Nylon SSTO [0.90]- A real Skylon replica (DOWNLOAD now available!)

[SpaceXray]

Here it is,

Nylon SSTO

Javascript is disabled. View full album

This beauty can make it all the way to space with some fuel reserved. It also has a docking port and a cargo bay for cargo!

Download link will appear very soon, the thing needs a few little tweaks and then it'll be done!

Best of all, it's better than Harv's SKylon hehe

Why choose my Skylon?

• Efficient
  
• Only 3 landing gears, no cheating gear on the back of the tail
  
• Takes off before end of runway
  
• Even fuel pumping
  
• Incredibly sleek design
  
• Easy to handle
  
• Just 2 RAPIER engines+ one small orbital engine
  
• Huge cargo bay and lift capacity
  
• Aviation lights and cargo bay illumination!
  
• Tilted air intakes
  
• Integrated docking port
  
• One-way to Mun capable
  
• No clipped fuel tanks
  
• No struts, but still holds together perfectly
  

Action groups:

1. Toggle RAPIER engines
   
2. Toggle engine mode
   
3. Open/close main cargo bay
   
4. Open/close docking port cover
   
5. Toggle orbital engine
   

Basic instruction:

• Engage main engines, throttle to 100%, SAS on, taxi lights optional, press Caps Lock for fine-tuned controls
  
• Upon reaching around 100 m/s, slowly pitch up the nose, careful not to hit the runway with the tail!
  
• Pitch up to 45^oand continue your ascent
  
• Around 11000m start gaining horizontal speed up until you reach around 26km where your engines will start flaming out(automatic switch is still buggy in KSP, best to do it manually)
  
• After switching to closed cycle mode, pitch back up to 45^o and raise your apoapsis to whatever you want
  
• Circularize with the main engines, then switch to the orbital engine if you want
  

Download

Edited February 7, 2015 by SpaceXray

[SpaceXray]

Release delayed a bit due to annoying bug that makes the thing yaw right a bit all the time

[Giggleplex777]

How much can it lift?

[astropapi1]

I saw an animation where Skylon had a little engine on the back, or at least there was white exhaust coming out of the rear. Just so you know.

[Gue__1]

I saw an animation where Skylon had a little engine on the back, or at least there was white exhaust coming out of the rear. Just so you know.

If you look closely you can see it. It's just for show I think

Gue

[astropapi1]

If you look closely you can see it. It's just for show I think

Gue

Oh, I can see it now.

I guess the real one might have to do with the fact that the SABRE engines are kinda angled. There's little information on the topic, though.

[Rune]

• Only 3 landing gears, no cheating gear on the back of the tail
  

Hum. That point goes to anyone in particular? Because then, I will be forced to ask payload fraction, and compare... Anyhow, nice skylon replica. Did you really manage to pull fuel from the forward and aft tanks equally? Took me a bit of ingenuity (and knowing a lot about the fuel transfer rules) to crack that particular problem, and I can't see how you run your fuel lines form the pictures.

Rune. In any case, you have more fuel tanks in there than the job requires

[SpaceXray]

Hum. That point goes to anyone in particular? Because then, I will be forced to ask payload fraction, and compare... Anyhow, nice skylon replica. Did you really manage to pull fuel from the forward and aft tanks equally? Took me a bit of ingenuity (and knowing a lot about the fuel transfer rules) to crack that particular problem, and I can't see how you run your fuel lines form the pictures.

Rune. In any case, you have more fuel tanks in there than the job requires

Haha nope no clipped tanks, and the fuel gets sucked evenly from the front and back just like the real thing.

The back engine actually works, you'll get to try this thing out in about an hour after this post.

Squad actually added crossfeed to more parts, making fuel lines less necessary, but still required.

Edit: final tests are conducted, release VERY soon!

Edited October 10, 2014 by SpaceXray

[SpaceXray]

Download link and new screenshots!

[astropapi1]

I aproove of the sudden rise of Skylons on the forums.

I like skylon, like, a lot.

[ZodiaK]

really cool!

[Rune]

Ok, I actually downloaded yours to try it out and see for myself... and what can I say, I like mine better xD Anyhow, perhaps this pointers will help you, and I encourage you to try mine and see how the differences play out. Hope yo take them as the friendly advice they are:

-First, holy mother of clipping batman. How many of those 83 parts are clipped fuel lines? And why would you ever need so much RCS propellant? I'm not surprised you got the fuel routing to behave in the end, but you should really look mine to see what I did: only two fuel lines placed individually, and careful attention to the fuel flows (i.e: the numbers of parts between the engine and the fuel tank counts), and I still get one engine to pull fuel from the front tank while the other pulls from the rear.

