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

[pa1983]

I dont do math Well I dont like doing math so just do it when I realy need to.

I dont have action keys for all that I need now, using one for intakes would decrease efficiency sens I have to do some compromise.

Here are som numbers for my Jumbo but they are unique to that craft.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25918-Versatile-SSTO-Spaceplanes-with-no-need-for-refueling

[Jod]

Ok, so essentially - I will need to split my air intake and jet engine action groups. Close 3/4 the intakes at lower altitudes, then open them and turn off 3/4 of the jet engines at higher altitudes... Will give it a try.

[pa1983]

With 14 engines and 209 intakes and running on two engines that 100+ intakes on per engine Suppose thats the advantage when you have 14 jet engines. So bigger ssto in this case makes room for more intakes so a bit of an advantage.

[meeki]

My K Prize Space Plane(s)

100% Kerbal - NO MODS

2 variants - both built on the same frame.

Craft File

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12968946/kerbal/craftfile/meeki-SP-LVT45.craft

meeki-SP-LV45

The LVT45 - is good for geting into orbit or going to and from mun or minmus

Craft File

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12968946/kerbal/craftfile/meeki-SP-AS%26LVN.craft

meeki-SP-AS&LVN

The 2x Aerospike and 1 LVN - is the one for visiting other planets. It can get to EVE without a topoff in orbit.

Craft File

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12968946/kerbal/craftfile/meeki-SP-PL-AS%26LVN.craft

meeki-SP-PL-AS&LVN

Same as above but with a rover payload.

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

meeki-SP-PL-AS&LVN in orbit

EVE encounter

Eve Orbit

Eve Aero breaking

Final aero Break

Lineup Tuchdown

Rover (got to give it full go and not let off the gas or youll roll it)

Took a trip to the pond

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

Landing on the ksp runway ( not a return trip just deorbit kerbal)

Came to stop on left hand side.

Edited June 19, 2013 by meeki

[numerobis]

With 14 engines and 209 intakes and running on two engines that 100+ intakes on per engine Suppose thats the advantage when you have 14 jet engines. So bigger ssto in this case makes room for more intakes so a bit of an advantage.

Indeed. I've been tinkering with a multi-stage rocket that starts with fewer intakes than engines, and dumps engines as I climb -- 4 engines per intake at the start, 10 intakes per engine at the end.

[pinolallo]

BollyBolly, I' happy for the update of the Topic post, but why I'm listed on the gate crasher with this ship (6 may) but not with this one (11 may)? That just 30 tons ship hold an unmatched 92.77% record of efficiency on a 100 km orbit, hold 7 kerbals and is able to do a 3k-prize run in a row.

Edited June 20, 2013 by pinolallo

[Tiron]

I'll be honest, part of my problem with PA is that I tried and/or wanted to do some of those things and couldn't figure out how to do it without really screwing things up.

Putting the jets on the outboard pods and a single engine on the center for example. I literally cannot think of a way to do it without excessive in-flight fuel management, due to not being able to make the jets draw their fuel from ONLY the fuselages. There's no way to block fuel feed from the outboard rocket tanks to the jets mounted on the back of them without also blocking flow to the rocket on the center, at least not that I'm aware of, because EVERY SINGLE PART has crossflow enabled now and you can't turn off crossflow except on docking ports.

Edit:

Alright, I'm working on the -H model...I modified the config on the space shim I'd run into somewhere before to make it block fuel crossflow(And to, you know, actually work). It took me a minute to figure out how, which led me to figuring out why so many parts suddenly became crossflow capable: Most parts lack a value for fuel crossflow at all, and it apparently defaults to true if nothing's specified. to turn it off, you have to explicitly set it to false, and only a VERY few parts (the plates and girders mainly) have this set.

I'm trying a smaller version based on the -D model chassis rather than the larger -F model, just to see what happens.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Tiron

[boolybooly]

BollyBolly, I' happy for the update of the Topic post, but why I'm listed on the gate crasher with this ship (6 may) but not with this one (11 may)? That just 30 tons ship hold an unmatched 92.77% record of efficiency on a 100 km orbit, hold 7 kerbals and is able to do a 3k-prize run in a row.

