SSTOs! Post your pictures here~

[Kryten 2X4B 523P]

Been continuing with my Javelin SSTO series, working on a passenger variant that is capable of making it to the moon and back. Could probably make it to Minmus as well.

Ended up with this. 32 Kerbal capacity.

Makes a 85km circular on Rapiers only (with bingo fuel), then switch to nukes for the rest of the ops (with 2700 m/s in the tanks). Burn times out of LKO are a bit long at only 0.31 TWR, but can rendezous with a station in mun orbit at 25km, then make it back and survive an aerobrake pass at 30km, landing on the second pass. Good for water landings, runway and fairly flat terrain.

[mystik]

8 hours ago, Korsakovski said:

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.

Don't worry about it. I learned many things from your designs. In fact, I learned so much that I have been working on something new. I have not seen the design before, I think this may be a first. I made a Mk2 proto with small ISRU and one giant drill (yeah, crazy) and am currently testing it. 6 crew capacity, 20.000 dv at start, 3.5km/s in orbit, 165t, fully autonomous. It is currently landed on the mun, refueling. Does not require solar panels or fuel cells, all science that it can carry, has the 88 communitron stashed inside, can land as a plane or rocket, thanks to a new type of landing setup that is perfectly safe and adjustable for any gravity. It can fly on it's own and can science alone. Easy to reach orbit. Have not landed on empty yet and I will once the refuel is ready. I have landed and it is capable of landing at speeds as low as 50m/s thanks to it's wide wings. It remains stable even when empty. When oxidizer is left it helps to pump the 4 top tanks to the rear tank to stabilize reentry. It can be easily recovered if control is lost. I will post pics and links soon. I will look into your design. As always, I am thankful for any new design you put out. I test most of them. Like you said, perhaps a redesign is needed. Go for light. It makes landing easier. I think you should keep 3000dv in rocket mode and the rest as nukes (2000-3000dv should be enough on nukes). I am talking as per landed on Minmus. 3000dv should be enough for Tylo landings or take offs. I will wait for your new design and mess with this invention while you work on it so that I have something to do. I know you'll probably design something that will outperform my toy by a whole 10.AU.  (nerdy astro joke)

Edited February 26, 2017 by mystik

[mystik]

Still working on the ship (Arrow), it got me to Moho but was short on fuel, I need about 2000m/s more. Currently it can pull almost 6000m/s out of a full tank. It has seen a few revisions, now Arrow IV model M61242 (6 crew, 12 rapiers, 4 nukes, 2 spikes). I need to balance the load of 1/3 oxidizer and 2/3 fuel. I am thinking it can take more fuel tanks. I need about 7500 m/s in total to land on Moho. I can add a new set of fuel tanks easily, as the whole thing is balanced around the COM and adding more stuff does not upset it. Refueling takes a long time, but since transfer windows are far, it does ok.

Edited March 2, 2017 by mystik

[Razorforce7]

I think I created THE heaviest stock airbreathing spaceplane SSTO thus far posted. Only intended to deliver cargo to LKO.

Its been a long held dream of mine to create ever greater STOCK SSTOs then the ones I've build before. This time with the goal of getting as much payload in orbit with a airbreathing spaceplane.
I'm very certain I succeeded in this with my last build, and so I will share this one with ya all.

Took me days how to figure out how to attach/strut all parts without the craft loosing parts due to stress during all stages of flight.
I'm done puzzling

And I am very sure that its the heaviest, largest and with the most payload capacity to orbit of all the stock airbreathing SSTOs

She has 70 Rapier engines. Almost as long as a 747-800
She weighs over 1300Tons on launch and has 453,445kg or 453Ton jettisonable cargo in 3.75m format.
Thats a fraction of 35% payload to orbit.

As for TWR or Thrust/drag ratio she is actually capable of doing over 500 Ton to LKO. Although I might need to squeeze some extra LF in somewhere.

Can rotate in vaccuum with vernors and can perform controlled aerobrake and powered landing.

Requires 5 Vector engines within a front cargo bay to pivot the nose up to enable a controlled takeoff.

