Your most ambitious SSTO mission

[Cirocco]

My previous SSTO spaceplane efforts were aimed at large crew LKO transport vehicles that still looked like actual planes. I'm pretty happy with the current result (11 kerbals into LKO with about 400-700 oxidizer and accompanying fuel to spare) so now I'm focusing on interplanetary SSTO's without refuel. Preferrably with the Mk III cockpit so Jeb, Bill and Bob can all share the glory.

First target is Duna, but damn it's hard to put enough fuel into orbit to ensure a return trip while still having the plane look like an actual plane...

[eempc]

My previous SSTO spaceplane efforts were aimed at large crew LKO transport vehicles that still looked like actual planes. I'm pretty happy with the current result (11 kerbals into LKO with about 400-700 oxidizer and accompanying fuel to spare) so now I'm focusing on interplanetary SSTO's without refuel. Preferrably with the Mk III cockpit so Jeb, Bill and Bob can all share the glory.

First target is Duna, but damn it's hard to put enough fuel into orbit to ensure a return trip while still having the plane look like an actual plane...

Using only stock parts, I can sympathise. It's either make a monstrosity I would be embarrassed to have Jeb die in or sacrifice performance to maintain plane aesthetics.

[Wallace]

I've still not got space planes figured out, the best i've done is LKO without refueling.

I sent a 1 kerbal space plane to Mun orbit after refueling in LKO, and i have got an 8 kerbal plane into orbit.

[Pecan]

Most people don't read anything except your title though. It seems every thread with ambiguous SSTO in the title has some smartie pants talking about SSTO rockets (which I found unchallenging to get into orbit and therefore not really ambitious). You really need to specify "SSTO space plane with an air breathing phase" or "SSTO rockets-only" in your title. I think that would clarify the difference.

You are right that most people don't read much and, unfortunately, even fewer think about what they have read.

There is nothing ambiguous about 'Single Stage To Orbit' - it's something that goes To Orbit, in a Single Stage.

There is nothing ambiguous about 'Spaceplane'- it's something that uses aerodynamic lift to fly and can reach Orbit.

If the OP wanted to ask about ambitious 'Spaceplanes' then limiting them to 'SSTO' - Kerbin Orbit - seems a bit redundant. "Your most ambitious Spaceplane mission" would seem to be simple and precise. Anyway, I seem to be in danger of being 'the forum ****' here so I'll withdraw and return to writing about a reusable infrastructure.

[eempc]

You are right that most people don't read much and, unfortunately, even fewer think about what they have read.

There is nothing ambiguous about 'Single Stage To Orbit' - it's something that goes To Orbit, in a Single Stage.

There is nothing ambiguous about 'Spaceplane'- it's something that uses aerodynamic lift to fly and can reach Orbit.

If the OP wanted to ask about ambitious 'Spaceplanes' then limiting them to 'SSTO' - Kerbin Orbit - seems a bit redundant. "Your most ambitious Spaceplane mission" would seem to be simple and precise. Anyway, I seem to be in danger of being 'the forum ****' here so I'll withdraw and return to writing about a reusable infrastructure.

If you haven't requoted the OP's quote that I quoted, then what I said is out of context (as your response implies). I never said the definition of SSTO was ambiguous (so yes you were being a bit of a **** by misquoting me). But in this thread, the OP has used the term SSTO in the title to mean spaceplane but not specified spaceplane, hence the ambiguity between rocket-SSTO and spaceplane-SSTO, and why people are posting their rocket-SSTOs without reading the first post.

[Cirocco]

Using only stock parts, I can sympathise. It's either make a monstrosity I would be embarrassed to have Jeb die in or sacrifice performance to maintain plane aesthetics.

I use full stock parts as well (aside from fairings and kerbal engineer redux) and you pretty much perfectly summed up the core of 99.9% of all my spaceplane design problems...