You stated in the post that you used modified B9 wings, I assumed you had understood the rules and were declaring them and so assumed that you had not broken the rules, also the wings look like stock, in the 3x mission which is listed in the v19 missions which have been moved from the first post because we are on v20. See link in OP.

Rules

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

PS its boolybooly not bollybolly, you make me sound like a champagne addict!

[pinolallo]

I was not complaining about the rules, I know them and that ship was just an experimental one, I was complaining because the gate crashing is ship listed in .20 and not in .19. Sorry the misspelling of your nick.

[numerobis]

Putting the jets on the outboard pods and a single engine on the center for example. I literally cannot think of a way to do it without excessive in-flight fuel management, due to not being able to make the jets draw their fuel from ONLY the fuselages.

I tend to accept that disadvantage. Jets are much more efficient than rockets in almost all regimes, so you may as well just use the jet longer and not worry too hard about orphaned oxidizer. On the next flight, you'll know to bump up the jet fuel reserves. Once in orbit, it can be worthwhile to bleed off the excess oxidizer before undertaking any interplanetary travel.

[boolybooly]

I was not complaining about the rules, I know them and that ship was just an experimental one, I was complaining because the gate crashing is ship listed in .20 and not in .19. Sorry the misspelling of your nick.

So you were complaining? So what do you think should be done about it?

Personally I think the Gate crashers list is amusing because I like my own sense of humour but then I would wouldn't I? So I keep it there because there are not many crashers each version and it adds character to the first page and makes the K Prize less intimidating for new comers, who see its perfectly OK to have a go and they will not be excluded if they fail, just added to the list of infamy.

Edited June 21, 2013 by boolybooly

[pinolallo]

So you were complaining? So what do you think should be done about it?

Personally I think the Gate crashers list is amusing because I like my own sense of humour but then I would wouldn't I? So I keep it there because there are not many crashers each version and it adds character to the first page and makes the K Prize less intimidating for new comers, who see its perfectly OK to have a go and they will not be excluded if they fail, just added to the list of infamy.

BB

I'ts ok ,

I'm not native english and is hard for me understand "humor". I'm fine in the .20 gate crasher.

A question, what about a Duna/Moons etc K-prize SSTO? this because I have some of them that are shuttling from land base to spacestations and back. What do you think about make a little extension of k-prize?

[Tiron]

BB

I'ts ok ,

I'm not native english and is hard for me understand "humor". I'm fine in the .20 gate crasher.

A question, what about a Duna/Moons etc K-prize SSTO? this because I have some of them that are shuttling from land base to spacestations and back. What do you think about make a little extension of k-prize?

There's already a series of sub-distinctions for this:

6. Visiting other SOIs. Kosmokerbal Commendation.

7. Planetoid landings. Astrokerbal Distinction.

8. Payload to orbit. Utilitarial Commendation.

9. Payload to planet surface. Utilitarial Distinction.

Prefixes: Exploratory applies to planetoid missions and Expeditionary applies to planetary lander missions outside Kerbin's sphere of influence.

The 'Kudos' acknowledge having gone above and beyond the basic prize rules itself.

I've got an advanced pilot proficiency, but not the kosmokerbal, astrokerbal, or utilitarials despite having landed a larger version of mine on Duna, with a Rover, presumably because it didn't have enough fuel left afterwards to get off Duna.

[Cinocal]

Just posted this in another challenge but it's SSTO + Rover and VTOL.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/36656-KSCM-XD-4L-Dropship-Design-Challenge?p=477662&viewfull=1#post477662

[WafflesToo]

Hey, is it too late to jump onto this ship?

Aurora

Aurora

(vanilla except for Kerbal Engineer, mostly for instrumentation on Apo, Per, and TtA) (sorry, bad audio)

Piper

Piper

(Ferram Aerospace Mod installed)

(runners up, now being served with extra fail XD)

Aurora =

General compilation of flights =

(sorry for the double post... had problems with the video embedding :/ Can we just delete the broken post?)

[boolybooly]

Cinocal, great looking ship and clearly K Prize capable, but to get the K Prize you have to actually do the mission and its not clear from the post you linked whether you had done that . (FYI if you want to fly a mission inside the K Prize mission rules they include lift off with horizontal start, though it only needs to be a few of meters, to distinguish it from a launchpad SSTO, the mission can still be flown using VTOL engines for the lift and can land any which way you please as long as it stays on one piece).

