The supplementary SStO thread [FAR]

[asmi]

Interesting - I wonder how space capable that Buran test airframe would have been with the right parts installed ( and if it'd still be able to take off with jets then... ). The Shuttle's glide ratio was terrible - 4ish/1 at landing, worse higher up.

Well Buran didn't really have rocket engines (small OMS thrusters don't count) so it couldn't possibly get into space if started horizontally. I've heard accounts saying that Buran was much better aerodynamically than Shuttles were, but I don't remember the source.

As expected my canard+trapezoid shuttle ( below ) didn't make the transition from stalled re-entry to unstalled successfully; was possibly a bit too high AoA though. I'd have to redesign it to be a bit more inherently stable, I think.

If you don't mind sharing *.craft file for the vessel, I could play around with it to see what's wrong with it. It's hard to judge by picture.

[Van Disaster]

I meant that Buran airframe with life support & everything else necessary for an orbiter rather than an orbiter-shaped aircraft, if it was even capable.

I know why my shuttle wasn't happy, it was just out of it's designed flight envelope - it's CoL is marginal on position when it's light on fuel, not easy to do much about that with all the engine weight hanging off the rear. It's quite happy with my normal shallow re-entry. Once pWings can do deltas without scaling larger than the fuselages, I'll build a delta - that should be much more forgiving.

Revised shuttle because the big B9 intakes and FAR don't get on atm:

On re-entry, airbrakes deployed - just those small ones ( 2m TV PP control surfaces ) double the aircraft's cD.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Van Disaster

[Torminator]

My first successful SSTO: Whitebird. (You'll never guess where that name came from.)

Landed!*

Its successor, Whitebird 2, was incredibly efficient. So much so that I made it into a stable munar orbit on my first test flight.

And my super-heavy lift SSTO, ATLAS. (A Totally Legit and Awesome Spaceplane)

Trying to build a space station without using rockets is... interesting.

[gompasta]

We have only had spaceplanes so far, so here is the Isshiki, a Citadel 2 model rocket-style SSTO.

Ascent is very wobbly, and ended up with only around 1000 m/s dv left, but it allows for expansion for new modules (notice the detatchable cockpit).

I have also added a few kethane modules, to allow for the kethane reactor and kethane conversion if needed. It is unlikely, but i included it because I might as well.

[Torminator]

You can run some struts from those fins to the tank just ahead of the docking ports, and that will give you a LOT of extra stability.

[Van Disaster]

Jeb has been demanding the crew shuttle goes further & further, so...

Off we go:

To Minmus.

Pair of Bobcat surface mount engines bring it down, somehow I got it rather well balanced no matter the fuel.

Seems happy about it!

Tried Mun, but had to use RCS to finish off circularizing coming back. Adding more dV to this design would be awkward, so I'll try re-engining somethign else with oldschool jet+NERVA combos ( and I did Mun with a much smaller 5 seater ages ago, this is excessive ). I doubt I'll even use this for Minmus, I have a station & system shuttle already anyway. But SPACEPLANE, etc.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Van Disaster

[velusip]

Awesome stuff in this thread.

Here's one I'm still working on -- the Orizont (old version in the image):

2 hardpoints under the wings, resupplied from orbit with ASM armaments capable of precise ground strikes, easily recovers from flatspin. And it's a good thing too -- due to that double v-tail it's absolutely terrible at re-entry. The flatspins can be prevented by diving in hard to reach dense atmosphere quickly, but then any hardpointed payloads snap off. WIP!

[segaprophet]

IMO, real life SSTOs are an interesting concept, but strike me as largely impractical (especially in terms of payload capacity) compared to more conventionally launched shuttles and spaceplanes. That's why I've never been terribly interested in making one in KSP.

That being said, I give mad props to anyone who can pull off a working SSTO in KSP.

[luckyhendrix]

Real life SSTO (look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_%28spacecraft%29 for instance) could greatly reduce the cost to orbit if the design is successful.

[segaprophet]

Real life SSTO (look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_%28spacecraft%29 for instance) could greatly reduce the cost to orbit if the design is successful.

That's what they said about the Space Shuttle, and that turned out to be more expensive per launch than expendable rockets.

Taking Skylon as an example, assuming everything comes together on the technological front, cost remains a completely different realm, and is hard to estimate until it becomes a functioning design.

[Evilchicken]

That's what they said about the Space Shuttle, and that turned out to be more expensive per launch than expendable rockets.

Taking Skylon as an example, assuming everything comes together on the technological front, cost remains a completely different realm, and is hard to estimate until it becomes a functioning design.

The space shuttle (STS) would have allow cheaper launch cost, but the USA air force, which gave extra funds and basically make the STS program possible, in return demanded greater cross range (this lets the craft fly more off track from the flight path, this is only useful for the military, as this lets it go up, deploy an object and then drop back down later in a single orbit to a US runway). Secondly the every USA company wanted to make parts for it and each state wanted the parts made in their state, which made construction cost way more expensive. There and several other military and political reason for the increase in cost and I could spent some to writing about them, but in short skylon doesn't ( And hopefully never will) suffer from these problems, as this is company building it, yay for the British companies, if only the USA would give funding to space companies outside the USA. So if complete I fully expect reduced launch cost.

