1.0.2 - Any hope left for SSTOs?

[malkuth]

This again do you guys only try once and give up?

Just to see what was up I loaded same vessel in how to video and actually got it too space with 300 fuel. Before I couldn't get above 250.

ssto is easy once you understand two important things.

Height first speed second. Ride the wave all the way up. Profit.

[TokiTech]

...

Drag is made realistic yes, but think of lacking supreme engines that is powerful and has the mileage for long range is the issue. I only find the limitation is always the engine variety to let us carry more or build smaller longer range SSTOs.

[problemecium]

Another "SSTOs are dead" thread, really? Aside from the multiple threads in the Spacecraft Exchange featuring SSTOs, every time someone makes a thread like this it immediately gets flooded with SSTOs. I have half a mind to build one myself on principle.

SSTOs are not dead. SSTOs as we knew them are dead, but that was a given as soon as the aerodynamic model was going to be changed. They just have to be designed - and flown - a little more carefully now.

BTW all of my launch stages so far have technically been SSTOs, although they aren't planes.

[StevenJ]

I got an SSTO spaceplane to orbit in 1.0.2, no idea what anyone is whining about. Sure, you can't build them like you used to in LOLAERO land, but they fly so much better now. Once you know how to get them to orbit they're dead simple.

Was it a MKII based SSTO or MKIII bodied ssto? There is a gigantic difference, MKIII parts have insane drag.

[Aanker]

Nonsense. The rules have changed, figure out how to do what you want to do. Learn different building techniques and ways of flying. If you can't stack wings like before try some other parts. There's a person who built a double-hulled spaceplane with an aeroshell for cargo and others who built spaceplanes able to take an orange tank to orbit; clearly there's plenty of room for creativity and payload. "l2p" is the name of the game and you have an entire forum full of fellow players willing to help you, and share techniques. That's a wonderful resource available to you.

Riddiculous. I explain why the l2p argument doesn't work and you retort with the same tired, judgmental reply style that I've gotten used to by now for some reason. As is evident from the screenshots in this thread, the planes are basically sausages with two feathers glued to the side. That's not my idea of creativity, it means that the only configuration that really is going to work is non-aesthetic, doesn't look aerodynamic at all and - as mentioned before - is the result of something being taken away from the game. The thing is, we could have both. But for some reason, wing stacking and building visually pleasing spaceplanes is now somehow punished. Building wings and actually putting work into the craft to make them look good is something we simply can't anymore. These limits are totally unnecessary, and the drag increase was like pouring salt in an already deep wound.

Let's change the rules again, so that they are better and offer more ability to build the spaceplanes we like.

What you had before wasn't an aircraft, it was a soupcraft.

"Blah blah blah, you were using exploits, learn to play, hardcore is the way to go!!!!11"

[Payload]

every time someone makes a thread like this it immediately gets flooded with SSTOs. I have half a mind to build one myself on principle.

Yes they do. Ugly useless space trash SSTO space planes. That is because people don't understand the definition of SSTO. They think it means space plane. So then we get that guy who lifted a whole 8 tons to orbit in a 200 ton space bus, bragging like a 4% payload to mass ratio is something good.

I digress.

SSTO.

Single.... Stage.... To.... Orbit......

Doesn't mean it has wings. Doesn't mean it is a plane.

Last I checked, the top spot in the payload to mass 1.0 thread belongs to an SSTO. (Not a space plane.) SSTOs are good. Space planes are decoration. These threads are talking about space planes being useless but using the acronym SSTO because they don't know any better. Plus space planes were always pretty useless unless you went really large. They never were never about efficiency. They were about being ascetic.

I am sure I could easily build an SSTO that gets some pretty nice range. A space plane though? Probably not.

[EtherDragon]

I have two successful SSTO designs now, even with 1.0.2.

A single seater snub ship; It looks super slick.

And a six seat SSTO CTV.

[Franklin]

"<Element> isn't as easy as it used to be, so it sucks now."

