Why should i use spaceplanes?

[Gooru]

What is the benefit of spaceplanes in KSP?

You feel great the first time you get it to work and thats it.

It takes much more time to reach LKO.

It has got very limited payload.

And for the mechjebbers - you can´t use MJ to launch.

So why would i use spaceplanes?

[SpaceplaneAddict]

More time, more skill

Limited payload? you can design spaceplanes AROUND the payload, just like a rocket.

And we have the advantage of landing back at KSC. Launching maunally is just part of the fun. Especially SSTO's

In Career mode, they're reusable, so they're cheaper too.

[Tex_NL]

Since when can't I use MechJeb to launch a plane? Who told you that nonsense?

Why would you use spaceplanes?

You're right about a relatively limited payload. However that is compensated with recoverability. SRB's and fuel tanks are cheap. The plane itself can be recovered on the runway for a full 100% refund making them very economical.

And I did say a relatively limited payload. My largest shuttle can lift about 90 tons. You can build a Mun capable craft that weighs less.

[G'th]

Downmass capability and high volume crew and tourist ferrying. Those are going to be the best and most realistic purposes for spaceplanes.

Beyond that, presuming you can design a versatile spaceplane (IE, one that you can load any payload that fits without having to otherwise change the design. Building a new plane or even adjusting a preexisting one is often too much effort imo) you can also have it work as a medium cargo vessel.

Its also just cool to have one attached to a spacestation.

[The_Rocketeer]

What is the benefit of spaceplanes in KSP?

They are all round the most efficient way to get to orbit.

You feel great the first time you get it to work and thats it.

First time and every time. Do rockets give you that feeling?

It takes much more time to reach LKO.

Yes, but it costs much less.

It has got very limited payload.

Not true. You might have design creatively, but any rocket payload can be got to space for less using spaceplanes.

And for the mechjebbers - you can´t use MJ to launch.

Well sidestepping the gaping pitfall of debating whether not being able to MechJeb is a good excuse for anything, actually yes you can.

So why would i use spaceplanes?

If you don't want to you don't have to, but the reasons I use spaceplanes are:

They're cheaper.

They're more fun to fly.

They look awesome.

They tend to be much more individual than rockets - all rockets do one thing, but SPs come in all shapes and sizes.

[Gooru]

But i can land any non-plane-craft on the runway (or at least KSC) too. So i can recover it with 100% too.

The landing process is also faster. Aim well, do the burn, wait till to pull the chutes, everything is fine!

For the first 5 runs it may be fun (annd cool) to start and land a SSTO, but then it is just very timeconsuming and i can´t play KSP for a living (unfortunately )

SSTOs may be economical but as soon as i use a launch-stage it´s really not that much of a difference.

[RainDreamer]

Because you want to. That is why you ask, right? Otherwise you would have already dropped the idea of making one.

I do it because I like the challenge, and because I am able to launch massive things with little fuel cost. Also, nothing works better for deploying things around kerbin, like Arctic radio stations for remote tech control, for example.

[Raptor9]

While I'm still not the best space-capable plane designer, I've designed many atmo-only aircraft that are fun to fly on my casual KSP time (I call it kerbalnaut flight training, lol). But the reason I build atmo-craft in career mode is to accomplish science & survey contracts on Kerbin. It's a technique to build some funds, science and rep without having to go into orbit. That way you can get a few more nodes available on the tech tree before going to the Mun or Minmus for example.

This Su-33 analogue for example is very fun to fly. It can takeoff and land in a short distance, can fly high and fast, and still rock solid stable in high-G flight.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Raptor9

[Jouni]

Not true. You might have design creatively, but any rocket payload can be got to space for less using spaceplanes.

In theory, yes. In practice, rockets can lift much larger payloads, regardless of player skill or the amount of design effort.

For example, a simple stock rocket that takes 10 minutes to build can lift ~450 tonnes to LKO. How long does it take to design a spaceplane to lift that much payload? And how large stock rocket one could build in that amount of time?

[Vectura]

Why do you play ksp? To have fun.

Why should you use spaceplanes? Some people find them fun (I personally find flying planes in KSP more fun than rockets... crazy, I know!)

[xebx]

Planes, hypersonicplanes and Spaceplanes are fun to play a little, but in my opinion very limited to Kerbin area and the game is about Rockets and SpaceShips. (btw a good aero model is good thing for the game)

In real world rockets (even if launched from plane) are the only way to send big payloads to LEO, so i play rockets 99% time.