[Pecan]

If you haven't requoted the OP's quote that I quoted, then what I said is out of context (as your response implies). I never said the definition of SSTO was ambiguous (so yes you were being a bit of a **** by misquoting me). But in this thread, the OP has used the term SSTO in the title to mean spaceplane but not specified spaceplane, hence the ambiguity between rocket-SSTO and spaceplane-SSTO, and why people are posting their rocket-SSTOs without reading the first post.

Enjoy your opinions. I just wonder why people are posting anything that goes beyond orbit. Perhaps it's that they don't read?

[Jouni]

If you haven't requoted the OP's quote that I quoted, then what I said is out of context (as your response implies). I never said the definition of SSTO was ambiguous (so yes you were being a bit of a **** by misquoting me). But in this thread, the OP has used the term SSTO in the title to mean spaceplane but not specified spaceplane, hence the ambiguity between rocket-SSTO and spaceplane-SSTO, and why people are posting their rocket-SSTOs without reading the first post.

Perhaps we interpreted the OP in a way that didn't exclude other types of SSTOs.

On the other hand, maybe the definition of an SSTO will soon be reusable single-stage spaceplane. KSP probably accounts for the majority of the use of the term, so eventually that use will define what an SSTO means by default.

[sdj64]

Enjoy your opinions. I just wonder why people are posting anything that goes beyond orbit. Perhaps it's that they don't read?

It's wrong to assume that people only ever say things completely unambiguously. It was very clear from the OP that he meant spaceplanes. He even has examples of going farther than orbit (to Mun, Minmus, and Ike). So cut the guy some slack, read between the lines, and don't try to be a lawyer. If you have a rocket design that can go single stage to somewhere farther than orbit, or a large payload SSTO rocket, go ahead and post it, it would be cool to see.

Using only stock parts, I can sympathise. It's either make a monstrosity I would be embarrassed to have Jeb die in or sacrifice performance to maintain plane aesthetics.

Not so, if you're willing to part clip But I get it that many people don't like that and think it's cheating.

All that aside, my most ambitious spaceplane mission was to deliver a 24 ton payload to the surface of Duna. Originally done for the K-prize challenge.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[LethalDose]

(*I also need a decent word for vehicles that don't use wing/shape for aerodynamic lift! I'm using 'rocket' but that's a type of engine (like 'jet'), not vehicle. Anyone got a word for a flying-not-aeroplane vehicle?)

Lifting body may be the term you're looking for. I'm not aware of any other methods of generating aerodynamic lift without a wing.

[Pecan]

Thanks LethalDose, I'm actually hunting for a word that relies just on thrust without aerodynamic lift, but isn't necessarily using a rocket-engine. Something like a vertical-lift jet-powered stage, for instance. I think the term is simply 'ballistic' but I'm not sure.

[LethalDose]

Perhaps we interpreted the OP in a way that didn't exclude other types of SSTOs.

I have to admit, I missed the "plane" part of the OP's post. But I don't think SSTO should exclude spaceplanes, see below.

On the other hand, maybe the definition of an SSTO will soon be reusable single-stage spaceplane. KSP probably accounts for the majority of the use of the term, so eventually that use will define what an SSTO means by default.

I agree with the expectation that SSTO's will also be reusable. That's largely the point of building an SSTO.

However, I disagree that "spaceplane" should be part of the SSTO's definition. I think this would exclude some very cool vessels, both IRL and KSP, that deserve to be in the category. An IRL example is the DC-XA:

And this is a concept/idea I straight up stole from Scott Manley's reusable space program:

Both reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicles, neither are spaceplanes.

PS. The lower one could be considered my "most ambitious" SSTO as it takes 7 kerbals to LKO, or 6 down from LKO (excluding the pilot). Landing it, however, is a total nightmare and I still haven't pulled it off yet. But, hey, the title doesn't specify that the "ambitious SSTO mission" had to be successful, right?

Edited to avoid additional posts:

Thanks LethalDose, I'm actually hunting for a word that relies just on thrust without aerodynamic lift, but isn't necessarily using a rocket-engine. Something like a vertical-lift jet-powered stage, for instance. I think the term is simply 'ballistic' but I'm not sure.

