Big and elegant, heavy cargo SSTO "Garuda" - 90t to LKO or 72t to the Mun or Dune orbit

[Mesklin]

Let me introduce my first really big cargo SSTO "Garuda".

Two versions:

- up to 90t to LKO, 195t on the runway with maximal payload, only 238 parts in minimal configuration (without 2 small MMUs), can deliver maximum payload to 300x300 km orbit around Kerbin (about 500 m/s of dV on 80x80 km orbit) and then return back to KSC

- up to 72t to Mun or Dune orbit, 189t on the runway with maximal payload, only 242 parts in minimal configuration (without 2 small MMUs), can deliver maximum payload to Mun or Dune orbit (about 1500 m/s of dV on 80x80 km orbit) and then return back to KSC

Download links:

http://www./download/0n55r77to8y2q73/Garuda.craft

http://www./download/l1am9fego1pk8et/Garuda+A.craft

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Feni]

Great SSTO, very elegant design. Can't wait to try it out. I guess it's FAR compatible? Does it handle EVE entry without breaking up?

[Mesklin]

Great SSTO, very elegant design. Can't wait to try it out. I guess it's FAR compatible? Does it handle EVE entry without breaking up?

I do not use FAR, for me it is to cheaty mod. But you can test it and tell me, fly it with FAR or not . Edited January 3, 2015 by Mesklin

[antbin]

Amazing, I'm blown away.

[Rune]

Let me introduce my first really big cargo SSTO "Garuda".

Two versions:

- up to 90t to LKO, 195t on the runway with maximal payload, only 238 parts in minimal configuration (without 2 small MMUs), can deliver maximum payload to 300x300 km orbit around Kerbin (about 500 m/s of dV on 80x80 km orbit) and then return back to KSC

http://i.imgur.com/lBUXegal.jpg?1

- up to 72t to Mun or Dune orbit, 189t on the runway with maximal payload, only 242 parts in minimal configuration (without 2 small MMUs), can deliver maximum payload to Mun or Dune orbit (about 1500 m/s of dV on 80x80 km orbit) and then return back to KSC

http://i.imgur.com/d4mriySl.jpg

Download links:

http://www./download/0n55r77to8y2q73/Garuda.craft

http://www./download/l1am9fego1pk8et/Garuda+A.craft

http://imgur.com/a/WbqgJ

I actually DLed them, because I wanted to take a look at how you had done such a crazy thing. They need the lip of the runway to take off! And in fact, I haven't been able to take off with the nuke version (might be just me)... So yeah, I think (IMO) the last word on MkIII spaceplanes is not yet said. But damn near, dude, they are glorious.

Rune. We really really need big landing gear now!

Edited January 4, 2015 by Rune

[Nik_601]

Yeah, that thing is really big and elegant!

ÞÑÂтðûþÑÂÑŒ ôþöôðтьÑÂѠñþûьшøх шðÑÂÑÂø)

[Mesklin]

I actually DLed them, because I wanted to take a look at how you had done such a crazy thing. They need the lip of the runway to take off! And in fact, I haven't been able to take off with the nuke version (might be just me)... So yeah, I think (IMO) the last word on MkIII spaceplanes is not yet said. But damn near, dude, they are glorious.

Rune. We really really need big landing gear now!

Thank you for so high graduation if my crafts.

I now about problem with take off before end of runway, but we really need big landing gear, crafts can start to move nose up, but standard gears are too small , and these birds can not reach take off angle. I experimented with some kind of engines in the nose of craft, but I should to install too many

[goldenpsp]

I do not use FAR, for me it is to cheaty mod. But you can test it and tell me, fly it with FAR or not .

More realistic aerodynamics plus plane = more cheaty. Haven't heard that one before.

[Rune]

More realistic aerodynamics plus plane = more cheaty. Haven't heard that one before.

It actually shaves a km/s out of the to-orbit budget, so yeah, considering the exponential nature of the rocket equation, it makes getting to orbit much easier. Not so applicable to SSTOs, but good luck breaking the sound barrier in the stock souposphere at sea level, or lifting MkIII parts out of the runway with realistically sized wings.

Rune. If orbit is halfway to anywhere, FAR makes it a third. A very realistic third, mind you, but still a third.

[Mesklin]

More realistic aerodynamics plus plane = more cheaty. Haven't heard that one before.

For me with FAR too easy to reach orbit with rocket (as Rune already said, FAR cuts as minimum 1 km/s dV budget) and also to easy for building SSTO (and flying on it), you can easily achieve orbital speed at 20 km (without any problems with suffocation for engines). FAR is good with DRE and RSS, but in this case it will be too complex game for entertainment

[KerikBalm]

It actually shaves a km/s out of the to-orbit budget, so yeah, considering the exponential nature of the rocket equation, it makes getting to orbit much easier. Not so applicable to SSTOs, but good luck breaking the sound barrier in the stock souposphere at sea level, or lifting MkIII parts out of the runway with realistically sized wings.

Rune. If orbit is halfway to anywhere, FAR makes it a third. A very realistic third, mind you, but still a third.

If you were building rockets, this would be right... but stock turbojets are ridiculously OP'd.

FAR hits turbojets with the NERFbat, and it is much harder to make an air breathing SSTO with FAR.

