Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'spaceplanes'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



  1. Version 1.9 This is a parts pack intended to flesh out the stock mk2 parts lineup by providing new engines, air intakes, and fuselage segments and cockpits in the mk2 formfactor, to give players more options when building spaceplanes and more. All textures are stock textures where possible, using MODEL nodes, so RAM footprint should be minimal. -Command 2 kerbal Inverted cockpit with IVA 1 kerbal Multi-purpose high visibility cockpit with IVA 2 kerbal Mk2-1.25 cockpit with IVA 3 kerbal Mk2 spaceplane cockpit with IVA 1 Kerbal Bubble canopy with IVA -Control Aerodynamic Configurable Monopropellant RCS block Aerodynamic Configurable LF/O OMS block 5-Way heavy duty Mk2 conformal RCS block Roll control RCS chine block Prograde/retrograde RCS chine cap Stability Control RCS and SAS module Monopropellant OMS pod -Air Intakes 1.25m to Mk2 inline air intake Ramscoop intake Mk2 shock cone intake Mk2 precooler Mk2 subsonic circular intake -Engines 'Vector' Thrust Vector Turbojet 'Afterburn' TurboRamJet E.S.T.O.C. Dual-cycle Engine M.A.T.T.O.C.K. Dual-cycle Engine 'Pegasus' Inline VTOL engine 'Siddeley' VTOL engine 'JumpJet' radial VTOL engine 'Wedge' Linear Aerospike 'Pluto' Nuclear Engine 'Rontgen' Atomic Thermal Jet 'Mule' Thrust reverser turbofan 'Spirit' Xenon/Electric Engine 'J.Edgar' heavy VTOL engine "Mongrel" rocket VTOL Engine 'Wirligig' Turboprop Engine 'Boost-O-Tron' Air-Augmented SRB 'Mallet' Air-Augmented SRB 'Sledgehammer' Air-Augmented Ramrocket 'Banshee' VTOL Lift Fan 'Hyperblast' Scramjet 'Corgi' Rocket Engine 'Trident' Rocket Engine -Aerodynamic Chines in three flavors Mk1 scale chine pieces - short, long, and end cap segments for 1.25m parts Mk2 scale chine pieces - short, long, and end cap segments for Mk2 fuselages Mk2 scale chine wing root pieces - chine adapter, short, and long segments -Fuselage and structural Shrouded 1.25m Engine/Docking Mount 2-State 1.25m Aerospace mount Mk2 Tailboom Hypersonic Mk2 nosecone with integrated RCS Nosecap with integrated RCS Spadetail Mk2 to wing adapter Mk2 inverter fuselage Mk2-0.625 tricoupler Mk2-1.25 tricoupler Mk2 short bicoupler Mk2 - Mk2 Bicoupler Mk2-size2 short adapter T, X, and L hubs Mk2 Structural Tube Mk2 Structural Adapter Short Mk2 Structural Adapter Long Mk2 decoupler Mk2 Service Tank Mk2 Science Lab Mk2 airlock Endcap Mk2 Radial Attach Mount Mk2 Long Crew Cabin -Utility Shielded Mk2 docking port Low-Profile Aligned Docking Port Mk2 Service Compartment Mk2 Nuclear Reactor Mk2 Battery bank Mk2 radial shrouded solar panel Mk2 nose cargo bay Shrouded Thermal Control System Shrouded Mk2 Landing Leg Mk2 Cargo Container DOWNLOAD -Primary: SpaceDock -Secondary: Github Mk2 Expansion uses as dependencies, and is bundled with, Module Manager, CommunityResourcePack, and B9 PartSwitch This mod is also CKAN indexed Kottabos review: (From Version 1.0) Compatibility This mod comes with Module Manager compatibility/interoperability patches for a number of mods. Connected Living Space Kerbal Atomics RasterPropMonitor ASET IVA props Tweakscale USI Life Support Deadly ReEntry ExtraPlanetary launchpads Ferram Aerospace Research Modular Fuel Tanks Near Future Electrical Community Tech Tree Modular Fuel Tanks Modular Kolony Systems RealPlume-Stock WindowShine System Heat F.A.Q. Why won't the game load? KSP crashes when trying to load M2 Expansion parts? Make sure you install the required dependencies, B9 PartSwitch and Community Resource Pack. Both are included with Mk2Expansion in the download. Because M2X uses resources from CRP, KSP will not load if it is missing from your Kerbal Space Program/GameData director How can I configure the Mk2 lab to seat 4 kerbals? install the Extras/Mk2Expansion/patches/4Seatlab MM patch. How do I get the banshee Fans to use Electric Charge or LF/Air? install one of the alternate fuel configs in Extras/Mk2Expansion/Patches/ - either M2X_AirBreathingBanshee (will no longer work on Eve/Duna/Jool) or M2X_ElectricBanshee. How do I use the Hyperblast Scramjet? You can find a tutorial on how to use the scramjet here: For KSPI and users, or if you want RF engine configs, there is a compatibility pack courtesy of ABZB: Link Changelog: Licensing The contents of this mod are distributed a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode' This mod uses the Community Resource Pack, IB9 PartSwitch, and Module manager as dependencies Suggestions and feedback welcome. Not seeing a part you want? Have suggestions or ideas for new parts to add? Make sure to post them in the Dev thread.
