SSTOs! Post your pictures here~

[AeroGav]

On 18/02/2017 at 2:33 PM, Abastro said:

Tired of designing propeller engine, made a mk3 SSTO. 

 

What is the delta V like once you refuel it?

I accidentally came up with something organic looking,  but yours looks a little more evolved. Mine's more of a Pterodactyl 

Can you put your mk3 bird up for download?  I really want it !

Ps.  I also had a career mode mk2 with an upside down cargo bay for deploying ground relays.  It rode really low down on account of using large numbers of the small landing gear.     When i used the action group to deploy the cargo, it used to squirm on the ground as the doors opened, looked like it was laying an egg.

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by AeroGav

[Jett_Quasar]

Raytheon SSTO - Download on Kerbal-X

- Jett

 

[mystik]

@Korsakovski I'd like your advice on something. With the Farnir (I hope I 'm not messing up the name) I get 3200m/s when on rapiers vs 2800m/s when on nukes afer reaching orbit. This seems odd. Shouldn't you get more m/s on high ISP engines? What is causing this? Are there too few nukes? Would it be worth going only on rapiers by switching the lf to lf+ox? I seem to get a 8:7 ratio from rapiers to nukes so it is less efficient to use them at that point. Do you get similar results?

[Reusables]

11 hours ago, AeroGav said:

Can you put your mk3 bird up for download?  I really want it !

Yeah, here goes the improved version.

Craft file

Images : http://imgur.com/a/5xhRA

Action Groups:

Spoiler

1. Switch mode of the Rapiers
2. Toggle Rapiers
3. Toggle Nukes

9. Extend/Retract Solar Panels & a Radiator
0. Toggle cargo bay - it should be opened for 9 to work

Instructions:

Spoiler

* Don't forget to close the cargo bay! (Press key 0)
  - There's a bug involved with this. It can't be closed before launch!

Launch:

1. Takeoff on 80m/s of speed.
2. Ascend with AoA of 10 degrees.
3. Start level flight on altitude of 4km~4.5km, breaking the sound barrier.
4. Hold to prograde after surpassing 500m/s
5. When pitch gets under 0 deg, start level flight to gain speed to 1.6km/s
6. Toggle rapiers to rocket, and turn on the nervas. (Just hold SAS here)
7. Reach orbit!
 

Reentry:

1. Recomended Periapsis at 50km. Keep AoA of 30 degrees to decelerate. Beware of stall...
2. When it gets slower than 1.5~1.6km/s, turn on the rapier and fly to the runway. (Don't forget to change it into airbreathing mode)

 

 

[Korsakovski]

15 hours ago, mystik said:

@Korsakovski I'd like your advice on something. With the Farnir (I hope I 'm not messing up the name) I get 3200m/s when on rapiers vs 2800m/s when on nukes afer reaching orbit. This seems odd. Shouldn't you get more m/s on high ISP engines? What is causing this? Are there too few nukes? Would it be worth going only on rapiers by switching the lf to lf+ox? I seem to get a 8:7 ratio from rapiers to nukes so it is less efficient to use them at that point. Do you get similar results?

That's odd. Was the dV number from KER or mechjeb? Kerbal Engineer seems somewhat bugged with the Kraken and Fafnir, dunno about mechjeb. As for the number of nukes, I have 12, so that is roughly one nuke per 50 tons, which should be rather generous. What kind of fuel amounts are giving you those numbers?

What kind of ascent profiles are you using exactly?

[mystik]

20 minutes ago, Korsakovski said:

That's odd. Was the dV number from KER or mechjeb? Kerbal Engineer seems somewhat bugged with the Kraken and Fafnir, dunno about mechjeb. As for the number of nukes, I have 12, so that is roughly one nuke per 50 tons, which should be rather generous. What kind of fuel amounts are giving you those numbers?

What kind of ascent profiles are you using exactly?

I use a mod called VOID, because it's very light and uses the same displays from KER but without the extra stuff I don't use. It could be the mod. I will try with KEER but it just seems weird. What values do you get when switching from one engine to another?

