BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

[Xeldrak]

Hm..I have to say I'm suprised that we allready have so many entries. I was worried a bit, because I allways hat serious trouple constructing a spaceplane, that we might have only very few entries.

However spaceplanes seem to be in vogue.

[MiniMatt]

Named after it's extensive canard use, the Mallard is designed first and foremost for easy docking. To that end, the docking port is inline with the cockpit, avoiding confusing navball changes and allowing intuitive RCS control. RCS is well balanced and the Mallard's short, stubby, compact design allows for operation at crowded & cramped space stations.

Another innovation of the Mallard is it's single button toggle between air breathing and vacuum modes of operation. This setup, achieved by shutting down rocket engines on initial launch stage, allows for a single button (1) to toggle modes, shutting down air intakes (to reduce drag) and the single flameout-friendly jet engine at the same time as igniting rocket engines. A further press of this single button opens up air intakes, spools up the jet engine, and kills the rocket engines. It is hoped this single button toggle design makes the Mallard as intuitive as a Rapier equipped plane.

Vote Mallard!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Features

Single button (1) toggle between atmosphere/vacuum and back to atmosphere operation

Take off at sub 90m/s

Balanced RCS, docking port inline with cockpit and compact design for easy docking

Single jet engine keeps craft stable in the event of flameout

Twin RAM intakes feeding the single jet allow for ~35km ceiling and ~2km/s velocity before need for rocket power

Abort system uses stabilising landing legs to prevent cockpit rollover upon landing

LKO orbit easily achievable with 1/3rd jet fuel and 3/4 rocket fuel remaining

Just enough fuel to orbit the Mun and return safely to Kerbin should you wish

Front brakes disabled to prevent squirrely landings

No clipping (well, no debug menu clipping, dorsal and ventral canards may be a bit clippy for some tastes)

51 parts, 11.5 tons (wet)

Action Groups (as noted in in-game description)

(1) toggles between air and space modes (toggling jet/rocket engines and air intakes)

(2) toggles ladder

(3) toggles ventral solar panel

(Backspace/Abort) kills all engines, decouples capsule, jettisons forward canards (to prevent odd infiniglide issue under parachute), deploys chute, lowers stabilising legs

Craft file

Is here. Go on. You know you want it.

Edited March 6, 2014 by MiniMatt

[JABUSCUS]

Most planes would explode if you tried to land it in a canyon, I did not plane my reentry well, but it is not fragile. Also, it has a lot of lift, and it is my first competition

[JABUSCUS]

One wonders what sort of advantages this thing really has over the Stock Aeris 4A? It is bigger, more technologically costly, from the sound of it, more fragile, neither is meant to carry a significant payload, and it seems to have a more limited range despite carrying the same number of Kerbals.

The contest is open to anyone, and most of the spaceplanes here don't carry cargo, so I don't see the problem with mine. Things can be revised, that is the beauty of making planes.

[Rhomphaia]

http://i.imgur.com/Yho0mdf.png

This is a spit-polished version of my very first successful spaceplane, "Speedy Box".

It does not use any intake stacking or aggressive part clipping (some very mild aesthetic clipping is present). No 'advanced' building techniques either: no cubic struts. What you see is what you get! As such it does not fly on jets at extreme high altitudes, but the inclusion of RAPIER engines has greatly improved the performance of the original craft. The plane is capable of relatively high orbits (the above pic was taken just shy of a 300k orbit), and is stable and responsive in all regimes. RCS and a small docking port are included.

http://i.imgur.com/HMqsArl.png

Here is the flight profile:

Climb on all 4 engines to 20k and 800kph. Accelerate while climbing slowly to 25k. Make sure to slowly throttle back to keep all four engines burning. Turn off Turbojets at 25k. Continue 100% throttle slow climb on RAPIERs. At approx 30k and 1800kph, RAPIERs will change modes; close intakes and climb at 50 degrees to desired Apoapsis. Deploy Solar panels when above 60k. Reenter at 10 degrees nose up relative to prograde pip.

