SSTO/Spaceplane/Airplane Design Contest II: Akademy Awards

[Pecan]

That's up to the voters.

Personally, however, I'd consider payloads of 5t as "light", 20t as "medium", and "heavy" goes as high as you can manage.

Yes, I had second-thoughts along the same lines. Probably better re-categorise SP 40 from 'light cargo' to 'heavy cargo'. Sorry to mess you about. No sweat, I have 'SP 40 B' almost ready to go anyway - lighter, cheaper, (a bit) better-looking and carrying 3 crew instead of 1 (fuel-module + 2 crew represents a complete station-rotation load for me).

PS: @ all - I'm going away for a long weekend but will test others on Tuesday/Wednesday if I can.

[Pecan]

...Do the payload-carriers have to be SSTOs?...

I don't suppose so, no - although I (personally) would expect a 'space'plane to be able to make orbit. On the other hand the jets can probably get it into space on a sub-orbital trajectory so it could still deliver a load to space I suppose. If you're not sure there is a 'non-space aeroplane' category - might as well enter it for both.

[BagelRabbit]

I don't suppose so, no - although I (personally) would expect a 'space'plane to be able to make orbit. On the other hand the jets can probably get it into space on a sub-orbital trajectory so it could still deliver a load to space I suppose. If you're not sure there is a 'non-space aeroplane' category - might as well enter it for both.

Meh, I'll probably come up with another plane, then... and make sure that it can SSTO properly. I'm really looking forward to entering a "pleasure craft," as well... most of my craft seem to be fun to fly, if nothing else, so this is the field that I feel most qualified for! (Of course, it's also the field with the stiffest competition, but I feel like I should at least enter something there. If nothing else, I can get others' opinions on how to make my planes better, which is definitely worth it.)

[sumrex]

Yep, I'm gonna up the game from the last contest. I did not put Cadzilla in the last contest but here she is. She flies well with FAR NEAR or STOCK!!! I am putting her forward in best looking and best use of Firespitter. She's fast tough and is an easy flier. Requires the full version of Firespitter not the abbreviated one in B9 and Spaceplane Plus

Dropbox Link: Cadzilla

Part Count 242 On takeoff accelerate to 130 m/s and liftoff. If using Far fly her to 10k and proceed in a approximately a 15 degree climb. If using stock aero have at it she is fast all the way around and flies solid. In the ascent when you hear the jets spool down hit custom action group 4 to cut the jets. When the rapiers switch cycles quickly throttle down to 70 to 75 percent thrust to avoid overheating of nuke and rapier engines.

Note: If you fly stock and need a lower part count version the regular (Version not entered for the contest) Cadzilla file can be downloaded from here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c4dcdfsgxiat0zp/AAAwIfB4R-qASJUh20YYKR82a/KSP/Mod%20Ships?dl=0

Edited September 19, 2014 by sumrex

[Sirine]

@O-Doc : Nothing much, I just feel being rob (in internet bandwidth term). Again and again and again every time I visited the 1st page, of this thread or of my previous hosted challenge thread. (Browser does not cache that much). And again, is like showing that 'he' have a Lamborghini or Porsche all around, hater gonna hate, yeah. Nvm now, I have a solution for it, and it solve my problem. And I just want to shows the other on how to do it. Nothing too much personal.

@Voculus: Spoiler tag does not help. Please mind the other feeling. If you really want to feel how we 'poor' people feel, every time you post your thread please download 10 set of this photos. Here Or a direct link here. (It just a photo of the galaxy). 24.6GB each photo x 10 sets each time you do a post.

I don't know you and you don't know me. We recognize each other just by an ID and what we post. It serve no meaning for our personal life. We just close our browser, and off we go. I really want to be considerate and play nice, but some people just don't realize. Sorry if I hurt you somehow, but I'm the victims in the 1st place.

[Norcalplanner]

My spaceplane designs are finally working well now that I fully understand the importance of the order of engine and intake placement. Works in progress are shown below:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I do have a question. Without starting a flame war, is there any particular ratio of intakes that is considered abusive airhogging? Or is it just a subjective preference? Both of these designs have 5 ram air intakes per engine, which has finally allowed my spaceplanes to get their apoapsis out of the atmosphere on jet power alone.

[Sirine]

@Norcalplanner Intakes per engines is really subjective from person to person. I'm running 8 per engines. Give me maximum air, and altitude of 32km before frame out.

Well, I like it I play it my ways. You should play it your ways. 5 makes you happy, then stick it with 5.

Anyhow more than 8 per engines is waste of parts, due to the maximum it take is 8 more than that it give no advantages.

Check this out. Here

There are 3 major Spaceplane categories.

1) Use the rocket to push, air-intake engines just for landing. (Rocket heavy)

2) Use the rocket and air-intake engines to push. (Balance)

3) Use air-intake engines to push, and minimum rocket to achieve orbit. (Air-intakes Engines heavy)

Each of them give difference advantages.

