Any benefit to SSTOs/Shuttles outside a career game?

[jarmund]

Alright, so I'm considering starting my 1.0.5 save soon, and I'm currently revising the details of the save (Career? Science? Difficulty? Mods? Etc?). On thing is that I'm leaning towards science, as careers have a tendency of either having too much funds or resulting in a mission grind. The problem with this is that I really want spaceplanes to serve a purpose other than being cool. I've made many SSTOs, but I end up just sticking a huge launcher under the payload, as they're a lot less hassle getting into orbit.

So, my question is therefore twofold:
1. Do spaceplanes/SSTOs/Shuttles give any benefits other than reduced cost and increased cool?
2. Any mods that'd make spaceplanes useful in a science save? Edited November 23, 2015 by jarmund

[Mastikator]

1. No, funds is the reason.
2. No, if you have infinite funds then just build as big a rocket as your computer can handle.

[KerikBalm]

with mine, sometimes its a better way to get a payload to orbit/attach a payload in a stable position.

When the payload has a lot of drag/aero surfaces, or its too wobbly to sit vertically in a stack and only be strutted in one way, having the payload in a cargo bay/area where you can strut it from all directions can help

[luizopiloto]

I play sandbox, it's the best mode... I played career before, completed everything, it turned out to be a sandbox... so. whatever... I go directly to sandbox... :P

[Goomblah]

SSTOs are handy for Laythe exploration and cargo missions - you really don't want to have to send a new lifter all the way to Jool every time you want to move something around.

[Snark]

Also, SSTOs aren't really needed for funds, either.

Yes, you'll get a better cost savings per flight. However, in return for that, you have to spend a lot more of your time controlling them, both on the ascent and on the landing, than you would for a conventional rocket. And the cost effectiveness isn't [I][U]that[/U][/I] much better than a conventional rocket, compared with the financial rewards of contracts.

So what it boils down to is: with spaceplanes you'll make more money [I]per contract[/I], but with conventional rockets you'll make more money [I]per hour of your time[/I]. For me, the latter is much more important than the former. In the time it takes me to do one contract with a spaceplane, I could do two with rockets, and make more money that way in spite of the rocket costs.

And these days, the cost of the vehicle itself is not the major money sink. The real money sink is upgrading the buildings; rocket costs are chicken feed in comparison, and one good contract can pay for many launches.

Therefore, I would contend that "saving funds" is not a reason to go with SSTOs. The reason to go with SSTOs is the same that it always has been: because you like them.

So when you're deciding whether to go with SSTOs or conventional rockets, just ask yourself which you enjoy flying more, and go with that. :)

[Van Disaster]

Cost-effectiveness of reusable stuff comes with repeated use, although we already have the advantage of being able to recover parts of used supposedly disposable rockets ( if you parachute them, that is ). Spaceplane fuel savings tend to overtake reusable rockets after 8 or so launches I've found, assuming they're actual SSTO spaceplanes or some completely reusable multistage system. Any rockets I launch now are one-off specials, so I've no idea about spaceplane vs completely disposable rocket costs anymore.

In sandbox practically the only reason is you like spaceplanes more than rockets. The other reason would be it might be easier to land in the right place on an atmospheric planet. I don't usually pay much attention to spaceplane ascents, just takeoff, set and ignore until 10km, reset and ignore until 20km, reset until rocket time, keep an eye on the rocket ascent ( usually doesn't take long anyway ) and then usually just use MJ to circularize. Slightly more work than a completely automated rocket launch, but definitely less work than a manual rocket launch.

For stock scale KSP I'm pretty sure there's no situation at all where a STS-style system is a good idea given how easy it is to get horizontal takeoff spaceplanes up. IRL it wasn't a great idea either :P Edited November 22, 2015 by Van Disaster

[Tourist]

[quote name='Snark']Also, SSTOs aren't really needed for funds, either.

Yes, you'll get a better cost savings per flight. However, in return for that, you have to spend a lot more of your time controlling them, both on the ascent and on the landing, than you would for a conventional rocket. And the cost effectiveness isn't [I][U]that[/U][/I] much better than a conventional rocket, compared with the financial rewards of contracts.

So what it boils down to is: with spaceplanes you'll make more money [I]per contract[/I], but with conventional rockets you'll make more money [I]per hour of your time[/I]. For me, the latter is much more important than the former. In the time it takes me to do one contract with a spaceplane, I could do two with rockets, and make more money that way in spite of the rocket costs.

And these days, the cost of the vehicle itself is not the major money sink. The real money sink is upgrading the buildings; rocket costs are chicken feed in comparison, and one good contract can pay for many launches.