It is possible to get even higher performance out of the craft if one wanted to juggle the engine types at the 30km threshold, but it is more work than it seems to be worth.

Download Craft File

Looks like you may have uploaded the wrong craft as well. This version seems to have Aerospikes instead of RAPIERs

[BagelRabbit]

...I'm done. I can't go any further without overworking this.

The Plover

[pictures are nice, but I'm not posting them AGAIN here. I value everyone's computers.]

Features!

>Super simple! Only 42 parts.

>Intuitive flight path to orbit! You can flub up and still have fuel left to do the job.

>Good at gliding! It can land at under 45 m/s.

>No intake spam! Only two ram air intakes.

>Easy to reverse-engineer! Almost no part clipping.

>Fast! Gets to orbit in six minutes or so.

The Plover is specifically aimed at beginners. It is very, very easy to launch it to orbit. It is built so that beginners can see every single part, and have a better idea of how they fit together. Its non-clippy nature makes it a cinch to build, and its surprisingly powerful thrust system is quite effective at launching to orbit in record time. It has limited range - it can only reliably return from a 100km orbit. But it's a joy to fly.

In addition, the Plover is the safest SSTO I have ever built. It not only has a working abort system but also a full-body parachute system. This allows it to safely land on water, eject from dangerous situations and encourage beginning pilots to try again. [No other craft on the challenge has both of these. Some call it overkill. I call it Progress!]

Most of the people that have participated so far have added a docking port. I have instead chosen to make the Plover safe and easily flyable. The truth is, the Plover doesn't need a docking port to teach the basics of spaceplane mechanics. It does, however, need the best abort/landing systems as it can get, so that beginner pilots won't kill their beloved grinning green guys.

.craft file! https://www.dropbox.com/s/t1nl9xmdei9b8fc/Plover%20SSTO.craft

Edited my original post. Rest assured, the only reason why I didn't include the craft file the first time was because of a parachute bug. It's fixed now.

[capi3101]

Yes, you can edit your entry as long as the building phase is active. Once we start voting, you are stuck with what you posted

Oh good. I was wanting to make a minor tweak to the Auk...

[capi3101]

Hm..I have to say I'm suprised that we allready have so many entries. I was worried a bit, because I allways hat serious trouple constructing a spaceplane, that we might have only very few entries.

However spaceplanes seem to be in vogue.

I imagine a lot of us are posting up our first successful spaceplane designs...which were generally focused on the notion of "get it into orbit". That seems to have been the point of the Aeris 4a (except for the fact that it generally sucks). Just my opinion.

[Ravenchant]

It's nice to see this challenge series gaining enough reputation to be stickied

Ah well, I made a new design for it. Granted, besides getting into orbit it doesn't do much... craft file and pictures later today!

[Giggleplex777]

My latest prototype:

I'm still struggling to build something that can match Rune's White Dart. :/

[regex]

After looking at all these entries and rereading the rules I'm gathering this is just a simple spaceplane popularity contest, not a "build a better Aeris-4a" challenge. In retrospect I probably should have entered a different plane.

[Silverchain]

a simple spaceplane popularity contest

I intend to take voting seriously and assess designs on their merits.

Meanwhile in LKO...

[Exothermos]

Looks like you may have uploaded the wrong craft as well. This version seems to have Aerospikes instead of RAPIERs

How in the world...? Thank you. Fixed.

[barrenwaste]

The Aeris 4A-1 was made specifically for this challenge. It's design is meant to keep as much of it's original look as possible while making it a platform that has better handling and updated buildcraft. It includes a light introduction to air hogging and action groups while remaining true to the Aeris line of aesthetic.

Edited March 2, 2014 by barrenwaste

[Woopert]

The Aeris 4-A was made specifically for this challenge. It's design is meant to keep as much of it's original look as possible while making it a platform that has better handling and updated buildcraft. It includes a light introduction to air hogging and action groups while remaining true to the Aeris line of aesthetic.

