How to make a space shuttle

[hebdomad]

I\'ve been trying to make a space shuttle but I can never get the thing into orbit.

Tests on the ground and lower atmosphere go fine but as soon as I strap a large rocket to it, things just go horribly wrong.

Is there anything I\'m forgetting to do here?

*edit*

This is the only shuttle I can get into orbit (landed it once). Anything else just wants to tear itself apart.

The ship attached is still highly experimental... so expect explosions...

The issue lies in not being able to temporally disable control surfaces.

[BillWiskins]

I tried to do this last night.

It\'s probably unbalanced by the enormous rocket...with stock parts at least, I found it very difficult to accurately copy the design. A major issue for me was that, launching vertically, it was very difficult to balance the thrust (thrust from the shuttle versus thrust from the enormous rockets) to stay pointed skywards. It can be done, but getting it into orbit is a whole different bottle of cats.

That\'s my guess. Post a few images or the .craft file and someone clevererer than me will be along shortly to tell you what\'s wrong.

[hebdomad]

After some testing it seems the control surfaces on the shuttle are messing with the rocket.

I wished I could turn them off until I needed them because that would save a lot of hassle here.

So it\'s either I have a flyable shuttle on a rocket that will want to flip out, or a flyable rocket with a shuttle I can\'t fly.

Also, I also wished that KSP had dedicated aileron, rudder, elevator, and flap control surfaces. This would make control surfaces clear and not conflict with each other. Because of this I don\'t put ailerons on my aircraft because the mess with my elevators.

No wonder I\'ve been struggling and cursing the physics. :\'(

[RealityVeil]

Gentlemen!

Let me stop you right there. I learned a painful lesson my first few days as a kerbonaut. Attempting to copy an existing real world design is a fools errand. Instead, think outside the box, and don\'t be afraid to say 'SCREW IT MOAR BOOSTERS!' As I have done many times in the past.

For example, instead of the spaceplane-over-rocket design of the space shuttle, why not build something more like an SR-71 and strap four liquid boosters to the main fuselage in an X shaped configuration. Is it realistic? Certainly not. Is it Kerbal? Absolutely. Will it be successful? That\'s the fun! Go find out.

[hebdomad]

I\'m not trying to make THE space shuttle. > That\'s not my style anyway, plus the SRB in KSP don\'t burn long enough anyway...

My issue is putting a space plane into orbit using a rocket and launching verticality.

I have one design that kinda works. It still attempts to destroy itself at every possible moment though... even if Jeb is not flying.

[RedDwarfIV]

You\'re absolutely right, it is difficult to get a shuttle into space. Its control surfaces will mess with you, and this can seriously upset it. However, using gimballing engines, and putting the orbiter stages at level with the shuttle will make a lot of difference. The biggest problem you are having is that all your engines are in the centre, and far below the shuttle - this gives the shuttle a very high centre of gravity, resulting in tipping over. You need to bring the centre of gravity to, well, the centre of the ship, and then you need to make the ship as short and wide as possible. Imagine the difference between trying to balance a stick on a stick, and trying to balance a frisbee on a stick. Clearly, the frisbee will be easier - because it is short and wide.

I can also recommend removing the ASAS, and adding normal SAS to each of the orbiter stage collumns. If you don\'t want the orbiter fins moving, then don\'t have ASAS. Normal SAS should compensate. This does mean you can\'t use gimballing engines, but gimballing engines are less powerful anyway.

[BillWiskins]

Yar, it is more the concept I was after as well, though I will not deny a certain desire for aesthetic similarity...

[hebdomad]

I don\'t think weight balance is the issue here but I\'ll give the regular SAS a go.

Also, I think I might have to do some recording and research so I can give some feed back to Squad on this issue.

It shouldn\'t be as hard as it is. KSP does not care about aerodynamics so you should be able to put any lumpy brick into orbit.

Rockets I can do. Aircraft are easy too. It\'s just putting that aircraft on top of that rocket that\'s all being too difficult.

So at this stage, trying to put a shuttle into orbit is like trying to wash a feral zombie cat by hand...

[deadshot462]

I think those two wing mounted engines may be your issue, they can easily tip your ship over and unbalance it quickly due to their torque on the whole system. Try removing those wing engines.

Also, here\'s an example of a working space shuttle, perhaps it could help you out: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=12540.0

I would say, remove the air breathing engines, and place your rockets to be side mounted rather than at the bottom of the shuttle.

[Waslop]

Well, I managed to get this

into a 76.5-79.5km high orbit with half a standard fuel tank left to go higher/ come back down with. It\'s got 6 gimballed engines drawing from 7 fuel tanks to get you up (hit t and it\'s dead steady all the way), then one non gimballed engine from two fuel tanks for getting your orbit and what not. I initially tried it with the little rocket engine on the second stage, but it couldn\'t achieve orbit before you fell back into the atmosphere. The lander is just a glider, no fuel or engine. I was shocked at how stable it was.

Let\'s not talk about my initial attempts at a side mounted lander... So many crashes...

[JanoFett]

I\'ve been frustrated by the same thing. I\'ve been trying to make a shuttle using the shuttle type stock parts - the ones with the heat shields - and it\'s been going horribly wrong. There are a number of things I\'ve learned by reading the forums and testing myself. I finally got a shuttle into orbit. It\'s a powered shuttle with a gimbaled engine connected to a tri-coupler and 9 fuel tanks. I used the 175 thrust gimbaled engines and also have a booster stage of 3 solid rockets.

Trying to do a shuttle that was connected side by side to the fuel tanks/engines was bad news.

Everything was going well just after launch, with RCS and SAS on, but then I\'d get a nasty oscillation from the control surfaces trying to counter a wobble. It eventually caused the ship to start spinning out of control. Once I added an advanced canard to the very front of the shuttle, that gave it enough of a control surface to stabilize the whole thing all the way up. I also removed the rudder and have 2 sets of RCS thrusters near the cockpit.

I haven\'t tried to land the ship yet, but at least I can get it into orbit with a full tank of shuttle fuel left.

[Endeavour]

The way I found was best was not to put the plane on top of the rocket, but built the rocket around the plane.

[CleavelandTheCav]

SOrry for the necro but what are the blasters on the bottom?

[Saaur]

Huh. Once I had a working plane, I didn\'t have any issues putting it on top of a rocket. My problem is I always come in at too steep an angle after orbiting and crash instead of land.

[trbinsc]

I had a really successful spaceplane on a rocket that had the same basic concept as yours, just bigger. Maybe looking at some pictures of it would help with your design?

http://imgur.com/a/EJBjm#0

http://imgur.com/a/Smfh6#0

0.15.1 broke the save file, so I\'m going to have to fix it if you need to see it.