I used Mechjeb autopilot for ease of control but she is very stable and doesn't require that at all.

323 Parts including cargo.

 

 

 

 

Full Album

 

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Razorforce7

[Rune]

12 hours ago, mystik said:

Still working on the ship (Arrow), it got me to Moho but was short on fuel, I need about 2000m/s more. Currently it can pull almost 6000m/s out of a full tank. It has seen a few revisions, now Arrow IV model M61242 (6 crew, 12 rapiers, 4 nukes, 2 spikes). I need to balance the load of 1/3 oxidizer and 2/3 fuel. I am thinking it can take more fuel tanks. I need about 7500 m/s in total to land on Moho. I can add a new set of fuel tanks easily, as the whole thing is balanced around the COM and adding more stuff does not upset it. Refueling takes a long time, but since transfer windows are far, it does ok.

Woah, you are using Mk2's for a SSTA! Cease and desist at once!

No, seriously, Mk2 is the worst fuselage in-game for pretty much everything. It has four times the drag of a Mk1, more volume for the same payload, the worst tankage ratio in game, not enough lift to do anything with it, and basically it is flat out terrible. Switch to Mk3 (or for an even better tankage ratio, Mk1) for the liquid fuel, and plain old rocket fuel tanks for the LFO mix, and you will see a much smaller empty weight, thus much more mileage with the same takeoff weight, and all of it in a much more compact airframe, meaning it will be more maneuverable under RCS/reaction wheels.

 

Rune. Right now I actually consider mk2 fuselages to be bugged.

[mystik]

1 hour ago, Rune said:

Woah, you are using Mk2's for a SSTA! Cease and desist at once!

No, seriously, Mk2 is the worst fuselage in-game for pretty much everything. It has four times the drag of a Mk1, more volume for the same payload, the worst tankage ratio in game, not enough lift to do anything with it, and basically it is flat out terrible. Switch to Mk3 (or for an even better tankage ratio, Mk1) for the liquid fuel, and plain old rocket fuel tanks for the LFO mix, and you will see a much smaller empty weight, thus much more mileage with the same takeoff weight, and all of it in a much more compact airframe, meaning it will be more maneuverable under RCS/reaction wheels.

 

Rune. Right now I actually consider mk2 fuselages to be bugged.

I don't see them as bugged at all. In fact, they reduce the need for extra wings since MK2 acts like a wing. I have no problem. My ship is way smaller and has lots of DV more than any MK3 things I've seen. I will push on with this model, optimizing the loadout to reach 7500m/s and thus creating a decent spaceplane that can go most places. I am struggling with Moho, but I don't need that much at this point and I fee like I am quite close to successfully landing on Moho.

 

MK3 seems to be too heavy for anything. Landing anything big enough to reach Moho would probably be a nightmare when your ship snaps under the weight of landing 500t on any surface. My ship is well under 200t at this point and will not go above 250t before I scrap it. That's the point. I want to keep it light. And sub 250parts to avoid crappy framerates and crashes. I does not even have RCS because it is meant to work fully independent of anything and does not need to dock to anything. Bare essentials, does not carry scanners, only science instruments that can collect it. One small ISRU, one big drill, just enough RTGs to power it up no matter where you go. I went with RTG vs fuel cells because you will most likely run out of oxidizer after a while. Plus, being able to have unlimited power is always sweet. You can't cram in the big fuel cell in the hull. It's not elegant. I have no issues getting this up in LKO with 4000m/s left, so I experience none of this "horrible drag" you speak of. I keep it extremely streamlined and I use some tricks like vertical fuel tanks to reduce the standard drag that may come with wide surfaces. A side turned MK2 is less draggy than a MK3side by side. Plus, it acts like a rover without being all clumsy and slow, it just works.