In stock, you get to use your stock ridiculous high TWR 40,000 effective ISP jet engines to get to orbital velocity within the atmosphere, requiring only a few hundred m/s (or even less) burn to get your orbit out of the atmosphere.

FAR halves the TWR of the jet engines, and makes the maximum velocity they can reach be about 1650 m/s.

A pure rocket SSTO is easier with FAR, yes. A SSTO spaceplane using jets-> much harder

Dealing with the stability as it models mach effects and shifting CoL -> very difficult.

Nope, FAR is not cheaty al all to me for these purposes

[sdj64]

If you were building rockets, this would be right... but stock turbojets are ridiculously OP'd.

FAR hits turbojets with the NERFbat, and it is much harder to make an air breathing SSTO with FAR.

In stock, you get to use your stock ridiculous high TWR 40,000 effective ISP jet engines to get to orbital velocity within the atmosphere, requiring only a few hundred m/s (or even less) burn to get your orbit out of the atmosphere.

FAR halves the TWR of the jet engines, and makes the maximum velocity they can reach be about 1650 m/s.

A pure rocket SSTO is easier with FAR, yes. A SSTO spaceplane using jets-> much harder

Dealing with the stability as it models mach effects and shifting CoL -> very difficult.

Nope, FAR is not cheaty al all to me for these purposes

Jet SSTOs in FAR are not harder, just different. (perhaps harder to pilot would be correct) It requires a different focus away from jets and intakes since your wings are doing most of the work, and towards rockets since you need more rocket fuel to get to orbit. I even had one design that worked equally well in both stock and FAR with the only change being moving the wings around for each aero model.

This makes me want to try to rebuild my Nidhogg plane but with Mk3. Great aesthetics, Mesklin. Something I always thought was lacking on the composite wing style cargo planes. Is that 16 jet engines and one Skipper?

this plane would not fly at all in FAR.

[Guest]

The real advantage for me of FAR isn't really mach effects, even though it's an additionnal level of difficulty, but instead the air pressure created on the wings relative to speed vector. It affects planes building A LOT and make it more fun to me.

[Fearless Son]

Damn, that thing is glorious. I too have been trying to build a Mk. 3 cargo spaceplane, though I was only trying for one orange fuel tank. However, I ran into the same problem as you with it having trouble getting off the ground before the end of the runway. Landing was a pain too. I think the current stock wheels are just too damn small for something of this size and mass.

[Rune]

If you were building rockets, this would be right... but stock turbojets are ridiculously OP'd.

FAR hits turbojets with the NERFbat, and it is much harder to make an air breathing SSTO with FAR.

In stock, you get to use your stock ridiculous high TWR 40,000 effective ISP jet engines to get to orbital velocity within the atmosphere, requiring only a few hundred m/s (or even less) burn to get your orbit out of the atmosphere.

FAR halves the TWR of the jet engines, and makes the maximum velocity they can reach be about 1650 m/s.

A pure rocket SSTO is easier with FAR, yes. A SSTO spaceplane using jets-> much harder

Dealing with the stability as it models mach effects and shifting CoL -> very difficult.

Nope, FAR is not cheaty al all to me for these purposes

I always switch to rocket power power at 1,500m/s, so... You must remember, the terminal velocity of stock turbojets is entirely dependant on your intake to engine ratio. If you abuse that, yes, you get unrealistic designs. Now fly with at most two intakes per engine, and see how "easy" stock is compared to FAR. Or better jet, do different stuff like a pure rocket winged SSTO. Or a SSTO with tier I tech, limiting yourself to plain jets that cut off at 10,000m. I've done all those things on stock, but I have no doubt FAR makes each of them much, much easier. Especially the rocket SSTO, which always becomes one hell of a lander once refuelled on orbit, but would be able to carry a more than decent payload ratio in FAR.

Rune. Ferram should have unrealistically bumped up drag... if he was after the same level of difficulty. Which he wasn't.

[Mesklin]

Yep, sdj64, Garuda has 16 turbojets + 1 Skipper.

And, about FAR, I checked current version of FAR, now this thing is not cheaty, OK, OK, with all of these modifications in thrust and velocity curve for atmospheric engines. But with all of these changes with FAR we are having very, very different game in part of making SSTO. More atmo engines, more space engines and more vacuum dV for reach orbit -> more tanks and wings, all of these things will rapidly inflate SSTO to enormous size if you want not simple reach Kerbin orbit.

[Guest]

Try advanced engine mod for realistic jet engines

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/70008-0-90-Advanced-Jet-Engine-%28AJE%29-v2-0-2-Dec-27?highlight=hodo

[lolstock]

Or better jet,

Intentional pun?

[Rune]

Intentional pun?

ROFL I'm going to go with "totally"!

Rune. And then you can check what percentage of my posts are edited for typos... must be in the high eighties at least.

[A_name]

Reviving an old thread here to ask OP a question, as I am currently struggling with my own Mk3 heavy cargo SSTO design.

OP: It seems you only have 1 shock cone intake and 1/2 a radial intake per jet engine. Are there more, let us say, hidden intakes? How high and fast can you get before having to switch to the skipper?

Also, I'm amazed the skipper gives you enough thrust to complete orbit. My initial design had a skipper and I had to switch to a 4 LV-30 cluster because I wasn't getting enough thrust. What ascent profile do you use?

Thanks in advance for your help OP!