I very much hope skylon will get the funding needed to continue their great work.

[Van Disaster]

I suspect the only way Skylon will become absolute reality is if ESA get behind it, which is perfectly possible ( and if it looks like being a technical success, quite probable ) of course. My country has a rather spotty history in the last few decades of getting behind these sorts of projects enough to make them working commercial realities, rather than prototypes which someone else buys and makes the most of. Still, we're good at aerospace & have a large if rather quiet space industry, so I will be delighted to be proved wrong.

Forget about conventional launch systems an start thinking of a spaceplane as a plane which goes somewhat higher, and advantages become obvious. I tend to think of the Shuttle as a capsule that looks a bit like an aircraft, other than being vaguely reusable it's not really anything like an actual spaceplane.

Anyone built something that'll do Kerbin<->Laythe and carry something useful?

[Torminator]

I've had a few designs that failed to make it out of the atmosphere, but once you get to the upper atmosphere at Mach 5, you can just shut down the engines and coast to the other side of the planet. Very useful for long distance travelling. To me, this is the more likely advantage of SSTO-like designs: Sub-orbital, hypersonic travel.

[Van Disaster]

Sub-orbital hypersonic transports won't have to deal with full re-entry ( or orbital speeds ), which makes them a rather different beast. Mach 5 is somewhat different to Mach 25!

[Hodo]

Segaprophet,

Truth is with my SSTO designs, the most efficient of them the "Cargo-Hammer" as I dubbed it, can take a 15 ton load into a 100km X 100KM orbit return to KSC, and load a second cargo and take a second 15 ton load into a 90KM X 90Km orbit and return to KSC, with about 150 liquid fuel left. That is without refueling. I think any company would consider that to be a successful design as far as SSTOs go. My least cost effective design is the massive SH-419 150 ton monster. It can carry a 50 ton cargo split between its two cargo bays, but only to a 80km X 80km orbit and return to KSC. But that thing is WAY over engineered and designed to do TOO much at once.

[Radam]

By the way, did anyone see this: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_updates.html

[Sparker]

Nice spaceplanes, guys!

I have posted my SSTO plane in the main SSTO thread before, but I'll post it here anyway.

I tried to make something like the cancelled Venture Star spaceplane, and succeeded.

In my opinion, it does its mission quite good. Love that plane, but I have no ideas what else I could deliver into orbit with it.

[Radam]

What is that black part Sparker? I see you have rocket engines so that would exclude the chance of that being intakes...

[Van Disaster]

That's a really old cargo bay mod I forget the name of.

[Sparker]

This is SpaceJunk cargo bay, it suits my design perfectly.

[7rex]

Here are a few of mine.

Delivering cargo to Munar orbit (had to be re-fueled in Kerbin orbit)

This is my smaller craft, she is an SSTO but with cargo (attached to the nose) she's normally launched vertically.

[SpaceTechnician]

Oh, that is using FAR and Pizza and Aerospace mods. It also has a KAS point. Fly's quite well. I could knock 1 landing gear off, and 1 generator and reduce the batter size. Probably get away with 1 less set of mini air intakes you see in the back, they give such a tiny boost, but those extra meters altitude count.. If I wanted to really fly on fumes I could lose the 2nd set of liquid fuel tanks. I could possibly make the wings smaller too.

[Sauron]

I've just built a single-stage-to-duna rocket SSTO with no jets (and if you refuel it in orbit, it becomes a fully reusable a single stage to anywhere and return (including Moho!). Possibly with a landing thrown in to boot if your destination is fairly small). FAR is kind of absurd when applied to pure rockets

Unfortunately, FAR also makes long, tall, and heavy objects murderously difficult to land on flames because you can't point straight down--still trying to figure that part out. Then I'll have a combination launch vehicle, lander, and transfer stage.

[Torminator]

I've just built a single-stage-to-duna rocket SSTO with no jets (and if you refuel it in orbit, it becomes a fully reusable a single stage to anywhere and return (including Moho!). Possibly with a landing thrown in to boot if your destination is fairly small). FAR is kind of absurd when applied to pure rockets

Unfortunately, FAR also makes long, tall, and heavy objects murderously difficult to land on flames because you can't point straight down--still trying to figure that part out. Then I'll have a combination launch vehicle, lander, and transfer stage.

Not really absurd, it just trades difficulty in drag for difficulty in making an aerodynamically stable rocket.

As for landing, I like to use drogue chutes at the top to stabilize, but if you're landing somewhere without atmosphere, transfer all your fuel to the bottom tanks. The heavy end goes down

[Van Disaster]

FAR won't do anything if there's no atmosphere anyway but yeah, either drogue chutes or ( a better idea ) airbrakes at the top - they fold themselves away when you're not using them anyway, so it shouldn't hurt launch.

I'll try & remake my old VTOL SABREstack and see how that works, I think.