Edited March 2, 2017 by mystik

[Rune]

1 hour ago, mystik said:

I don't see them as bugged at all. In fact, they reduce the need for extra wings since MK2 acts like a wing. I have no problem. My ship is way smaller and has lots of DV more than any MK3 things I've seen. I will push on with this model, optimizing the loadout to reach 7500m/s and thus creating a decent spaceplane that can go most places. I am struggling with Moho, but I don't need that much at this point and I fee like I am quite close to successfully landing on Moho.

dV, absent TWR considerations, is driven by tankage ratio (the coefficient between wet and empty mass). Because Tsiolkovksy. A Mk2 Fuselage has a way worse tankage ratio than a Mk1 tank... and the wings that would give it several times the lift rating of a Mk2. Not to mention the drag issue, which means you need much more airbreathing engine weight for a given fuel load to go supersonic. You could keep at it, and maybe you'll get somewhere (I doubt it, considering the exponential nature of the rocket equation, your size will balloon with diminishing returns). But if you put the exact same amount of fuel in different tanks, you will need less engines, and you will get better range. Math guarantees that.

Also, a Kerbin-Moho transfer should be 5km/s, capture included, not 6, so you should also check your navigating. You can actually shave off of that almost a km/s from launching form Minmus, of course. And dare I suggest you haven't seen all of what a Mk3 can do? Not that Mk3 has the best tankage ratio anyway.

Note: this two SSTOs are both powered by a single RAPIER and draw air using a single precooler. The first one has a TWR of 0.67, and struggles to go supersonic, needing to do so at basically sea level, flying level or slightly downwards, and taking its sweet time. The second one a TWR of 0.58, and goes supersonic much quicker, while climbing, in about a minute... with three times the frontal surface. Note the resource numbers, too. And of course my Mk3 designs usually make do with TWRs under 0.5, the secret to their payload efficiency. Mk2 fuselages, I'm sad to repeat, are broken.

 

Rune. Just trying to help!

Edited March 2, 2017 by Rune

[septemberWaves]

Honestly the only particularly good thing about Mk2 fuselages is their appearance. Which for me is quite an important factor, but they're still not great parts in every other regard.

[Thor Wotansen]

[Thor Wotansen]

An evolution of the BSG Viper design with 3 Rapiers and a Nerv.  It has around 3,200m/s delta V in a roughly 80km orbit.

[Andetch]

EDIT - To show vehicle in orbit. I did loose control on re-entry into thick air, but happily as over ocean I jumped out and survived. See in the gallery!

 

The Widowmaker Series by Andetch Corp.

This is the RAW SSTO experience!

Does go into orbit, and once I even landed back as KSC!! However, not this time while the camera is ready, and I have to put KSP away now instead of trying to get it into orbit again.

Bonus points for anyone who can hand fly this thing into orbit and back to KSC again first time! No mods, no auto pilot!

http://imgur.com/a/ayp6T

http://imgur.com/a/gxuvB

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxP5XMEnEjPiaEdfaGZ3N1g1OHM

Edited March 4, 2017 by Andetch
To add pictures of vehicle in orbit

[mystik]

@Rune 5000m/s to land on Moho? HERESY! In all my tries I come up with a need of 7500m/s. And I've tried using the many methods described in threads around here. Nope. 7500/ms is a must, out of which 3000m/s need to come from Rapiers or you will turn your ship into a pancake on Tylo landing.

Edited March 3, 2017 by mystik

[Rune]

56 minutes ago, mystik said:

@Rune 5000m/s to land on Moho? HERESY! In all my tries I come up with a need of 7500m/s. And I've tried using the many methods described in threads around here. Nope. 7500/ms is a must, out of which 3000m/s need to come from Rapiers or you will turn your ship into a pancake on Tylo landing.

I didn't say it was 5km/s to land on Moho. I literally said:

18 hours ago, Rune said:

a Kerbin-Moho transfer should be 5km/s, capture included,

Which means that leaving form a Kerbin orbit and getting into a Moho orbit should be 5km/s. But if you don't believe me, here is the transfer planner info on my next Kerbin-Moho window:

Quote

Kerbin (@100km) -> Moho (@100km)
Depart at:      Year 2, Day 87, 0:52:05
       UT:      11062325
   Travel:      156 Days, 5:41:26
       UT:      3390087
Arrive at:      Year 2, Day 244, 0:33:32
       UT:      14452412
Phase Angle:    -349.47°
Ejection Angle: 66.27° to retrograde
Ejection Inc.:  -12.96°
Ejection Δv:    2830 m/s
Prograde Δv:    2600.7 m/s
Normal Δv:      -1115.3 m/s
Heading:        113.21°
Insertion Inc.: 12.66°
Insertion Δv:   1996 m/s
Total Δv:       4826 m/s

