HOW TO BUILD AND FLY AN SSTO

[@AD_SPACE_2024_...Aditya...]

You should've explained that KSP creates more drag on a part when it has an unoccupied node(green BALL) and that's the reason why you put those cones at the back of the rapier to reduce drag.

[@vaos3712]

I think that would have been a more advanced subject. Because getting into the smaller details of the game mechanics would mean also Explaining the size of connection points (green balls) . Their strength and weaknesses and how they tie into advanced tweekables when it comes to rigid connections. Just a whole other can of worms that I didn’t have time to open up in this simple SSTO video. 😎

[@AD_SPACE_2024_...Aditya...]

@@vaos3712 That also makes sense👍

[@Perrocko]

@@vaos3712 you should do a video Talkin about it

[@wernhervonkerman2382]

I didn't know this, thanks!

[@opticchild]

@@vaos3712 This is something I would appreciate. I've been playing KSP for a few years and just learned a LOT on this video.

[@Tabby362]

Love how you actually explain what makes a good ssto and why instead of just showing how to make a working one part by part.

[@jakebennett4307]

This tutorial is AMAZING. I spent hours trying to make SSTOs and they were all ASS. Watching your tutorial once really helped me, especially: - Learning that 1 shock cone intake is enough for 4 rapiers - Making sure the COM stays the same placing wings and fuel tanks - Generally avoiding the mk 2 I made my first SSTO in about 30 minutes and it make it to orbit FIRST TRY. Reentry was a doddle. It felt overpowered and could take off/land on a dime, no chutes or airbrakes, can fly as slow as 60 m/s without stalling. Amazing. I didn't even need a vertical stabiliser or canards.

[@ChrisHovord]

I know I might be biased because I'm a big fan of this channel ( SPACE CULT ) but this has to be one of the most in depth SSTO tutorial I've seen for ksp... lol and loving the little visual cartoons you made. Awesome work VAOS 👏 👌 👍 great job

[@Magi..]

it's not just you, it's an awesome video

[@destructionfad7928]

I went from struggling to get an SSTO into orbit with sandbox parts to getting an SSTO into orbit on career mode with only Panthers and a Cheetah. And I was even able to bring a small cubesat up with it. This tutorial really was the overview I needed to get started, so thank you.

[@jmstudios457]

Probably one of the most comprehensive SSTO spaceplane tutorials out there. Thanks for putting this together!

[@ColtLB]

This video helped me from going to using all my fuel to orbit to only half of it. Thanks 😊 I will now do my due diligence and leave chapters off for anyone needing them 0:00 - Intro 1:26 - Drag 2:37 - Weight 4:16 - Center of Mass 10:28 - The Rule of Cool 15:22 - Re-Entry 18:29 - Power 19:39 - Increased Control 21:37 - Landing Gears 23:08 - RCS Placement 28:00 - Flying 35:21 - Outro Edit: I just noticed you had chapters in the description but it didn’t implement it into the player, whoops

[@ryanrising2237]

It’s a neat introduction, but I feel there are a few points that any player making an SSTO should know. -Wing incidence is a powerful tool that allows you to produce life when pointed directly prograde. This helps massively with drag, and all it requires of you is rotating your wings up in pitch. -Mk2 parts are very, very draggy. They may look sleek, but in almost all cases two Mk1 parts next to each other would provide better drag characteristics. The rule of cool does apply, but you should know the downsides to following it. -The reason you don’t see drag indicators on the RCS is because they’re physicsless parts - all of the aerodynamic forces and mass they have are added to the parent part instead of being calculated for the individual part. -Understanding how node attachment works is critical to minimising drag. I know you touched on this briefly, but it’s worth focusing on the benefits of minimising how many radially attached structures you have. Also, this isn’t knowledge that’s pertinent in-game, but SABRE is not a liquid air cycle engine. It has a precooler that chills down air to use when it’s running as a turbojet, but it doesn’t liquify the air. In rocket mode, it does run on liquid oxygen.

[@vaos3712]

This was a very simple SSTO video. I didn’t have time to cover all the more advanced methods and information. 😎 Great Tips btw 👍

[@ryanrising2237]

@@vaos3712 It's over half an hour, and these aren't (by my standards, anyway) very advanced methods and information. There's plenty of more advanced stuff out there - interplanetary SSTOs, specifically Bradley Whistance's Eve planes and James Glaize's twin-engine single-stage Jool-5 are the sort of craft that require advanced information to create. Stuff like fairing occlusion, drag cube properties, location of thrust generation points, optimising TWR, and the infamous "Kerbal Space Chair Cockpit" are what I'd consider advanced information - the stuff I mentioned above is pretty basic as far as SSTOs go.