  2. This is a very subjective topic, as well as one I don’t have that much expertise in. But hear me out. I think that many of the jet engines are too op, and the atmosphere simulation is pretty sucky in Kerbal. From my experience once you get the jist of how aerodynamics works, it’s fairly easy to make a spaceplane in Kerbal. I don’t really have a problem that for the most part with the slower planes, what I have a problem with is the planes designed to go over mach 1 and SSTOs. The fact that you can just slap a couple of Whiplashes onto some stinky piece of junk and have it fly over mach 2 at SEA LEVEL is bonkers. Heck, I’d say that getting to mach 1 is too easy. Once I made a pretty bad, really heavy replica of an Airbus A320 and had it go 400m/s pretty easily. So how would we fix this (I’m not an expert in aerodynamics so sorry for any broad metaphors)? First, at least early in game, going mach 1 should be like smashing through a brick wall. Not that it should be extremely hard, but it shouldn’t be a walk in the park; like getting your first rendezvous. Second, heat should be much more of a factor. Going mach 2-3 and having your plane being enveloped in plasma is kind goofy. I think that there should be new cooling systems in the game, and the ones that are already implemented should be much more important. This would also apply to the jet engines. Having engine failures due to heat would not only make high velocity spaceplanes more challenging, but also make room for some pretty spectacular crashes/disintegrations. And thats it. I’m a little paranoid about this not being implemented due to the game only being a little bit more than half a year from release (assuming there aren’t any more delays), but I’m optimistic. Would like to hear anymore things that some other people have come up with.
  3. Hello all, After weeks of SSTO testing, and producing like 10 different designs, I've finally created my best design yet, the C-7 "snubnose" sat launcher ! A lightweight non-crewed spaceplane capable of getting a small mk1 satellite to LKO with ~350 m/s of delta-v to spare..... it could even launch 2 small sats at 1 time! Stable from take-off, orbital insertion and all the way back down to the space center. Fitted with airbrakes, a reaction wheel, batteries, and antenna. This design doesn't have the fuel capacity to meet up with a station and refuel for a longer mission, but I'm working on an interplanetary variant. I'll update when I have one. For now it's a cheap way to launch satellites capable of going all throughout the Kerbol system. Powered by 4 rapiers, it has a lot of power, up to 5g's of acceleration through Kerbin's atmosphere on the way to space. Here's a photo of it in orbit after having just released a satellite bound for the Duna system: This design for now is done. I'll be however working on another interplanetary design similar to this. any thoughts or suggestions appreciated PS: I'll update this thread with more pics and an interplanetary version perhaps, when I complete it. Safe flying!
  4. Hello... I've been working on designing a simple mk2 cargo SSTO. This is what I've come up with so far after some testing: https://flic.kr/ps/3UDUwU It's got good balance, the center of lift stays just behind the center of mass. I've been able to get it to LKO with a max of ~700 m/s of delta-v. Does that look about right? How much delta-v should this have once in orbit? Also, does anyone notice any design flaws? How could I make it better? Anything I should work on? Any feedback would be great! PS: Also if anyone could help me, the link above, I tried to click "insert image from URL", but it wouldn't convert the link? Not sure how to paste pictures here. Bran-new to the forum here.
