The K Prize - 100% reusable spaceplane to orbit and back

[gyroscope]

After many failed attempts with larger spaceplanes. I present "The MIG"

Uses only one engine, and climbs to vertical after takeoff.

[Shadownailshot]

Are there any 0.16 3man SSTO's? Capable of a 150km orbit and roundevouz with my spacestation? The crew needs to be exchanged from time to time

MechJeb, KW pack, NovaPunch, all are OK

I have one, but I believe it relies heavily upon the .16 fuel glitch. I wont know until .17 comes out.

[Tigga]

My planned craft, the \'Orion\'. Unfortunately I have an annoy tendency to refuse to power jet engines using rocket tanks, power rocket engines using jet tanks, use the aero-spike engine, or build anything much bigger than that.

Any advice in regards to keeping within these parameters?

I do exactly the same... except without the size constraint! I tend to use the thin decouplers to separate my rocket fuel from my jet fuel. It seems to work quite well.

My current SSTO attempt is massive, and I've managed to get it into orbit once, though crashed on landing! My main problem is that due to the imbalances that come about after burning my rockets for a little while (fuel tanks draining move my CoM!) I find I have to throttle down at high altitudes and use RCS to keep my nose pointing the right way. At this point the fuel bug hits, so it's hard to call it valid.

What I really need is a AASAS which can also control my engine throttles individually. That way as soon as the imbalances start to occur it could correct by lowering the strength of the engines on one side to move the centre of thrust. It has the added advantage that fuel consumption would lower on the side with less thrust, so the CoM would close in to the CoT as well.

[gyroscope]

My smallest ship so far "The Bat". 2 Jets and one standard rocket

Even in jet mode, it goes vertical soon after takeoff

[boolybooly]

Congratulations gyroscope for success with the Mig, duly recorded on the roll of honour and the Bat too (did that get back OK?)

[Spazzkey]

Apologies if I'm late to the party, but I too have a successful entry. The craft is part of my Hades series of aircraft, and I successfully obtained orbit before landing in both my Hades MkII and MkIII. The MkIII was a augmented version of the MkII designed to land on the Mun before departing back to Kerban, but a last minute failure after obtaining munar orbit prevented that from happening.

The canards on the nose ensure that she achieves a sturdy and maintainable lift quickly. Removing the canards causes the plane to take-off at 50% later than otherwise.

What a modern art masterpiece of an orbit. The irregularity of it is so majestic. My excuse for this pitiful display of pilotry is that I was unsure of the aircraft's abilities and maneuverability in a zero-g enviroment, so took a few shortcuts when achieving orbit.

In Orbit.

Re-entering the atmosphere using orbital momentum to provide lift. There were parachutes positioned on the craft in case the need for emergency decelerative operations arose, but they ended up not being used.

Providing the exit burn of the orbit is properly initiated, the craft won't need any further engine power to land and can reach the ground through a unbearably slow gliding maneuver. I did time the glided landing out of curiosity, which took roughly 20 minutes from the time the burn to de-orbit actualized.

The only improvements that this had over the MKII were the removed RAM air takes and added fuel tanks. As hypothesized, the small amount of extra fuel proved to be an excessive amount for just reaching the mun, meaning I could probably fly to Minmus immediately afterwards if I got my trajectories perfect.

With a better understanding of the aircraft's abilities, I was able to constrain myself from taking any shortcuts which ensured the orbit was (relatively) evenly spaced and circular.

Some pictures of the vehicle in orbit.

Once the Mun appeared on the horizon, I adjusted my heading before forgoing the transfer burn. After approaching a distance of 40,000 meters from the Mun, I quicksaved.

Once the spaceplane was below 10,000m from the Min, I burned again to achieve munar orbit. Immediately following this a gradual landing was attempted. Complete failure. Sorry Bill.

Upon trying again, I was greeted with a lovely quicksave error.

Unfortunately, the lack of balance in the aircraft created by the incident was incurable. Inevitably, we'll be forced to add back-up gyros to cope with tightening federal regulations after the classified disappearance of Bill Kerman.

[Suzaku]

Would you believe me if I said I have a single stage 3 crew spaceplane made completely out of stock parts that takes off horizontally or vertically from the runway at KSP, lands on the Mun horizontally or vertically and then flies back and lands at KSP? It can also orbit Minimus and return to KSP as well.

[gyroscope]

I hope there's a spot for Manually flown minimalist

With a take-off weight of just 11.64 tons (manual mode)

and 10.02 Tons without ASAS and SAS (Still flyable, but requires more skill, or mechjeb)

this is the 10.02 ton one, works best with mechjeb

v0.15

I have attached the craft files

supermini = one with SAS and ASAS

Supermini2 = one without SAS and ASAS (mechjeb mode)

The "supermini" prepares for takeoff

Achieves Orbit above 70k with just a little fuel left for a re-entry burn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a video of the landing. Zero fuel and its gliding capability is superb.

