SSTO/Spaceplane/Airplane Design Contest II: Akademy Awards

[mythic_fci]

Each individual wing or control surface tweak of 5 degrees gets a comprehensive test flight. I'm also doing more designs without hidden control surfaces, trying to future proof those designs for the eventual new aerodynamic model that I'm anticipating SQUAD to put into stock. Stay tuned more designs coming.

That's a lot of quality control... I've also started to redesign my planes to remove hidden/clipped control surfaces and optimize their capacity. The KSV Globemaster MkII (Yes, a MkII's in the works after less than 12 hours) has 12 less parts and shaves off a ton of weight (literally...). All hidden control surfaces have been removed and the airhogging more or less resolved to look more realistic.

[BagelRabbit]

Definitely going to make some craft for this competition. Now I just have to stop making planes that look like birds...

...and instead, actually use that effort to make useful things. It will be hard, I know, but I think I can do it.

(I would enter this in the competition, but there isn't really a category for something that flies poorly but looks really cool.)

[O-Doc]

That's a lot of quality control... I've also started to redesign my planes to remove hidden/clipped control surfaces and optimize their capacity. The KSV Globemaster MkII (Yes, a MkII's in the works after less than 12 hours) has 12 less parts and shaves off a ton of weight (literally...). All hidden control surfaces have been removed and the airhogging more or less resolved to look more realistic.

I can't believe how much wings weigh when you start spamming them. My Flyingfox has a loaded take-off weight of just over 300T. 30T of that is wings!

Wanderfound, let's hope you never figure out how to weaponize kerbals.

Edited September 16, 2014 by O-Doc

[aesthetics]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1z...it?usp=sharing

Kaster Mk1 (Interplanetary dock is still attached in the file, just disconnect in hanger to fly the plane alone.)

Category: Stock - Best sporty pleasure craft

parts=80

wet=13.46t

dry=6.43t

controls

0- toggles all intakes

1- toggles intakes and jet engines

2- toggles rockomax 48-7s's

3- toggles 0-10 mono engines

6- toggles rcs (for use with dock)

9- decouples dock

Flight plan -

1)press 0 to turn off all intakes, (so intakes are sync'd with engines) activate sas

2)shift to full thrust, press 1 to activate jet engines and intakes

3)gain speed to the end of the run way, then point straight up 90 degrees

4)reach altitude of 13000m then point nose at the 25 mark, with a heading of 90

5) at 22000m aim at the 10 mark

6)continue to gain speed until at 1400m/s then aim towards the 55 mark

7) on the map wait til ap is at 85km, then kill engines

8)press 2 to activate the 48-7s at the apoapsis and circularize orbit

Edited September 16, 2014 by aesthetics

[Voculus]

This challenge has been a blast, so far. After only recently downloading FAR, and with the advent of this contest, I've been having to unlearn old habits, and think outside the box, trying things I've never done before. I also had a revelation with Spaceplane Plus and FAR. I had been relying on far too much wing area, which was not only throwing red number up, but truly effecting the ship handling in a negative way. Now that I've seen the light, I'm going to definitely be using more of those parts.

And speaking of Spaceplane Plus, I've been having to stitch together the fuselage segments with struts. Always clipped inside, of course, but without them, the planes flex like noodles.

[Wanderfound]

This challenge has been a blast, so far. After only recently downloading FAR, and with the advent of this contest, I've been having to unlearn old habits, and think outside the box, trying things I've never done before. I also had a revelation with Spaceplane Plus and FAR. I had been relying on far too much wing area, which was not only throwing red number up, but truly effecting the ship handling in a negative way. Now that I've seen the light, I'm going to definitely be using more of those parts.

And speaking of Spaceplane Plus, I've been having to stitch together the fuselage segments with struts. Always clipped inside, of course, but without them, the planes flex like noodles.

Take a poke at a couple of the ones I've posted; there's some strutting there, but none of it is hidden (if you look from underneath). I only ever use clipping to overcome misbehaving symmetry (i.e. perfectly symmetrical parts, one green, one red). Small ones shouldn't need any fuselage strutting at all; big ones might want a few pairs, but not usually more than that.

A bit of strutting on SP+ wings is pretty much compulsory though, at least until they fix this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80796-0-24-Spaceplane-Plus-1-3?p=1377054&viewfull=1#post1377054

It's also worth thinking about which part you choose to use as the attachment point when you're putting together multi-fuselage stuff.

