More Boosters

Took me too long to notice this! Penguin with 400 ISP sounds OP and if you don't want to change that I'd like to know how to do that myself. I believe it's a 3.75m engine, and a 3.75m vacuum engine would be nice to have (in fact I believe I mentioned lack of such an engine to make huge 5m boosters more meaningful earlier), but the Rhino already fills the slot as the 3.75m Skipper and Penguin would be well worth it with around 360-370 ISP alongside its 3.0 (vs 9.0 for Rhino) mass. It may need a lower profile still, but otherwise I'm okay with the engine. Also, what happened to that 5m SRB?

I meant reverting to the space center, the word didn't come to my mind then.

With perfect recovery you only have an entry cost for the SSTO, so cost per ton is hardly a concern as you only pay once.

Never, no one gets left behind. Forever, that is. Bill, Jeb and Bob have spent about a year on a low-inclination orbit near Moho awaiting a rescue mission that isn't coming for a while.

Would you consider making a plugin for the Rapier (and the Broadsword from your own Mk4 mod) to use LH2/LOX instead of LF/LOX during closed cycle alongside an increased ISP of 460 (or a bit less if you want to balance it with the regular cryogenics)? Open cycle would still use LF.

The title. I mean, sure, not time warping works too, but even then the current iteration feels rather overpowered and bland with how you need to do the same science thing over and over again and check periodically; it's also a massive clickfest. I'm not sure how I would fix it but right now it's not something I want to use. (So I don't use it, don't waste a post telling me to do that) How do you feel?

Was it the Polio Vaccine question?

But the point of this thread is to see how effective it would be if what made it non-competitive, the high maintenance costs, didn't exist. Now it's probably not competitive at stock KSP, but we still haven't heard details about RSS. Assuming RSS doesn't toy with the recovery system and you still get a full refund for a successful landing on the runway, it may be sensible there.

We need all the RAM for mods!

Well a user on the first page claimed that the only way to get a spaceplane to space is a shuttle-like assembly there.

You should take into consideration that it never got to mass production which tends to reduce costs.

It seems the main problem is the anemic recovery system, necessitating the use of mods. You (and KerikBalm) came up with the whole "honest to STS" thing,the thing was hardly efficient in real life and there's no way it can compete in a toy planet where SSTOs are possible without super future tech. The main idea always was recoverable payload fairing w/ engines launched vertically. As for people making an economical STS in stock KSP, it may not be possible, but I'm not sure about mod usage. Even then, I still haven't had the chance to fool around with designs myself.

I'd like your comment on the shuttle I posted as it seems to deliver 42t to a 200 x 200 orbit just fine, recovering all but the ET. Though I'm not sure that SSME stand in is a stock engine.

Amazing! I hope they fly as well as they look. Payloads seem a bit low so they must be pleasure craft!

Just saw this comment on youtube: How would this work out? Can you even put two vehicles into orbit at once? I mean the human factor would prevent it, no? Edit: Also found this: Sure it uses LFBs and not SRBs but it does the job.

First time I've seen you but you got a 10/10 from someone so apparently you're famous. 10/10 it is.

Does this play well with the Reset to Space Center function? Can I disable the chance that boosters may fail to recover (not the biggest fan of RNG) for Stage Recovery and can I disable the tech-takes-time feature? I'd see for myself but I don't have KSP access right now.

Well, I mentioned space shuttle to imply recoverable spacecraft launched vertically without airbreathing engines; I can see why shuttle replicas could fail but is the consensus that no matter how you design them, they'll be inferior to an actual disposable rocket in cost effectiveness? I mean, RCS and Engines are pretty expensive; a reason for me to not put RCS on a rocket most of the time. The engines themselves are quite expensive too, especially nuclear ones.

I'd like to live in the Citadel too but I'm not sure what makes that better than a planet considering there are resources to be used over at another planet or moon. Sounds like a later step than colonizing another planet really, assuming it wouldn't be at Earth orbit.

And if I'm walking backwards?

In that case, perhaps you could have high efficiency but still small engines mounted horizontally? Maybe you'll be allowed to keep your main engine without inclination then? Some sparks, perhaps?

I think it's worth considering that the real life space shuttle used cryogenic engines with greater efficiency so it may also be the engines in KSP not doing it justice. That, or STS-inspired designs need further work to be adapted properly to KSP. As soon as I get to play KSP I have a few ideas from mods like the cryogenic engines from the similarly named mod and a cluster of LANTERNs from Atomic Age. Maybe others would like to try in my place?

You mean in real life? Well, cool, but you should know that the differences between KSP spacecraft and real spacecraft are far greater than appearances would imply. Also most of your post is off-topic, but if you have a computer you probably have the opportunity to solve your own problems as with many people who have used the power of the internet (and computers) to place their lives in a more favourable situation. I wish you the best.

Technically you don't even need to incline your engines if you balance the center of thrust by adding liquid fuel boosters connected under the external tank. Once the external tank dries up, dump it and the balancing LFBs. Maybe that would work? Anyway I've seen some shuttles that lift oranges and more to orbit on Youtube. Once again I haven't had the chance to try this so take this for what its worth, but maybe your shuttle building isn't as refined as your SSTO building?

Hey, I've been thinking about the exact same thing but I haven't been able to test anything since I currently don't have my computer with me. I think the main problem here is the underpowered SRBs; I believe you can improve the situation by using the SRBs from the SpaceY parts pack. A few notes: - Rhino seems a bit overpowered for this case, it may have good ISP but it also has huge weight at 9 tonnes so you may want to try weaker, lighter LFO engines with stronger SRBs (you'll have to consult a mod or rightfully buff the Kickbacks for this) - You should try to recover the SRBs. - 3.75m tanks may be more sensible as two oranges have more drag, at least they look like they do. - You don't have to adhere strictly to the real life design, it wasn't very practical after all. You could for example try R.A.P.I.E.Rs (like 3-4 of them) at the orbiter's main body to make landing easier, or use a mod 3.75m version of it. But of course I never got the chance to try any of this and I am hardly an SSTO expert so take these for what they are worth. Well he is using a Rhino and he clearly kept the engine on the orbiter, so I'd say the ridiculous thrust that engine has for space standards (and this payload really, you're lifting how many tons to orbit now?) reduces your losses to stability allowing you to fix the center of thrust with a far smaller engine inclination.