[The_Rocketeer]

In theory, yes. In practice, rockets can lift much larger payloads, regardless of player skill or the amount of design effort.

For example, a simple stock rocket that takes 10 minutes to build can lift ~450 tonnes to LKO. How long does it take to design a spaceplane to lift that much payload? And how large stock rocket one could build in that amount of time?

Well, I guess it depends whether you get your fun from engineering to get results or from results now.

Also, I'd love to see your simple stock ~450t-payload 10-minute-build rocket. (seriously, if you've got one!)

[sal_vager]

Honestly, if you don't feel like making them don't make them, don't feel pressured to have a spaceplane just because others feel they have to, we're not "keeping up with the Joneses" here.

You can play KSP in your way, and if you'd rather fly rockets, fly rockets!

[Jouni]

Also, I'd love to see your simple stock ~450t-payload 10-minute-build rocket. (seriously, if you've got one!)

One central stack and six boosters, all of them using Mammoths. No fuel lines or other fancy stuff. As long as you use a few struts to attach the payload to the fairing base, wobble won't be a problem. The engines produce ridiculous amounts of torque, so there's no risk of the rocket flipping over.

[Xyphos]

What is the benefit of spaceplanes in KSP?

Re-usable vessels equals re-usable Kredits.

You feel great the first time you get it to work and thats it.

Nope, you just continue to build them as you see fit.

It takes much more time to reach LKO.

That Depends on how you build and fly them, actually.

I tend to build mine as small LF-ONLY vessels using RAPIERs and Nervas with a stand-still TWR between 0.8 and 1.2

as for piloting, I go immediately go supersonic on the runway and hypersonic over the surface of the water, below 100m. once I'm near 1050 m/s surface speed, I turn off SAS and adjust my trim to gently pitch up and provide enough drag to limit my acceleration. once I'm pitched at 45* under 5kM, my AP is near 35kM; half-way to orbit. at 20kM, my AP is near 70-80kM, I could coast to sub-orbit, but the RAPIERs start to wane and I'll need to kick the Nervas in, all the way to full orbit.

reaching LKO this way, only takes 2 or 3 minutes.

It has got very limited payload.

payload isn't limited, just add more engines and enough fuel to power them. I've gotten 300+ tonnes into LKO using spaceplanes.

And for the mechjebbers - you can´t use MJ to launch.

Yes you can. You can use SMART A.S.S. to pilot and Maneuver Planner to automatically circularize when you reach sub-orbit.

So why would i use spaceplanes?

Those "Ferry some Tourists to Orbit" contracts often yield EZ profits with re-usable space planes. for everything else, you're better off using a rocket.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Xyphos

[The_Rocketeer]

@Jouni - Impressive... but expensive.

Granted that wasn't part of your specification, but if a spaceplane can deliver equivalent payload (even if it takes several flights, which it needn't necessarily) for a fraction of the cost (in fuel alone), that by itself is another reason to use them.

[Just Jim]

Tourists.... that's what I use them for mostly, taking tourists into orbit, drop them off at a space station, and bringing others back home. Using an SSTO to shuttle tourists to and from orbit, then using other ships to transport them where ever they want to go, combined with an efficient mining and re-fueling operation for the space stations means almost completely free money! The only thing your paying for is the initial fuel to get the tourists into orbit, which is nothing compared to what they're willing to pay.

This is when the tourism becomes a gold-mine...

[Jouni]

Granted that wasn't part of your specification, but if a spaceplane can deliver equivalent payload (even if it takes several flights, which it needn't necessarily) for a fraction of the cost (in fuel alone), that by itself is another reason to use them.

That depends on whether you measure cost-effectiveness by profit/revenue or by profit/player time. You could also spend the time it takes to design the spaceplane to fly profitable missions.

[xebx]

I have a similar 450-500 tons payload lifter (7 mammoth + 14 S3 tank, simple aspargus, few kickbacks are added, 25% p.f.), it needs only 6 min to have payload in stable LKO, never fail and i recover 75% of the price. Funny beast.

[The_Rocketeer]

That depends on whether you measure cost-effectiveness by profit/revenue or by profit/player time. You could also spend the time it takes to design the spaceplane to fly profitable missions.