  5. Welcome! KirrimLabs KirrimLabs is a fast growing repository of SSTOs, and crafts are added every week/ month(depending on my ongoing projects, currently i'm working on The Upsilon Initiative. Tau Class This class is the smallest of all the SSTOs, and have relatively short range. Skylon This SSTO contains 3 1.875m service bays for deploying small satellites and CubeSats. REQUIRED MODS: TweakScale for intake and service bay ACTION GROUPS AG1 toggle RAPIER AG2 toggle RAPIER mode AG3 toggle solar panel and antenna Tau This SSTO can reach the Mun, if flown correctly. ACTION GROUPS ACTION GROUPS--------------- AG1 - toggle RAPIER AG2 - switch modes AG3 - toggle NERVs AG4 - toggle solar panel and antenna Raptor Class These SSTOs consist of massive Mk3 Fuselages, and will easily do local moon hops and Large Payload Deployments. Raptor This SSTO can willingly loft cargo and 8 Crew into LKO. Features a custom Mk3 inline docking port. ACTION GROUPS----------------------------- AG1 - toggle dockingport AG2 - toggle Engines AG3 - closed cycle AG4 - toggle solar panel AG5 - shutdown whiplash Raptor MK II SSTO capable of putting 24 Crew into LKO. Contains small payload bay for small satellites. ACTION GROUPS-----------------------------AG1 - N/AAG2 - toggle EnginesAG3 - closed cycleAG4 - toggle solar panelAG5 - shutdown whiplash Falcon A massive SSTO capable of Minmus flybys and includes an optional ISRU unit and an example payload, for the adventurous. Dragon Class These SSTOs are the biggest of the bunch, and can do minmus landings with loads of fuel to spare. Dragon An Orange tank SSTO, capable of landing on minmus. ACTION GROUPS AG1 toggle jet engine AG2 switch mode AG3 toggle NERV AG4 toggle solarpanel AG5 toggle intake AG6 toggle whiplash AG7 shutdown elevon AG8 activate elevon Endeavour A 84 seat Minmus SSTO with 2600m/s DeltaV in LKO. ACTION GROUPS AG1 toggle jet engine AG2 switch mode AG3 toggle NERV AG4 toggle solarpanel AG5 toggle intake AG6 toggle whiplash AG7 shutdown elevon AG8 activate elevon Phantom Based off the original Endeavour, this SSTO has about 5000m/s of DeltaV in LKO, and will easily do Duna/Gilly/Mun. ACTION GROUPS AG1 toggle jet engine AG2 toggle mode AG3 toggle NERV AG4 toggle Solar Panel AG5 toggle intake AG6 toggle Ramjet AG7 shutdown aero surface A8 activate aero surface Artemis A double orange tank SSTO ACTION GROUPS---------------------------------- AG1 toggle RAPIER AG2 toggle mode AG3 toggle NERV AG4 toggle Whiplash AG5 toggle solar panel/antenna AG0 toggle posterior landing gear Vulkan Class Vulkan This nimble SSTO is awesome for transporting 10 Kerbals into LKO. Action Groups AG1 - Toggle Cargo bay and antenna AG2 - toggle RAPIERS AG3 - Toggle NERV AG4 - Switch modes VulkanB This SSTO is based off of the original Vulkan, capable of carrying large payloads to LKO under crew control or probe control. Action Groups AG1 - toggle RAPIERS AG2 toggle NERVs AG3 toggle cargo bay, antenna, solar panels and shielded docking port AG4 switch RAPIER modes KrakenLabs KrakenLabs is a small division of KirrimLabs, and is where UNTESTED Prototypes are released. Uragan This Behemoth can easily loft cargo into orbit, and features a retractable dockingport and flyable boosters. AG1 - toggle hatch AG2 - toggle dockingport AG3 - toggle side booster wings The RelayNet 500 This Basic Relay dispenser will carry you anywhere in Kerbin's SOI, and features a Recoverable Second stage. Bear in mind that it is not capable of splashing down. Emarude This family of boosters allows for many configs. Example: Emarude 312 3= Fairing size 1= Amount of SRBs 2=Stage count Fairing Configs: 2 - Second stage is exposed and has smaller payload area 3 - Second stage is inside fairing SRB configs: 0 - No SRBs 1 - 1 SRB 2 - 2 SRBs 3 - 3 SRBs 4 - 4 SRBs 5 - 5 SRBs 6 - 6 SRBs 7 - 7 SRBs 8 - 8 SRBs 9 - 9 SRBs Stage Configs: 1 - Sounding rocket capable of launching large payloads into suborbital hops. 2 - Second stage is added, allowing exploration of Kerbin's moons. 3 - Third Stage is added, allowing smaller payloads to explore the Kerbol System. Feel free to request ships in the comments!
  6. The spaceplane in the images I've linked below won't lift off the ground. I tried removing the engines on the wings but that doesn't work either. Any ideas? https://imgur.com/a/fp8YPNI Note: It flies, and it flies well. Once it has reached the end of the runway I have perfect control in the air, it just doesn't lift off while on the runway, and I don't know why.
  7. F-NAD is an aerospace division run by the finest nuggets. Check out Adans Workshop for my previous spaceflight adventures and new ones to come. Look on this forum for sneak peaks of my next kerbal vids and for giving help and getting shoutouts for and from me, respectively.