[Wanderfound]

Was it a MKII based SSTO or MKIII bodied ssto? There is a gigantic difference, MKIII parts have insane drag.

As they should. There's a reason why Skylon does't look like a 747 and why the Shuttle couldn't be pushed to orbit on jets.

[Violent Jeb]

Another "SSTOs are dead" thread, really? Aside from the multiple threads in the Spacecraft Exchange featuring SSTOs, every time someone makes a thread like this it immediately gets flooded with SSTOs. I have half a mind to build one myself on principle.

immediately gets flooded

You sir, are the master of exaggeration. I count 2, TWO, links to working SSTO spaceplanes in this thread. Where is this flooding? The one that was "cobbled together in 20m" was at least 80 if not 100 parts, over 100t and I am quite sure the OP was asking about low part count, low weight vessels.

So go ahead and build a small spaceplane on principal, because i have yet to see some successful small SSTOs. Stick to the topic and actually help demonstrate the viability of the SSTO - rather than blast the OP. Real friendly.

Not flooded. Nothing has fit the bill.

There is a reason behind all of this clamor. You can pretend that everybody here is just complaining, but there is something to be said for the amount of people that have serious concerns with this update. the end.

[TokiTech]

While SSTO surely works, but spaceplane setting target 100km rendezvous and free return trip is no longer possible with all my 1.0 spaceplanes, can't achieve without adding more engines, more fuel, building twice the size or more. Drag nerf'd them all or we need better engines, that sums it up.

[forenci]

It's still doable. In my opinion, SSTOs should be really hard. There's a reason it's not a viable option IRL. I think making it into LKO, docking, refueling, going elsewhere, and then maybe docking again for refueling should be a necessity.

[malkuth]

Yes they do. Ugly useless space trash SSTO space planes. That is because people don't understand the definition of SSTO. They think it means space plane. So then we get that guy who lifted a whole 8 tons to orbit in a 200 ton space bus, bragging like a 4% payload to mass ratio is something good.

I digress.

SSTO.

Single.... Stage.... To.... Orbit......

Doesn't mean it has wings. Doesn't mean it is a plane.

Last I checked, the top spot in the payload to mass 1.0 thread belongs to an SSTO. (Not a space plane.) SSTOs are good. Space planes are decoration. These threads are talking about space planes being useless but using the acronym SSTO because they don't know any better. Plus space planes were always pretty useless unless you went really large. They never were never about efficiency. They were about being ascetic.

I am sure I could easily build an SSTO that gets some pretty nice range. A space plane though? Probably not.

Ah yeah no. Ssto means anything that can get to orbit including planes and rockets without losing anything ie stages. Ssto rocket is even simpler.

[Brownhair2]

As far as I can tell IRL humans haven't made any SSTOs. SSTOs are hard to make.

Just be like me and make plain aircrafts. Currently working on a jumbo jet; it seems the new update has blessed the MK3 parts.

[StevenJ]

As they should. There's a reason why Skylon does't look like a 747 and why the Shuttle couldn't be pushed to orbit on jets.

So is Squad going to create a MK IV system for those of who want huge SSTOs or should I be punished for wanting an SSTO with a bigger cargo bay than the MKII? Skylon's body is as wide and as tall as a MKIII, at least, nose cone is longer though to be fair.

It's still doable. In my opinion, SSTOs should be really hard. There's a reason it's not a viable option IRL. I think making it into LKO, docking, refueling, going elsewhere, and then maybe docking again for refueling should be a necessity.

There are feasible near future technologies to make SSTOs possible. It's a reason why Squad was inspired to create a certain engine called a RAPIER than can do mach 4 + in atmo.

Edited May 2, 2015 by StevenJ

[Brotoro]

Hmmm. In 1.0 I was able to get my RAPIER-powered SSTO Rocket into orbit well (after cutting it down a bit)... but in 1.0.2 I no longer can. Squad may have nerfed jet engines (or the jet-engine aspect of the RAPIER) to the point where I might not be able to use this method anymore. That's realism for you

I need to re-think. Maybe a combo of Turboramjets and rocket engines (like I used to use) is still viable. I may not be beaten yet!