1) Rocket heavy, Example the in-game stock craft. It gets to orbit pretty fast (Very fast). Refuel, and land back to KSC.

2) Balance, Normally consist of 2~4 intakes per engines, well, balance, enough saying. I will say this is the slowest of both.

3) The maximum air intakes. It gets to maximum altitudes 32km before switching to rocket for a minimal push for orbit. (Some technique allow it to orbit without rocket engines. It can be done). This takes some times to build up the speed.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Sirine

[Pecan]

...is there any particular ratio of intakes that is considered abusive airhogging?....

The amount I use. Seriously; I've got a version of Claw's "Intake Stick" as a sub-assembly and tend to stick copies on everything. I over-did it when I made it so I have about 11 intakes per engine (see Sirene's comment) but I think it looks OK. With 5 I think you're safe anyway :-)

[Wanderfound]

I do have a question. Without starting a flame war, is there any particular ratio of intakes that is considered abusive airhogging? Or is it just a subjective preference? Both of these designs have 5 ram air intakes per engine, which has finally allowed my spaceplanes to get their apoapsis out of the atmosphere on jet power alone.

It's also heavily dependent on which aero model you're flying in. Have a look at the Goblin; that's running exactly one intake per engine, and as you'll see from the screenshots it has absolutely no trouble reaching orbit.

[Hodo]

Outstanding challenge, but unfortunately I doubt I will be competing in this one due to some issues I have been having with the moderation. I have been avoiding the forums completely due to it and haven't even booted up KSP because of the frustration caused by these issues.

I really do wish everyone the best in this challenge and I hope to see more like this in the future.

Vocanus- Have you considered Imgur? You can have MASSIVE beutiful pictures and they thumbnail down to reasonable sized pics for forums but link to the full sized ones. This is why I use imgur.

[Norcalplanner]

....There are 3 major Spaceplane categories.

1) Use the rocket to push, air-intake engines just for landing. (Rocket heavy)

2) Use the rocket and air-intake engines to push. (Balance)

3) Use air-intake engines to push, and minimum rocket to achieve orbit. (Air-intakes Engines heavy)

Each of them give difference advantages.

1) Rocket heavy, Example the in-game stock craft. It gets to orbit pretty fast (Very fast). Refuel, and land back to KSC.

2) Balance, Normally consist of 2~4 intakes per engines, well, balance, enough saying. I will say this is the slowest of both.

3) The maximum air intakes. It gets to maximum altitudes 32km before switching to rocket for a minimal push for orbit. (Some technique allow it to orbit without rocket engines. It can be done). This takes some times to build up the speed.

I've been trying to get into the #3 camp, and now with correctly placed intakes and engines, I'm there. Engines will stay on at full power north of 30 km, and will stay on at decreasing power levels all the way to 50 km. Many thanks to Laie for showing me how to do it correctly - now my apoapsis is over 80 km on jets alone, and circularization burns are less than 100 m/s with an LV-N.

[Wanderfound]

I've been trying to get into the #3 camp, and now with correctly placed intakes and engines, I'm there. Engines will stay on at full power north of 30 km, and will stay on at decreasing power levels all the way to 50 km. Many thanks to Laie for showing me how to do it correctly - now my apoapsis is over 80 km on jets alone, and circularization burns are less than 100 m/s with an LV-N.

While it's certainly true that the max-air max-altitude approach is highly effective in stock aero, I would like to pop in with my usual point that it's by no means compulsory.

See https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnz9s8k9h7gwgb/Kerbodyne%20Benchmark%20StockAir.craft?dl=0 for the tuned-for-stock-aero version of the Kerbodyne Benchmark.

That's running three engines from two intakes. Crank it up as fast as you can before you climb out of the rich air, then shut down the RAPIERs and continue climbing on the turbojet alone. Once the turbo chokes, turn the RAPIERs back on (using closed cycle oxidising mode) and let the rocket-driven ram air revive the turbo. Do it right and you'll have the apoapsis over 70km before the turbo chokes again, with plenty of fuel remaining for circularising once you're in space.

[Sirine]

1. And 3. Camp are good. Try make a plane that can have both via just switching intake and engines. Or two planes 1 design.

[O-Doc]

I think I've got something promising for "Best Light Cargo Spaceplane." I'm just going to post this as a teaser... it's got surprisingly good control, with or without payload. (Currently testing with the 4.1-ton Kerbswagen Pillbug as the cargo... a little sluggish with Pillbug in tow, but still pretty good control, all-around.)

http://i.imgur.com/D7IbZmz.jpg

It does need a little tweaking (especially because of its low range; not capable of flying payloads far beyond the Island Runway) but progress is happening.