Tiron I tend not to link partial missions from K Prize winners on the assumption that they will be finished one day, but if you particularly want a partial mission to be added to the gate crashers list just say so and I can do that np.

WafflesToo, its not too late, well flown with the Aurora and Piper. Technically the Piper mission using Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR) mod is outside the K Prize rules but is still a worthy if not an even worthier accomplishment because flying with FAR looks a lot harder! So congratulations on winning the K Prize with Utilitarial Commendation and Advanced Pilot Precision Award with Aurora.

[Cupcake...]

I'd like to enter my Scythe dropship for the competition, it's 100% stock, can get into orbit easily, and uses a single turbo jet engine and an LV 909 . However I'm not sure if it can really be described as a space plane, lacking wings and such like...

Cupcake...

[Cinocal]

Cinocal, great looking ship and clearly K Prize capable, but to get the K Prize you have to actually do the mission and its not clear from the post you linked whether you had done that . (FYI if you want to fly a mission inside the K Prize mission rules they include lift off with horizontal start, though it only needs to be a few of meters, to distinguish it from a launchpad SSTO, the mission can still be flown using VTOL engines for the lift and can land any which way you please as long as it stays on one piece).

I have flown it this time for K-Prize.

[boolybooly]

That's OK Cupcake, its very innovative, and take off begins with horizontal movement... albeit backwards, if there is a back on the Scythe and presuming you actually did the mission the K Prize committee will take your word for it that you reached orbit and then landed safely as the video is a little ambiguous about that, since the PE is never clearly shown above 70km even though it is implied and the craft is evidently capable. I am guessing the video is out of sequence as the shot leaving atmosphere precedes the shot approaching the atmosphere boundary, though it could be two different missions the time index suggests they are probably just out of sequence so it appears as though the orbit circularises while the craft is just inside the atmosphere but the time index suggests that probably was not the case.

Thanks Cinocal, cool rover dropship combo btw.

Edited June 26, 2013 by boolybooly

[Cupcake...]

I must confess I didn't make the video with the K-prize in mind, I just wanted to show a typical SSTO mission profile for the Scythe (hence the artistic licence with some of the editing, it was also filmed in two takes due to a computer crash), but the ship can achieve the 70 km orbit without breaking a sweat, you have my word on that one.

Cupcake...

That's OK Cupcake, its very innovative, and take off begins with horizontal movement... albeit backwards, if there is a back on the Scythe and presuming you actually did the mission the K Prize committee will take your word for it that you reached orbit and then landed safely as the video is a little ambiguous about that, since the PE is never clearly shown above 70km even though it is implied and the craft is evidently capable. I am guessing the video is out of sequence as the shot leaving atmosphere precedes the shot approaching the atmosphere boundary, though it could be two different missions the time index suggests they are probably just out of sequence so it appears as though the orbit circularises while the craft is just inside the atmosphere but the time index suggests that probably was not the case.

Thanks Cinocal, cool rover btw.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Cupcake...

[boolybooly]

I must confess I didn't make the video with the K-prize in mind, I just wanted to show a typical SSTO mission profile for the Scythe (hence the artistic licence with some of the editing, it was also filmed in two takes due to a computer crash), but the ship can achieve the 70 km orbit without breaking a sweat, you have my word on that one.

Cupcake...

I do believe you Cupcake, as I said earlier to Cinocal the question is not whether it can but whether it did and then landed safely, its flying the mission which earns the prize rather than being able to or doing parts of it in different missions. So I am assuming that the mission to full orbit and back was in fact flown, let me know if I am mistaken and misreading your previous post.

[Cupcake...]

You're quite right, although I should have explained myself better. When I did the first take of the video I made it to orbit before the computer crashed, I then started again from the runway and did the whole mission including the landing. The video is made up of clips taken from both these flights. Anyway, thanks for the prize I shall treasure it forever.

Cupcake...

I do believe you Cupcake, as I said earlier to Cinocal the question is not whether it can but whether it did and then landed safely, its flying the mission which earns the prize rather than being able to or doing parts of it in different missions. So I am assuming that the mission to full orbit and back was in fact flown, let me know if I am mistaken and misreading your previous post.

