BSC: Aeris 4a - AND THE WINNER IS:

[Tarmenius]

I'm somehow amazed by the sheer number of entries ...

Thank goodness we have the extra time. With 39 entries to test (so far), if I spend even five minutes on each, that's 3 hours and 15 mins of testing. I'll to have to devise a testing method that gets the most out of those 5 minutes...

[Silverchain]

My testing regime is to launch each plane to the highest reachable Kerbin orbit, dock with a station (or rendezvous if the craft doesn't have docking ports), undock and return to Kerbin for a landing.

It's taking quite the little while, and there's only so much chap-hop one human being can listen to before going irredeemably insane ou, pire! pushing it onto friends...

I've been unable to download tigik's "spaceplane" and JABUSCUS' "SSTO 1."

1revenger1's "Reacher" turned out to be missing large parts of the craft (compared to the posted pics), though I managed to coax the thing to orbit.

I haven't checked on those recently, though. There's also newer ones of some of the craft I have tried, so I'll have to fly those again.

Here's a relaxing picture - a Spike, Aeris 4a-11, Gecko and Mallard watch the world go by.

And here's the wings falling off (for no identifiable reason!) a plane as it reenters Kerbin's atmosphere.

[cyberklad]

And here's the wings falling off (for no identifiable reason!) a plane as it reenters Kerbin's atmosphere.

Oh it's just Jeb pushing the big red button that says: "Eject a wing!" The writing on the button was probably a bit small and Jeb was curious about it's function.

[Cruzan]

Anyone get a chance to fly The Bolt yet? It looks like I'd still have time to revise it

[Silverchain]

Anyone get a chance to fly The Bolt yet? It looks like I'd still have time to revise it

I liked it, very straightforward, sensible and simple design. I didn't try it with extra fuel, only took it up with the default fuel load and sat in 100x100 LKO. I have takeoff marked as "alright" (not "good") but don't remember what the trouble was; I think the first time I tried a launch it wobbled a bit on the runway and when in flight it was marked as still being "on the runway" which is a bug I've seen happen occasionally on rough takeoffs. Ascent flight was good, reentry and descent flight was good and it made a good landing on rough ground.

[BagelRabbit]

Thank goodness we have the extra time. With 39 entries to test (so far), if I spend even five minutes on each, that's 3 hours and 15 mins of testing. I'll to have to devise a testing method that gets the most out of those 5 minutes...

I'm not sure if some planes can reach orbit in five minutes! (Mine takes about 7:30 for orbit on a good day.)

You're right, the number of entries is, quite frankly, insane. I was thinking of applying my infinite [read: very, very, very limited] knowledge and being a judge for the first time this competition, but I want enough time to judge every single entry. Which I won't have. Maybe next time.

I'm currently in the midst of making a video for my spaceplane, which involves it docking and then travelling to the Mun with the additional fuel. I'll decide whether I can land when I get there.

Wish me luck!

[Giggleplex777]

And here's the wings falling off (for no identifiable reason!) a plane as it reenters Kerbin's atmosphere.

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

Press f3. The wings might be colliding with the "launchpad".

[Cruzan]

I liked it, very straightforward, sensible and simple design. I didn't try it with extra fuel, only took it up with the default fuel load and sat in 100x100 LKO. I have takeoff marked as "alright" (not "good") but don't remember what the trouble was; I think the first time I tried a launch it wobbled a bit on the runway and when in flight it was marked as still being "on the runway" which is a bug I've seen happen occasionally on rough takeoffs. Ascent flight was good, reentry and descent flight was good and it made a good landing on rough ground.

Nice! Thanks for the feedback. I'll pull it up and see if I notice any problems

I pretty much try to takeoff as soon as possible, so I never got it to over 60m/s on the ground. I'll try letting it run out for a while longer and get over 100m/s to see what's going on.

