, 15 degree level there while acceleratint to mach 2, 45 degree angle until lack of air cuts the engines, switch RAPIERs to rocket, and bam. I'd have an Apoapsis where I wanted it and be ready to circularize." But now I'm STUCK. I can't seem to design ships with enough liquidfuel to get anywhere -near- where I need the rockets. http://i.imgur.com/R6gwiRY.png That's my current design. What on earth am I doing wrong?

Hello all! I am new to the Kerbal forums, but have been crashing rockets since April 2015. I have recently been working on flying a SSTO, and have been having problems. I generally will get to a 70-80km orbit with no fuel left over. I use either RAPIER engines or a mixture of Ramjets and aerospikes. I generally fly a flight profile with a 30-40 degree climb to 10km, then I throttle up to full and go at about a 2 degree AoA. Once I hit about 1km/s speeds I pitch up to about 30 degrees, raising apoapsis. Can you guys/gals help? I don't know what I can do to save more fuel. Thank you in advance!

Hello all! I am new to the Kerbal forums, but have been crashing rockets since April 2015. I have recently been working on flying a SSTO, and have been having problems. I generally will get to a 70-80km orbit with no fuel left over. I use either RAPIER engines or a mixture of Ramjets and aerospikes. I generally fly a flight profile with a 30-40 degree climb to 10km, then I throttle up to full and go at about a 2 degree AoA. Once I hit about 1km/s speeds I pitch up to about 30 degrees, raising apoapsis. Can you guys/gals help? I don't know what I can do to save more fuel. Thank you in advance! Also, sorry if I placed this in the wrong area! If I have, will somebody please inform me as to the proper place to put this?