I wasnt able to land on the runway because the craft had absolutely no fuel left for correction maneuvers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flight Report

Very Maneuverable and glides gently. It would be very hard to get killed in the aircraft.

Fuel is very tedious. You need to engage rockets at around 14,000 as the jet runs out of air to breathe. Shut off jet at 20,000

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Craft Weight Data

cockpit = 1

fuel tanks = 5

wings and flaps = 0.08

landing gear = 1.5

Tail and flaps = 0.14

engines = 2.2

0.5 -rocket

0.5 -rocket

1.2 -jet

fuel lines = 0.1

guidance systems = 1.60

total = 11.62

---------------------------------------

Weight without Asas and SAS (mechjeb mode)

10.02 Tons

--------------------------------

Edited August 18, 2012 by gyroscope

[Suzaku]

My 0.16 entry, The Kerborca. It's actually a modified version of a re-usable space shuttle that I designed to carry cargo loads of 3 tons to orbit in between the twin hulls and then return to KSC. It turned into an interplanetary spacecraft when I replaced the hollow middle section with 36 tons of fuel which also theoretically means the Kerborca could have carried 36 tons? But definitely not into orbit or to the moon.

Kerborca Taking off

Mun intercept

Mun Landing

Tilted forwards for Mun Rover mode

Back in orbit of Kerbin

Ehhh I'd rather not post pictures of the landing, it failed miserably when I decided to miss KSP and land in the Jungle. It also caused KSP to crash.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Suzaku

[Suzaku]

My attempt at the Minimalist Record, the Kerbell X-15 in 0.16.

Takeoff weight is 5.5 tons, empty weight is 2.5 tons. I based the design off of all the features I figured would work from famous aircraft throughout history. V-tail from the f-117 nighthawk to save weight(not for stealth), landing and takeoff skis similar to the ME-163, Tail elevators from the F-16 taken to an entirely new level as wing canards, and the name is pretty obvious.

X-15 sitting on the runway

Goes vertical very soon, could have been sooner but I didn't want it to fishtail

Returning from orbit

Who says landing skis don't work?!?!?

Flight Statistics

Edited August 19, 2012 by Suzaku
Typos and updates to the design

[Suzaku]

*ehhh, typo on the name of the company for the X-15, *Kerbell.

How do you edit posts on this forum lol.

[gyroscope]

Finally got my first v16.0 SSTO.

Weight = 19.56 tons

Edited August 18, 2012 by gyroscope

[boolybooly]

OK thanks to spazzkey, gyroscope and suzaku for some interesting screenies and mission attempt reports. I went through them with interest and have been trying to work out which ones were successful missions and which were failed mission attempts. I am having a hard time because I have a wretched summer cold which I am not enjoying, messing with my head.

I feel it might help to clarify a rule here FYI, the orbit must be totally outside the atmosphere ie both PE and AP above 70,000m. I cant tell if all these reports fulfill the mission requirements or not. So as we are on the honour system I was hoping you would tell me.

Rules

1. The craft may not lose any parts in flight, no decoupling allowed.

2. The craft must lift off horizontally, reach orbit (PE > 70,000m) and land intact ready for 'refuelling'.

3. All fuel tanks, wings (lift generators) and engine parts must be stock, for fairness.

Spazzkey, Hades looks like a good flyer and MkII landed well, shame about the MkIII engine loss, it has happened to some of mine too. Did MkII orbit with a PE over 70Km? I am happy to take your word for it, just the orbit screeny for MkII at that point in the mission shows a PE which looks a little lower than 70Km.

gyroscope your supermini apogee shot is more crucial and I am being more critical because I am checking to see if it qualifies for the unofficial minimalist record (suspended in v16 due to the throttle bug but unofficially attributed in very small writing!) and because of the fine fuel margins you were running it is hard to tell. Did you get the full orbit with PE over 70Km before landing because the speed / altitude in you screeny is suborbital. 'arrow' looks like its name and you said it was ssto which the screenies show, did you manage to land it in one piece as well ?! If so it deserves another entry on the roll to go with your previous.

suzaku, you asked if I would believe you and I would. But before I log a mission on the honour roll I need to know what happened and the name of the vessel and whether you claim kudos for any achievements. I feel its right to require proof of achievements which are competitive ie records but as I say we are on the honour system. (If anyone wants to be on the roll bad enough to tell a porkie then they can be on it if it makes them feel better.) I am gathering you had some success with a 3 Kerbal ship, so well done for that. Your word is enough but to put it on the honour roll it would help if you can check the mission fulfilled the main rules, name the vessel and specify your achievements. I am guessing from the X-15 results screeny that it didnt make orbit as the top speed over land was not high enough to make orbit and it clearly went up then down again, but it is a very unusual craft design especially the landing gear. Also by your own account the Kerborca's landing wasnt pretty so I am not sure if that is the 3 Kerbal craft which made the whole mission or not.

nightynight all

[Suzaku]

No way, just a couple of minutes ago the newest version of my SSTO broke orbit of the Kerbin system... IT'S FREAKING INTERSTELLAR! A interstellar SSTO made with 100% stock parts and no glitches(I even patched the fuel bug)! I hope the design works in 0.17, I've spent the last 5 days and at least 50 hours working on this design.