[@1000-THR]

I've made sstos before but they were NOT spaceplanes

[@deezem5294]

@@1000-THR duh it aint hard just put a aerospike on with a stick of fuel and there it is, an ssto

[@Magi..]

quick question, is the Mk1 cockpit better or is the inline cockpit better for small SSTO's?. the normal cockpit looks cool but the inline one allows a single intake

[@판사님저는오늘만삽니]

9:00 great explaining, now even my dummy head can understand why my ssto alway get flip when i were entering kerbin.

[@AdamHolland-Adz]

This video was exactly what I needed! My new SSTO goes up like a dream. Thanks!

[@alex_itto]

KZbin is such an asshole, I just realized it unsubscribed me, so I had to manually find youd channel. But I'm glad I noticed that and came back!

[@lb2791]

Great video! 3 additional tipps: 1. I think the docking port part also contains monopropellant, so you could probably have skipped the extra tank 2. Extendable ladders create extreme amounts of drag. Go for some other solution if possible (fixed ladders have almost no drag) 3. Mk2 and mk3 fuselages create a lot of drag when they're not pointed perfectly into the airstream. This drag is not taken into account by the center of drag indicator because it assumes you're pointing into the airstream. For this reasom you should try to have the same amount of fuselage in front of and behind of the center of mass. Most plane designs will end up with more fuselage in front of the center of mass - try to minimize this. Otherwise the plane will tend to flip during reentry or when doing extreme manouvers. Also you can angle your wings slightly upwards. This will enable you to point the fuselage into the airstream while the wings will still create enough lift bc they are at an angle. This can give you huge dv savings.

[@eekee6034]

Oh so that's why they point the wings up. Thanks. I've been trying to use Mk2 fuselages for lift; they have some 'wing area' but less than half what their size would indicate.

[@lb2791]

@@eekee6034 I wouldn't try to use the fuselage for lift. Most of the times, it will end up just flipping your craft. Also try to make the fuselage as short as possible to not give it too much of a lever. Also, when you angle the wings: I noticed you have to take into account the wing acting as a lever when you do this. If the wing produces its lift behind your COM, it will push your nose down. If it prodices lift in front of it, it pushes the nose up. I usually only angle wings in the back slightly or not at all and give some wing part in the front more of an angle. It's a lot of trial and error though.

[@eekee6034]

@@lb2791 90% of what you're saying is about balancing COL with COM. If your fuselage flips your plane, you haven't taken into account its lifting effect. You know that data you see in the part selector? You know how you can get extra info by right-clicking? (Or some other button on console, I guess; it tells you what to do at the bottom of the extra info window.) Wings elevons canards and Mk2 parts have a "wing area" or "lifting area" figure. (I can't remember the term, but it's something area.) COL is affected by all parts with this figure unless the game considers them to be hidden inside another part. You're right about the levering effect. Subsonic aircraft have their primary lifting surfaces close to their center of mass for stability. Long Mk2 fuselages will create some instability, but they have a "wing area" far below an equivalent-size wing, so it's not too bad. Note that putting COL behind COM increases stability if the plane can avoid nose-diving. I've seen some players commenting that the spheres shouldn't even overlap at all. I like my COL sphere to be centered on the trailing edge of the COM sphere, but have built good planes with it further back. These planes always need canards to assist with pitch control. Without canards, the elevons have to tilt so far, they cause excessive drag. Heavy parts at the ends of the fuselage, such as engines and cockpit, also have a mass-based levering effect, but I've only really noticed that one one lightweight plane I built early on. When I was little, I often saw a small plane with its wings at the back and canards at the front. I wondered why other planes weren't like that, was told it was an unstable design, and kept thinking about it until I eventually kind-of figured it out, ;) but I don't consider myself an expert.

[@lb2791]

@@eekee6034 Yes, COM and COL, I know about that. Unfortunately the indicators ignore a lot of parts and effects so you can only use the two balls as rough indicators. For example, if you angle wings COL will be all over the place, often in front of your COM and the resulting plane can still be totally stable because there is actually more drag in the back of the plane that the COL indicator didn't take into account. Also, lift/drag from the fuselage comes into effect as soon as your plane is not pointing directly into the airstream but the COL indicator will not tell you about it at all. Thats why many spaceplanes flip out of control on re-entry even though COL is behind COM (as far as the indicator goes).