UPDATE: I'm not sure what might have been the problem, but I just loaded it up and it did a hands-free takeoff dead straight down the runway

Maybe the craft file I posted is messed up. I made a new d/l link just in case:

[mediafire] Edited March 8, 2014 by Cruzan

[Tarmenius]

I'm not sure if some planes can reach orbit in five minutes! (Mine takes about 7:30 for orbit on a good day.)

I'm not sure if any of them can get to orbit in under 5 mins (mine also takes anywhere between 7 and 10 minutes depending on ascent path). But I'm thinking that as long as a craft is technically capable of getting there, all I should want to test is how it handles in flight. Take the original Aeris 4a for example. It's technically capable of reaching orbit, though for a while I couldn't manage it. Getting it there or not seems like more a reflection of the pilot's skill than of the crafts capabilities. So, as long as someone has shown that a given craft can get to orbit (typically the craft's creator), my main concerns when testing should be how it performs during flight at various fuel loads and whether the RCS (if any) is balanced for docking.

Given that, I think my testing will involve attempting to land the craft once with a full fuel load and once at almost empty. This will tell me a lot about the craft's lift characteristics, potential climb rate, and maneuverability. Then, I can hack gravity and see how the RCS behaves in zero-G. I'm pretty sure I can accomplish all that in under 5 minutes and have a good picture of how the craft behaves at the key points in a typical flight. After the first couple tests, I'll have a better idea about whether this is going to be a reliable method...

[Cruzan]

I'm not sure if any of them can get to orbit in under 5 mins (mine also takes anywhere between 7 and 10 minutes depending on ascent path). But I'm thinking that as long as a craft is technically capable of getting there, all I should want to test is how it handles in flight. Take the original Aeris 4a for example. It's technically capable of reaching orbit, though for a while I couldn't manage it. Getting it there or not seems like more a reflection of the pilot's skill than of the crafts capabilities. So, as long as someone has shown that a given craft can get to orbit (typically the craft's creator), my main concerns when testing should be how it performs during flight at various fuel loads and whether the RCS (if any) is balanced for docking.

Given that, I think my testing will involve attempting to land the craft once with a full fuel load and once at almost empty. This will tell me a lot about the craft's lift characteristics, potential climb rate, and maneuverability. Then, I can hack gravity and see how the RCS behaves in zero-G. I'm pretty sure I can accomplish all that in under 5 minutes and have a good picture of how the craft behaves at the key points in a typical flight. After the first couple tests, I'll have a better idea about whether this is going to be a reliable method...

I'm doing the same. I trust everyone who states their craft's performance capabilities. I don't think anyone would lie about it being able to get to orbit . A lot of my testing is done with hyperedit to test reentry and low fuel landings as that is where most designs have issues.

I've designed enough of these size SSTOs to know how well it will make it to orbit based on its mass, engine selection and # of intakes so I don't bother taking them all the way to orbit I just climb with them for a while to get a feel for their TWR and then test out other stuff.

I think reading a submission's details in their individual posts and then doing light testing is pretty good for the first round of voting. When the designs get narrowed down I'll start doing more rigorous testing!

Edited March 8, 2014 by Cruzan

[BagelRabbit]

Here's a teaser trailer of the many great adventures the Plover will have...

...exploding randomly is, indeed, one of them. (Don't worry, this is not a normal event for the Plover. And take a moment to note the perfect water landing, with no loss of parts!)

Any idea of why this happened, by the way?

[Silverchain]

I don't think anyone would lie about it being able to get to orbit

At least one won't even leave the runway or make enough speed to fly on its turbojets, and I can't imagine what flight profile its creator uses.

[mhoram]

I think reading a submission's details in their individual posts and then doing light testing is pretty good for the first round of voting.

I have a different approach.

As the goal of the challenge is to create crafts suitable for beginners, they should be usable without much information, so I don't include the craft-description into my rating (mostly). Handling, user friendlyness, docking performance, part count are my most important criteria.