Didn't fully understand the rules for the X-15, so yeah, that one doesn't qualify for sure. It's a neat design though.

I'm trying for the maximalist record with a loaded weight of 85.8 tons.

The Altitudinalist record because my SSTO broke orbit of the solar system and should be able to get an insanely high orbit easily and back.

And the Astrokerbal Distinction due to Mun rescue of a couple of stranded Kerbals.

The name I decided on for the shuttle is Exelion after one of my favorite starships.

Gonna try to make a video of it exiting the system tomorrow as well as landing.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Suzaku

[gyroscope]

gyroscope your supermini apogee shot is more crucial and I am being more critical because I am checking to see if it qualifies for the unofficial minimalist record (suspended in v16 due to the throttle bug but unofficially attributed in very small writing!) and because of the fine fuel margins you were running it is hard to tell. Did you get the full orbit with PE over 70Km before landing because the speed / altitude in you screeny is suborbital. 'arrow' looks like its name and you said it was ssto which the screenies show, did you manage to land it in one piece as well ?! If so it deserves another entry on the roll to go with your previous.

Thanks, here's video proof that it is an SSTO, no mods, no autopilots

It is orbital, it can go above 200k AP and PE if I play my cards right.

the supermini isnt a v16 craft, the arrow is.

About the arrow is easily landable, i swear by it.

Edited August 21, 2012 by gyroscope

[Suzaku]

My next 0.16 creation, the South Kerbalandium K-15 Recordbreaker.

Designed as a test-bed of a bunch of random theoretical technology I had sitting in my head, it all came together perfectly.

This ship takes off horizontally, however it also has a special ability that I haven't seen in any other space plane.

It can self-right and also take off vertically from a horizontal position (Does not break the spaceplane rules for this challenge as it does not need to be lifted by separate machinery into vertical position )

Ascent

In orbit

Orbital Trajectory

Super stable when re-entering the atmosphere, the most stable re-entry vehicle I have built to date.

K-15 Landed

K-15 preparing for another mission, just refuel and you're off!

Loaded weight is 13.5 tons in 0.16 fuel bug was patched for my KSP. (minimalist record? )

And yes, this bad boy of technological triumph is a stable flying wing, as there really is no other more efficient way to fly through the air, however most flying wings have major instability issues, this one has absolutely none.

Wow, I love making SSTOs

13 hours of building this thing and perfecting it was totally worth it!

[Guard13007]

Well I don't see my name in the list, so I have now realized I forgot to submit my entry all that long time ago when I did this after reading about this challenge. Here we are in orbit:

Unfortunately, I do not have an image of it landed, but it does land easily. I have this image though, which is a modified version (replaced the aerospike with a LVT-30 or whatever you call the non-vectoring engine) that I was experimenting with SRB-assisted vertical launch (to have more fuel left once in orbit). The launch vehicle blew up but didn't damage the craft, and I landed it, then made this image and posted it on reddit as a joke 'how to check your engines'

In fact that's a good example of how easy it is to land, because it has almost completely full tanks in the image, and landed easily after a horrible launch failure.

[Shadownailshot]

Well I don't see my name in the list, so I have now realized I forgot to submit my entry all that long time ago when I did this after reading about this challenge. Here we are in orbit:

Unfortunately, I do not have an image of it landed, but it does land easily. I have this image though, which is a modified version (replaced the aerospike with a LVT-30 or whatever you call the non-vectoring engine) that I was experimenting with SRB-assisted vertical launch (to have more fuel left once in orbit). The launch vehicle blew up but didn't damage the craft, and I landed it, then made this image and posted it on reddit as a joke 'how to check your engines'

In fact that's a good example of how easy it is to land, because it has almost completely full tanks in the image, and landed easily after a horrible launch failure.

Dude. How did you manage to switch rocket engines mid flight? That's impressive. You should probably take all of your pictures from the same flight so they know you're not faking it

[Guard13007]

Switch rocket engines? ... I didn't switch engines...there's only one engine.

EDIT: Oh, cause the last photo was from the modified design (which I mentioned this already).

EDIT #2: Fine, full video, coming up in a few hours.

EDIT #3: Because I like to use a joke as a defense to make a pointless fun romp of a video!