[@eekee6034]

@@lb2791 Interesting... I'll have to study this.

[@rikuurufu5534]

Your re-entry angle-of-attack can be a lot steeper and still realistic; The Shuttle entered at a full 40 degrees. And capslock is called "Fine control: as opposed to coarse.

[@CHRB-nn6qp]

Thanks for this tutorial. Using this I was able to build my own SSTO that can reach Minmus and return safely. Tips like slightly angling your wings really helped :)

[@DoremiFasolatido1979]

For anyone wondering, the optimal positioning for the CoL relative to the CoM, is so that the "surface" of the CoL ball is completely inside the CoM ball and exactly in contact with the "surface" of the CoM ball, and the bottom of the horizontal bars of the CoL are exactly lined up with the horizontal centerline of the CoM. You can accomplish this by rolling the wings up or down...very slightly. I recommend turning off the snap when using the rotation tool for this purpose...and as always, make sure your symmetry is on. . That helps both roll and pitch stability at all velocities. So long as your CoM full and dry are the same, you should never experience any change in stability due to conditions. Having the CoL slightly above the CoM treats the plane's balance like that of a pendulum rather than a tightrope walker...but too much can cause a deadly roll if you make a wrong move...while just enough can give your craft the characteristic of self-righting. Yaw can really only be controlled with a vertical fin of some kind. It's one reason flying wing designs were so hard to make viable for so long. Adding a fin adds non-lifting drag, which defeats the purpose of the flying wing, and they're notably less effective in craft that have more wingspan than length and therefore must be considerably bigger to do the same job. . Lifting body designs don't have as much trouble with this, but they also have their own issues if not designed correctly. They're a great example of when too much wing angle can cause unrecoverable instability in certain situations.

[@AD_SPACE_2024_...Aditya...]

I love the new format of editing and the style,nailed it man literally, And yeah your channel will grow good if you make videos like this. one of my favourite vids from VAOS (SPACE CULT)

[@quoniam426]

The slanted probe core also works for level flight in planes, their natural inclination is about 5 degrees, if you want to follow Prograde as a kind of autopilot for long flights, the cockpit prograge will try tocompensate that inclination and generate drag and eventually instability and stall. Having the rear slanted probe core can act as autpilot for prograde. The plane will stay that way not compensating and won't create more drag that it should. The other way of doing that on aeroplanes is to inclinate the wings themselves so they don't generate extra drag at 5 degree angle of attack.

[@DavidEdwards9801]

Hey VAOS, great video, really helped explain what I've been getting slightly off with my designs. I've learned quite a bit since I found your channel and that nose-cone over the engine bit might be just what I've been missing. I am one of those that likes to use my elevators as flaps by linking control to the brake action group, sometimes I have to invert the deploy direction so they deploy down instead of up, but they work great in atmosphere. That tilted probe-core idea is great and yeah, having it at the proper angle makes all the difference. As far as the auto-struts go, I usually auto-strut to grandparent part with the cockpit or root part strutted to heaviest with everything on rigid attachment to avoid the floppiness. (Edit) Great Landing, I like to put the brakes on my rear wheels up to 100-200% depending on how fast I need to stop, and those lights, you can reskin them in white in stock now =)

[@ComradePhoenix]

20:04 Several have anhedral (instead of dihedral) actually, especially if you consider gull wings a form of anhedral. But, the most notable plane with downward-tilted wings is the C-5 Galaxy.

[@nls.135]

Didn’t the b-52 have anhedral wings too? That might be just as if not more notable of a plane as the C-5.

[@ComradePhoenix]

@@nls.135 I'm not sure, actually. Which kind of showcases the notability of the C-5, because there's no question it has anhedral, its one of its most defining characteristics. Whereas the B-52, while notable in its own right, isn't famous for having anhedral.

[@guard13007]

@@nls.135 They're anhedral on the ground, but flex into dihedral in flight... or at least a lot closer to dihedral!

[@jjrobinson2432]

Wing sweep has a stabizing effect much like dihedral, so some airplanes with swept wings can actually be too stable. This is bad for things like fighters. Anhedral reduces stability.

[@8mfg9neuland06]

Thank you very much. Now i learned 'how to...'