By the way, do you more-experienced builders have any thoughts on this craft?

Looking good there Upsilon. You're probably going to need another set of wings and some forward control surfaces for the extra fuel you'll need to get into orbit. I don't know those tails fins you've chosen are going to provide enough yaw control, though I do see much ASAS.

[Sirine]

@Wanderfound:

I try to read the below graph, but It seems that its beyond my little potato mind can comprehend. I did play with FAR before, and get to get a few difference kind of drawing, but at the end, I still can't figure it out what it means by the lines represent.

I know there are explanation on the wording on the plugin itself. But the wording are no meaning for me.

[Wanderfound]

You can design perfectly just well by eyeball and flight testing; the flight data isn't absolutely necessary. But it does help if you can use it, so I'll try again:

The first screen in Ferram is the static analysis screen. This gives you pretty

graphs.

It has two buttons down at the lower right: Sweep AoA and Sweep Mach. There are boxes to the left of that which say Lower, Upper and Mach/AoA. This page can produce two different graphs: if you press the Sweep AoA button, it shows the behaviour of your plane from Angle of Attack values between Lower and Upper, at the speed shown in the Mach/AoA box. If you press the Sweep Mach button, it shows behaviour at speeds between Lower and Upper at the AoA shown in the Mach/AoA box.

The blue line is the Coefficient of Lift. It's good when this is high.

The red line is the Coefficient of Drag. It's good when this is low.

The yellow line is the Coefficient of Manoeuvrability/Instability. You don't want this to be above zero, and it's usually best when it's angling down like it is here.

The green line is lift divided by drag. It's good when this is high.

This picture below shows how the plane will act at Angles of Attack between 0° and 25° while travelling at Mach 2.

Some of the lines split into two lines. This shows how the plane responds after a stall: you get a sudden loss of lift and increase in drag that lasts until you return your AoA to where the line isn't split any more.

This is the same picture at Mach 0.8. See how the plane no longer stalls at that speed?

If you click the Sweep Mach button, you instead get a look at a bunch of different speeds with Angle of Attack held constant. This shows Mach 0-6 with a 3° AoA. The bumpiness on the left shows the effect of breaking through the sound barrier.

The second page of Ferram is data and stability derivatives. This produces scary looking numbers.

To get those numbers, you need to put in values for temperature, altitude (air density) and speed.

Don't worry much about temperature; just use 20 for sea level and -20 for high up. For altitude, use these numbers:

0m = 1.225 kg per cubic metre.

5,000m = 0.45

10,000m = 0.16

15,000m = 0.06

20,000m = 0.02

25,000m = 0.008

30,000m = 0.002

All of the confusing letters next to the output numbers relate to this picture here:

x is forwards, y is sideways, z is down. P is roll, Q is pitch, R is yaw. Don't worry about the Greek for now.

If you hover your mouse over any of the numbers, it'll pop up a tooltip explaining what it refers to. Mostly, however, all you want to do is make as many as possible of the numbers green and as few as possible red.

The one other useful thing on this screen is the "level flight" stuff up top right. If you set the analysis for sea level pressure and temperature and the speed for whatever you think you can reach on the runway, you can find out how much AoA you need to take off (the "level flight" value). Try to keep that number below ten for easy takeoffs.

[Sirine]

@Wanderfound: Most wonderful explanation. Owe you a Rep point. Will surely bookmark this post. Thanks!

[Stratzenblitz75]

You can design perfectly just well by eyeball and flight testing; the flight data isn't absolutely necessary. But it does help if you can use it, so I'll try again:

Thank you so much for this! As someone who is trying to get into FAR (and building things that don't fly like a bucket of rusty nails), this will surely come in handy. + rep

[Pecan]

My entry, post #34, updated with "SP 40 B" replacing the original (larger cockpit, smaller rockets, lighter and cheaper) and "Bantam" light spaceplane added.

[fenya]

My favorite series of spaceplanes "Wasp", model modification v2.1

The balance of fuel. The lack of control buttons. High flight characteristics. A small number of parts.

All this makes "Wasp" easy to use, affordable and comfortable

Categories: Stock Aero

* Best sporty pleasure craft.

* Best light cargo spaceplane.

* Best-looking craft.image:

link to the craft file

other pictures

http://imgur.com/a/mUbjC#0

how to insert an album?

[Norcalplanner]

Just put in the code [imgur]mUbjC[ / imgur], but remove the spaces on either side of the slash.

[BagelRabbit]

I'm currently working on a small SSTO, that is basically an Mk3 cockpit with an Mk3-Mk2 adapter behind it. It flies on two RAPIERS (maybe going to change this), it SSTOs pretty well, and it is pretty stable in all layers of the atmosphere and at all fuel levels. It seems like a promising design.