That's what I tried doing, I gave the SSTO a R.A.P.I.E.R. for ease of use, and much better aerodynamics to allow for better and easier handling in atmosphere

[Rune]

I'm still struggling to build something that can match Rune's White Dart. :/

Wow, that speaks volumes to my ears, thanks! I will try whatever you come up with, that's for sure.

Rune. The risk of posting soon is that then you give people something to shoot for... and there's always someone better at everything out there, right?

[Tarmenius]

... [seems like this is] not a "build a better Aeris-4a" challenge.

... HarvesteR intended the Aries 4a to be hard to fly

This is the source of my own design dilemmas. The Aeris-4a has obvious flaws, but they're there on purpose: to inspire the player to tweak and experiment with the design while measuring whether the player has a handle on the standard ascent profile for SSTO spaceplanes. Given it's true purpose, the Aeris-4a is actually an excellent craft. So, I'm faced with a choice: do I recreate the original craft's intent or make an easy-to-use craft that has few flaws, potentially gaining more votes?

Either approach seems like a valid design choice, but one will result in a significantly different kind of craft from the other. How then do we compare entries that serve such different purposes?

Thankfully, we still have a few days left in the build phase. With 15+ SSTO spaceplanes already in my hangar, I may just pick my personal favorite and throw it into the mix

On a somewhat-related note, I'll be very glad when .24 comes out. The Inline Clamp-o-tron is quite dangerous now and some of my designs have been made unusable by the incredibly bendy connections!

[Silverchain]

Given it's true purpose, the Aeris-4a is actually an excellent craft. So, I'm faced with a choice: do I recreate the original craft's intent or make an easy-to-use craft that has few flaws, potentially gaining more votes?

I think players would be much better served with stock craft that worked well. Show what works and say "beat this!"

[Ravenchant]

Presenting the Strela IV

DOWNLOAD link here

Javascript is disabled. View full album

It's simple, it's nothing special, and it flies well. There's enough oxidizer on board for a Mun flyby, and plenty of jet fuel. I added a light on the upper side after taking the pictures (to aid with docking), but it's not too conspicuous. Speaking of dockings... 47 units of monoprop are enough for most, right? ...right?

- Wet mass: slightly under 11 tons

- Part count: 38

- Action groups: all there in the description

So I'm not planning to get into finals this time around, but at least I won't melt anyones computer. Have fun

[Silverchain]

Speaking of dockings... 47 units of monoprop are enough for most, right? ...right?

I reckon about 5 units on a small craft - I tend to add one of the small white radial monoprop tanks if I intend to dock a spaceplane more than once.

I'm about a third of the way through flight testing the entries submitted so far, 'cause I'm serious about trying them all even if I do only have one measly vote. So much clipping abuse doesn't seem like good stock replacement.

There's a great range of performance from the ones I've tried. I'm building up a couple of parking rings around Kerbin.

Was pleased by the Cormorant - I think I did something wrong during the ascent, but anyway, it didn't make the 500kmx500km orbit ring I was aiming at and I ended up landing on the side of a mountain in the dark.

I'm getting a locked parts message on tigik's plane.

[ssTALONps]

Waited for this challenge to come!!!

ARX-6E Volley

Javascript is disabled. View full album

The bit more updated 'E' variant has many interesting features.

• No intake spam & wing stacking – You seriously want beginners to play with space-fairing biplane or spam-like-hell intakes? Nah.
  
• No turbojet engine – Use of basic jet will greatly expand beginners' cognition of SSTO spaceplane design.
  
• 80x80km orbit insertion within 10 min – Rapid orbital deployment, cause I'm Korean and don't want to spend 10 min in atmosphere.
  
• Hefty fuel capacity - ~700m/s of dV for standard version, +1.5km/s of dV for turbojet version after orbital insertion.
  
• Ground refuel capable – Total re-usability. Beginners should learn how to dock after landing and design specific refuel vehicles.
  