As you can see, under 5km/s, capture included. And that is from a 100km LKO to a 100km LMO. If you are starting form Minmus, you can shave off some respectable dV from that, because you are starting in an almost-escape orbit just by taking off from Minmus. Then again, you have to know what those numbers are, especially the ejection inclination and ejection angle, and how to get them cheaply. Which is why I told you to check your navigating. Landing on Moho should add a bit less than a km/s to the budget, which is about the same that can be won by taking off of Minmus. With 6km/s, you should have a healthy margin.

 

Rune. I notice we are no longer maintaining Mk2 is perfectly fine.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Rune

[mystik]

2 hours ago, Rune said:

I didn't say it was 5km/s to land on Moho. I literally said:

Which means that leaving form a Kerbin orbit and getting into a Moho orbit should be 5km/s. But if you don't believe me, here is the transfer planner info on my next Kerbin-Moho window:

As you can see, under 5km/s, capture included. And that is from a 100km LKO to a 100km LMO. If you are starting form Minmus, you can shave off some respectable dV from that, because you are starting in an almost-escape orbit just by taking off from Minmus. Then again, you have to know what those numbers are, especially the ejection inclination and ejection angle, and how to get them cheaply. Which is why I told you to check your navigating. Landing on Moho should add a bit less than a km/s to the budget, which is about the same that can be won by taking off of Minmus. With 6km/s, you should have a healthy margin.

 

Rune. I notice we are no longer maintaining Mk2 is perfectly fine.

I can get away with 5000m/s ish to get to Moho, but I cannot land on it even with almost 6000m/s. To have perfect conditions met to visit this one planet just seems to be too much of a hassle. Just pump up your dv and be done with it. I have been experimenting with my design and adding more tanks did not add more dv, like you said. So I guess it's a matter of optimizing what I've got rather than just add more. I will have to mess about with it to see how I can better optimize it. Maybe drop a few engines to save weight, I currently run with 4 nukes, which for a 200t model may be too much at this point. I don't mind long burn times. I will have to see what needs to be scrapped that is not needed.

Aero isn't a problem at this point, since I can get to orbit with high dv left to make it to refuel. I don't care for that part so much. I care for range.

 

At worst, I can just go with a separate tug ship just for Moho missions and that's that. I already have a SSTO planned for Eve, but that will have to come in the form of a rocket that transfers the crew in orbit and refuels on Gilly.

Edited March 3, 2017 by mystik

[mystik]

@Rune I did some maths and I don't see how MK3 is that much better than MK2.

I'm poor at math but I got the numbers below for liquid fuselages only:

Tank	Full (t)	Empty (t)	Fuel (t)	Units	Empty weight / fuel units
MK1	2.25	0.25	2	400	0.000625
MK2 long	4.57	0.57	4	800	0.000713
MK3 long	28.57	3.57	25	5000	0.000714
MK3 huge	57.14	7.14	50	10000	0.000714
MK3 short	14.29	1.79	12.5	2500	0.000716
MK2 short	2.29	0.29	2	400	0.000725

 

MK1 is a winner because it weights so little when empty and provides so much fuel.

MK2 long comes in second. While no where near the values of MK1. We are not discussing drag here, just efficiency in space, once the tank is empty, how much weight do you have to pull with you.

MK3 is almost the same as MK2 long, while MK2 short is the worst of the crowd.

I am not seeing the "MK2 is so bad". It actually is almost the same with MK3 with the exception of the small parts. Is this not true or is this my math being bad?