[Sufficient Anonymity]

Gone over to OPT for my spaceplanes.

I've got passenger and cargo versions of the current flagship.

[Korsakovski]

1 hour ago, mystik said:

I use a mod called VOID, because it's very light and uses the same displays from KER but without the extra stuff I don't use. It could be the mod. I will try with KEER but it just seems weird. What values do you get when switching from one engine to another?

I only have screenshots of E15 though, none of the Fafnir.

Rapier mode dV

Nuclear dV

EDIT:Reading provided by Kerbal Engineer doesn't seem to update without burning the engines, so I used mechjeb this time.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Korsakovski

[mystik]

@Korsakovski It was my mod that was reading it like that. With KER I get 3200m/s on rockets and 4000m/s on nukes. I am flying the Fafnir D14 because it has enough force to make landing on Tylo possible, which I fear that the Bahamut may not, because it relies mostly on nukes. I am launching a few satelites ahead of me and then I start my grand tour. Wish me luck.

[Korsakovski]

49 minutes ago, mystik said:

@Korsakovski It was my mod that was reading it like that. With KER I get 3200m/s on rockets and 4000m/s on nukes. I am flying the Fafnir D14 because it has enough force to make landing on Tylo possible, which I fear that the Bahamut may not, because it relies mostly on nukes. I am launching a few satelites ahead of me and then I start my grand tour. Wish me luck.

Again, VTOL mode of the current iteration has not been tested. Other than to verify that it is too strong in the front. Two vectors in the front bay and four in the rear bay is probably the way to go.

[mystik]

32 minutes ago, Korsakovski said:

Again, VTOL mode of the current iteration has not been tested. Other than to verify that it is too strong in the front. Two vectors in the front bay and four in the rear bay is probably the way to go.

I ditched the VTOL feature to save some weight. I am doing this the old way, via rapiers, slow down to the surface, then gentle push forward to land like a plane. I think it should be enough to work. I tested with rockets only and I got up to 7500 vertical. There is enough TWR in this to work on Tylo without the need of VTOL.

[Aerospacer]

nano- nyano-ssto: singleJuno-based SSTO in Mk0 size.

It almost stock - just 1 mod's part ( Mk0 cargobay from @Kerbas_ad_astra).

More images:

Spoiler

"The World's Fastest Kerbian" is back to home.

Next time need to add a dockport for orbital refueling.

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Aerospacer
some added

[Kryten 2X4B 523P]

Pretty much final (only need to add some RCS and do a little more tweaking) version of my Javelin Mk 1 SSTO.

A little smaller and lighter than the prototype (168T loaded vs 189T loaded, and 8 rapiers vs 12), can still loft a Big Orange (36T) to 80km, leaving 550m/s in the tanks (loaded) and 950m/s once the payload has been delivered.

Take off & flight is a doddle - just point it at 10 degrees off the runway and leave it there until 10km, drop the nose slightly to 20km, then engage closed cycle and ride up at 20 degrees / coast / circularise.

Landing - even easier - almost completely hands off, and has a great glide slope. 

Can even land in water safely (and take off again without cargo, not tried with cargo yet).

Initial tests of a heavy version show it will lift 2 Big Oranges to the same orbit, with 400 m/s left in the tanks.

Here she is in re-entry.

[mystik]

On 2/20/2017 at 10:19 PM, Korsakovski said:

Again, VTOL mode of the current iteration has not been tested. Other than to verify that it is too strong in the front. Two vectors in the front bay and four in the rear bay is probably the way to go.

I did some tests on the Fafnir yesterday. I landed on the Mun without VTOL and it's too difficult to do this on planets with higher gravity. The problem comes from the lack of maneuverability. It turns too slow to be able to do flips just above the surface. The back wings scrape the ground and are easily broken. You can land but it is so difficult and you have to pray that the ship won't flip. I know, I removed the VTOL feature and may be my fault, but the giant beast is hard to control.