-While you were throwing fuel lines left and right, you could have put a couple of struts in there to stiffen things. It feels like a ripe banana when taking off, and I couldn't get it to lift most times because the torque form the clipped control surfaces at the rear was causing the tail to bend to a fiery kiss with the runway all the time. I could really have used a "tailstrike avoidance device", just sayin'...

-Why not a bigger cargo bay? Very little stuff you can put in there, and testing it empty won't give any idea of what its payload capabilities are. In case you are interested, if you copy the "RCS+Probe+Docking port" end of my test 5mT payload, you can make a double dock that secures it firmly to the bay. You can't attach it in the SPH, but as soon as you load the other port will dock and keep your payload from moving all over the place. In any case, it is always better to secure payload from the front, so it experiences tensile and not compressive forces, otherwise it will fall through the bay in flight, and make landings dangerous-er.

-And while we are at it, you have waaay too much fuel in there. Especially to lift an empty cargo bay. I know I am a bit tight with the test payload (it is intended to be maximum payload anyway), but yours is downright luxurious in that regard. What kind of in-orbit delta-v are you getting? Consider I get 25% of GLOW as payload with my setup, and if I don't get more is because T/W is a tad high.

Rune. The OMS engine is a nice touch, though.

[SpaceXray]

Ok, I actually downloaded yours to try it out and see for myself... and what can I say, I like mine better xD Anyhow, perhaps this pointers will help you, and I encourage you to try mine and see how the differences play out. Hope yo take them as the friendly advice they are:

-First, holy mother of clipping batman. How many of those 83 parts are clipped fuel lines? And why would you ever need so much RCS propellant? I'm not surprised you got the fuel routing to behave in the end, but you should really look mine to see what I did: only two fuel lines placed individually, and careful attention to the fuel flows (i.e: the numbers of parts between the engine and the fuel tank counts), and I still get one engine to pull fuel from the front tank while the other pulls from the rear.

-While you were throwing fuel lines left and right, you could have put a couple of struts in there to stiffen things. It feels like a ripe banana when taking off, and I couldn't get it to lift most times because the torque form the clipped control surfaces at the rear was causing the tail to bend to a fiery kiss with the runway all the time. I could really have used a "tailstrike avoidance device", just sayin'...

-Why not a bigger cargo bay? Very little stuff you can put in there, and testing it empty won't give any idea of what its payload capabilities are. In case you are interested, if you copy the "RCS+Probe+Docking port" end of my test 5mT payload, you can make a double dock that secures it firmly to the bay. You can't attach it in the SPH, but as soon as you load the other port will dock and keep your payload from moving all over the place. In any case, it is always better to secure payload from the front, so it experiences tensile and not compressive forces, otherwise it will fall through the bay in flight, and make landings dangerous-er.

-And while we are at it, you have waaay too much fuel in there. Especially to lift an empty cargo bay. I know I am a bit tight with the test payload (it is intended to be maximum payload anyway), but yours is downright luxurious in that regard. What kind of in-orbit delta-v are you getting? Consider I get 25% of GLOW as payload with my setup, and if I don't get more is because T/W is a tad high.

Rune. The OMS engine is a nice touch, though.

thanks for the review

First of all, your Skylon hs a radically different fuel system. You have LF+OX tanks on the ends of the wings while I have jet fuel tanks. I tried pumping just through the cargo bay but for some reason oxidizer wasn't pumped through so I had to do these fuel line tricks.

second, I always used fuel lines symmetrically to avoid fuel line torque(a known bug).

Third, I tested my Nylon of full load and it made it to a station and even got into Munar orbit. I can't see how having more than enough fuel is bad, considering many players find it hard to fly SSTO's and additional delta-v is always good.

So only one of your statements applies to me-during takeoff the back wobbles a bit like a carrot.

Now to dissect your Skylon

First of all, the naked struts and fuel lines look ugly as hell.

the RCS poking out looks ugly too.

I don't like how that tail connector ruins the SP+ feel of the thing.

why are there 2 solar panels? The world has moved to RTG's by now...

The landing gear is poking out and can't be hidden unlike mine

you have a cheaty "bumper" in the back. The Skylon played it by the rules

Still though it is ok, the cargo bay is bigger than mine, however not for long...

Oh and P.S., it handles terribly and won't take off before the end of the runway too.

I hope I wasn't too harsh, I suggest you learn from me, not the other way around, but thanks for the tips!

