Why should i use spaceplanes?

[Korizan]

What is the benefit of spaceplanes in KSP?

Well I use them the get Kerbals up and down from the local station.

It really is the cheapest option for moving Kerbals and the least amount of hassle.

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

It takes much more time to reach LKO.

Yes it takes a little more time, but just like a rocket each one has a different flight profile for the best fuel efficiency and tweaking it is part of the fun.

Let alone landing back on the runway is just as much fun.

It has got very limited payload.

As stated above I use them to move Kerbals.

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

Sure you can I use it all the time.

How you use it is just different from launching a rocket.

So why would i use spaceplanes?

See above.

Although I would state that if you don't have a joystick I wouldn't bother.

I am sure there are players that don't use a joystick and are perfectly happy.

For me I just find it is too awkward to fly without the joystick.

[Korizan]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

For instance it really doesn't get any easier then the above SSTO

Mechjeb is not required. (however you can use it to make things even easier following the same flight plan as below)

Takeoff to orbit is as follows.

Engage SAS

Full Throttle (it will auto take off no action required)

Pull up to 10 Degrees pitch hold till 500 m/s

Pull up to 20 Degrees and let it go.

It will kick in the rockets around 30km do nothing.

When your AP is at 80 Km shut off the engines and from there you are done other then your orbital burn.

Piece of cake and it makes getting Kerbals into orbit rather trivial.

Now that I think about it.

A lot easier then getting a rocket into orbit.

Notes - The elevators that go under the engines are disabled.

The small elevators are pitch and roll and the large one is just pitch.

Tail fin of course is yaw only

And the airbrakes are disabled for control surfaces as well.

PS - This one is as fast if not faster getting into orbit then a standard rocket.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Korizan

[Jouni]

The only valid answer for 'why' you take any particular route in KSP is 'because you want to'. In 0.90, I had a nuclear-free career. Why? Because I wanted to

It's a technically valid but rather pointless answer. The original question already implies "why would I want to". More useful answers could describe what sort of new gameplay the choice exposes you to, or whether there are game mechanical consequences to that choice.

[jmp470]

One thing I notice with my space plane is I pitch for 10 degrees and it does the rest. It will auto-pitch up and over ride the SAS at Mach 2 ish. Then when it starts slowing down, AP is already in the 50's, I engage big engine. Stay like that and in less than 5 minutes I'm in orbit. Pretty easy! I'm going through some design changes, as I need a Mun lander now

[eddiew]

...I am sure there are players that don't use a joystick and are perfectly happy...

Never even occurred to me to plug a joystick into KSP... most of my spaceplane manouevres are better served with a light tap on the controls than a continuous pull in a direction for a long time. Of course if you're into military mods and need to be making tight and acrobatic turns, then an analogue control input would probably be a good idea

- - - Updated - - -

It's a technically valid but rather pointless answer. The original question already implies "why would I want to". More useful answers could describe what sort of new gameplay the choice exposes you to, or whether there are game mechanical consequences to that choice.

Touché Although it sounds like the OP has already decided he shouldn't, since he's emphasising time to LKO as a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

One thing I notice with my space plane is I pitch for 10 degrees and it does the rest. It will auto-pitch up and over ride the SAS at Mach 2 ish. Then when it starts slowing down, AP is already in the 50's, I engage big engine. Stay like that and in less than 5 minutes I'm in orbit. Pretty easy! I'm going through some design changes, as I need a Mun lander now

Sounds like a very high AP on-air... probably get better range by keeping a shallower ascent profile and bringing your PE up as high as you can while hanging around 18-20km altitude

[Starwaster]

I thought I'd share my OPT spaceplane with you: The Starseeker OPT (2nd one is a 4 engine variant with winglets)

Through Real Fuels & my own personal MM magic, it uses Kerosene, Methane or Hydrogen

Also, what looks like intakes on the front are actually forward facing thrusters for added braking power. Even the heaver versions can land at the desert temple and stop in a very short distance. (didn't that temple used to be on flat open desert...? So confused right now)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Enceos]

I thought I'd share my OPT spaceplane with you: The Starseeker OPT (2nd one is a 4 engine variant with winglets)

Through Real Fuels & my own personal MM magic, it uses Kerosene, Methane or Hydrogen

Also, what looks like intakes on the front are actually forward facing thrusters for added braking power. Even the heaver versions can land at the desert temple and stop in a very short distance. (didn't that temple used to be on flat open desert...? So confused right now)

http://imgur.com/a/HFIZs

Glorious beauty! Please take me to space with you!

[TheRag]

Alright, so space-planes, I don't view them as good cargo carriers because they become to exceedingly complex to get a viable payload to orbit. They good crew transports however, and once you go interplanetary...well with a SSTO you become famous, and I leave at that. Vertical rockets by their nature can lift more into orbit because they don't deal with the atmossphere as long and can lift more making them the perfect vehicle to use, and is why we still use them today. To counter the cheapness of SSTOs, you can just SpaceX your rocket and land the stages back on Kerbin, sure it costs fuel but the savings would be worth it and it is optional.

However verticle rockets make for terrible crew transports, capsules are heavy, a LES is required, much more avionics and RCS is required to keep the transport on track and on target.

So to put it, SSTO are the race cars of rockets, sure you have a super fast truck, but the vertical rockets are the cargo ships and bulldozers of the orbital construction yards.

[Enceos]

Still love using SSTOs for crew rotations and maintenance missions, rockets for heavy payload lifting.

It's feels much cooler to approach a satellite on a Shuttle or SSTO to perform maintenance than on a pod with engine.

[GoSlash27]

SSTO are the race cars of rockets, sure you have a super fast truck, but the vertical rockets are the cargo ships and bulldozers of the orbital construction yards.

I think of SSTO spaceplanes as being "delivery vans" or the old WWII "deuce- and- a- half". Perfect for shuttling personnel or delivering supplies, but not a good hauler for outsized/ bulky cargo or long distances.

That's how I use them...

If it's a mission that I have to run routinely and it involves moving between KSC and LKO with something that transfers through a docking port, then I have a spaceplane to do that job because it does it cheaply, reliably, and safely.

If, OTOH, I have a mission that I rarely need to do involving a large mass or odd shape, then I use a vertical lifter for that job because it's not worth the effort or initial expense to design a spaceplane. Less economical, but quicker and easier.

As always, your mileage may vary and there's no wrong way to approach the problem.

Best,

-Slashy

[Nothalogh]

there's no wrong way to approach the problem

Sure there is, not enough dv