  8. A while ago there was this excellent discussion on air intakes and drag in KSP: This is still an important topic (would be even more so if the dev's could give us some larger airbreathing/jet engines, so spaceplanes are actually useful without massive engine-spam!) and I wanted to continue to draw attention to the idea, discuss it, and see if anything has changed. Also, there were some nuances to Right's graph (re-posted below for convenience) that I don't think really got any proper discussion- and couldn't be discussed there now without nero'ing a very old thread... Note, for instance, the shape of the Shock Cone Intake performance curve (or lack thereof). I think many players sub-optimally assumed the most efficient Spaceplane ascents involve keeping all your engines lit throughout your entire ascent. However I have increasingly found this is NOT the case-especially with the 2 stage spaceplane designs I have been experimenting with lately (a smaller Spaceplane optimized for high-altitude, high-speed operation rides piggyback atop a larger plane that breaks off. Awesome in Sandbox/Science, but requires a mod like Flight Manager for Reusable Stages so you can fly the lower stage back to actually be useful in Career...) Often it is better to have some engines- particularly Ramjet engines- you only ignite at higher altitudes and speeds, keeping your demand for IntakeAir (and Thrust production) relatively flat as you ascend... (this is even MORE true with modded parts like the Air-Augmented rockets from, I think, Mk2 Expansion: which, realistically for a ducted rocket, perform better at high speeds not only in terms of Thrust, but ISP...) If you have engines you only ignite at high altitude+speed (or simply don't throttle all the way up until you reach high speed/altitude due to heating issues, aerodynamic stability- particularly with dynamically unstable designs that become less stable at higher speeds, or not having your wings rip off due to aero forces in FAR!) then the Shock Intake curve suddenly looks a lot more appealing: note these curves are for constant altitude- the Shock curve ends up being flattened (in terms of rate of IntakeAir production) by reduced air density at higher altitude... Other things notable: - The Divertless Radial Supersonic Intakes appear to have the smallest performance-drop of any intake other than the Shock Intakes between Mach 3 and higher speeds (the slope of their curve is much more gradual, even controlling for their lower peak), making them often the second-best choice for high-speed planes (as well as great for fine-tuning *precisely* how much intake you have, so you don't have any more than needed...) - Engine Pre-coolers have, surprisingly (and unrealistically, given the whole POINT of using them in real life would be high speed+altitude performance) a steeper curve relative to the amplitude of their peak than the Adjustable Ramp Intake (aka the stock RAM-effect intakes). This makes them more poorly suited for high speed/altitude operations, at least as intakes (again, this is unrealistic- and the dev's ought to rebalance these to make them more useful). That being said, form-drag (from frontal cross-section mainly) becomes much more punishing at higher speeds, at least in FAR, so they actually do work well at high speed planes- but for all the wrong reasons (in real life, Pre-Coolers aren't even intakes at all, but allow you to cool/compress airflow before it reaches the engines so they "think" they're actually operating at lower speeds/altitudes. This would be easily simulated in KSP by simply having them decrease the airflow speed and altitude any engines they are connected too "see"- and indeed this is EXACTLY how they used to or still do work in KSP-Interstellar, which included special code to make pre-coolers work realistically: at least in older versions for sure...) In real life, they would produce a lot of intake Drag (as you slow the airflow more) and provide no direct intake functionality- yet be CRITICAL for a horizontal-takeoff spaceplane ascent... - On the topic of pre-coolers, again: there has been some mention that they are highly heat-conductive (wicking heat away from engines), yet this is somehow a BAD thing (as it causes them to absorb more heat from the atmosphere). It seems to me most players don't understand the Stock heat conduction system well, or how to use this properly. The best parts to attach pre-coolers to (on the other side of the engine) are large, heavy parts with a lot of cross-sectional area (so these parts in turn can pass the heat they absorb from the pre-coolers to other parts). This is entirely because the Stock heat model assumes an entire part is all at a constant temperature, to make the calculations manageable. Anyways, this makes good parts to attach Pre-Coolers to things like the long Mk2-Mk1 adapter, the Mk2 Bicoupler, the flat (rear) end of Mk3 parts, or especially large cross-section mod parts with inline 1.25 meter nodes (like the "Stail" to 2.5 meter adapter with shoulders in OPT Aerospace, or the Mk4 Adapters in Mk4 Expansion...) The parts they are attached to should, ideally, in turn be attached to even larger parts (like a Mk2-3 adapter in front of a Mk2 Bicoupler). The key is to wick heat away from the pre-coolers as quickly as possible so they can wick more heat away from the engines in turn. Not that engine overheating is THAT big of a problem in Stock (except for with the NERVA nuclear rockets- a part intake air precoolers would be USELESS for in real life, unless you were air-augmenting them... Or modded nuclear turbojets, like those in Mk2 Expansion- where at least the use of pre-coolers is realistic) - The Small Circular Intake has a relatively flat curve that LOOKS like it would be well-suited to high-speed operations: but in reality they tend to explode at high speeds, as they have terrible heat-tolerances...
  9. Kerbal players aren't exactly professional pilots (so landing is hard for many of us), and the runway is annoyingly short for some of the heaviest/largest spaceplanes we might build (ESPECIALLY given the lack of any Stock jet engines larger than 1.25 meters- meaning our largest spaceplanes tend to end up light on Thrust..) Thus, I would like to suggest that there be a longer/wider runway, which players can upgrade to as a "Level 4" runway (only effect is having more room to takeoff/land) in Career, or have from the start in Sandbox. While we're on the subject of facilities, a Level 4 Tracking Center upgrade would be nice- potentially allowing players to attain an even more powerful Deep Space Network, for an ENORMOUS investment of Funds (one more thing to work towards late-game) And, among the alternate launch sites, the Desert Runway is a serious pain- could we get a little terrain leveling of at least a few of the dunes right next to it? (like how the area around the KSC is flat) Maybe make it longer/wider as well? Historically, some of the largest/widest runways in the world have been built in desert areas, for aerospace R&D and potentially for spaceplane use someday (Dreamchaser and X-37b were only the start...)- yet the Desert Runway we have to work with is absolutely pathetic... As is the island runway too- meaning we only have one decent runway, at the KSC- and it's still not as long or wide as we might prefer at times... EDIT: since some comments on a Level 4 DSN aren't aware- there is already one for Outer Planets Mod. So it is definitely possible to do! EDIT #2: Since the lvl 4 Tracking Station idea has generated a LOT of discussion, and was only an aside (from the main idea of a bigger runway), I have created s new thread specifically on level 4 facilities. I would ask you take any discussion of upgraded DSN there- but I would ask that you please do not crowd out other parts of the topic people might want to discuss! Thanks!