 

Let it be known, the design is good, I should revert the VTOL change and try again. But I am thinking of doing a MK2 version, however, there are very few designs available to draw inspiration from. Or would it be better to just stick to a SSTO rocket shape instead and do vertical landings?

 

I will probably go back to the design and keep it VTOL free and add landing struts and a set of spike engines (top and bottom) to assist with converting from vertical to horizontal mode once landed. I am not comfortable with VTOL because it fluctuates a lot depending on the weight remaining. I rather do vertical landings as they are more stable and predictable but after adding the mechanism to allow for the ship to gently switch orientation once landed.

Edited February 22, 2017 by mystik

[Korsakovski]

3 hours ago, mystik said:

I did some tests on the Fafnir yesterday. I landed on the Mun without VTOL and it's too difficult to do this on planets with higher gravity. The problem comes from the lack of maneuverability. It turns too slow to be able to do flips just above the surface. The back wings scrape the ground and are easily broken. You can land but it is so difficult and you have to pray that the ship won't flip. I know, I removed the VTOL feature and may be my fault, but the giant beast is hard to control.

 

Let it be known, the design is good, I should revert the VTOL change and try again. But I am thinking of doing a MK2 version, however, there are very few designs available to draw inspiration from. Or would it be better to just stick to a SSTO rocket shape instead and do vertical landings?

 

I will probably go back to the design and keep it VTOL free and add landing struts and a set of spike engines (top and bottom) to assist with converting from vertical to horizontal mode once landed. I am not comfortable with VTOL because it fluctuates a lot depending on the weight remaining. I rather do vertical landings as they are more stable and predictable but after adding the mechanism to allow for the ship to gently switch orientation once landed.

The original reason for the VTOL was because my craft were getting too heavy even for Minmus landings. So I can see how heavier gravity might be a pain. Or rather, well done to have landed that 600+ ton monstrosity on the Mun.

The design is somewhat light in reaction wheels and rcs nozzles though, again it was just an intermediate prototype. Next version already has heavier rcs and a redesigned vtol layout (2 vector in the front bay, 4 in the rear.)

Considering how I had to run the frontmost engine at 19% to prevent tipping when in orbit, I probably have to move the thrust backwards even more. Maybe a major redesign is in order. Probably have to move the side tanks foward to move the center of mass. Maybe add more fuel to the front too.

I'll try to post something on KerbalX before the end of the day. Still need to tweak a few things.

[mystik]

41 minutes ago, Korsakovski said:

The original reason for the VTOL was because my craft were getting too heavy even for Minmus landings. So I can see how heavier gravity might be a pain. Or rather, well done to have landed that 600+ ton monstrosity on the Mun.

The design is somewhat light in reaction wheels and rcs nozzles though, again it was just an intermediate prototype. Next version already has heavier rcs and a redesigned vtol layout (2 vector in the front bay, 4 in the rear.)

Considering how I had to run the frontmost engine at 19% to prevent tipping when in orbit, I probably have to move the thrust backwards even more. Maybe a major redesign is in order. Probably have to move the side tanks foward to move the center of mass. Maybe add more fuel to the front too.

I'll try to post something on KerbalX before the end of the day. Still need to tweak a few things.

Awesome news as always. The design is surely good. Improvements are always welcome and the design has potential. Are you talking about the Fafnir D14? I think it's better than the Mammuth (sorry if I misspell the names, I know they are nordic names). The problem with Mammuth is that I doubt it can ever land on Tylo because it has little Oxidizer. It will require a stop to one of the moons first, but that's not the problem. The problem comes from actually taking off. To take off from the Mun I had to use about half of the Oxidizer in the Fafnir D14. The nukes were not enough and I tried to use them as much as possible. I was not gaining speed fast enough to stay in orbit. This was in low gravity, so I imagine Tylo means you lack the TWR once your Oxidizer runs out to ever leave the planet. The Fafnir has enough DV and TWR to take you there and I see how this will work. Just running on pure rocket engines I managed to reach 7500m vertical on Kerbin. I guess that would mean somewhere 12000-15000m on Tylo since there is no atmosphere and the gravity is somewhat lower but not by much. From there you can go with nukes and attempt a landing on another moon to refuel since I could actually use the nukes to slow down and float at 75% power and could actually take off vertically (slowly) from the surface.