• Reliability – Easy to fly and has almost same dV after orbit insertion. Tail-strike proof, no asymmetric flame out, balanced RCS ports.
  
• H-tail - Enhanced roll performance due to v-stabs tangential to angular movement around roll axis. Also has extreme yaw authority and ease of docking.
  
• Neat VDP - Everything from action groups to ascent profile is neatly described within Vehicle Description Panel.
  
• Design technique - Canard's angle of incidence, engine clustering in VAB & using sub-assembly, H-tail, landing gear position, etc. Everything you should learn.
  
• Engine Swap-able - Now this is unique to Volley, I've never seen any other craft capable of this feat. Description below.
  

This Tie-fighter-ish light weight(16t) SSTO is perfect for beginners to play with and develop combined building & piloting skills.

Even with smaller airframe, the ARX-6E Volley nevertheless performs better than Aeris-4a.

An unique feature of the Volley is Engine Swap-ability. Swap basic jet for turbojet and you can achieve orbit with 2x dV but at the penalty of +50% time to orbit.

This is possible mainly due to ARX series' high vacuum dV combined with advantage of light airframe weight of the Volley.

Turbojet ascent profile is not included. This is intended as to allow beginners to try-and-error standard shallow turbojet ascent profile.

I achieved 1.5km/s dV after orbital insertion with my own ascent profile.

For those who want to test out, check VDP. You only have to get rid of oxidizers from all FL-T100 tanks, swap engine and assign action group.

You may try the same with RAPIER engine, but I'm highly dubious of that.

As for relatively but not-that-much high part count (86), I added 10 struts between fuselage and wings for increased airframe rigidity.

You don't want your aircraft to disintegrate upon hard landing, right?

3x 48-7S cluster was made in VAB using cubic struts and imported to SPH by sub-assembly, a trick which I think beginners must know about.

Compared with 'D' version, the 'E' version slightly lacks in on-orbit dV but has 4 minutes more fuel for basic jet engine.

I also reconfigured lower wing layout. Now it has body flaps.

Initially, I was going to upload turbojet version.

However, for the sake of diversity, I chose to upload standard basic jet version as I believe it stands its own place among other great designs.

The ARX-6E Volley is dual-engine serviceable after all

I'm open for performance evaluations and suggestions.

Edited March 7, 2014 by ssTALONps

[Cruzan]

Hmmm...it's tough to choose just one design to submit

There are so many different ways you can approach this. I think I've got one though.

[MiniMatt]

After looking at all these entries and rereading the rules I'm gathering this is just a simple spaceplane popularity contest, not a "build a better Aeris-4a" challenge. In retrospect I probably should have entered a different plane.

This is something that has *perhaps* tended to appear in a lot of the BSC challenges although I also get the impression it has lessened a lot lately. I've said this before but it bears repeating, use your vote wisely according to your own criteria, but don't pay too much heed to the result of the votes if you have an entry in the comp - the joy of these challenges is in learning new tricks, discovering/stealing new engineering solutions, being awed by the craftsmanship of making things look good without resorting to (in my mind) un-BSC-like excessive clipping or multi-hundred part monsters. Hitching your motivation for these competitions to the vote result risks frustration and denies you the simple joy of merely participating.

Ultimately we all have more important things in our life to worry about than an internet space plane vote so choose what you're going to worry about (eg the mortgage, the kids, your exams) and what you're simply going to enjoy (eg BSC challenges).

"Build a better Aeries-4a" is genuinely what I think most if not all entrants have done. Trouble is, we all have different priorities on what we wish to improve. Some people will wish it had more DV, some will wish it had more crew capacity, or carried more science, or was easier to fly, or faster to reach orbit, or easier to dock, or easier to land. Because one design can't address all these without also making the craft heavier, more complex, more part hungry etc, any entrant, and the eventual "winner" will still serve as a springboard, an inspiration for players to adapt and build from.

