1.0.2 Can anyone get a Mk3 SSTO spaceplane in orbit?

[KerikBalm]

Generally, I don't land spaceplanes on atmosphere-less planets. Generally I don't land SST(K)Os on atmosphereless worlds (where the K is to specify its a SSTO on kerbin).

For the larger mk3 designs, I'll have some sort of lander that undocks. You saw my mk2 design earlier in the thread, but some tiny landers can be made to fit in mk2 cargobays.

Minmus is a somewhat special case, because its so low G. That single LV-N was giving it >8:1 minmus TWR. You can just land on the LV-N, and then nidge it over on to the wheels. Also because of the flats, if you want to be really efficient, you can save ~50 m/s and land on the flats on the wheels. Yes, it involves "flying backwards". Null your descent rate just before impact without nulling your horizontal speed, then nudge the nose over (you have time in the weak gravity of minmus), and set down on the wheels. Slowly come to a stop over the flats. Assuming tricycle landing gear, set the brakes to zero on the two "main gear" and have the centerline nosewheel (which is now at the trailing part of the craft) brakes set to maximum. RCS on can also help if you have problems with flipping.

For that pictured mk3 design (that isn't just a very kerbal hodgepodge of wings and engines like the earlier designs I posted), I didn't actually use it to leave kerbin SOI. I used it to get to nearly escape velocity, and then release its payload, so that the payload's ejection burn was miniscule.

That isn't to say that I won't land mk3 designs on places like Mun, this design was seen in the background of one of my earlier posts:

I was tempted to SSTO it to kerbin orbit, and then decouple strap on SSTOs, but in this case, I just launched it fairly conventionally with rocket stacks below each poodle.

Spoiler

It can takeoff and land vertically while oriented horizontally, but mainly it uses the poodles. I mainly touch down on those two I-beam prongs on the back, and then with action groups shut off the Poodles and activate the Thuds. As the nose swings down, I fire the thuds to cushion the touchdown.

Payload testing

This caries modules for a 3-module base (with ISRU, fuel storage, crew space, and a research lab), and I didn't want to send 3 of these mk3 cargo craft... so it needed to load additional modules into the bay in space (once all modules were brought to the surface, I could do all further loading and unloading on the ground using the ramp and wheels)... that was tricky...

 

but it was fun

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by KerikBalm

[TDplay]

1 minute ago, KerikBalm said:

I'll have some sort of lander that undocks

me too.

[strigon]

42 minutes ago, Ajiko said:

In my opinion using LV-N's - extremely close to cheating.

Why's that? They're very useful for a certain circumstances, but they're a far stretch from game-breaking. The weight, low TWR, and fact that it uses solely LF make its uses quite limited. 

If it's almost cheating to use an engine that works very well in its niche, an awful lot of engines are going to be "cheating". RAPIERs? Fantastic for SSTOs. Ants? Phenomenal for small probes. Vector? Ridiculous thrust, massive vectoring make it wonderful as a first stage on a mismatched vessel. Dart? Great all-around, but really comes into its own on planets like Eve. Mammoth, Mainsail and Twin Boar? Incredible heavy-lifters.

All sorts of engines are just as handy as the Nerv, when used in the proper context. What makes the LV-N so overpowered?

[Ajiko]

18 minutes ago, strigon said:

Why's that?

Primarily because atomic engines didn't even be used for real spaceflights.

And yes, Rapiers and Darts looks like semifantastic too.

[strigon]

5 minutes ago, Ajiko said:

Primarily because atomic engines didn't even be used for real spaceflights.

And yes, Rapiers and Darts looks like semifantastic too.

Lots of things haven't been used for real spaceflights.
Like SSTO spaceplanes. 

I realize this has been said many, many times, but KSP is fundamentally different from real life; if you're desperate for realism, you'll have to do some serious modding. To my mind, the only way to gauge the "cheatiness" of a part is by looking at whether or not it's overpowered, regardless of the real-life analogues. If we discovered a real-life engine that weighed 50 kilogrammes, had a TWR of 1500, could fully throttle and restart an unlimited number of times, and had 1500 ISP we'd use it for every mission. Nobody would say it was cheating, but if it were then put in KSP I think most people would agree it was cheap.
Why, then, is a well-balanced engine that would work fine in real life, but is simply unsafe, cheating?

[KerikBalm]

Real NTR rockets were built... they were never flown... but they were built and tested.

One can't say that about the Rapier/Sabre.

However... there's the tyranny of the rocket equation. Getting more dV becomes exponentially harder to get. KSP dV requirements are about 1/3 real life requirements.

I tend to think that KSP LV-Ns are more overpowered relative to real life... not because their stats are unrealistic, but because the dV needed in KSP is unrealistic.

FWIW, if we were going to compare KSP to real life, the chemical rockets are all getting mediochre Isp, and pretty bad TWRs. The LV-N by contrast gets the same Isp as its real life prototypes, and actually a pretty good TWR relative to the prototypes, approaching that of some more advanced designs that never got built... although its stats are still far behind the estimates for "Project Timberwind"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Timberwind