[@brandonfigueroa7399]

the comment about the 1,2,3,4 key was extremely useful

[@paleris4027]

It is interessting that you allways learn something new. Until now i allways used "Trim settings" deployed ailerons to controll my descent, So give me that medal xD. I dont think it's worse, just diffrent. As my SSTOs look like Passenger planes, when the SAS is in Stabillity mode, making Trim adjustments on the Elevator, will force the Ailerons into Flap like position increasing drag a significant amount. When that isnt working a make an action group to do that. I even made a SSTO with those Big Passenger plane Wings, surviving LKO reentry.

[@AlexanderGrange]

Thank you so much for this video. I recently got KSP, and I've been trying to build an SSTO. This video really helped me get them working, and it helped me learn how ro build them for myself.

[@multinator2004]

the tilted probe core is absolutely genius, been playing ksp for 4400 hours and ksp 2 for 350 and never knew this

[@theq4602]

Made my first SSTO on my own and wanted to improve it so I looked up a tutorial. Just wow! I'm amazed at how much I could Improve it. Its just a Mig-21 replica. Granted I did use drop tanks for my ascent. I still count it as an SSTO with my drop tanks because aircraft use them all the time.

[@RadioRanger007]

You have given me the confidence to try and build an SSTO. My second version made it to orbit during a test flight. Now I can put small satellites into low orbit. Thank you.

[@KramenterSpace]

I recently got back into the game and took an interest in ssto's, so this video was a really big help. Thank you

[@buzzaard7036]

This is the 1st SSTO video I have seen that makes sense to me

[@xionix4]

The angled probe core tip is awesome. Thank you :3

[@Leatherman154]

Just use the trim settings. Hold Alt, then use the WASD keys to adjust the pitch angle you want your craft to hold. Works great for holding an angle of attack during takeoffs too. You can reset the trim by pressing Alt+X.

[@ZoeSummers1701A]

This REALLY helped! Thank you VAOS ❤❤❤

[@Hermit_Wish]

I never took drag into consideration. Knowing that, I started a new game on hard, unlocked J-404 "Panther", and did some testing. Was able to get 1020 m/s ASL with a single J-404 "Panther" on afterburner using a circular air intake. The plane itself however is very lightweight, about 8T when loaded with fuel

[@gbrads]

Thank you for this video. I was able to make the nicest SSTO from what I learned here.

[@ahobimo732]

I like the style of your commentary and editing. Nice mix of explanation and humor. And you really seem to know the nuts and bolts of the aerodynamic modelling in KSP. Great video overall.

[@crazyshak4827]

Thanks for making this! This helped me get my first SSTO into orbit and back again

[@akathenightmare4452]

Hey man, just like to say that I've been bringing these videos while doing my ksp playthrough at the moment and your videos have reignited my obsession with this game. It's also helped me build my first proper working SSTO! Which is currently sat on my jool grand tour mothership, awaiting it's crew!!

[@TheDaddyCo]

Those paint "animation" parts is awesome. Please keep doing them!

[@niakitten2937]

Just came across your channel and have to say, this was equal parts informative, enjoyable, and absolutely hilarious.

[@starbomber]

20:05 "I don't know which one it would actually be" Fun fact. Aircraft that are designed for maneuverability (AKA: Air Racers, Stunt planes, Fighter jets ect.) usually have straight wings. Wings that are 90 degrees to the vertical stabilizer. Reason being...well, there's a lot of reasons, one of them though is if the wing is straight you can get it to generate almost as much lift when the plane is inverted as it does when the plane is right-side up. But most planes that *aren't* expected to spend a significant amount of time inverted usually have that same tilt (or, the reverse, similar effect)

[@Arthurpetry]

I love you, i was like, 5 years away from ksp and its good to be back and come to you when i need to learn something

[@Recivu-project]

Thank you so much my guy! I went from exploding on the runway to putting something in orbit!