  10. Here's a few ideas I had for new spaceplane parts, as well as a few suggestions for the current ones. And I know some of these suggestions are inside of mods, but I would like them in the base game for stock builds. New parts: A bigger Goliath - 3m Goliath anyone? But seriously, bigger engine, more thrust, for those heavy payloads... or just to get a tiny payload moving ridiculously fast. A bucket reverser 1.25 meter engine - Buckets are kool. A 1.8 meter engine - not as small as the J-20, but not as big as the J-90. A middle road jet engine. 1.8 meter aircraft parts Bigger FAT-445 Aeroplane Main Wings - Two new sizes actually. One wing is better than 50 wings glued together after all. Size 2 rounded fuselages Size 3 rounded fuselages - Or parts to make the mark 3 parts round. Pegasus XL styled Fuselage - Basically, a place to hold rockets and a place to tail fins to stick up inside of the fuselage New landing legs in many different styles - Including but not limited to, F-16 style, where they go 90 degrees (About) from the fuselage, C-17 style, Hidden inside a hump that attacks to the Fuselage, and WW2 fighter style, wheels that go up side ways instead of forwards or backwards. Aircraft heat shielding - For when you're going 1400+ M/S and things are getting a little toasty. Basically what I'm picturing is little body conformed wing like structures that you can click on to the aircraft's nose and belly, or anywhere else really. Aircraft antenna - Resistant to both heat and air speed. Edit parts: J-90 Goliath Pylon removable option - An option to remove the pylon from the engine so that when it's inline with the body like a tri-jet config, it looks cleaner. Engine Nacelle Pylon option - Option to add a pylon on to the part Shock Cone Intake animation - An animation that moves the cone foreword or backwards depending on if above or below Mach 1. Plus manual option to move cone forward or backwards. J-404 Model switching - New models that mimic some other jet engine nozzles, such as the F-22, the F-15, the Su-37, and the X-31
  11. So in preparation for a laythe space plane mission, I decided to fly 2 Kerbals to Duna and back as practice. Cos’ I’ve never really flown space planes before you see. Anyways I’ve been trying to land the damned thing for an hour now and Its 1:20am, but I can’t seem to make my approach any slower than 200m/s. I did bring drouge chutes, but I foolishy positioned them at the back of the plane, so deploying them causes me to nosedive. Thinking about it now, I may need to pump some fuel further back, because my plane might have became front heavy after I completed my transfer burn. But screw it, I’m going to bed now. If you have any advice it would be appreciated.
  12. Aerocapture is a great way to save massive amounts of fuel on interplanetary missions. Its main downside is that it's not possible to plan very well, as your final trajectory depends on your craft, your planetary intersect, your periapsis, and what you do during the capture. Usually aerocapture involves trial and error with a couple of quicksaves/quickloads. Below I describe a technique for more controllable aerocaptures. It is applicable to Duna, Laythe, and Kerbin*; Eve and Jool would require exceptionally robust designs with creative use of heat shields at least. Designing the craft To execute this technique, your craft will need some plane-like characteristics, even if it is not an actual spaceplane. Specifically, it needs to be slippery along one axis and draggy along another axis, you need to be able to control its attitude while it is in the atmosphere, and you need to be able to survive the thermal load of the atmospheric entry (easy for Duna, a significant challenge for Kerbin, depending on where you're coming from). There are various ways to do it for a rocket-like craft -- winglets with control surfaces, big empty fuel tanks and reaction wheels/RCS -- but designing these is left to the reader. Your craft should not rely on heat shields as primary thermal protection as this significantly limits your options in executing the technique. Below we're assuming your craft has a plane-like geometry: pointy and slippery when pointed prograde, wide and draggy when pointed radial out. The technique Do preliminary research to determine a rough aerocapture altitude for your target, e.g. 15 - 20 km for Duna. Set your Pe based on that: if your craft is designed for this technique, you should be going toward the higher end of the range as it will be highly draggy when pointed radial out. Enter the atmosphere SAS set to orbit/radial out, i.e. 90 degrees. Switch immediately to map view and watch your trajectory. When your flyby turns into an orbit, set SAS to standard mode and nose down to follow prograde. Fine-tune your orbit by controlling pitch: with a plane-like craft the Ap will fall very slowly if you're tracking prograde, and very quickly if you're at radial out. Don't forget to burn prograde at Ap to get your Pe out of the atmosphere again. With plane-like aerodynamics you can get almost as precise control over your Ap as you would by controlled retrograde burns in a propulsive capture. *From relatively low-energy transfers. Mun, Minmus, and Duna are not too difficult, Eve should be doable.
