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

[pa1983]

No rule against clipping that I know of. Clipping happens all the time even when the user dont intend to have parts clip.

[Exothermos]

Absolutely bonkers, pa1983. 2 orange tanks?! Wow.

[boolybooly]

Nice neat mission with an effective looking spaceplane in the HS-210 Photon nerdboy64, with all the relevant details to hand, thanks. Welcome back and congratulations on your K Prize and skillfully earned Advanced Pilot Proficiency Award 1st Class. Clipping is fine IMHO.

pa1983 the Falcon XI Hercules is a megaship, though you didn't beat your previous maximalist record, nevertheless a stylish way to get a lot of fuel into orbit. Looks good, amazed it flies so well! Must have taken quite a bit of R&D to get right. Your Advanced Pilot Proficiency Award and Utilitarial Commendation and place on the invite list for the K Prize party were well earned!

Thanks for your contributions.

[iDan122]

I suggest you look at my Raven, it can go to orbit, land at KSC, take off vertically, dock with a KSS, launch a satellite into orbit, many things!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/29826-Raven-SSTO-Multipurpose-Spaceplane?highlight=Raven

[Giggleplex777]

Not much for most of you guys here, but I finally made a VTOLSSTO that works (with only one vertical engine, too)!

I don't have a screenshot of it landed back on Kerbin but it did.

[boolybooly]

Some interesting design work there iDan122, thanks for the link, if you point me to a K Prize mission I will link it and add you to the roll.

Giggleplex777, I like compact style but need to verify that the craft began its flight with a horizontal vector, made orbit with PE>70km and whether you made the runway, vicinity of KSC or just a green bit when landing, before classifying it as a K Prize winner.

[pa1983]

Falxon XI Hercules lifting Eeloo Explorer craft to LKO.

http://youtu.be/CLJP_w6C93o

[Cranium]

I finally got a working SSTO with a great looking design, if I may say so. It's called the Falcon X2. The X1 version is simply an in-atmosphere version without the rocket fuel, and small engines on the sides. Both work ridiculously well,a nd are very well balanced. So balanced, in fact, that I am able to use my negligible piloting skills to land right back at KSP!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Giggleplex777]

Some interesting design work there iDan122, thanks for the link, if you point me to a K Prize mission I will link it and add you to the roll.

Giggleplex777, I like compact style but need to verify that the craft began its flight with a horizontal vector, made orbit with PE>70km and whether you made the runway, vicinity of KSC or just a green bit when landing, before classifying it as a K Prize winner.

I'll try to get pics of those once imgur starts working again. The first picture was actually just a demonstration of it hovering. It can also be a STOL.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Giggleplex777

[Giggleplex777]

Here:

Takeoff

In orbit

Approaching KSC

Landed on the runway

[pa1983]

Vtols are always impresive.

[bsalis]

Vtols are always impresive.

Indeed!

Welp, i'm back to claim my .20 K-prize while I still can. So sorry boolybooly, but it had to be done.

Here we are, this is the Valkyrie, ready to go. Note that I am moving forward at 0.3 m/s in order to qualify.

It's another VTOL. Three seater this time. Doing 0.7 m/s now.

Climb on jets.

To orbit on rockets.

Pe 102Km... bit messy without MJ.

Re-entry. Burning up some excess fuel.

Maneuvering around to land.

That's better.

We are done here

Edited July 9, 2013 by bsalis

[Cranium]

Indeed!

Welp, i'm back to claim my .20 K-prize while I still can. So sorry boolybooly, but it had to be done.

Here we are, ready to go. Note that I am moving forward at 0.3 m/s in order to qualify.

-snip-

It's another VTOL. Three seater this time. Doing 0.7 m/s now.

-snip-

Climb on jets.

-snip-

To orbit on rockets.

-snip-

Pe 102Km... bit messy without MJ.

-snip-

Re-entry. Burning up some excess fuel.

-snip

Maneuvering around to land.

-snip-

That's better.

-snip-

We are done here

-snip-

Well, it's not going to win any awards for beauty, but it certainly looks like it works well!

[that1guy]

My first working 3 man SSTO since .18

[pa1983]

Watched the howl video to see what your doing after the PM you sent me.

I know some people take offence when you ask or point stuff out but my intention is not to look down at some one here.

Im curious why you opted for the airospikes? I see a lot of people do that but I dont realy understand why. Wounder if I have missed something. Many seem to like that engine but for me its to heavy and no vector trust and the ISP realy is not that much better then the LV-30 or 45 plus the LV-30 is lighter and has more trust so for me the aiospike usually dont save any fuel with its higher ISP. So from all the testing I have done it seems almost nurfed to pointlessness buts thats my opinion. I some times use the LV-30 in combination with the LV-45 to get some vector trust once the atmosphere no longer offers enough force for the control surfaces and that combo has lower wight and higher trust for just a tad bit less ISP.

[numerobis]

The rational reason for the aerospike is largely its reduced drag in the atmosphere. In vertical flight, if you're flying a T30 at 1.34 times its terminal velocity, you would have been better off hauling aerospikes (even though you have to haul more aerospikes than T30s). In horizontal flight, the aerospike is better at any speed. A spaceplane is somewhere in between, but closer to horizontal than vertical, so the aerospike will allow you to use the jet stage to get to a higher speed. As you point out, you'll lose some of that advantage in the vacuum portion of your flight.

The real reason is that it looks cool.

[pa1983]

But drag is also proportional to weight from what I remember and T-30 has a reasonable more trust and lower weight reducing the need for many engines and less weight.