[@Kurogane_666]

Ok, I LOVE the animated bits, the taking the wing I'm dying, guess I'm half asleep hahahh

[@h.a.9880]

Awesome video, loved the paint segments! KSP models aerodynamics in a weird way, so a lot of the info in this video to reduce drag is invaluable. The most useful tip to me is the re-entry probecore, though. I did use deployed control surfaces in the past to control my angle of attack, but that needs constant babysitting (a bit more convenient than manually controlling it via WASD, though). With the probecore, you always get the same angle of attack throughout the entire descent, which makes the descent a lot more calculable. For instance, I have a Laythe-orbiting station with an SSTO to do science on Laythe's islands. Since I always get the same descent profile with the probecore, all I have to do is to put my periapsis at the same height and I can aim roughly for a specific island and not do quicksaves over and over to get close eventually. Something that I like doing with my SSTOs is to add a small control surface somewhere that I can use to trim the craft and prevent the nose from constantly dropping. You might have to adjust it depending on speed and altitude (and switch it off when you go for an orbital climb), but it's less annoying than to constantly hit the S-key to pitch the nose back up. Also when the SSTO needs to be able to land/start on bumpy ground, a small landing gear on the rear to prevent tailstrikes is a good idea. Both these things create a bit of drag, but I consider them a quality of life bonus.

[@Etyneo1984]

FAR for the win.

[@vincjenzo]

I logged in to youtube just to leave a comment here. Thanks a lot for the video it was of great help, I learned so much!

[@TheJarrito5]

incredible tutorial vaos! both informational and entertaining, you're the person that helped me grasp the idea for spaceplane ssto when learning ksp, this just helps sum all of your wisdoms for them into one video (:

[@Dead_Kerbal]

Mostly it boils down to : ''Use a lot of duck tape to build and make sure you are pointing up on departure...''

[@styanax]

Thanks for this video. your advice on angling the wings up is really useful even not on an ssto ship :)

[@ivangalantz4927]

Thank you very much, I learned a lot in this video. Also, very funny the animations of the astronauts

[@iraelliott1191]

Thanks for this in depth tutorial, VAOS! I've been a big fan of winged craft in Kerbal and this sure helps me analyze the SSTO's that have worked, which I wasn't sure why,. And I'll be able to improve even further with your help. Big kudos! Long time viewer, horribly bad at remembering to subscribe. Todays the day, Friend! Can't wait for more, and I am more than hyped for KSP 2 and your tinkering!

[@GK34779]

Thank you so much, it helped me so much (especially the 'point 10 degrees up'). I had no clue what to do before I saw this video. Your videos are amazing.

[@matthewzeller5026]

Awesome video. Thank you so much. I used to build them all the time in KSP but I fell out of practice and this was an amazing refresher.

[@matthewzeller5026]

And never anything of your quality, I'm excited to use these tips.

[@liquidusblue]

Brilliant. Got back into this trying to bore myself just in time for KSP2 release. Liked the drone tip!

[@tomcatproject145]

I loved the little animations

[@tehbeard]

Great video, was able to use the tips to rework a 2 stage spaceplane into an SSTO that can do taxi/cargo runs to my space station. :)

[@NickBDesigns]

Great job on this! Loved the little cartoons and the vocal effects! One of the best ssto tutorials around!

[@wernhervonkerman2382]

I needed this, I'm trash at SSTO's.

[@raffaelechinotti5244]

my man you're so me when playing this game xD just the minute 13:42 is so meee i just pretend things works BECAUSE there is always a way

[@joegaming8101]

"jus ledet gough, ledet gough!" subscribed also that RCS demo was amazing!

[@lt.lettuce2023]

This needs a lot more views

[@science_space_dh]

Such a good and entertaining video ! And I learned a lot by the way. I always had problems when re-enter an atmosphere, but now I learned how to deal with it ! Really like the idea of SSTO's and now I'm able to build them really nice Thank you

[@caywo_]

7:49 I was LITERALLY scraching my head in that moment lol

[@_RandomPea]

I just tested my recreation of this, absolutely amazing. This was a great walkthrough, really enjoyed it and the end result is incredible.

[@no_name2882]

Hello vaos. 2:30 am in nz. Was waiting for this upload.

[@ouo9918]

noice

[@frankgrimes9299]

5:19 Hhhh dafuq love that miniscene. "Ey man, calm down, is just rocket science. You won't understand" xD

[@luisvega6580]

You should think about publishing the Weekly Kerman

[@exio_exio1234]

The editing is perfect

[@thefishinggamekeeper5713]

I have a plane that can go into the tips of space, but not into space space. 20,000 ft is a s far it can go. Thanks for this video lad.