  13. Started another career and since I think rockets are kinda dull, I've been trying to solve problems with planes as soon as it's feasible. It's fun to try to come up with a space plane that's good for something with Tier 1 tech. Obviously at this point it means rocket planes as there are no airbreathers powerful enough to be useful. So far, the best I've come up with is this -- the Jetstream, all stock. With those boosters it has enough legs to get to Minmus and back, which means it's good for tourists and search/recovery missions. This is in fact one thing tier 1 planes can do better than rockets -- it's tricky to build a re-entry module that seats three and behaves well. Only non-recoverable parts are the SRBs. I did manage to build a Tier 1 single-engine SSTO (uses the Swivel) but once up there, there was barely any fuel for manoeuvring so it's not really practical for anything.
  14. My SSTOs: Unnamed Laythe SSTO with 7 km/s of delta-v: Download here! My rockets: None worth uploading yet.
  15. By now there's multiple procedural parts generation mods that allow fully custom rocket and spaceplane designs. However, I'm yet to see one that tailors towards more graceful fuselage design for aircraft. I doubt I'm the first to think of this, but I haven't yet found any topics that discuss this. The would only feature one part - a regular procedural fuel tank. Users can edit the same properties that current procedural parts mods allow, such as textures, width, length, part type (fuel, structural, battery, etc), and so on. However, the following customisation options would also be included: Cross Section Type: Each fuel tank has a cross sectional shape that can be changed. Ellipse Rectangle Chamfer Rectangle (diagonal corners) Fillet Rectangle (rounded corners) Cross Section Dimensions: Each end of a fuel tank has tweakable geometric properties. These would be unique to each end. For example, you could have a fuel tank that starts as a tall ellipse and ends as a flat ellipse, or a square with small chamfer corners growing in size as you move down the tank. Section width Section height Chamfer size Fillet radius Cross Section Smoothing: Each end of a fuel tank has optional smoothing. What this means is that you can make a tank change shape smoothly, rather than instantaneously. This would allow you to have multiple parts inline that gradually change shape so that your fuselage doesn't have any jagged lines. This imgur link describes what I'm talking about. Section Offset: Each end of a fuel tank can be offset vertically and horizontally. This would allow you to create long and smooth tail/nose pieces, much like what we see in aircraft in reality. Is there anything already like this? What do you guys think of this?
  16. The majestic Stearwing D45 has always been a personal favorite of mine. The forward swept wings, the dual stages, the MK2 design, and amazing abilities, all contribute to its beauty. “ The Stearwing D45 features a unique two-stage design: The first stage takes it up to the edge of the atmosphere and nearly to orbital speed. The second stage kicks in just as the turbines start to flame out, and twin LV 909 rockets take it from there out to space. The D45 carries a crew of 2 plus 4 passengers in a pressurized cabin, as well as up to 6 more in its cargo bay seats. Vernor thrusters are located in the bay and aft sections. Press 1 (twice) to disable them before takeoff. — Official Description ” Then, Squad decided to remove it instead of editing it for the new aerodynamics in 1.1 Of course, you can always get it from previous versions, but the new aerodynamics mean it doesn't work as well. Why? Why not change it to fit the new aerodynamics? You may ask, well, Squad has its reasons. So why not get an opinion from the public, on whether it should be brought back or not?
  17. Hello Kerbal Community, Recently I've been trying to create a space plane on a heavily modded install of KSP version 1.2.2. However, it does not work. Any of the jet engines that I use (ie: whiplash or RAPIER) do not generate a high enough TWR and cause the plane to run out of fuel before ever making it to an orbit. I know that this is not a design flaw, becauseI I've tested a very similar SSTO Spaceplane in a stock version of KSP (also running 1.2.2) and it got to an orbit just fine, with plenty of fuel remaining. This leads me to believe that one of the mods that I have installed is causing the jet engines to work less efficiently, and/or causing a tremendous amount of atmospheric drag. I do not have FAR installed. Below is a link to a picture that shows my game data folder: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FVkmwt4jGnSmNVaG1kdWlGN28 Can someone please explain to me why this is happening and how I can fix it? Thank you very much, R_Aerospace!
  18. Background: A while back I remember a fun challenge I picked up that involved BD Armory and delivering a bomb to a target about a third of the way around Kerbin in the fastest possible time, it was fun and all but I really wanted to break a barrier I saw in Kerbin speed possibilities. I wanted Jeb to go faster, farther, and more efficiently, then any Kerbal before him and thats when I began looking up real world hypersonic craft and became really interested in this subject area. What I have discovered already: There doesn't seem to be a lot of info regarding people who are building craft meant to travel in excess of 1300 m/s and above 20 kilometers, most of this is due to where the stock Whiplash engines cut out around 1300 m/s and 20,000 m, you might as well just use rocket engines and insert yourself in orbit at that point anyway. To go above and beyond this I picked up the X43 Hyperblast Scramjet Engine from the wonderful MK2 expansion pack (aptly named after its real world vehicle). It's kinda hard to use as it wont start until you are close to 1250 m/s at 20,000 so the whiplash acts as a good stepping stone to using it on your vehicle. Also, while looking for a design to start from, the real world X43 fills exactly what im trying to. A successful knockoff of its design produced a craft capable of breaking 2000 m/s at 33,000 meters in game. I fully realize that once you start getting into using modded engines, tweakscale and other mods that asking about game mechanics regarding them becomes magnitudes more difficult. So im just curious about general design, and if anyone else has tried to tackle this or something similar before Actual Question: Are there any tips/tricks or for building vehicles that travel in atmosphere at speeds between 13-2000 m/s? Why is the real world X43 designed the way it is; flat front vs pointy, smaller control surfaces vs larger, and flat topped body vs circular fuselage? Also would it be helpful to add a pic of the craft I already have so it can be critiqued, etc?