At the beginning of this challenge I already tried out most of the crafts, but since every now and then updated crafts pop up I stopped doing so. I hope that I will manage to fly every participants plane within the one week voting period.

[capi3101]

About how many entries are there now? Forty or so?

I'll have to start in on test flights soon - otherwise I may just base my decisions on aesthetics...

[ssTALONps]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

So I haven't touched turbojet SSTOs for awhile. Thought it would be better to practice some before assessing other submissions.

Swapped basic jet of my Volley with turbojet, took off with mission to land on Minmus.

I actually forgot to remove oxidizers from FL-T100 tanks, nonetheless successfully landed on Minmus with pinch of fuel to spare.

If I did pre-flight check thoroughly, I could have returned from Minmus without help of another one since unused oxidizers are dead weights.

[Blaster]

Ever since the introduction of the new RAPIER engine, KermaJet has been re-evaluating its approach to spaceplane design. The first plane, the KJ120, performs well, but is needlessly large and heavy for a single passenger spaceplane. By replacing the multi-engine configuration with a single RAPIER engine, the whole vehicle can be reduced in size, without compromising performance.

This is the KermaJet KR100, codename Kodachi. Download

The KR100 provides everything that the Aeris 4a can, and more. A Junior docking port allows for docking to a carrier or station, antenna allows for long range communications, and a retractable ladder provides easy vehicle entrance and exit. Headlights assist visibility at night, and the ample fuel reserves allow for easy orbital operations. RTG systems behind the wings recharge the battery, and RCS thrusters provide additional control while in space.

Hotkeys:

1 - Manually Switch Engine Mode

2 - Close/Open Intakes

3 - Deploy Antenna

4 - Extend/Retract Ladder

5 - Disable/Enable Reaction Wheels

Craft File has a complete description, including Ascent and Descent procedures

Ascent Video, Undedited

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited March 12, 2014 by Blaster
KermaJet has modified the KR100's power system slightly.

[BlazeFallow]

May I present to you the Y Wing:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

The Y Wing SSTO class Space Plane gets its name from the Y shape of its hull, a design characteristic that Jebediah claims he discovered "in a dream involving a poodle, 3 orange tanks, and a suspiciously generous elderly kerman..."

Noteable Design Aspects:

- Y-Shape helps resolve the pesky CoM/CoL issues many space planes experience.

- Abort sequence cuts free the center fuselage which is a self contained space plane.

- Surface controls are balanced for smooth flight movements.

Y Wing Craft File

Action Groups:

1: Toggles side Turbojets

2: Toggles central RAPIER

3: Toggles all air intakes

4: Toggles 48-7S Rocket Engines

5: Toggles RAPIER Mode

7: Raises/Lowers center landing gear.

8: Toggles ladder

9: Toggles Antennae

10: Toggles Clam-O-Tron Shielded Docking Port

Abort:

- Lowers center gear bay.

- Decouples center docking port.

- Shutdown RAPIER engine for smooth separation.

- NOTE: After separation, lower throttle to 1/3 and reactivate RAPIER using AG2.

SSTO Flight Path Guidance:

- Enable SAS, Start 1st stage, and immediately kill 48-7S engines using AG4

- Throttle up and pull up on the flight stick the whole way down the runway. You'll lift off near the end, at about 115m/s.

- Pitch up to ~45 degrees and make for the sky

- At 12km lower pitch to 30 degress and maintain full throttle

- At 18km lower pitch to 20 degrees

- At 22km start throttling back slowly as the air thins. The Turbojets may flame out if you don't manage the throttle perfectly, but don't worry, just throttle back more and they'll kick in again without worry. The yaw control on the plane is more than enough to counteract flameouts.

- At 28km toggle AG1 to kill the Turbojets and increase throttle to max. Toggle AG4 to start the 42-7S engines and pitch up to 40 degrees. The RAPIER will continue to operate on air breathing cycle until about 35km

- At 35km toggle AG3 to close all air ducts and continue full throttle until Apoapsis is at 75km then prepare to circularize.

