BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

[BagelRabbit]

Don't worry, not a new entry or an update But using lessons learnt from designing the Mallard (vote Mallard!) I built an unmanned fuel tanker variant capable of lifting 360 units of rocket fuel +oxidiser to orbit and return safely to Kerba-firma:

http://i.imgur.com/t2KElaql.jpg

Utilises all the ease of use features found on the Mallard (vote Mallard!) and another example of why I love these BSC challenges.

Further details & craft file on the Spacecraft Exchange forum should any be interested.

That's what I love about the BSC challenges. You get to build something new! Your designs for that 'something-new' can influence your gameplay of KSP tremendously. And my favorite challenges are the ones that can help you with KSP in general.

One little comment: You talk about how we should "Vote Mallard," when I think you mean that we should "Vote Plover."

[MiniMatt]

That's what I love about the BSC challenges. You get to build something new! Your designs for that 'something-new' can influence your gameplay of KSP tremendously. And my favorite challenges are the ones that can help you with KSP in general.

Damn right! Looking back so many of the things I've learnt, the things that have become second nature have been learnt - or "stolen" - from these BSC challenges.

There is a danger though. Spend too much time playing in the space plane hangar and it invariably ends in silliness:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Have you ever seen a happier Kerbal?

You'll be wanting the craft file then

edit: just noticed I've disabled the front brakes (on the landing gear) on that craft file - a bit of playing around suggests re-enabling might not be a bad call as limited lift means it lands quite fast and braking distance suffers on the island runway. The surfeit of SAS modules are more than up to the task of preventing the trike flipping over under heavy four wheel braking.

Edited March 10, 2014 by MiniMatt

[regex]

If you wish to call parts passing through parts "part clipping" as well, then you are free to do so and I will not argue against it.

That's good to know because, from your posts, I got the impression you were trying to define Part Clipping for the rest of us. As I see it, Part Clipping is defined by the user opening the debug menu via alt-f12 and enabling the "Enable part clipping" toggle under the Cheats and Hacks heading. This would allow the user to overload connection nodes and place parts in ways that the editor normally doesn't allow (which I'm not at all against outside of a contest about rebuilding stock craft). As I earlier said, though, there are ways to force the editor to your will without touching the debug menu so it's sometimes hard to tell. Part clipping through alt-f12 is also a fine tradition in the spaceplane building community here so it is understandable that we're having this talk.

[Silverchain]

@Ravenchant, my thoughts from my look at the Strela:

Bad points:

It had low control authority during the low portion of the ascent and, critically, the descent; I was unable to control it well enough to glide to a landing. I don't think it was pilot error, I couldn't pull the nose up at all.

I found docking it quite hard.

Good points:

Once it got to the high atmosphere the flown ascent profile was very smooth and efficient.

It had good range and good vacuum flight.

I liked the general layout and design very much.

Overall:

Really liked the plane, but the control problem was a major issue!

---

@Spartwo, no I wouldn't say you need struts, there's quite a few planes wobble on takeoff and it wasn't a big problem, just an observation. I see your point about explanatory notes, though I disagree - I'd suggest a flight profile, as for people new to spaceplane ascents it can be daunting trying to work out what you're supposed to do. It certainly took me some time to get it in practice. And maybe some fluff descriptive text as the stock examples usually have it.

That Dionysus was a new addition, so I hadn't seen it and its Kerbal bus capability.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Silverchain

[Spartwo]

>snip

The gear are the issue so it's just gonna be that way.Then you'll like the one I did,I have it down to a button press:D

How to fly:

1-Throttle to full

2-Press spacebar

3-Hold W until tailstrike stopper hits the ground

4-Once off the ground hold that angle(If speed is reducing feel free to point slightly lower)

5-Press G

6-Continue at that angle until apoapse is at 70-75km

7-Circularise at apoapse

8-Take celebratory screenshot

9-Do whatever you planned to do

10-Return to kerbin for an unpowered landing

EDIT:On the topic of clipping I would divide it into Pseudo-clipping and Debug clipping,The former being more acceptable.

Kasuha:Stop changing the picture.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Spartwo

[Kasuha]

I am telling you what part clipping is in regards to placing multiple parts pixel for pixel in the exact same location, this is part clipping.

An example of what is in general considered clipping (short from "clipping error") in computer games is in the image below. It is when two simulated physical objects overlap in a way which is not possible in real world because of impenetrability of matter. The reason for that happening is usually an error in, or complete lack of collision test between hulls of the two objects.