[mythic_fci]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1z...it?usp=sharing

Kaster Mk1 (Interplanetary dock is still attached in the file, just disconnect in hanger to fly the plane alone.)

Category: Stock - Best sporty pleasure craft

Damn... That's one fine plane. I need to step up my game...

Edited September 17, 2014 by FCISuperGuy

[Wanderfound]

Hypetrain/plane/ptrane engaged: .25 is in Experimentals, expect it to drop within a week or two.

Looks like the SP+ crew is going to have some redesigning to do...

[Pecan]

[spoiler=SP 40 ( Don't work in 0.25]

The SP 40/SP 40 B designs are withdrawn from the challenge as changes in 0.25 prevent them taking-off. .craft files and information are still below for anyone that wants them.

SP 40 B Craft File <- Update to equally-unimaginatively named SP 40.

Stock aerodynamics and parts.

Categories: heavy cargo, tanker, passenger, all-stock parts. <- The only difference is the payload you choose to fit.

SP 40 B is designed for low part-count and versatility. As such it can carry a variety of payloads (up to 40t) to orbit. Fuel lines run from inner rear tanks to outer and then to the inner forward ones. As with the original SP 40 only the inner forward tanks carry oxidiser. Performance and handling vary quite a lot depending on the payload mass (if any); with a full load some (30-40 units) of the liquid fuel that 'should' be reserved for the rockets may be required for the jets during ascent, but this is unlikely to materially affect in-orbit operations. With a lighter payload - or a better pilot than me! - the rockets each have a full FL-T800 fuel tank for space-based operations, giving moderate range. Principle changes from the earlier model are replacing the LV-N rockets with 48-7Ss and the single-seat cockpit arrangement with the 3-seat Mk1-2. This version is both lighter and cheaper at the cost of vacuum endurance.

SP 40 B with Fuel Module payload

SP 40 B itself: 38.394t wet/22.67t dry. 278 parts, cost 287,843.2

Action groups: 1 = 'outer' jets, 2 = 'inner' jets, 3 = rockets, 4 = shielded docking port cover

Payloads dock behind the cockpit. Whatever you want up to a mass of ~40t (hence the name) as long as it maintains the CoM. Although held at the front by the docking-port payloads should also be supported towards the rear by struts from just ahead of the LV-N engines. With any payload, or none, takeoff with full jets (action groups 1 and 2) and throttle, rotate at 100-110m/s to 20-degrees pitch to start climb, retract landing-gear and then rotate further to required climb attitude.

I haven't tried landing with a full orange tube but without a payload, or with a light one, land at 75m/s+ horizontal, about 1/3 throttle for approach/lineup and one set of jets, reducing and adjusting pitch (probably 5-10 degrees depending on your flying) as required.

SP 40 (A) is still available if anyone wants it. Operation is more or less identical and it is shown here just to illustrate different payloads.

Sample Fuel Module - docking-port, orange tube, docking port

With a heavy load like this climbout at 50-degrees pitch to ~15km then reduce to 20 degrees by 20km. Speed-balancing from there to between +/- 5-degrees at 30km and ~2,100m/s. Shutdown one set of jets (action group 1 or 2) when air-limited around 33km. Maintain thrust with the other set, reducing throttle as required, until space. Cut throttle, shutdown the remaining set of jets, activate the LV-Ns and perform circularisation burn (35 - 40 m/s at 75km).

Sample Passenger Module - docking port, 4 x Hitchhiker containers, docking port

With a lighter load the ascent profile is similar - you know this, you spaceplane experts! - but you will probably want to throttle-back or shutdown one set of jets during the climbout, shortly after takeoff, simply because the plane has too much thrust (see picture/caption below).

Variations on the theme are easy (eg; Mixed Load Module: docking port, hitchhiker, X200-32 fuel tank, hitchhiker, docking port) and structural support can be built for shorter loads to centre their CoM with the plane's. A science load is quite good (docking port, hitchhiker, science lab, science juniour, goo and all other science eqpt) but then the LV-Ns don't really have the fuel for a return trip to anywhere interesting. Much flexibility is, however, still available - such as adding oxidiser to the rear/outer tanks to provide more in-space performance.

