Space Shuttles, For and Against

[MatttheCzar]

Im a big fan of space shuttles in this game.  Once you get past the challenges of designing and flying them, they prove to be very useful, even with no cost benefit.  In my first 1.1 playthrough Ive done, I launched a satellite.  Unfortunately, I had crossfeed enabled on my docking ports, and all the fuel drained out of the sat.  No problem, I just redocked with it and pumped the shuttle's fuel into it.  I also always carry an engineer onboard in case of a solar panel breakage.  I've also been able to land my shuttle booster SpaceX style, making it have the same cost savings as an SSTO.  Anyone want to debate the downsides of a space shuttle?

[pandaman]

I've built, and use a couple of shuttles, one mk2 that gets 6 tonnes to LKO and a mk3 that can lift an orange tank and I quite like using them both.  

Downsides though...  One is time, you need to actually land them, so if your RL game play time is limited then this can be a factor, but in sandbox you can just 'pretend' you have landed them and delete them if not crewed, or you are just a heartless ba####d. 

Another downside can be that they can be difficult to design and fly, which is also part of the fun, so....

[Mat2ch]

I love space planes, but I've never manged to build a Space Shuttle-alike, which I then could fly into orbit. They always went uncontrollable a short while after launch and I couldn't make a precise insertion. And getting back is a sad story, too. Since I used three vectors at the back the CoM tends to be very far at the back and the drag from the cargo parts made my shuttle flip

But my ssto space planes, they all fly great. After some tweaking, of corse. And I love them

Edited May 9, 2016 by Mat2ch

[regex]

Space shuttles in KSP are pretty simple and fun.  I slapped one together on a Saturday morning and found myself building a station.

 

[mk1980]

i like small crew space shuttles for career mode. currently using a few variations of a mini shuttle design to get tourists to various locations in the Kerbin SOI. they are nice for this task because the vertical launch is much quicker than a "proper" SSTO spaceplane ascent and the mk2 parts have really good heat reistance, so i don't have to mess around with heatshields and parachutes etc. 

i don't really see much use for cargo/fuel shuttles, though. they basically combine the disadvantages of SSTO planes (must land at KSC to recover the cost of the expensive orbiter, cargo size limited to mk3 bay size) and rockets (lost hardware). no point lifting a 50 ton shuttle just to deploy a few tons of cargo. might as well launch the cargo directly - which tends to be cheaper and faster.

SSTO planes are a different matter, though. i use those a lot. 

 

Edited May 9, 2016 by mk1980
added some images

[moogoob]

I like 'em! My Nastybird has comparable cost per passenger to other LKO crew transfer vehicles I've put together, and that's BEFORE recovery is taken into account. Plus, you can launch a probe with ~2000 m/s delta-v while doing so. That's where shuttles shine, their multipurpose nature.

You can also make them in all sizes. Here's a tiny one from a previous version:

 

[Sereneti]

1 hour ago, MatttheCzar said:

Im a big fan of space shuttles in this game.  Once you get past the challenges of designing and flying them, they prove to be very useful, even with no cost benefit.  In my first 1.1 playthrough Ive done, I launched a satellite.  Unfortunately, I had crossfeed enabled on my docking ports, and all the fuel drained out of the sat.  No problem, I just redocked with it and pumped the shuttle's fuel into it.  I also always carry an engineer onboard in case of a solar panel breakage.  I've also been able to land my shuttle booster SpaceX style, making it have the same cost savings as an SSTO.  Anyone want to debate the downsides of a space shuttle?

i have to managed to build a spaceplane/shuttle that is more cost-efficient than a rocket.
With rocktets i had payd 10k/person to orbit.
With a shuttle i had cut the cost to round about 6k/6Persons...
(worst case is 30k/6 Persons if i land "anywhere")

the only downside by that:
I have to collect 6 people.
 

[GoSlash27]

 I build STS shuttles for the challenge of making them, but they're not really cost- effective. I can build disposables that are cheaper than shuttles, partially reusable stacks that are cheaper than that, and SSTO spaceplanes that are crazy- cheap.

Best,
-Slashy

[RandomUser]

Space shuttles are awesome when you overcome the design impossibility challenge of building one that doesn't 360 degree flips once you take off.  Right now, I'm using them to lift modules up to a Mun station. 