Well as I said above, it comes down to whether you're enjoying engineering for a reward, or simply getting rewarded. I don't mind spending hours engineering a complicated-but-cheap solution to a problem because I enjoy the engineering process and the sense of accomplishment. If, as I'm sure others do, I was just trying to progress the game in as short as space of time as possible, then rockets are definitely (though not always) a shortcut to that.

Then again, once a craft is designed, you don't need to design it again. Personally I find the rocket approach often tends towards bespoke crafts for each payload, but my spaceplanes are economical to use on a wide range of payloads.

[Gooru]

Honestly, if you don't feel like making them don't make them, don't feel pressured to have a spaceplane just because others feel they have to, we're not "keeping up with the Joneses" here.

You can play KSP in your way, and if you'd rather fly rockets, fly rockets!

I just feared i did miss something. i like to fly planes, even in KSP were there is not much sense about using them.

But i guess i´m just the type of guy who gets a little bit boared from looking at a Fireball-SSTO-Plane for 15 minutes till reaches orbit.

There are better things to do in KSP. (just my oppinion)

[The_Rocketeer]

I just feared i did miss something. i like to fly planes, even in KSP were there is not much sense about using them.

But i guess i´m just the type of guy who gets a little bit boared from looking at a Fireball-SSTO-Plane for 15 minutes till reaches orbit.

There are better things to do in KSP. (just my oppinion)

Well, in the sense that if you ignore any feature you miss it, I guess if you only fly rockets you do miss out on spaceplanes.

That being said, I miss out on all sorts of things. The great thing about games as broad-based as KSP is you can have a preferred play-style and still achieve comparable feats to anybody else with any other play-style. Planetary intercepts, docking and landing are all still epic achievements, even if you're totally cheating, e.g. with infinite fuel.

[xebx]

I would say if you fly spaceplanes you miss out rockets, you loose your time because spaceplanes don't exist in real world, you nearly cheating at the same time and stay at low performance. It's a game people do what they want and missing out something not important like spaceplanes is all good.

[Snark]

Pretty much what the previous posters said: The reason to fly spaceplanes is because you want to.

It's really just as simple as that. There's no "real" benefit to spaceplanes versus rockets: Both of them will get your stuff to orbit. You can argue that one or the other is "cheaper", but that's a specious comparison: the fact is, funds are easy to come by in KSP. When a contract is worth $200K or more, it doesn't really matter whether the craft that can complete it costs you $10K or $20K, especially if you can crank through several contracts an hour.

Rockets give a certain experience in playing KSP. Spaceplanes give a very different experience. Some people like one, some like the other, neither one is "right." Personally, I love rockets and can't stand spaceplanes, so I only fly rockets. I can't give you any rational reason for that, because there really isn't one-- it's just my own preference.

So all you need to do is to figure out what your preference is.

[panzer1b]

I would say if you fly spaceplanes you miss out rockets, you loose your time because spaceplanes don't exist in real world, you nearly cheating at the same time and stay at low performance. It's a game people do what they want and missing out something not important like spaceplanes is all good.

Im normally very positive and open to opinions, but these claims of "cheating" are really making me sick. This is a SINGLE PLAYER game, dont give me or anyone else this crap about making a spaceplane being cheating.

That aside, its (at least for me) a matter of what i feel like making. I tend to build alot of sci-fi styles craft, and i havent seen a single sci-fi movie in a while where anyone used conventional rockets to launch stuff into orbit or anywhere. I know this is an opinion, but i like spaceplanes as they feel cooler for me, and well, giant cylinder with a nose cone on top is not my idea of aesthetically pleasing. Again, im very opinionated and how i play isnt conventional, but hey, i do what i like to do, if im gonna waste time playing videogames i might as well do what i find fun and not what someone else considers "realistic" or whatever.

Anyways, aside from personal preference, rockets and spaceplanes each have their uses.

Rockets:

Easy to make

Get to destination faster and usually have much better TWR and shorter burns

Not as much of a need for efficiency due to staging

Can lift far heavier payloads for a given part count/complexity (ive yet to see a SSTO lift 2000 tons)

Spaceplanes:

Lower reuseability costs as most are either single stage or dump way less parts then rockets

Harder to make, more challenging to actually do anything (this can be advantage as well, some enjoy engineering challenges)

Most work within atmospheres and have advantages with the ability to maneuver effectively in an atmosphere

Can be more efficient then rockets with aerobraking due to wings

Overall, you cannot say one beats the other. There are reasons to use both craft, be it personal preference, or because one craft beats the other in a certain situation.