However, I'm not entirely sure what I should enter it in. It can't carry many crew members or cargo, it doesn't have that much fuel on-orbit, and it can't VTOL. I don't know if it's really applicable for "Best Use of Mk3 Parts," because it only uses two of them. It's not all that pretty, although it does have a "cute" sort of vibe...

What to do?!

(By the way, I would post a picture, but Imgur hates me and wants me to die. I'm pretty sure that you can picture the general design of the spaceplane, though. I'll edit in a picture if possible, later.)

[Wanderfound]

I'm currently working on a small SSTO, that is basically an Mk3 cockpit with an Mk3-Mk2 adapter behind it. It flies on two RAPIERS (maybe going to change this), it SSTOs pretty well, and it is pretty stable in all layers of the atmosphere and at all fuel levels. It seems like a promising design.

However, I'm not entirely sure what I should enter it in. It can't carry many crew members or cargo, it doesn't have that much fuel on-orbit, and it can't VTOL. I don't know if it's really applicable for "Best Use of Mk3 Parts," because it only uses two of them. It's not all that pretty, although it does have a "cute" sort of vibe...

What to do?!

(By the way, I would post a picture, but Imgur hates me and wants me to die. I'm pretty sure that you can picture the general design of the spaceplane, though. I'll edit in a picture if possible, later.)

1) It's up to the voters, not up to me. If the majority of the voters think that your ship fits the category, then it does. That's all there is to it.

2) The worst ship here beats the best ship never entered.

Chuck it in for Best Mk3, then get to work on making a better one. You can always update the entry later if you choose.

(I find Photobucket easier to deal with than Imgur, BTW)

[Sonertial]

Category:

Best heavy-lift cargo spaceplane.

Best refuelling tanker spaceplane.

Mods: FAR

SSLS4c

2 man Space Station Component Lifter. Capable of lifting a fully laden 82 ton Fuel Tank module to LKO and returning with another used empty.

Designed for lifting heavy parts for what was intended to be a tetrahedral Space station. The module here is the heaviest part lifted.

Part count: 654.

Cost 304000. Including Fuel Module.

No action groups. Just two stages, ignite second stage rocket at about 1500m/sec @ > 22000m, then let the Turbojets flame out.

Component clipping. I penalize the three cases of tank clipping by removing some fuel from those tanks. So clipping gives no cheatiness.

One intake per Turbojet. No Intake spam.

Ready for takeoff.

-

She is very heavy. 215 tons on the runway.

-

Flattening out at 15000m for the slow run up to atmospheric escape.

-

The Fuel Tank Module is built connected at the front, it connects at the rear when physics starts.

-

Rockets ignited approaching 1.5km/sec. Hard back on the stick.

-

An orbital delivery would normally drop the tank on this trajectory and return to KSC. Today we are picking up an empty tank from the Space Station.

-

Full tank, fuel to burn.

-

Who scheduled this launch? We are miles from our target.

-

Two and a half hours later, looking good for intercept.

-

Getting there.

-

The tank we want to bring home.

-

Heavy traffic.

-

Connecting. The front connects magnetically and drags the tank straight, which engages the rear Clamp-o-tron immediately. In theory.

-

This tank was actually faulty, and would not magnetise at the rear.

-

I had to go back and transfer the fuel over to the original delivery module.

-

That one connected fine.

-

Transfer all residual fuel forward out of the cargo tank for reentry.

-

Reasonably robust, but gentle on re-entry since the tank is only held by two Clamp-o-trons.

-

Nearly home.

-

-

Touchdown.

-

Learn to park Thompenny.

-

Recovered.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Category:

Best all stock parts spaceplane.

Mods: FAR + KIDS - Preset: FAR to Real Life Raw. Hard Mode.

TL2a

Not quite so Heavy lifter with realistic mass ratios.

Part count 528.

Cost: ~250000, including Fuel Module.

This is part of my KIDS hard Career mode, I am not at the heavy lifter tech yet. Lifts red tanks to LKO with the ISP multiplier at 0.39, the KIDS, FAR to Real Life Raw preset.

With KIDS, the Isp's of all the engines have been crippled. This complicates the orbital insertion and makes nukes almost mandatory for any vacuum activity.

I shutoff fuel flow from the rearmost FL-T800 fuel tanks at take-off, and at about 1-5-1.6km/sec ignite the Mainsail + NERVAs and burn until all fuel is consumed. I shutdown the Mainsail, activate fuel flow (right click menus) and am usually able to reach orbit on just the nukes using the reserved fuel in those rear tanks. This depends on how well you make the transition from atmosphere.

There is spare fuel in the foward centre tanks. (An X200-8 and an FL-T400) which will probably need to be pumped for orbital maneuvres.

Without KIDS this is obviously much less fiddly.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Sonertial
Typo's, clarity, filling out.

[Wanderfound]

Cool.

However, one of the few rules: only one entry per category. So, which one is the entry?