Anybody else use jet-based SSTO rockets? How are they doing in 1.0.2?

[Fel]

Last I checked, the top spot in the payload to mass 1.0 thread belongs to an SSTO. (Not a space plane.) SSTOs are good. Space planes are decoration.

SSTO's are all about re-usability; they're horrible when it comes to payload to mass

Ah yeah no. Ssto means anything that can get to orbit including planes and rockets without losing anything ie stages. Ssto rocket is even simpler.

That's exactly what you quoted said.

[RocketBlam]

I just created an SSTO that can (barely) make a 71k orbit, with fuel enough to de-orbit. And I don't even think it's optimal since it uses two turbojets and two LV-T45's. It doesn't seem that much harder than it was in .90. This is with two air intakes for two engines.

Have they gotten rid of air intake spam? I hope so... it was so cheesy.

Edited May 2, 2015 by RocketBlam

[Payload]

SSTO's are all about re-usability; they're horrible when it comes to payload to mass

Man, you couldn't be more wrong. Unless you believe 48% is horrible.

KSP 1.0 has brought a lot of changes, both to aerodynamics and the specifications of many parts. The requirements for a successful launch to orbit have changed, so let's find out what makes the best lifters with the new version.

The Challenge:

Build and fly the most mass-efficient lifter possible to low Kerbin orbit.

The Rules

- Stock parts only. KSP version 1.0 only, entries from 0.90 or before will not be considered. (Please specify if you are using 1.0.1 or 1.0.2 as well.)

- No cfg editing, save editing, debug menu, or any other shenanigans.

- No physics exploits, the vessel must be lifted by thrust and aerodynamic lift alone. Decoupler force is permitted between propulsive stages, multiple stacked decouplers are not.

- Payload must be mounted to a decoupler or docking node and separated from the lifter in a stable orbit with a periapsis of at least 70km. Update: The decoupler/docking port must stay with the lifter.

- Payload must be inert and contribute nothing but incidental body lift and command authority to the lifter (crewed pod or probe core is ok). All reaction wheels, batteries and fuel tanks in the payload must be disabled via tweakables.

- The base of the lifter must be close to the pad surface, preferably touching it. No kilometer-high launch clamps please.

- Please keep part clipping to a minimum. In particular, do not clip engines at all.

- Images or video of your design is required for entry, showing launch mass, payload mass in stable orbit, and enough in between to show how your vessel works. Craft files are encouraged so we can learn from each other's techniques.

Permitted mods: Visual/immersion mods, informational mods, autopilot if that's your thing. This is primarily a design challenge.

Forbidden mods: Anything that modifies stock parts, adds new parts, or changes the game's physics in any way.

Aside from that, be creative. Build big or small, use exotic staging, mix and match propulsion types, whatever makes it more efficient.

The Scoring:

Score is a percentage, computed as PayloadMassInOrbit / TotalLaunchMass * 100, higher is better. Masses to be taken from the information screen in map mode, not the editor readouts.

The Leaderboard:

1. 48.27% Test Rocket 1.1 by mightyhuhn (Single stage RAPIER rocket) (1.0)

2. 31.29% the struggle by mightyhuhn (RAPIER spaceplane) (1.0)

3. 27.58% silly efficient rockets by maccollo (Asparagus staged rocket) ()

4. 27.29% JATO3 by Shrike99 (Multi stage jet/rocket hybrid) (1.0)

5. 26.29% MT by Nao (Asparagus staged rocket) (1.0)

6. 26.10% Jeb's Ore Truck by cybersol (Asparagus staged rocket) (1.0)

7. 24.08% Untitled Space Craft by Radam (Asparagus staged rocket) (1.0)