I did manage to land on the Mun but I also managed to do some contracts with my rover. It was easy to get out, drive, then return. Reattaching the rover back in the hull was very difficult. I think I need to drop my landing gear trick that I use to attach to the ship and switch to some basic rocket engines that can lift it up in the hull. That's another story.

I also think the ship can do well with less engines. It accelerates very fast and it seems to be overkill because by the time I reach 1450m/s the atmosphere runs out and the engines seem that can take me further if there was room, so I think that's a bit too much power. Since rapiers are the most useful, I think dropping the 4 outer whips from the tail will save some weight. Or you could go with dropping extra rapiers. The thing is that it may save some weight and improve maneuverability as well. I suck at design, so I may be off with this, but I felt like the ship has too much power (I know, sounds crazy) for it's own sake. Saving weight is something I always go for when I customize a ship because it makes it easier to control.

Oh, one important thing, I must mention. I don't know if you are aware of this, but the reaction wheels have a better response if you spread them around. Having all of them focused in one part of the ship makes the ship pivot in that area. Turn the Fafnir in space and see that it rotates around the passenger cabin, not the entire body. Essentially, if you turn, the front moves at a slower speed than the back, essentially like a baseball bat, where the handle is where the cabin is. It makes for some unpredictable responses when trying to land. You want the heavier part (tail) to rotate slower, and the lighter part to move faster (nose) because that allows for better flight control in and outside the atmosphere. It may actually mean that you need less control surfaces. Control surfaces are useless on all but 4 planets and you can only visit 3 of those. So essentially, the minimum control surface you can get and still fly it safely, is the target. But this would require the control wheels to be near the center of mass or the rear. This may mess up your COM but it does bring big improvements to overall handling with less parts.

Last night I was returning from the Mun and I could not land it back on Kerbin. If I save and try to resume from the atmosphere, when I reload the ship blows up in the wings area, where the inner nukes are located. I think there is a problem there, something is colliding badly, the main body remains, but the wings fly off even if I have used autostruts to make the structure more rigid (it used to wobble terribly when rapiers are engaged). I get an explosion every time when I reload. I have to load an older save and do the landing in one try.

Edited February 22, 2017 by mystik

[Korsakovski]

The non-tylo version with the 5k dv was Bahamut and yes, it was just another prototype to see how much pure dV the design could offer. No consideration was given to the ability to land on Tylo.

(http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Bahamut picked the name from Final Fantasy, so it's japanese, not nordic, although the name originated from arabic mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamut)

[Rune]

I've been very bugged with Mk2 spaceplane parts lately. It's not that they have horrible drag (they do, more than two Mk1 fuselages, especially the Mk1-Mk2 short adaptors), poor lift (they kind of do, for their actual size), or awful tankage ratios (again, one of the worst in-game). The thing that finally did me in was the mismatch in pitch/yaw torque values for the probe core, which makes the Espada a handful to maneuver out of atmosphere. I was really close to crashing the other day... landing on Minmus! That should definitely NOT happen! Well, Mk3 is a tad big, but big means more fuel:

4,3km/s on LKO with seven Kerbals on board, plenty of juice to go anywhere on kerbin's SOI on the same training flight, and also poke out of it for the full training-to-lvl3 experience. Twice the engines on the Espada, tough.

 

Rune. Really simple to put together, BTW, I slapped it together in an hour or so.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Rune

[SpaceYorkie]

This bad boy completed the K-Prize Challenge.

[mystik]

13 minutes ago, Korsakovski said:

The non-tylo version with the 5k dv was Bahamut and yes, it was just another prototype to see how much pure dV the design could offer. No consideration was given to the ability to land on Tylo.