 

Additional numbers for some other parts (rocket fuel)

 

FLT400	2.25	0.25	2	400	0.000625
FLT800	4.5	0.5	4	800	0.000625
MK2 Adapter long	4.57	0.57	4	800	0.000713
MK3 Adapter	14.29	1.79	12.5	2500	0.000716
MK2 Adapter short	2.29	0.29	2	400	0.000725
MK2 Bicoupler	2.29	0.29	2	400	0.000725

 

As you can see, the same values remain. MK2 is not by far worse than MK3. Again, MK1 (aka FLT) are still kings at the ratio between plain tank weight vs fuel units.

 

So, I'm thinking, looking at these numbers. The best solution is a hybrid MK1/MK2 ship made out of:

MK1 liquid tank

MK2 long

MK2 Adapter long

Mk2 Bicoupler (yes, it has bad ratio but it is the only way to properly attach MK1 tanks to the ship in double amounts so that you don't end up with a spaghetti ship.

FLT800

 

Adding the MK1 crew capsule and the MK1 control pod, with these tanks, I think I can gain about 15% more dv for the same ratio of fuel I have in my 6000 m/s model, so essentially, giving me almost 6900m/s. If I downgrade the extra surfaces and landing gear that should also shave some weight. The only dilemma remains the large drill, which I would not give up. Because I want to be able to land anywhere and refuel. With the small drill, you're in trouble if you don't land somewhere where you have high ore concentration. Maybe I can get to 7500 m/s that way. I certainly don't mind having an extra light ship, in fact I want it to be as light as possible because it makes flying it very easy.

Edited March 3, 2017 by mystik

[Thor Wotansen]

@mystik While the dry weight to wet weight ratio may be similar the coefficient of drag is the real deal breaker here.  The fact of the matter is that the Mk 2 parts, while they look cool and have some lifting surface, have far too much drag and therefore require a much larger and heavier craft for the same performance as a Mk 1 based craft.  With a SSTO, it is important to break the sound barrier fairly quickly and use the incredible power of the Rapiers at 400m/s+ to push past 20,000m and 1,200m/s.  The high drag of the Mk 2 parts means that you will need more engines and fuel to get there, which of course increases the overall size of your craft to achieve the same mission objectives.  The Mk 3 parts are a bit of a different story because of their size, however they seem to have reasonable drag numbers and can in fact be used in some very low drag craft that have surprisingly high payload fractions and astonishingly few engines.  I forget who made it, but I saw a Mk 3 SSTO that could put a full orange tank into orbit with only 4 Rapiers.

[Rune]

1 hour ago, mystik said:

@Rune I did some maths and I don't see how MK3 is that much better than MK2.

I'm poor at math but I got the numbers below for liquid fuselages only:

Tank	Full (t)	Empty (t)	Fuel (t)	Units	Empty weight / fuel units
MK1	2.25	0.25	2	400	0.000625
MK2 long	4.57	0.57	4	800	0.000713
MK3 long	28.57	3.57	25	5000	0.000714
MK3 huge	57.14	7.14	50	10000	0.000714
MK3 short	14.29	1.79	12.5	2500	0.000716
MK2 short	2.29	0.29	2	400	0.000725

 

MK1 is a winner because it weights so little when empty and provides so much fuel.

MK2 long comes in second. While no where near the values of MK1. We are not discussing drag here, just efficiency in space, once the tank is empty, how much weight do you have to pull with you.

MK3 is almost the same as MK2 long, while MK2 short is the worst of the crowd.

I am not seeing the "MK2 is so bad". It actually is almost the same with MK3 with the exception of the small parts. Is this not true or is this my math being bad?

 

Yup, what @Thor Wotansen says is pretty much the perfect explanation for why Mk3 is plain better than Mk2. Rocket parts (and Mk1's) are even betterer, because as you just found out, they have significantly better mass ratios (though you usually get those by dividing wet mass by empty mass, so the higher the better, but your calculation gives the same insight, if you read it right). Wing parts with fuel ratings are also pretty cool, if you need their lift, but don't cut it as tankage for tankage's sake.

 

 

Rune. A shame we still don't have a a 2.5m liquid fuel tank.

[Wanderfound]

Another Grand Tourer.

 

 

 

 

 

Full album at http://imgur.com/a/w7zC1

Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/3toyhiaqcgeovu8/Kerbotour.craft?dl=0

[Castille7]

45 minutes ago, Wanderfound said:

Another Grand Tourer.