[Sereneti]

5 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

 I build STS shuttles for the challenge of making them, but they're not really cost- effective. I can build disposables that are cheaper than shuttles, partially reusable stacks that are cheaper than that, and SSTO spaceplanes that are crazy- cheap.

Best,
-Slashy

one question:
Wat is an STS?

i know the SSTO -> single-stage-to-Orbit

But an STS?

And what is a Spaceplane with Drop-tanks called?
 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Sereneti

[MaxxQ]

37 minutes ago, Sereneti said:

one question:
Wat is an STS?

i know the SSTO -> single-stage-to-Orbit

But an STS?

And what is a Spaceplane with Drop-tanks called?
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Space Transportation System.  That's the acronym that was used for every real-life shuttle launch number designation.

[pandaman]

Both my shuttles differ from the STS format of a single large tank.  They each have 2 drop tank/boosters above and below the shuttle itself, this makes balance far less of an issue.

[Sereneti]

there are 2 projeckts atm...
1) build a large, heavy lifter spaceplane -> planed as a SSTO..
2) build 2 Shuttle-booster (2 shuttles as a booster for a large tank, with a payload above...)
 -> the problem is, if i drop parts from the middle tank, the whole thing became unstable

....

A big feature of spaceplanes:
Its more easy to achive a Equatorial -LKO....
With the normal-rocket-launchpad its hard to reach it....

Edited May 10, 2016 by Sereneti

[GoSlash27]

5 hours ago, MaxxQ said:

Space Transportation System.  That's the acronym that was used for every real-life shuttle launch number designation.

^This. When I say STS- style, I mean it's modeled after the American shuttles as opposed to the Buran or something of my own design.

And as for a space plane with drop tanks... I guess that's what I'd call it; "a space plane with drop tanks"

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

My definition of shuttle is a spaceplane with rocket assisted vertical launch. 

And halfway through the tech tree that's the only way to get a plane into orbit. I use them for shuttling crew members to and from LKO.

[Sereneti]

13 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

My definition of shuttle is a spaceplane with rocket assisted vertical launch. 

And halfway through the tech tree that's the only way to get a plane into orbit. I use them for shuttling crew members to and from LKO.

you dont need to launch it vertical...
at the moment i try to make a "low-tech-spaceplane"
 

[mk1980]

10 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

My definition of shuttle is a spaceplane with rocket assisted vertical launch. 

And halfway through the tech tree that's the only way to get a plane into orbit. I use them for shuttling crew members to and from LKO.

actually that's only half true. SSTO planes with panther engines are quite viable for getting crew or small-ish payloads to orbit without boosters or droptanks. the panther engine is on a 160 tech node. you'll probably want the following 300 tech nodes, too (for mk2 crew cabins and/or mk3 parts) for such a design, but i think that still qualifies as "halfway through" since you can get those without even upgrading the R&D facility to the final level.

alternatively, you can also build pure rocket propelled SSTO planes at that "mid tree" tech level that don't need staging. a plane powered by pair of skippers can get a 10 ton payload (in an mk3 cargo bay) to orbit comfortably without staging anything.

[GoSlash27]

5 minutes ago, mk1980 said:

SSTO planes with panther engines are quite viable for getting crew or small-ish payloads to orbit without boosters or droptanks.

I agree. The Panther has been the entry level SSTO space plane engine ever since it was introduced. The nacelle is adequate for air, so you have everything you need... except a shielded docking port.

It's good for small crew transports, but not cost effective for tankers or heavy cargo.

Best,
-Slashy

[mk1980]

yes that has been my experience, too. i made a fuel tanker based on panther engines and it worked "ok-ish" but it was probably not worth the effort. it could lift a "1 segment" mk3 LF tank to my orbital depot (2500 units LF - 12.5 tons payload) but it was a bit unblanced with emtpy tanks and so i messed up the reentry and had to land it somewhere 100 km away from KSC. that reduced the recovery value quite a bit. in the end i payed about 12k funds for the fuel delivery. not super bad, but not efficient enough to put in the extra effort of landing the damn thing.