Your initial post I was responding to said "aerodynamic lift without a wing". What you appear to be talking now about I wouldn't consider "lift" at all, again, based on the definition of lift provided by wikipedia: The force generated perpendicular to a bodies direction of travel generated by interaction between the body and the fluid through which it is traveling.

I think vehicles that generate upward motion by thrust can simply and clearly be referred to as "vertical take-off" vehicles. Don't confuse this with VTOL, though, which would also require them to be able to land vertically as well.

The term certainly isn't "ballistic", which refers to the trajectory of an unpowered projectile or vessel after following an initial impulse. For example, after you make an escape burn and shut down your engines, you're on a ballistic trajectory. But if you were still firing your engines, your wouldn't be ballistic.

Edited June 12, 2014 by LethalDose
Avoiding multiple posts

[KerrMü]

Just last week I built my first Spaceplane-SSTO that could land on Minimus and return to the runway without refueling:

(I´m using the Spaceplane+ Mod, and I really don´t want to live without it anymore. Blends almost perfectly into the game, and the parts look so much cooler )

But honestly that plane´s got no other use to it, because I had to design for efficiency. No RCS or docking-ports. Needed to watch my energy level as well, because no batteries other than in the cockpit, and only one solar panel.

And now I´m asking myself (AND YOU), what would be the next consequent goal to aim for. Mun or Duna?

To be honest, that will be a difficult challange, ´cause I set myself a few restraints.

a: No intake-spamming (yes, I did that too in my early SSTO attempts, but now I feel I would be exploiting a crappy game-mechanic too much. Just IMO)

b: Reasonable living space (I felt quite bad for Doodley Kerman, having to sit in his small cockpit for 20 Kerbin days on that trip to minimus)

c: only reasonable partclipping. Basically just for aesthetics. Because:

d: The craft should look cool!

So I´m thrilled to try and fly an SSTO out to Duna, but can you land there without VTOL rockets? (what would make the craft even more heavy and complicated to ballance. Maybe in combination with lots of parachutes?)

[Hodo]

So I´m thrilled to try and fly an SSTO out to Duna, but can you land there without VTOL rockets? (what would make the craft even more heavy and complicated to ballance. Maybe in combination with lots of parachutes?)

If you are using FAR, yes.... if you build a craft with enough wing surface to become a REALLY big slow glider. Even then it will not be easy or likely to succeed. Duna has a VERY thin atmosphere and landing any space plane on it in a non-VTOL fashion is extremely difficult.

Without FAR, no clue never played KSP without FAR.

[Jouni]

However, I disagree that "spaceplane" should be part of the SSTO's definition. I think this would exclude some very cool vessels, both IRL and KSP, that deserve to be in the category.

We're living in a world, where descriptive linguistics dominate prescriptive linguistics. Words get their meanings from the way they are used, while definitions are secondary. If people predominantly use term "SSTO" to mean reusable single-stage spaceplanes, it eventually becomes the primary meaning of the term.

[KerrMü]

thx Hodo. Maybe I have to try FAR again soon.

[LethalDose]

We're living in a world, where descriptive linguistics dominate prescriptive linguistics. Words get their meanings from the way they are used, while definitions are secondary. If people predominantly use term "SSTO" to mean reusable single-stage spaceplanes, it eventually becomes the primary meaning of the term.

I'm picking up what you're putting down.

But those rockets I have above are still pretty freaking cool. And are also SSTO's.

[Kasuha]

To promote the "SSTO is not a plane" motto, here's my fully reusable SSTO with which I built a space station. It was all done with single ship, only things recovered were remnants of refueling/loading setups.

Attaching payload vertically is much easier than fastening it to a plane IMO.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Pecan]

The term certainly isn't "ballistic", which refers to the trajectory of an unpowered projectile or vessel after following an initial impulse.

THAT is exactly where my uncertainty came from. Thanks again.