8. 22.72% Untitled Space Craft by metaphor (Single stage rocket) (1.0)

9. 22.17% Efficiency Lifter 01 by SanderB (Single stage rocket) (1.0)

10. 20.32% Untitled Space Craft by Overfloater (Serially staged rocket) (1.0)

11. 20.16% Interplanetary by tetryds (Asparagus staged rocket) (1.0)

12. 19.35% Simple 80-ton lifter by Pds314 (Serially staged rocket) (1.0)

12. 19.35% Fraction Rocket by Commander Jebidiah (Multi stage RAPIER/rocket hybrid) (1.0)

If there are enough entries I will split the leaderboard into categories (rocket only, horizontal takeoff, SSTO, etc), but to start I'll keep them all together.

[arq]

I always felt that the airhogged jets that could make over 2km/s on jets alone were a little cheesy. As a person that spent a lot of time on stock and FAR SSTO planes in beta and never really got above 1500m/s without rockets, I don't notice a huge difference now in terms of range. Yes I'm currently just shy of making Minmus and returning, which I've done previously, but honestly my current models have excess thrust so a little more fuel and a better launch profile will probably get me enough.

I'm not sure about this fixation with making a 10t plane that can go wherever. There are some constraints that make this really just not an option (RAPIERs are 2t and a LVN is 3t). But if you widen your scope to 20-25t, I'm sure you can get quite a bit more.

[rottielover]

So I never make SSTO's, for over 1500 hours in this game since .18 I've made rockets. Tonight I saw this post and decided to try given a fairly low tech level (no rapier's)...

The design is pretty simple, couple fuel tanks, two turbo jets and a LV-30 make up the main thrust, with some RCS so that you can dock to a space station with the inline dock ring.

I present Rottie's " F14 Ace I "

The ascent profile was rather, odd.. (not at all what I expected).

I set the rear wheels too far back, so this thing won't lift off till your off the runway, by then you'll just start to get the mach effects. Pitch up to 40 / 45 deg and let the turbojet's do their thang... Once you're about to flame out due to lack of air, stage to kick on the LV-30 and go wings level with the horizon. EDIT: (This desc is greatly simplified, go to the link in my signature for a detailed step by step for those new to flying spaceplanes to orbit)

I make it to an UGLY orbit of 120km x 78 km , de-orbited with the RCS and landed in the great desert...

The only potentially relevant mod here might be Kerbal Join Re enforcement, but you can easily add spacetape if needed.

I am a TAC LS user, and there is a LS container on this ship. If you want to use this ship you'll need to at least load the standard size LS container and then remove it.

(NOTE I'm using NecroBones's fuel tanks plus, makes the stock tanks LOOK pretty, but there are no changes, this craft file should load just fine for those that don't use that mod)

CRAFT FILE HERE

Edited May 2, 2015 by rottielover

[Fel]

Man, you couldn't be more wrong. Unless you believe 48% is horrible.

It is... because it needs engines that don't bleed fuel like they're suppose to ;p

Besides, in the end, redesigning it to be non ssto will always result in it being a better payload to orbit.

[PanzerAce]

Got this one into a 84kmx86km, with fuel/oxidizer to spare

It's ugly, but the front mount intakes let me get up to ~1400m/s at 15-20km altitude....which lets me run on air-breating mode to almost 35km....which is that much less delta I need to make up in orbit.

[Dodgey]

Rocket SSTOs are most certainly not dead, two orange tanks and a mainsail can SSTO a 5.5ton payload to orbit.

[Alshain]

My first new SSTO since 1.0 launch. Second try. This was made with Tier 6 + High Altitude Flight. Now at this tier the engine choices suck, so I wouldn't get very far beyond orbit, but with higher tiers you can go farther. If that thing had the Toroidal engine instead of the LV-T45, I'm sure I would have.

Caveat: I used FAR in 0.90, and ascent was pretty much identical except my intakes started to glow.

EDIT: Oh, and for everything that counts this is stock.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Alshain