Now, we may also discuss what clipping means in KSP, or particularly in the field of KSP spaceplane construction. But in my opinion, that definition should not significantly diverge from the more general and more widely used one.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Kasuha

[HazelPine]

In my mind, I'm ok with part clipping in a challenge as long as it doesn't give you any edge over the other players, unless it is a 'who can part clip the most fuel in a probe core' challenge. I am a heavy part clipper myself, but the part clipping in my entry is just for the side tanks to look nicer, and it really is only two useless parts. CHANGING THE SUBJECT... What comments do you guys have on my spaceplane? I Think it might not have enough fuel, but to me going to minmus and back seems overkill for a simple LKO capable SSTO. What could I have done better in my entry, and what is AWESOME?

[Silverchain]

I've not done any more testing today, but I have achieved something I'm proud of - Jedner Kerman took the Ceremonial Gr Falling Forever up to orbit and down to land three times on a mere 1.6 tons of fuel (257 units liquid, 63 units oxidiser.)

Admittedly, the first two landings were barely aimed (both came down in the desert, at night) and the third orbital insertion was pathetic, but with a reasonable fuel reserve remaining on the third orbit I was able to land back at KSC.

(I know, this pic could be anything, but it is the Falling Forever coming in to land. Would I lie to you, honey?

The white dot just visible above the plane's nose is a MiniMatt jet trike. )

The plane was carrying its full default fuel load (24 monoprop, 271 liquid, 234 oxidiser) to start with.

I could strip out half the oxidiser and all the monoprop for better performance, but I don't know whether that'd give enough extra to make a fourth run and in any case I'm in no hurry to repeat the trip!

I'm going to park the plane off somewhere safe and work on a refueling bowser. Should have done that a long time ago.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Silverchain

[Spartwo]

Just so I could have time to test each of the designs I removed any which I couldn't break into chunks and re-assemble without using debug clipping.

[quasarrgames]

In my opinion, all structural parts should be considered completely clippable through anything. If you ever look at cross-sections of the apollo spaceships, they have all kinds of girders and struts running through even the fuel tanks at every angle. If the purpose of banning clipping is to make ksp ships more realistic, it doesn't make much sense to do so.

in terms of air intakes, i think the question should not be on clipping them, but how many of them there are per jet engine.

and for engines, fuel tanks and capsules, i have no idea what the rules on clipping should be for them.

[Mareczex333]

Hello

I want to enter with my "Shade" STTO

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Part count: 48

Weight: 10.64t

Power: 1x TurboJet engine. 2x Rockomax 48-7S engine

This craft can:

Orbit - Take off, go to space, orbit, reentry, land at runway (with good skills, you can do this 2x without refuelling)

Dock - Clamp-o-Tron Jr, RCS Ports, MonoPropellan tanks

Collect science - It's career friendly craft. It's got basic parts (very valuable is just Rockomax engine - 90 science)

You can add science parts with your progress on TechTree. (Remove RCS ports, because they are cost too much and you won't need them)

Crash - If you like it ;d

Visit other moons/planets? - I didn't try it yet. (except Mun and Minmus) I just created it, so I have to check it.

To IVA with landed craft, lower your front wheel like in photo (to let Kerbal get back later ;d)

Clip anotation!

Craft have clipped wheels (clip was made without console cheat):

It was made only for cosmetic reasons. If it exceed rules, then I can place them on parts surface.

Rest of parts are not clipped (if you say, that wings at center of plane and near main wings are clipped, then just take them off. Anyway they're not clipped)

How to orbit:

- Fly to 20-25km altitude and level up your plane

- Pitch up to 10-20 degree (green marker at 10) and speed up

- At 30-35km you should achieve 1900-2000 m/s

- Point 30-40 degree and reduce your power (after flameouts) till 10% of power

- Hit "1" and "2", max your power and achieve about 2200 orbital speed

- If your appoapsis won't be more than 80-90km, then pitch up for 50-90 degree and fly till you won't set good appoapsis

- When you'll be at your appoapsis (more than 70km) then speed up (at 0 degree) till you oribit

Keys:

1 - TurboJet Engine (toggle)

2 - Rockomax Engines (toggle) + Ram Air Intake (toggle)

3 - Front Small Gear Bay (toggle) - for IVA's

4 - OX-4L 1x6 Photovoltaic Pannels (toggle)

DOWNLOAD

Edited March 14, 2014 by Mareczex333
grammatical reasons

[Andrew Hansen]

I'm somehow amazed by the sheer number of entries - I had expected it to be a rather small BSC because Spaceplanes are more complicated than landers or rovers.....