(http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Bahamut picked the name from Final Fantasy, so it's japanese, not nordic, although the name originated from arabic mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamut)

My apologies, I must have missed the fact that Bahamut was not intended for Tylo. Thank you for the explanation regarding the names. I'm not a FF fan but I certainly have heard about it. Thanks for taking the time to explain. And thanks for your great work.

[Korsakovski]

New version with 2+4 vector layout. My ascent this time sucked eggs so only got like 3,35km/s dV when in orbit. Well, part of it was probably from the additional large reaction wheels, more pitch RCS and the few odd struts I added to the rear.

https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Fafnir-D16

http://imgur.com/a/pXH4c

[mystik]

Downloaded and designed new rover for it. It does have less dv than the D14 but not by much. I have to test it on a trip to recover a ship part from the surface of the mun that's sitting there since the beginning of the game.

[mystik]

@Korsakovski I tested it a bit. Unfortunately it seems worse than D14 in overall handling of landings. The VTOL is hard to control,  I have to disable the forward engines and use RCS like crazy. Also, reentry is very bad. It does not want to stay upright. It gets very bottom heavy once it is empty and it cannot be controlled on descent. KER is also reading the dv wrong and all over the place. The side engines run out of fuel before all others even if there still is fuel left in the middle tank.

 

I think it is too heavy. The large ISRU can be replaced with the small one and the 4 drills can be switched to just 1 or two. Which means less radiators, less power needs, less weight, less engines, less lenght, less RCS needed, less control needed.

 

I know, I am rambling, but the thing is so heavy you can't put it down safely without it overstressing the wheels and blowing up at 5m/s impact. It's a clumsy monster. I spent 2 hours trying to land it on the mun, with and without VTOL. I'm sorry if I sound anrgy. I'm frustrated with the difficulty of landing such a big ship in the game weird gravity. I will try to cut it down to size tomorrow. At this point longer mining times are not an issue. Getting there is more important. Any chance you'd be interested in obtaining the same of dv in a much lighter version?

[Jett_Quasar]

I just finished uploading the Simplex Shuttle to Kerbal-X

- Jett

[Korsakovski]

13 hours ago, mystik said:

@Korsakovski I tested it a bit. Unfortunately it seems worse than D14 in overall handling of landings. The VTOL is hard to control,  I have to disable the forward engines and use RCS like crazy. Also, reentry is very bad. It does not want to stay upright. It gets very bottom heavy once it is empty and it cannot be controlled on descent. KER is also reading the dv wrong and all over the place. The side engines run out of fuel before all others even if there still is fuel left in the middle tank.

 

I think it is too heavy. The large ISRU can be replaced with the small one and the 4 drills can be switched to just 1 or two. Which means less radiators, less power needs, less weight, less engines, less lenght, less RCS needed, less control needed.

 

I know, I am rambling, but the thing is so heavy you can't put it down safely without it overstressing the wheels and blowing up at 5m/s impact. It's a clumsy monster. I spent 2 hours trying to land it on the mun, with and without VTOL. I'm sorry if I sound anrgy. I'm frustrated with the difficulty of landing such a big ship in the game weird gravity. I will try to cut it down to size tomorrow. At this point longer mining times are not an issue. Getting there is more important. Any chance you'd be interested in obtaining the same of dv in a much lighter version?

Sorry you had to suffer from my megalomania. The Kraken/Fafnir is basically the biggest SSTO spaceplane I have built so far and it shows. The com/col woes seem almost constant, I can't seem to adjust the dry/wet mass distribution properly no matter how many revisions I pull.

The VTOL thrust is also aligned to god knows where, I know. Again, this is the first functional(?) VTOL SSTO spaceplane I have made, so results may vary.

The mining setup can and should probably be downgraded.

Originally the design was extrapolated from the Asgard https://kerbalx.com/Korsakovski/Asgard-AX, which has something like 40 tons of cargo capacity and 3,3km/s dV in orbit while weighing 414 tons. The prototype was even lighter.

I'll probably have to make a whole new design without my usual megalomania and assume the same minimalistic design philosophy as I have with my normal rockets.

I think I will stick to Mk3 though, the heat resistance on those parts is just too good.