[pa1983]

So its been a while. Been fiddling with some experimental crafts etc but yesterday I produced a new craft. Its still a bit of a prototype but it now works. Took me for ever to figure out that the rudders turn the wrong way when I used ailerons so well it went in to a spin when I tried to maneuver more then small increments.

This SSTO is unmanned, it saves parts sens you dont need an abort system and also wight so its not the world if it crashes. It has a new wing that do not run trough the center of CoG but is in line with the belly of the fuselage to better accommodation the small landing gears that KSP only offers atm. It also has engine nacelles 2/3 out and the idea was to have engines and fuel there but with fuel it was to heavy. If I could get the fuel there CoG would have been easy to maintain because placing fuel in the now lowered wing lowers CoG relative to CoT and well causes nose downs at high altitudes. I had to get around that by having some of the heavier fuel tanks on top of the wing and widening the fuselage. Was not the original idea but it solved that problem.

Earlier version of the craft also had a V shaped stabilizer but it proved inefficient and increased the risk of a spin when doing a role with hard banking so a more traditional stabilizer proved more efficient. Also the ruder control surfaces are at the center line of the pod in the nose to avoid them turning in the wrong direction when ailerons are applied to avoid a stall and spin.

The craft is only capable if a 100km LKO but its main objective is to lift a payload and its booster etc to orbit where it then will be boosted to the target. So the SSTO is not in need of range or precision maneuvering. Its made to get the payload up asap and do a fast turn around for the next trip.

Take off tonnage was 161.99 tons and payload delivered was 72.92 tons to a 100km orbit.

Landed back at KSC with a perfect landing.

Some pictures of the new SSTO aka Falcon XI Hercules on its first successful run.

Edited June 28, 2013 by pa1983

[1096bimu]

So its been a while. Been fiddling with some experimental crafts etc but yesterday I produced a new craft. Its still a bit of a prototype but it now works. Took me for ever to figure out that the rudders turn the wrong way when I used ailerons so well it went in to a spin when I tried to maneuver more then small increments.

This SSTO is unmanned, it saves parts sens you dont need an abort system and also wight so its not the world if it crashes. It has a new wing that do not run trough the center of CG but is in line with the belly of the fuselage to better accommodation the small landing gears that KSP only offers atm. It also has engine nacelles 2/3 out and the idea was to have engines and fuel there but with fuel it was to heavy. If I could get the fuel there CoG would have been easy to maintain because placing fuel in the now lowered wing lowers CoG relative to CoT and well causes nose downs at high altitudes. I had to get around that by having some of the heavier fuel tanks on top of the wing and widening the fuselage. Was not the original idea but it solved that problem.

Earlier version of the craft also had a V shaped stabilizer but it proved inefficient and increased the risk of a spin when doing a role with hard banking so a more traditional stabilizer proved more efficient. Also the ruder control surfaces are at the center line of the pod in the nose to avoid them turning in the wrong direction when ailerons are applied to avoid a stall and spin.

The craft is only capable if a 100km LKO but its main objective is to lift a payload and its booster etc to orbit where it then will be boosted to the target. So the SSTO is not in need of range or precision maneuvering. Its made to get the payload up asap and do a fast turn around for the next trip.

Take of tonnage was 161.99 tons and payload delivered was 72.92 tons to a 100km orbit.

Landed back at KSC with a prefect landing.

Some pictures of the new SSTO aka Falcon XI Hercules on its first successful run.

That is one awesome space plane!

[nerdboy64]

I did this challenge a few updates ago, and I figured I'd give it another go in 0.20. My craft is the HS-210 Photon, a small, agile, and fairly efficient spaceplane. It was actually created at the request of someone on the Fusion Aerospace thread. The mission wasn't originally intended to be used for the K-Prize so there aren't any screenshots from the launch phase. I used no modded parts, docked with a station and landed back on the runway without refueling at any point. I did use part clipping on the intakes (there are 8 in total), but I didn't see a rule against it, and there is no doubt in my mind that, if they were placed differently, the plane would still work as intended.

Imgur album with the screenshots: http://imgur.com/a/MsRT6#0