[@Ausogiea]

SSTOs are pretty much the only thing I do in KSP these days. And yeah I know you made this video nearly a year ago but I'm a guy on the internet and I have a keyboard, so here we go. You should move your elevators further from the CoM, because the further they are from the centre of that see-saw, the more authority they give you for a given amount of input i.e. less surface deflection gives you more control for less drag. That's why real planes have their elevators at the very back. So yeah, either move them further back, or restrict them to roll control and add a pair of canards near the nose to control pitch. Also the way you angled your RCS thrusters to point their thrust vector directly towards the craft's CoM reduces their control effectiveness, and negates what you were saying about placing them far from the centre of the craft to give leverage. So you consume far more RCS fuel to achieve the same amount of control. Think of every control element as a lever - the further it is from the fulcrum (the CoM in this case), the less effort is required to produce movement. Gotta say tho, I'm not the one out here making videos, and I really dig your style. Love your work.

[@ganymeder]

this video is pure gold i love this style of videos

[@XavierBetoN]

Pro tip: If you want zero drag, not less drag, position rapiers behind airstream shell, just so close that throttle point is out but drag node is in, check it in action menus, activate it via alt+f12>physics>aero:'display aero in action menus' Now drag values will show up as: Cd.A : constant*drag*area, and drag value being the effective drag at current velocity. Pro tip2: You can attach NERVA at the end of the rapier just like aerodynamic nosecone and hid them both inside the shell while still having the throttle. Both parts have Zero-Drag, compared to ~1.4 with nosecone, and ~2.5 without at about mach 5 and 30km altitude due to my tests. Good luck!

[@XavierBetoN]

Porn-level-tip-that-you-cannot-even-find-on-reddit: Position 2 airstream shells pointing eachother at the front and back ends of the craft, you'll have extremely slick spacecraft! I consider this as exploiting the game physics, but thought you might be interested in trying ;)

[@Outworlder]

Ok. Caps lock is now officially called itty bitty controls. Dude. I thought I knew how to design SSTOs given that in all my games kerbals refuse to fly anything else (rockets are for plebs, I mean, probes). I was wrong - learned a ton. One thing I like to do with landing gears is to make sure steering is disabled in back wheels. I've learned the hard way that some aircraft were very... maneuverable on the ground. Some landing gear configs may require disabling front wheel brakes(specially if you have more than one) to prevent unintended disassembly.

[@eekee6034]

~ Drag ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I didn't understand drag was quite such a consideration, but I spotted something in my builds: Control surfaces at significant angles make significant drag, even at 22km altitude. I didn't know about Alt-F12 then, I just saw how it affected the speed of my terrible hypersonic spaceplane. Ever since then, I've always fitted canards because having pitch control at both ends drastically reduces the angles the control surfaces need to be at. However, the plane in this video has such huge elevons, I don't think they'll need to be at 'significant angles' to be useful. Perhaps that will help. (Canards also help lift the nose if you have wheels far enough back to avoid breaking the stupid-huge Rhino engine -you- I used for style, but they don't help as much as I'd like.) Good advice to test. (That's always good advice, but testing gets tedious. ;) There's a catch, too: the game can be inconsistent with cargo bays. Inconsistency hurts testing. One time, the game correctly saw a cargo bay as closed at launch, but then I opened and closed it again and the game decided it was open forever after that. It's one of the insane bugs in the game; it tries to be clever and loses sight of the simple fact that closed is closed. RCS blocks and other little parts add their physical characteristics to the part they're attached to. I forget what it's called; something like "non-physical". I like to fit vernor engines because they're streamlined, but they're heavy and way overpowered. On small craft... really I've only ever modified the stock Dove, but a Dove fitted with tiny single-axis thrusters carefully clustered in the leading edges of the wings didn't seem any less capable than normal. Note they were _in_ the leading edges of the wings; the cones visible but the bases tucked in. Wings protect parts fitted like this from overheating; it applies to solar panels too. Maybe they also protect them from drag. I first fitted the thrusters to the Dove's Mk2 fuselage, but they burned off during ascent. (The Dove is insanely overpowered.) I only fit thrusters for rotation on craft so big, 4 of the largest reaction wheels aren't enough. ;) We're talking more than 3 of the biggest 3.75m tanks. But perhaps the saving isn't worth it. You need at least 6 ports for translation and can't angle them to look nice. You only need 2 more ports for rotation and can angle them. ~ Not Drag ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The intro's great! :D The Mk2 cockpit is the stilleto heels of cockpits. It looks amazing, but it's heavy and the IVA view is terrible. Fuel as balast, yeah. TBH half the reason I clicked was seeing the fuel tanks alongside the fuselage in a style which can be moved fore/aft as needed to center the fuel around the COM. Good plan, that. The other half was the 3 Mk2 passenger cabins. I find it hard to fit 1 of those into a small SSTO. OOF! 36m/s left? I take that back! XD But maybe if you used more 1.25m tanks, it could be a lot better. My rule of cool control surface is the Advanced Canard. I use it wherever I can get away with it. Good to know that 1 shock cone serves 4 RAPIERs. I knew you could have more engines than intakes, but didn't know how many. Yeah! No excuses for spinning on reentry. I hate it and always try hard to avoid it. So far, I've had to use fuel for balast, but hopefully won't need to with my next build - or rebuild. I reenter at 80-85 degrees nose-up and a fairly high periapsis, using the thinest air for as much braking as possible. it works pretty well so long as peri isn't too high, (which takes too long,) and you remember to put the nose down before you get slow enough to stall. I've started to fly with trim instead of SAS. I have no idea if it affects reaction wheels, but if it does, you might be able to reenter with that too. (Use Alt-WASD to set trim, Alt-X to reset it to neutral.) I'm almost sure the light strips are core, added with the dome and navigation lights when they redid the big lights. I love them too. :) You get black or white strips without mods, but they're rectangular and don't look so streamlined. "10 degrees and let it fly" is my favourite way to get to space too, but usually my spaceplanes are overpowered enough that they need 20 degrees to not waste fuel. (And that's the big one I'm talking about; the one with the Rhino engine. ;) I've been building SSTOs for over a year now, but I was enlightened. Nice one!