Personally I could live with the Aeries 4-a's single crew capacity, it's lack of science, and it's modest role appropriate DV, but wasn't keen on it's unbalanced docking or it's large physical size (I tend to build my space stations too cramped). I also felt the atmospheric flight handling could be improved a bit, action groups could be simpler, an abort system would be nice, and, crucially, it lacked a really cool little antenna which automatically extends on take-off.

So I built the Mallard to address all these issues as best I could (especially the antenna). Others will look to fix other deficiencies, and others will look to fix the same ones I did but make a better job of it (and I'll subsequently steal their tricks!).

[Kasuha]

After looking at all these entries and rereading the rules I'm gathering this is just a simple spaceplane popularity contest, not a "build a better Aeris-4a" challenge.

Yes, that's been this way for a while already. There are certain rules how the craft should be built but judges are free to impose their own rules on top of it or just judge according to their own rules which they may make up on the fly. So lack of science tools was a disadvantage in one of BSC challenges, and advantage in another.

Personally I'm participating more to have a try at designing something I have not tried to design and fly yet. Nobody shares my opinion on what is "newbie-friendly" and my results so far correspond to that.

[MiniMatt]

This is something that has *perhaps* tended to appear in a lot of the BSC challenges although I also get the impression it has lessened a lot lately.

On reflection I think this first sentence suggests a greater problem than actually exists. Looking back on the BSC challenges I can only really think of one (diplomacy forbids stating which) where *my* first thought of the winning entry is "doesn't really fit my perception of BSC". Finalists have been packed with genuinely worthy contenders - but that is not to say those that didn't reach the finals or win the competition weren't worthy; the standard in these challenges, across all entrants, is consistently extremely high and often the only thing separating candidates becomes quite personal preferences.

This is the source of my own design dilemmas. The Aeris-4a has obvious flaws, but they're there on purpose: to inspire the player to tweak and experiment with the design while measuring whether the player has a handle on the standard ascent profile for SSTO spaceplanes. Given it's true purpose, the Aeris-4a is actually an excellent craft. So, I'm faced with a choice: do I recreate the original craft's intent or make an easy-to-use craft that has few flaws, potentially gaining more votes?

Either approach seems like a valid design choice, but one will result in a significantly different kind of craft from the other. How then do we compare entries that serve such different purposes?

I'm of the opinion that anything any of us make will be imperfect simply because everybody's needs, whims, and preferences are different and no craft can fulfil all engineering priorities equally. Rather than engineering in imperfections for the player to fix I prefer the approach of keeping a craft straightforward such that a new player can visually understand how it works and thus how they can improve it themselves to fit their own preferences and needs.

I recall being a living breathing example of this whilst deciding how to cast my final vote in the BSC VTOL challenge - I saw flaws (petty flaws admittedly, but I'm a petty man!) in Giggleplex's design but the inherent strength of the design really made me want to play around with it to "improve" those failings and the clarity of the design made it simple to do so:

OK. Had another quick play with all the finalist's entries (excluding my own).

Thoughts from page 14 largely still remain.

I came back to thinking "What are stock craft for?" They should be fun to play with sure, but they should also be inspiration for players' own creations. A new player should be able to see how they work and say "hey! that's a neat idea! I'm borrowing that!". And perhaps in a way a stock craft should be imperfect, a new player should be able to think "I reckon I can improve that!".

Then I realised. I am a new player. Only been here since Summer 2013, still haven't actually been to half of the planetary bodies available.

All three of my brethren finalists have made fine craft worthy of being stock, all have inspired, and all I think I could tweak a bit. But with which craft did I as a new player actually do this? It was Giggleplex's entry. I've already stolen the method (s)he used for radially mounting 48-7S engines via small docking ports (and I've no doubt (s)he likewise "stole" that from someone else's idea way back). I've already thought "I reckon I can improve on this" - and went ahead and did just that (in my mind) because it was fun to do so.

I've treated Giggleplex's craft like a stock craft. I've stolen bits from it, and I (reckon I) have improved it. Demonstrably therefore, Giggleplex's craft is, to me, a stock craft and as such gets my final vote.