Edited August 22, 2012 by Guard13007

[Shadownailshot]

Switch rocket engines? ... I didn't switch engines...there's only one engine.

EDIT: Oh, cause the last photo was from the modified design (which I mentioned this already).

EDIT #2: Fine, full video, coming up in a few hours.

EDIT #3: Because I like to use a joke as a defense to make a pointless fun romp of a video!

I like the comments at the bottom of the video. Nice. I wasn't mad man lol. I was just commenting on the different engines. It just looked weird from my perspective. I haven't watched the whole video though, that thing has to rely on the fuel glitch.

[Shadownailshot]

I can't believe that things worked... I think it might even work without the fuel glitch. Can I use that design and modify it a bit?

[Guard13007]

I like the comments at the bottom of the video. Nice. I wasn't mad man lol. I was just commenting on the different engines. It just looked weird from my perspective. I haven't watched the whole video though, that thing has to rely on the fuel glitch.

Yeah, I built it right after KSP 0.16 came out, before I learned of the fuel glitch. It's cool, for a brief moment I thought you were upset, but then I was like, I know it's a joke, but I'm gonna reply as if it isn't and use it as an excuse to make a video. And then I had a lot of fun making the video.

I can't believe that things worked... I think it might even work without the fuel glitch. Can I use that design and modify it a bit?

My thoughts after this flight were that if it had one extra tank (though I have no idea how you'd add one without screwing its beautiful balance) it would get up with a good pilot without exploiting the fuel glitch. Like I said, I didn't know I was exploiting a glitch when I made it, just thought I had gotten really lucky with a good design and I guess a perfect flight path. xD

Edit: Oops forgot to answer you. Yeah, go ahead and mess with it, just poke me (I don't look through the forums often enough to see new things when they're posted) so I can see it, and give me credit (just a link to (I'll give you the link once I update my post, for now I guess link to my profile page) saying it was based off of my design). I like credit. Credit is fun. xD

Edited August 23, 2012 by Guard13007

[boolybooly]

Sorry for not updating earlier, my cold became bronchitis and I feel like someone used my chest for a launchpad, but I am feeling a bit better today.

As for the rocket throttle glitch I dont think it should be looked on as a cheat. Its in the game, hasnt been patched and its almost impossible not to use it so IMHO its perfectly OK to use it and allowance has been made for the advantage it brings by creating a separate honours list for this version. In fact I would encourage players to understand and exploit it to the fullness of their ability because in v17 it will be gone so we may as well have some fun with it while it is here. I dont think the fuel use and thrust to mass ratios of rockets are properly balanced for 100% throttle anyway in v16 and will need rebalancing when the bug is removed so really its not as if the bug is breaking an otherwise realistic computer model IMHO, meanwhile I have made some weird ships fly exploiting this bug. Business as usual for v17 I hope.

Suzaku, I am looking forward to your video of your interstellar SSTO. I like the South Kerbalandium K-15 Recordbreaker launch mechanism a lot but unfortunately the rule about horizontal take off is definitely broken if that is the way you took off for the challenge. My keen eye and penchant for Sherlock Holmes stories leads me to the inescapable deduction that this was how it took off Since the landing struts are extended and the ship is over the start of the runway just after liftoff !! So you have been awarded a place on the gatecrashers (rule breakers) list, for now! However that will change when I see your video including successful landing and all your past nefarious activities will be forgiven and forgotten... (I hope you find that acceptable and that all readers understand the light humour and friendly intent with which this award is given).

Guard13007, thanks for your screens and entertaining video of your innovatively constructed SSTO spaceplane. You definitely fulfilled the challenge and passed the test with flying colours, landing with great skill on a difficult terrain in the dark. So you undoubtedly deserve a place on the roll of honour aka the guest list.

Edited August 23, 2012 by boolybooly

[Shadownailshot]

I just realized... I never posted my .15 or my .16 versions here. Hm.

[Suzaku]

Suzaku, I am looking forward to your video of your interstellar SSTO. I like the South Kerbalandium K-15 Recordbreaker launch mechanism a lot but unfortunately the rule about horizontal take off is definitely broken if that is the way you took off for the challenge. My keen eye and penchant for Sherlock Holmes stories leads me to the inescapable deduction that this was how it took off Since the landing struts are extended and the ship is over the start of the runway just after liftoff !! So you have been awarded a place on the gatecrashers (rule breakers) list, for now! However that will change when I see your video including successful landing and all your past nefarious activities will be forgiven and forgotten... (I hope you find that acceptable and that all readers understand the light humour and friendly intent with which this award is given).

Lol, so close to getting away with taking off vertically. Well, here's a video pf the ship reaching orbit with the vertical take-off mechanism in action. Though I thought I made it pretty obvious from the pictures I took.

Pictures of horizontal takeoff soon to come.

I hope I get to be on both the gatecrashers and awards lists.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Suzaku