[@eekee6034]

New drag info: At high angles of attack, Mk2 parts and some fairings have drag comparable to parachutes! I don't know what makes fairings drag, but Mk2 parts get hit with both wing and part drag. The real bad case is making the front half of your fuselage out of Mk2 parts but not the rest of it. The center of drag goes way forward when you pitch up too far, and the plane decides it would be great fun to fly backward, everyone should try it! I finally built a decent SSTO to go all the way to Laythe to rescue Jeb who had just barely made the one-way trip, and I did it with tips from this video. Putting the fuel tanks along the sides makes it so much easier to balance the plane. I used wings with tanks too --the strakes because they hold more fuel for their mass-- and they balanced with the forward ends of the side tanks. Masses of delta-V gave me room to fix mistakes even in a Laythe run. If I made a mistake, it was mining with the small refinery and 1 small drill powered by a single RTG. It took 4 Kerbin years to fill up. But that's just a thematic mistake really. Most of it happened in the background while I flew a relay out there.

[@fakerussian2036]

My highest accomplishment was being included on the weekly Kerman issue 57 for top voted consol ksp post.

[@H45HBR0WN]

How do You have free cam in the builder? when i build its constantly centered on the cockpit so its hard to place things in the back storage.

[@catxi_yt623]

Me as soon as you used keybinds for the move tool: WAIT theres keybinds for that?

[@jacobaubertin645]

You know what I found is great for "Micro Control?" A joystick!

[@prime-aerospace]

The quality increase is great I really like this tutorial

[@scifidino5022]

Thanks so much for the tutorial! It really helped me build my first SSTO!

[@stanikbr]

Thank you very much!

[@kyrawendling559]

A thank you, I will need this to get to minmus

[@brandonfigueroa7399]

great landing gear tip

[@GABRIEL-ej4ei]

The best ssto's is the one with the best efficiency and versatility but also the one who looks cool, the cool rule . I love the way you disign your craft. Anyways amazing tutorial, I enjoyed it and keep the great content up. Also could you please add the waterfall mod, it make the plume look sooooooooo good, please consider it

[@samuelzuidema1512]

You should try making a saqqara bird ssto. I believe that you got the skill n the know-how to make it soar like the Egyptians did.

[@keeganheavner3526]

Hey man I actually really enjoyed this! You kept my attention more than most ksp KZbinrs. Thanks man! Keep up the good work!

[@churchillavner3050]

Hii VAOS, thanks for all this tips ! The video it's self is amainzing. Can you please Make a video of "How to calculate fuell for SSTO" depending of the cargo ?

[@churchillavner3050]

Up ?

[@Zattari]

Good video, I learned a lot about my favourite craft the SSTO.