Airospikes should be 1ton if I had my way to make them less nurfed but still not overpowered.

I just find it inefficient to hull around more and heavier engines with marginally higher ISP. The NV-1 pays off with there extremely high ISP so there weight is not a real problem.

But from my experience even with SSTO's fiering up rocket engines at 24Km altitude the airospikes vs T30 or T45 more ore less evens out at best.

Only advantige I see is there size. I have used them for VTOL SSTO spaceplanes but even that can be designed around and use T30, T45 by mounting the engines inside the craft and have openings in the bottom. Sure migth be more drag but jets are so efficient so when you get high enough it was no problem even for a 120ton SSTO to the moon and back with VTOL capability.

But to me they would make sens if they where 1ton instead. Especially sens there popular on smaller SSTO's.

Edited July 11, 2013 by pa1983

[numerobis]

The "cross section area" of the aerospike is 0.1 * 1.5 tonnes = 0.15 area units (m^2 seems wrong, but 150m^2 seems wrong too), whereas that of a T30 is 0.2 * 1.25 tonnes = 0.25 area units. So the aerospike has less drag. Even if you normalize that for the same thrust, you find that per kN of power plant capacity you're hauling, the aerospike is lower drag.

Out of the atmosphere, the drag doesn't matter anymore and it's all about Isp versus mass. So aerospikes are cheaper to lift on a plane up to near orbit than are T30s, but they aren't better once you light them.

[Pinkieseb]

How do you get it into orbit? All my planes shutdown completely and spin out of control at around 20,000m...

[pa1983]

To few intakes or to low speed i would guess.

[rexrex600]

The "cross section area" of the aerospike is 0.1 * 1.5 tonnes = 0.15 area units (m^2 seems wrong, but 150m^2 seems wrong too), whereas that of a T30 is 0.2 * 1.25 tonnes = 0.25 area units. So the aerospike has less drag. Even if you normalize that for the same thrust, you find that per kN of power plant capacity you're hauling, the aerospike is lower drag.

Out of the atmosphere, the drag doesn't matter anymore and it's all about Isp versus mass. So aerospikes are cheaper to lift on a plane up to near orbit than are T30s, but they aren't better once you light them.

Would I be right in thinking that if ksp modelled decent aerodynamics, it would be immaterial, as the engine would be shielded by the body of the spaceplane, so, purely aerodynamically, there would be no difference?

[boolybooly]

Awesome space delivery pa1983.

Welcome to the K Prize Cranium and congratulations on completing the mission with your carefully crafted craft.

Likewise giggleplex with your beautifully balanced bird, very elegant VTOL capability. Congratulations on completing the K Prize mission successfully. Sorry about the horizontal stipulation its just to differentiate spaceplanes from turbojet rockets. Thanks for your pictorial report though your word does suffice for the K Prize.

No apologies necessary bsalis, nice to see you having fun with your VTOL (capable) space vehicle. Thanks for your report.

Welcome back that1guy and thanks for your video report of your new ships flight, congratulations on completing another K Prize mission.

[pa1983]

The "cross section area" of the aerospike is 0.1 * 1.5 tonnes = 0.15 area units (m^2 seems wrong, but 150m^2 seems wrong too), whereas that of a T30 is 0.2 * 1.25 tonnes = 0.25 area units. So the aerospike has less drag. Even if you normalize that for the same thrust, you find that per kN of power plant capacity you're hauling, the aerospike is lower drag.

Out of the atmosphere, the drag doesn't matter anymore and it's all about Isp versus mass. So aerospikes are cheaper to lift on a plane up to near orbit than are T30s, but they aren't better once you light them.

One learns something everyday. Know there was a good reason to ask.

[codepants]

Nothin' special but thought I'd share:

Craft File:

http://www.filedropper.com/fireeaglemkiv

Needs Aviation Lights 3.3.

[Lazer Cut]

Hi guys, I present to you my SSTD(Single Stage To Duna) the Lightning Bolt MK3. Unfortunately it is not capable of returning to Kerbal on its own, but it might manage to make Duna orbit so I can just send a refueler. Someone with better rendezvous skills than me might be able to make the trip to and back

Created using stock parts with the exception of Mechjeb and Engineer Redux. Little to no clipping(only some wings) and no spamming of air intakes. I wanted to do this as 'real' as I could within the limits of KSP. Information panels will be kept up to verify the trip.

The ship is an excellent glider due to high amounts of wings used, so parachutes are not needed(only messed up when I tried with). It might take some patience to successfully land though.

Parts: 279

Weight: 70t

Jet Engine: 5

Aerospike Engine: 4

Nuclear Engine: 2

Intakes: 8

Cockpit: 1

Landing gear: 7

Docking port: 1(not used, just for added versatility)

Take off:

In flight:

Note: The Delta velocity value will be incorrectly calculated the entire trip as it takes all the engines ISP into consideration, but most of the fuel is burned at an ISP of 800s.

Injection burn:

Circularized:

Injection to Kerbol orbit:

On Duna rendezvous course:

Duna intercept:

Aerobraking:

Note: Sorry for forgetting to activate the resource menu, turned itself off after a quickload, flight engineer is still there to verify though.

Landing in darkness:

Moment of truth:

Success!

So that's it! Sorry for the amount of pictures. And, I know the ship doesn't land on Kerbin, but I really wanted to make it go to Duna. Hope you'll show some mercy! If necessary I'll make the ship go into orbit and land on Kerbin again.

Craft file and user manual (requires Mechjeb and Kerbal Engineer redux). The RAR archive includes the .craft file and an user manual for ascent.