- To circularize I recommend toggling AG4 to kill the 42-7S engines as they have slightly worse ISP than the RAPIER and are really not needed for the circularization burn, the average burn on the RAPIER alone is about 55 seconds.

For re-entry:

While not necessary, I recommend shifting fuel back into the forward tanks. The craft is more than capable of re-entry without the shift, but it will fly and land more smoothly if the shift is made.

- Shift fuel (optional)

- Open Air ducts with AG3

- Turn on Turbjets with AG1

- Switch RAPIER back to air breathing with AG5

- Glide smoothly back to the surface using engines if necessary. The plan glides incredibly well coming back to KSP and can make a fully unpowered landing without great effort.

[Cruzan]

I've got 10 tested. Plenty more to go when I get more time

There is quite a wide variety in the submissions. It's pretty cool to test out all the different designs!

[BagelRabbit]

[blazeFallow's Entry]

An Emergency Escape Jet? Wow. I don't know how well this jet will stack up to others in the long run. But wow. That's really cool.

By the way, has anyone tested my new Plover yet? I know it's kind of a long shot because of the sheer amount of entries being posted, let alone "secondary" entries, but...

And can anyone explain what happened here? Please?! [i know I posted this before but it was rapidly lost on the last page, and I'm looking for ways (if any) to fix this sort of tomfoolery in a future plane.]

Thanks.

[Kasuha]

I added Laythe mission album to my submission, check it out

[Ravenchant]

That's some beautiful engineering, everyone. I'll test some submissions next week, but I don't really have the patience to improve mine

[ThePsuedoMonkey]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

The Dionysus is designed for an intermediate player, and has the capability to ferry 11 Kerbals safely into orbit and back. It is a little heavy on the part count, but comes in under a hundred. The rear landing gear is setup with a custom suspension that makes touchdown a little softer, the forward fuel tank reduces the likelihood of a tail-strike on takeoff, the drag from the dorsal-mounted intakes help to pitch upward, and the outer RAPIER engines will give the pilots a taste of asymmetric flame-outs without making the ship uncontrollable. The central wing sections are triple-layered, all air intakes are visible, and RCS is balanced for translation. Once you reach orbit you should have between 100 and 250 m/s of ÃŽâ€V from engines, and another 50-75m/s from RCS. Lots of action groups, but #2 toggles RAPIER mode, and #0 toggle solar panels and ladders. It's agile enough to buzz the tower without much difficulty, but it probably won't do any vertical flips.

Download

[Rune]

Aaaand the thread exploded. This is going to mean a lot of testing to cast my vote. Well, I'd better get at it!

It's neck to neck with Rune's White Dart when it comes to aerodynamics. Mine's got an edge on yaw, though.

Not sure if that is a great idea or not. You want a plane to not like getting excessive lateral drift, since that can make for a very "interesting" landings. Then again, you have all-moving vertical stabilizers, which is bound to get a more dramatic effect. The White Dart is designed for stability, and the trade is always manoeuvrability... anyhow, finished yet? I want to try it because it looks awesome!! (and I'm only at like page 5 through testing).

Rune. Keeping track of relative scoring is also going to be a pain in the ass, I hope my notes are enough.

[Spartwo]

Should I put a nuke on mine before it's too late?

[Silverchain]

By the way, has anyone tested my new Plover yet? I know it's kind of a long shot because of the sheer amount of entries being posted, let alone "secondary" entries, but...

Yes, just tried it and got it to orbit fine, and without danger of the battery running out. I think your video shows a baby Kraken stretching its tiny tentacles to you... a grown up one would have propelled the ship out of the solar system but it settled for flinging it into the sky. ^^

I've now launched at least one of every working submission (*groans* except the new one that's just been submitted) , but have only completed orbital rendezvous and then landing of about a third of them so it'll still be a while. And I've ended up with a few stranded or low on fuel, so keep spamming more planes to refuel them. Slow but fun!