  19. Hey folks, I've been playing KSP since 1.2.2 and I've managed to get rocket launching pretty much sorted (stock game, no mods, except AFPW, to get my Saitek HOTAS to work properly), but man, I appear to be utterly useless at space-plane design/flight. I've designed a number of regular planes, which all fly just fine (I do have some experience in full size and model aircraft), but for the life of me, I simply *cannot* get any of my space-plane designs (SSTO specifically) into orbit successfully. I can get them *close*....and I mean *really* close, but I just always end up running out of rocket fuel. I've watched countless YT videos from guys who seem to just point the thing at the sky and blast off into orbit with no drama whatsoever, but my designs all seem to just barely struggle to the upper atmosphere, then invariably fall *just* short of making it into a stable orbit. The closest I've managed to get is an AP of about 72k, but didn't have enough fuel left to circularise. IIRC I managed to get to about 12 or 13K PE before it ran dry. One thing that most of the videos I've seen have in common is the ability to accelerate at the mid-flight stage to well in excess of 400 to 500m/s, but no matter what I do, I can't seem to get much beyond the 300m/s mark. I've tried adding more and various engines, but I either end up running out of fuel too fast, or being too heavy to climb steep enough to make it out of the thicker part of the atmosphere in time. I've managed to find a couple of *really* good posts in the tutorials section for how to get rockets to launch with the most efficient profile, but there doesn't seem to be anything like that for space-planes/SSTO. Can someone point me to anything like that? Or perhaps share their 'hot tips' on space-plane design, so I can try to work out where I'm going wrong? I'd rather not just download someone's craft file and go fly. I'm rather enjoying the challenge of building/flying stuff by having to do the trial and error process myself, but I've run out of ideas for SSTO. Cheers,
  20. Okay so, lots of people can make spaceplanes these days; there's plenty of tutorials, good parts, and so on. But in general those planes can't carry as much mass into orbit as some guy who slapped some stuff on top of a Mammoth, for various reasons. This leads to a lot of "put an orange tank into orbit" challenges and the like. I'm tired of them... So here's a challenge to build spaceplanes that can carry the biggest, heaviest payloads into orbit. The rules are as follows: 1. Horizontal takeoff; 2. No decoupling (or undocking, or explosive staging), with the exceptions of deploying the payload or jettisoning fairing covers; 3. Payloads must be a single unit that doesn't contribute to the vehicle's flight (i.e. no thrust or fuel can be consumed from it; electricity and reaction wheels are acceptable); 4. The craft must be able to land, intact, on Kerbin after payload deployment (landing at KSC not required, landing need not be horizontal); 5. The payload must be deployed into at least a 100x100km orbit around Kerbin; 6. Payloads cannot include ore (empty ore tanks are acceptable, but not ones with anything in them); 7. For purposes of fairness, only stock craft are legal, but flight info and autopilots (e.g. KER, MechJeb) are fair game. 8. No refuelling of the vehicle is allowed; 9. FAR users get a separate result table. There will be two kinds of scoring: A. Raw tonnage to the 100x100km orbit; B. The per-payload-tonne cost of all consumables used during the full flight (i.e., until the vehicle is landed on Kerbin). The minimum payload to be listed here is 100 tonnes. Happy launching
  21. I haven't had much luck with space planes, everyone i tried to design did not get far before it crashed. At the same time i am wondering what exactly a space plane can do that a rocket can't?
  22. I am having this problem where during take-off on completely balanced and symmetrical planes that the ships always want to pull hard to the left. I am using medium gears with 2 on the back and one on the front. Once the ship is in the air it's rock stable. Can someone suggest what to do with the wheels?