Almost tearing itself apart (this image is a bit dark but I hope you can see what's happening):

I forgot to strut the back of the payload when I took off with this and, since the 4 hitchhikers mass so much less than a full orange tube, the acceleration 'almost' tore it apart. I wondered why MJ was applying left-rudder and why the payload wasn't aligned properly. It turned out that the docking-ports were only just maintaining a connection, despite not even touching. KSP still counted it as one ship and it flew to orbit quite happily, re-connecting as it should when the acceleration/drag weren't so strong.

NB: Only half the jets are required for this mass ^^.

Planned extra: a service rover to load fuel/pax/other modules

Bantam craft file

Stock aerodynamics and parts.

Categories: Best sporty pleasure craft

Bantam is low-part, fast and agile. It handles well at low-speeds and altitudes (~60m/s take-off and landing) while also being able to reach orbital speeds and altitude on less than 50 units of fuel, leaving ~50-60m/s for rocket circularisation. Should you be scared of space for some reason there is enough jet fuel to circumnavigate Kerbin entirely within the atmosphere (I did it at just under 30km and a touch under half throttle, just to check).

Bantam light spaceplane

Bantam: 5.65t wet/3.61t dry. 53 parts, cost 44,350

Action groups: 1 = jet, 2 = intakes, 3 = rockets, 4 = shielded docking port cover

Take-off and landing at ~60m/s or just let it lift on its own, since it sits on the runway with positive pitch. Retract gear and pitch-up to whatever you like, it has a lot of power for the mass. Aim for 2km/s and prograde around 30-33km altitude and then climb to space and circularise as you prefer. Land with around 1 'tick' of throttle or so.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Pecan

[Voculus]

Wanderfound, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by compressing your pics so much. The quality is really suffering. I know O-Doc mentioned not wanting to download 100mb per page, but that's not even close to possible, and your ships deserve a better presentation. Mine are 5760 x 1920, weigh in at just over 1MB, and let the haters hate! Let them be free, my friend!

Edited September 17, 2014 by Voculus

[Voculus]

I'd like to play but, as you all probably know, I'm not much with spaceplanes. This, therefore, is only a 'candidate entry' - it's designed for low(ish) part-count but still being able to put a reasonable (orange tube) payload into orbit. The payload itself is whatever you feel like docking behind the cockpit, as long as it maintains the CoM and doesn't mass too much.

So, I'm just asking is this all stock plane even worthy of mentioning amongst your collective specialist awesomeness?

Of course it's worthy! You should post link to a CRAFT file, so people can test fly it. I'm just some Joe Blow off the streets. If I can make spaceplanes, anyone can! I'm nothing special!

[O-Doc]

Wanderfound, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by compressing your pics so much. The quality is really suffering. I know O-Doc mentioned not wanting to download 100mb per page, but that's not even close to possible, and your ships deserve a better presentation. Mine are 5760 x 1920, weigh in at just over 1MB, and let the haters hate! Let them be free, my friend!

Are you referring to Pecan? If so, then yeah, I kinda agree.

I've always saved mine at 75% of my native which is 1920. At that size you can still read the text and make out all the details. Have you updated your images Voculus? I saved one the other day and it was over 5MB is size.

Looks like a nicely balanced ride there Pecan. The setup looks very efficient to orbit.

[Pecan]

Thank you for your kind assessments. I'd assumed this would look too scruffy for this challenge but I'll edit the post above into a proper entry later this evening (going out at the moment).

Those images are imgur's 640x480 thumbnails but you can click on them to see them in 1680x1050.

[Voculus]

I saved one the other day and it was over 5MB is size.

I stand corrected. Looking through some of the more colorful shots in my album, I see a few over 6MB! Yikes! At any rate, I'm honored you'd save one of mine!

[O-Doc]

Image sizes will vary depending on how light they are. Dark images have more zeros than ones so will be smaller than a bright images. When compression is turned up the difference is less, because, compression. JPG is a compressed format.

[Voculus]

Wanderfound, the categories such as pleasure craft, best use of B9/KAX?etc don't necessarily need to be spaceplanes, right?

[Wanderfound]

Pecan: there's a "best vertical SSTO" category; included with you in mind.

[Wanderfound]

Wanderfound, the categories such as pleasure craft, best use of B9/KAX?etc don't necessarily need to be spaceplanes, right?