Edited October 10, 2014 by SpaceXray

[Rune]

thanks for the review

First of all, your Skylon hs a radically different fuel system. You have LF+OX tanks on the ends of the wings while I have jet fuel tanks. I tried pumping just through the cargo bay but for some reason oxidizer wasn't pumped through so I had to do these fuel line tricks.

second, I always used fuel lines symmetrically to avoid fuel line torque(a known bug).

Third, I tested my Nylon of full load and it made it to a station and even got into Munar orbit. I can't see how having more than enough fuel is bad, considering many players find it hard to fly SSTO's and additional delta-v is always good.

So only one of your statements applies to me-during takeoff the back wobbles a bit like a carrot.

Now to dissect your Skylon

First of all, the naked struts and fuel lines look ugly as hell.

the RCS poking out looks ugly too.

I don't like how that tail connector ruins the SP+ feel of the thing.

why are there 2 solar panels? The world has moved to RTG's by now...

The landing gear is poking out and can't be hidden unlike mine

you have a cheaty "bumper" in the back. The Skylon played it by the rules

Still though it is ok, the cargo bay is bigger than mine, however not for long...

Oh and P.S., it handles terribly and won't take off before the end of the runway too.

I hope I wasn't too harsh, I suggest you learn from me, not the other way around, but thanks for the tips!

What ship did you download again? Takeoff procedure is to put full power and press "S": it will rotate on its own when its ready, and take off as soon as you go over 100m/s, and well before the end of the runway. SAS totally optional until you try to get a stable climb, and I know that because I just tried again. I also pull both fuel and oxidizer from the body, the trick is to count parts so the tank you want to draw first from is the one furthest away in the line, and not to clip anything in the nodes. This is why I do with four tanks what you take eight to accomplish (arguably more since mine actually takes a bigger payload up). Plus, don't ever trust wings to handle fuel transfer unless you absolutely have to, and keep the route as short as possible: that's an advice every kerbal should take to heart IMHO. Which is why in the posted version I have to have the lines coming from so far forwards, so the paths had an equal number of nodes between the engine and the tank. I've been actually finagling a bit with it. Well, with that and with kronal vessel viewer, and I figured out a different arrangement that leaves the fuel lines under the wings... it was bugging me too:

The landing gear, I was looking for clearance mostly, hence why it's as low as it'll go, plus I didn't want to clip anymore than necessary. I will probably sink a bit further the front one (can be done without any additional parts or very special techniques, just good use of ED tools, so not sure what you talk about). Solar panels are both a weight and funds decision, and will work just fine without batteries or anything. Plus, I don't have to clip them, though they are slightly to be more flush with the tank. Did you notice that? RCS placement, tough, is not bad in yours. Might even work better than mine considering the yaw momentum the configuration gives when empty.

I also put a OMS engine in there for fidelity, that I took away from your build. In total, the C2 has an even 60 parts (7 more than the original ), 19.5mT on the runway, of which 5.2mT is payload, it will set you back 38.6k funds, and it has grand total of two struts, two fuel lines, four clipped parts, four intakes and 7 control surfaces. I did give up and put a couple other intakes and angled down the others, and set them up so they draw fuel at the same rate. Though I suspect the rules of airhogging have changed somewhat, I have to test that out some more. It is accurate down to not only shape (the reason that tailcone is where it is), but also range (just barely orbital, with orbital maneuvering best done on RCS) and takeoff speed, and it is extremely stable and able to maneuver in all regimes, holding >45 AoA under ASAS at high altitudes with no problem. I'll post it soon-ish I think, it is a decent revision on the original.

Edit: Oh, and if my bumper is "cheaty", what about the six or eight clipped control surfaces in the body of yours?

Rune. There is an elegance in economics.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Rune

[astropapi1]

19.5mT on the runway, of which 5.2mT is payload, it will set you back 38.6k funds...

Damn, that's a 26.6% payload fraction for a SSTO. Rockets be jelly, yo.

[SpaceXray]

You'll be amazed how much my Nylon can lift and how far it can go. Btw guys, I have already started work on a 2nd version which has a cargo bay 1.5 times larger. Currently the design can already reach orbit.

[SpaceXray]

Once 1.0 hits, I'll update it to make sure it works in the new atmospheric model+can survive re-entry. Also, I might make a larger, Mk3 version.

[bartekkru99]

Once 1.0 hits, I'll update it to make sure it works in the new atmospheric model+can survive re-entry. Also, I might make a larger, Mk3 version.

Yeah, I think, that real skylon would be a lot bigger.