 

[DrMarlboro]

The argument can really go either way because all craft are viable. Well.... except maybe trying to lift 100 tons with ion engines.

Pros:

Really fun/rewarding to build, Saves a little money early on, and you can make small tourist shuttles with really limited science nodes, and they are reusable so once you build one that works you know it is always going to work. 

Cons:

Can be very difficult to build especially for a new player, and for most, their range is limited to LKO. Also you can lift more with a simpler craft that took less time to build since real world rules such as the economy, and availability are nonexistent. You also have to take the time to deorbit and land it which can be a hassle/annoying for the less than patient players, and also tends to increase difficulty when building it since it will come back 30-50tons lighter than it went up.

Either way, the real question is what you prefer, or are willing to do in terms of building/time.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

35 minutes ago, mk1980 said:

actually that's only half true. SSTO planes with panther engines are quite viable for getting crew or small-ish payloads to orbit without boosters or droptanks. the panther engine is on a 160 tech node. you'll probably want the following 300 tech nodes, too (for mk2 crew cabins and/or mk3 parts) for such a design, but i think that still qualifies as "halfway through" since you can get those without even upgrading the R&D facility to the final level.

alternatively, you can also build pure rocket propelled SSTO planes at that "mid tree" tech level that don't need staging. a plane powered by pair of skippers can get a 10 ton payload (in an mk3 cargo bay) to orbit comfortably without staging anything.

 

I'm worming my way around in the tech tree, So while I may have a workable engine, my jet intakes all conk out at Mach one,

My current "Xray Tango" Shuttle is mostly Mk2 parts with 2 Reliant engines and 4 SRBs.

[ExtremeSquared]

In theory, a low cost / (payload*deltaV) could make SSTOS and Space Shuttles attractive. This is a video game though. More and more I am considering (cost * part count) / (payload * deltaV). Even in career mode, I just have more fun flying a slightly more expensive 20 frames per second rocket than a frugal 5 frames per second spaceplane.

[Whiskybob]

15 hours ago, MatttheCzar said:

Im a big fan of space shuttles in this game.  Once you get past the challenges of designing and flying them, they prove to be very useful, even with no cost benefit.  In my first 1.1 playthrough Ive done, I launched a satellite.  Unfortunately, I had crossfeed enabled on my docking ports, and all the fuel drained out of the sat.  No problem, I just redocked with it and pumped the shuttle's fuel into it.  I also always carry an engineer onboard in case of a solar panel breakage.  I've also been able to land my shuttle booster SpaceX style, making it have the same cost savings as an SSTO.  Anyone want to debate the downsides of a space shuttle?

Wait Engineer can repair solar panels ?? Since when ?

[Christian Michael]

I feel like shuttles as a whole are per unit more costly than rockets. Also more complicated, depending on if you have the one tank or multiple tanks. The upside is the experience of gliding it back, and also returning the boosters and/or tank(s), if that's your style. Also the lower stage count, as in separate parts staged, unless of course you have one main stage and then an orbital insertion stage. As a whole, both types of craft can be very flexible in design when it comes to KSP. For instance, recently I tried making a massive fuel shuttle design, where it had a main tank, and then some small tanks for fuel for orbital insertion. This was then mounted under basically a frame with wings, which would carry it aloft to  a good 10km. This is a very complicated but rewarding craft design, in terms of recovering the parts. I have not gotten it to work yet, but I'm working on it. Also, an upside to shuttles is that if you want to bring something back down to Kerbin to a specific landing site, you can, granted that you have Kerbinside or good landing system. 

One final downside of shuttles and spaceplanes is the lack of heat shielding parts compatible with the space plane line of parts. There's only heat shields, which don't look nice on wings. So they have to be a lot more micromanaged than rockets with heat shields. That's why I'm now planning on making a line of parts that can act as heat shields, only no ablative, carbon-ceramic heat tiles, for each fuselage type. The MK3 set would creat a flat bottom. Not sure about the other designs, just had the idea for it. It would be the first time I made any parts and tried to implement them, so it may take a bit.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

47 minutes ago, DrMarlboro said:

. Well.... except maybe trying to lift 100 tons with ion engines.

challenge accepted! 

/not really