As detailed at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93779-SSTO-Spaceplane-Airplane-Design-Contest-II-Akademy-Awards?p=1418918&viewfull=1#post1418918, that's entirely up to the voters.

[Wanderfound]

Wanderfound, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by compressing your pics so much. The quality is really suffering. I know O-Doc mentioned not wanting to download 100mb per page, but that's not even close to possible, and your ships deserve a better presentation. Mine are 5760 x 1920, weigh in at just over 1MB, and let the haters hate! Let them be free, my friend!

It isn't just one person; there are quite a few limited-bandwidth regulars. Ain't gonna name 'em, because I don't want to start a lynch mob.

I've got fast broadband now, but this is the first time in my life that I've ever had that. Previously, I was stretching my budget for slow and expensive internet that had a monthly limit measured in MB, not GB. And I'm old enough that I came to the 'net back when you'd chew someone out for bandwidth-hogging because they didn't trim superfluous quoted paragraphs from their all-text email replies.

Since I'm going to be revising and resubmitting all of mine post .25, I won't bother updating the existing screenshots, but I may crank up the quality a bit on the revised versions. But they're staying as JPEGs. If you want to see them in full glory, download the craft file and take it for a spin.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Voculus]

If you want to see them in full glory, download the craft file and take it for a spin.

I've taken all of them for test drives, so far. Even a couple of hairy test landings!

[aesthetics]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1z...it?usp=sharing

Kaster Mk1 (Interplanetary dock is still attached in the file, just disconnect in hanger to fly the plane alone.)

Category: Stock - Best sporty pleasure craft

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/582406402624224727/18C13BE1398CD5A3BD3760CFA21B7064F25B8CB3/

parts=80

wet=13.46t

dry=6.43t

controls

0- toggles all intakes

1- toggles intakes and jet engines

2- toggles rockomax 48-7s's

3- toggles 0-10 mono engines

6- toggles rcs (for use with dock)

9- decouples dock

Flight plan -

1)press 0 to turn off all intakes, (so intakes are sync'd with engines) activate sas

2)shift to full thrust, press 1 to activate jet engines and intakes

3)gain speed to the end of the run way, then point straight up 90 degrees

4)reach altitude of 13000m then point nose at the 25 mark, with a heading of 90

5) at 22000m aim at the 10 mark

6)continue to gain speed until at 1400m/s then aim towards the 55 mark

7) on the map wait til ap is at 85km, then kill engines

8)press 2 to activate the 48-7s at the apoapsis and circularize orbit

and for the "Best interplanetary science explorer spaceplane."...

- - - Updated - - -

the dock must be flown up separately on a rocket..

[Pecan]

Pecan: there's a "best vertical SSTO" category; included with you in mind.

Very kind of you. I just looked at Stratzenblitz's though and that's a thing of beauty I haven't tried to get near yet. May chuck one in there to make up the numbers but I'm (still) just trying to work out how to explain the differences in fuel-tank cost-efficiency or, indeed, fuel-density. You know how it is with me, I'm writing tutorials or test-pieces and everything else just falls out of that; so far I'm only just messing-about with mixing SRBs into (otherwise) SSTO designs; JATO still seems months away :-(

[Wanderfound]

and for the "Best interplanetary science explorer spaceplane."...http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/574527129780372283/905A40BC574196302FE032C914265AD8C37D4036/

- - - Updated - - -

the dock must be flown up separately on a rocket..

Care to give us separate craft files for the two versions and edit them both into your entry post? We're trying to keep the thread organised so that it's easy to find each contestant's designs.

[Wanderfound]

Very kind of you. I just looked at Stratzenblitz's though and that's a thing of beauty I haven't tried to get near yet. May chuck one in there to make up the numbers but I'm (still) just trying to work out how to explain the differences in fuel-tank cost-efficiency or, indeed, fuel-density. You know how it is with me, I'm writing tutorials or test-pieces and everything else just falls out of that; so far I'm only just messing-about with mixing SRBs into (otherwise) SSTO designs; JATO still seems months away :-(

These are just sillyness, but have a poke at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1359869&viewfull=1#post1359869 and http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1360020&viewfull=1#post1360020

In spaceplane terms, SRBs are heavy. Those two designs are something like 90% mass in SRB fuel.

[Wanderfound]

I've taken all of them for test drives, so far. Even a couple of hairy test landings!

Any landing you walk away from, right?