Full album at http://imgur.com/a/w7zC1

Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/3toyhiaqcgeovu8/Kerbotour.craft?dl=0

 

Man this is a very nice craft build, and I am still laughing about this! "Mach 6 is my launchpad" 

[Thor Wotansen]

Updated my Skyliner SSTO and it now has a new wing and uses only 6 Rapiers.  Max payload to LKO (tested to 75km x 73km orbit) is 36t (full orange tank).  RCS was used to deorbit.

 

 

Download from KerbalX

Edited March 3, 2017 by Thor Wotansen

[Jett_Quasar]

OSIRIS

 

Download on Kerbal-X: https://kerbalx.com/Jett_Quasar/craft

 

- Jett

[Kryten 2X4B 523P]

Further development of my Javelin - not so much an SSTO now, more an SSTAA (Single Stage to Almost Anywhere)

 

Swapped out one of the passenger cab (so only 16 kerb-pacity), added some more LF, small convertotron, drill, small ore tanks, rads, comms and some solar panels.

 

Hit 81km orbit with 31m/s left on the closed cycle rapiers, switch to nukes for 3350 m/s. Enough to get to Minmus, land, takeoff (without mining), head for kerbin, circularise (no aerobrake needed), de-orbit and land.

 

A bit more tweaking and I might get a SSTA out of her.

 

Here she is sitting on the surface of Minmus (although landing was a tad hairy...)

 

[Thor Wotansen]

A little lineup shot of a few SSTOs

 

 

From left to right:  The Pup series the Pup XC, the Pup C and the Pup P, the Pteradactyl Mk 2 and the Skyliner Mk 2.

 

The Pup series is a series of small Mk 2 SSTOs based on a common chassis, with variants for passengers (P), light cargo (C) and slightly larger cargo but no docking or RCS (XC).  They all handle very well and are quite easy to fly and land, however don't expect any sort of range outside of LKO.  I will release them when I have polished them up a bit.

[Whisky Tango Foxtrot]

On 2017-03-02 at 9:44 AM, eloquentJane said:

Honestly the only particularly good thing about Mk2 fuselages is their appearance. Which for me is quite an important factor, but they're still not great parts in every other regard.

 

The small Mk2 cargo bay is also much better for shielding delicate components from the wind than the 1.25 service bay, as the service bay is too small to fit any but the tiniest of components. The long Mk2 cargo bay is mostly useless, though, as any payload that could fit inside one is so small that building a rocket to launch it would be trivial.

 

The Mk2 passenger cabin is also better than its Mk1 equivalent, both due to its larger capacity (4 vs. 2) and, more importantly, the fact that it has an EVA-capable hatch.

 

Due mainly to those deficiencies I'd say that it's pretty tough (although by no means impossible) to build a useful SSTO using only Mk1 parts and the Mk3 parts are overkill for a lot of tasks, which gives Mk2 vessels a niche that they can occupy.

[septemberWaves]

6 minutes ago, Whisky Tango Foxtrot said:

 

The small Mk2 cargo bay is also much better for shielding delicate components from the wind than the 1.25 service bay, as the service bay is too small to fit any but the tiniest of components. The long Mk2 cargo bay is mostly useless, though, as any payload that could fit inside one is so small that building a rocket to launch it would be trivial.

 

The Mk2 passenger cabin is also better than its Mk1 equivalent, both due to its larger capacity (4 vs. 2) and, more importantly, the fact that it has an EVA-capable hatch.

 

Due mainly to those deficiencies I'd say that it's pretty tough (although by no means impossible) to build a useful SSTO using only Mk1 parts and the Mk3 parts are overkill for a lot of tasks, which gives Mk2 vessels a niche that they can occupy.

 

This is very true for stock. I tend to play with mods though, and one of the mods I use (Modular Rocket Systems) adds a 1.25m cargo bay perfect for Mk1 spaceplanes.

 

Speaking of mods, Mk2 Extension does actually make Mk2 parts worthwhile, if anything just for how much better they can be made to look with that mod.