[@jeremiahmcelroy2726]

FYI fighter jets typically use an Anhedral design. Dihedral gives high roll stability which is actually undesirable in a jet you want to suddenly spin on a dune, Anhedral gives more maneuverability at the cost of being more difficult to fly. Also on really high cargo weight planes with top fixed wings you get a pendulum effect from the weight of the cargo which makes it even more stable, so they use an anhedral design so they are still maneuverable. Some small aircraft are barely dihedral. My Cessna 152 is dihedral but only by 1 degree.

[@DavstrWrexham]

I find t hat flying flat until 500m/s is needed for most set of especially if the ssto has extra fuel to get to places. I also use forward swept wings. It allows for less wing area so less drag

[@JustAn1dot]

Best editing since single celled organisms. 👌

[@CoreyKearney]

at 12:00 when you are talking about the docking hatch, Batteries are physics-less parts, so is the KAL- controller, surface lights. a few other things. Those are fine to put in there. None of the tanks are AFIK.

[@movetoiceland]

If you're feeling fancy, put the probe core on a hinge with a small angle range and low traverse rate. Before re-entry, control from the probe core and pin the hinge controls. Now you can adjust your angle of attack without having to rebuild the craft.

[@jjrobinson2432]

I have been re-entering with small-medium winged craft pitched up at about 45°. Seems to distribute heat over the underside, and decelerates rapidly so time of heating is minimized. Control is usually pretty stable. Also pulls a lot of g's, so something large and heavy craft might shed parts. Haven't seen any kerbals die from the g's so far.

[@mahdedarmo]

Thanks a lot Vaos, this is a classic!

[@matewue]

you really have amazing videos and funny tutorials 10/10 would recommend

[@PlaidHiker]

I like to think your a crazy engineer lecturing students while building an irl ssto

[@insertgenericuserhere]

TIP: If you have many little wing segments, use grandparent autostrut until you get to that wing root piece, then use the other two. (Depending on type of craft.)

[@contrastretrowave7640]

Looks really cool, I tried building a very similar SSTO and I may or may have not gone into the game files and made the engines 2x more powerful 😅. Very cool build you made overall😃

[@joelmulder]

When it comes to drag, it’s mostly about the area that’s presented to the oncoming air. One long wing is, well, long. A lot of leading edge exposed to the oncoming air. A long row of fuel tanks only has a relatively small area exposed to the airflow, and is thus creates way less drag.

[@GeorgeCowsert]

I need help. How would you interpret a tilt-engine SSTO? I want to create something with two big engines flanking the sides of the main body with the ability to rotate for VTOL capability? So far all of my progress keeps getting botched by just how weak the mechanical parts are, as all attempts to make stable engine nessels just result in too much flop. I'd also prefer something with shorter wings. I know the Osprey is functionally the same but with rotors, but I want something that looks like it can dogfight.

[@vaos3712]

Ya, the stock robotics aren’t the greatest. All you can do is try and lock them to help with wobble. Best thing to do like in the VTOL SSTO video I made, is to just put the robotic parts on the engine parts only to minimize wobble and increase the control.

[@eekee6034]

Advanced builders did some fascinating things before Breaking Ground was released, and some still do. There's a "bendy tech" thread on the KSP forums which is very interesting. Basically, you use parts with little rigidity in their connections (such as Ant engines) to allow something to bend, and then use 'same vessel interaction' to control it. To move it, use elevons or other moving parts with same vessel interaction. (I think I read that elevons have infinite torque.) It takes several Ant engines to allow 90 degree bend, (check the thread for how many,) so I'm thinking of saving parts by using robotic parts for the bendy bits. I've also simply used robotic parts in parallel. It can be good, but the build ends up being large. I used 3 pairs of alligator hinges to lower a submarine into the water from a boat. The middle hinges were connected as normal to a tube holding a docking port. The hinges to the sides were connected to the tube with strut connectors. It worked very well, but all the hinges together were wider than the little submarine. I'd clip them together if not for the resulting visual flicker. I want to try bendy tech next time.

[@Jonassoe]

The Advanced nosecone, despite looking pointier, actually has more drag than the stubby aerodynamic nosecone. So it's just worse overall.

[@Perrocko]

Isn't more pointy less drag?? (beside the facts already explained in the video)

[@tippyc2]

23:08 You get better performance without RCS because the thrusters do cause drag. You're not seeing drag indicators because the physics engine adds the mass and drag from the thruster to whatever part it's attached to. This is referred to as "physicsless" parts, and things like solar panels and batteries are treated the same way.