(And I hadn't produced a single working spaceplane before this competition)

Yes! The number of entries is phenomenal! Your spaceplane looks incredible. I love the inverted vertical stabilizers. They make it look so futuristic.

Anyway, just to let everyone know, I'm going to update my Starlon.craft file with the front steering unlocked and brakes disabled.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Andrew Hansen

[LordFjord]

A little update on the group shot:

The last ones were really hard to land - due to the 2.5km range the landing approach "stops" for almost a minute for loading all the planes -> too much SSTO for my computer to handle, so I won't add more to the collection.

Don't worry, I am testing each entry and making some notes. Its really hard to compare/decide between some of them.

[Mareczex333]

A little update on the group shot:

I am testing each entry and making some notes. Its really hard to compare/decide between some of them.

I'll update your photo today I will edit photo, so there will be half of crafts on one, and second half and other and I will merge it

[Kasuha]

The last ones were really hard to land - due to the 2.5km range the landing approach "stops" for almost a minute for loading all the planes

Maybe if you positioned them along the runway instead of perpendicular to it, the loading might be more gradual. Of course they'd probably not form such a nice group.

[BagelRabbit]

A little update on the group shot:

Sorry to tell you this... but...

My plane, which is the fourth in the back row, has been completely revamped. it now looks like...

...this. Very different.

Would you mind flying my new plane over for a group shot instead? It's a bit better than the original.

Vote for the NEW Plover!

[LordFjord]

Yeah i know, it might show some craft that have been updated meanwhile, sorry for that. It is just a big effort to re-check each updated craft.

The amount of entries + all the updates is a LOT to go through.

I'll need to make some more organized spreadsheet for all the entries and my notes/comments on them.

@Xeldrak: maybe it would be best for the next BSC challenge to not allow updates.

And in order to sabotage everyone else's testing plans, I'll soon update my Spacegull as well

(In fact I already have just haven't posted it yet)

[capi3101]

How has the Auk been handling for most of y'all, BTW? I know it has that annoying tendency to tip up on its wheels before you fire up the jet; anything else you guys would improve with it?

[Batz_10K]

Well, you'll be pleased to know that there won't be any updates to the Mako (2nd from the right in the back row) for this challenge...

[DerpenWolf]

While there is still time left could I get some feedback on the Kerbos 2a? Its my first challenge entry and I am very curious on how it is perceived!

[Silverchain]

Would be nice to know if the simplicity of the KR100 is appreciated.

Yes, very much so.

Also, good launch and flight, I have it sitting in 100x100 waiting to fly rendezvous and descent. I noted the lack of an RTG was a pain.

While there is still time left could I get some feedback on the Kerbos 2a? Its my first challenge entry and I am very curious on how it is perceived!

Launch was a bit wobbly, flight was good. I thought there were several things you could tweak for extra performance if you wanted, like replacing the circular intakes with ram intakes would make a big difference.

Again, got it parked in 100x100 for the moment, will do more with it later.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Silverchain

[Xeldrak]

@Xeldrak: maybe it would be best for the next BSC challenge to not allow updates.

Well, usually thats not a problem because the BSC challengens run on a rather tight schedule. But since this is a thread-of-the-month special extra long editions, rampant updating has become some kind of a nuisance, I admit.

[regex]

rampant updating has become some kind of a nuisance, I admit.

I has certainly solidified my decision to only test certain craft, that's for sure. The sheer volume of entries is also a bit ... daunting ... from a voter's perspective, especially one who has limited play time as it is.

[HazelPine]

Nobody wants to tell me what they though about my craft...

I will admit it isn't fun to test new iterations over and over, specially when we have almost 30 entries. I will just vote according to other people's speadsheets because, like regex, i don't have enough time for gaming. will admit i got carried away with a whole month to fine tune my entry, but im also used to tight schedules.

Edited March 11, 2014 by SaplingPick

[Silverchain]

@KenBob - I like the FireBee so far, nice no-nonsense plane - for your information, it can make orbit without needing to use its rockets for the ascent, just needs a small burn for circularisation if you fly a very shallow climbing ascent profile. Leaves it with over 2100 ms-1 delta-v on orbit, which is good going for a light plane!

(It has roughly the same intake ratio and only slightly more mass than my own entry, so I'm used to flying that sort of ascent.)

@SaplingPick - I will test yours again; it's taking me a while to get through all these.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Silverchain