  23. I know it's been done before, but in light of the space plane parts that came with, what was it, 1.1, I've decided to have a go at a non-vertical-launch space program. I'm setting myself some basic rules. The basic philosophy is that what takes off should be like a plane and what comes back should also be like a plane. I definitely don't want to just launch rockets from the runway, or come up with "workarounds" that let me launch from the runway what I would in another safe launch from the launchpad. My rules are, to an extent, a work-in-progress, and if anybody has any feedback or comments, I'd be glad to hear them. My first goal, though, is to make a fun challenge (the fun part is as important as the challenge here). So the first rule is: 1) if it leaves the ground, it starts on the runway, rolls on wheels and is powered by air breathing engines. Obviously I want to be able to collect the science from the launch pad, and I don't mind using the launchpad for things like "test landed at Kerbin" type easy-money contracts. I think this isn't enough, though. If My craft are going to be like planes rather than horizontal takeoff rockets, they have to do what planes do, and also come back. I don't think the tech tree is is well suited to SSTOs and SST-far-away if you're playing career mode, and I want to have fun, not grind in this save. I think therefore it's safe to allow for things like one-way probes, drop tanks, disposable stages (or, if funds allow, like the B52 that carried the X15 up to launch altitude/speed) and missions where I use dedicated non-returnable vehicles for things like transfers or landings (elsewhere). so, 2) If it lands, it has to be capable of a controlled rolling landing on the runway on wheels. If it doesn't come back, it doesn't matter. By basic criteria here are that I want to definitely exclude "falling under parachutes but happen to land on the runway" but definitely allow "I messed up my de-orbit burn and don't have the range to actually fly back to the KSC", hence the "to be capable" rather than "lands". Also, I think drogue chutes are cool. Parachutes are totally allowed if you deploy them after your main landing gear touches down. Hypothetically, if you can deploy them but maintain or regain controlled flight afterwards, that's OK, so in-flight chutes that you cut away before landing, or early-deployed landing braking type chutes are OK, provided you work within the basic concept that we are dealing with flying things not falling things. SSTO is not a requirement. I have no problem with drop tanks, one-way probes, disposable stages etc. I also want to allow the idea of an SSTO spaceplane that gets a refuel in orbit to allow it to fly on to somewhere interesting. The X15 space plane was dropped from a B52. I'm playing stock, so if I do something like that, the B52 analogue will be lost. That's totally OK by my rules. Equally, you may want a Mun lander or interplanetary ship that has no chance of coming home. These are all entirely fine by me. What I specifically want to exclude is cheating with a heat-sheild-and-parachute lander where the crew is rescued by a Kerbin atmospheric plane. Also, the simple solution of one-way mission is not really in keeping with the idea, so the last rule: 3) No Kerbal left behind. I've made a start, under 1.2 pre-release, and I'm having a blast. I want the career play through to be fun, so I've allowed myself two starter-flights of Mk1 pod, Mk16 parachute and Flea booster to unlock enough science to get to the "Aviation" tier that unlocks the basic "toothpick" undercarriage and Juno engine. I could have build some sort of rolling capsule based science-from-KSC type craft to get there, but that's too much of a grind for me. So far, I've got some nice planes that can do low altitude observation missions, and built a "SSTsubO" that gets me into space to achieve the "leave the atmosphere" contract. I've hit a bit of a barrier, though. I've unlocked the Weasley engines and built an orbit capable craft. It comprises 3x FL-T 200 fuel tanks, a LV-T45 Swivel first stage engine, a pair of Mk1 liquid fuel tanks radially each with a Weasley and basic circular intake, basic swept wing and a tail on the back, resting on toothpick tricycle undercarriage. On the front is a TR-18A stack decoupler, LV-909 Terrier, FL-T200 fuel tank, 1.25 m storage bay with science and a Mk1 cockpit. This will take off on the jets (needs extremely careful handling on the runway as the undercarriage is right at the limit), climb to about 8000 m under jets, light the rocket, the jets flame out at whatever altitude they get to, when the rocket burns out the capsule and terrier can get to orbit at 85 km with plenty of fuel to spare. I'm totally convinced this can form the basis of more substantial missions. The problem I'm now having is how to get back within the rules. I want my rules to allow for the game to still be fun to play. I have tested this ship by adding a pair of AV-T1 winglets as wings (placement vital to allow stable but controllable gliding) and a simple fin tail and a couple of batteries in the service bay. This allows the pod to re-enter from orbit, establish controlled gliding flight (using reaction wheels for control) and approach an arbitrary point on the surface nearby at a speed and descent rate that corresponds to a safe wheeled landing at the KSC runway. I see a couple of decisions I need to take now. Is it feasible to bring a craft down from orbit with the basic toothpick undercarriage, or will the blow up all the time? If they aren't viable, I'll work on the assumption that a safe ocean landing (i.e. one that doesn't involve destruction) in the water next to the KSC is as good as a landing on the runway, on the basis that they have a seaplane dock? I'm entirely convinced I could manage a safe splashdown on this craft. Would it make the challenge better if I required returning craft to not just manage a controlled glide approach but also a powered flight approach? I'm pretty sure I have the dV on this craft to do it, the question is will that requirement make for a better game?
  24. Normally I'm mostly a straight rockets person but have recently taken an interest in spaceplanes. Re-entry is a balance between spending enough time in flight to slow down and not crash but getting down quick enough not to overheat. With long thin rockets with heat shields, a shallow entry from LKO seems to work, but with planes this seems a recipe for firey death. If I have s space plane, say a Mk2 based SSTO, how should I attempt re-entry? What's a good height for PE after a de-orbit burn? Should I fly with a nose up attitude for maximum drag or a more straight on approach to get down to the high drag/high lift thicker atmosphere quicker to minimize time spent getting hot? Do radiator panels make a difference to survivability? Help greatly received
  • Create New...