Therefore, I would contend that "saving funds" is not a reason to go with SSTOs. The reason to go with SSTOs is the same that it always has been: because you like them.

So when you're deciding whether to go with SSTOs or conventional rockets, just ask yourself which you enjoy flying more, and go with that. :)[/QUOTE]

Snarks nailed it.

Even in Career where it does have cost benefit, it is pretty negligible once you're past early game budget squeeze. I use spaceplanes for everything I can, and only launch rockets for big infrastructure... but honestly, I could launch everything on the biggest, most expensive rockets I have and would not face any budget issues for a long time, it at all.

But I like the engineering challenge of having to build everything from modules small enough to fit in a Mk3 cargo bay.

[Pecan]

Shuttles lack any KSP justification whatsoever, except possibly for "Look what I did wrong".

Spaceplanes are neither cool nor effective; just complicated, finicky beasts.
So being able to make them can be a bit cool. Once you've proved to yourself that you can make them, [I]wanting[/I] to make another one is just desperately trying to look cool for the sake of it - which isn't cool.
In career mode they are only worth it if you're desperate for money but can afford the initial investment; in which case you haven't understood the question. (There isn't one)

SSTO rockets are so easy to build, now that Kerbal Flight Simulator is nerfed for planes that there's really not much reason for staging.

[This post has been checked for "You're having fun the wrong way" and found to have lots.
THE justification for doing anything in KSP is that you want to. That's all you need to know.]

[Alshain]

[quote name='Snark']you have to spend a lot more of your time controlling them, both on the ascent and on the landing, [/QUOTE]

...and construction.


I do planes because they are fun, not because it furthers my career game more. I think that is going to end up being the general consensus.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Pretty flames. Moar cargo ability than rockets. And, since less boosters, less parts, better performance!

[Pecan]

[quote name='Alshain']...I do planes because they are fun, not because it furthers my career game more. I think that is going to end up being the general consensus.[/QUOTE]

Nods

[quote name='SpaceplaneAddict']Pretty flames. [s]Moar cargo ability than rockets. And, since less boosters, less parts, better performance![/s][/QUOTE]

FIFY
Rockets are SSTOs if you build them that way.
Which mean boosters are neither here nor there.
And 'pure' rockets will usually have fewer parts and better performance - excluding fuel consumption - than any air-breather because they don't have to drag along jets, intakes, wings and landing-gear.

[Van Disaster]

I much prefer flying spaceplanes, especially once I've built a bunch of useful ones. I'll build rockets for enormous bulk moving ( refilling an orbital dockyard ) but aside from that either I'll build it from HL/Mk3 cargo bays, or I'll EPL print it actually in space - which means designing all the fun parts without designing the boring get-it-to-space part. Far easier to launch a giant tube of goop & print your space starfish in orbit than launch your space starfish somehow.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

[quote name='Pecan']And 'pure' rockets will usually have fewer parts and better performance - excluding fuel consumption - than any air-breather because they don't have to drag along jets, intakes, wings and landing-gear.[/QUOTE]
Nop, SSTO's, spaceplanes really, have better payload fraction, you don't always need wings (body-lift), and, SSTO's honestly, are funner.

Un-related to this, you are under arrest for using the DresAwareness badge without doing the challenge! lol :) srsly tho

[Pecan]

[quote name='SpaceplaneAddict']...spaceplanes...[/QUOTE]

You're right - that is a completely unimportant subject, even if it is on-topic.

[quote name='SpaceplaneAddict']Un-related to this, you are under arrest for using the DresAwareness badge without doing the challenge! lol :) srsly tho[/QUOTE]

24 hours grace?
I have Dres Towers ('D' block - shown behind tug) waiting for a transfer window along with 10 (I think) beech-cabins, all so I can recreate the resort.

[url=http://imgur.com/EtC26Oo][img]http://i.imgur.com/EtC26Ool.png[/img][/url]

That's accommodation for 232 [s]suckers[/s] guests as well as the fleet of ancilliary vehicles and things (bar, pool, etc)
If the Ministry of Tourism had bothered to tell me (you know what I mean!) I could have provided the publicity material earlier.

We shall leave for the less enlightened the problem of launching and transferring such blocks, so they can stand tall and proud, enjoying unrivalled views of the glorious Dres landscape. Pretty easy (and cheap) really, using a rocket SSTO. The less-aerodynamic majority of the fleet all went up on the same, reusable, launch vehicles - including the tugs of that class, now I think of it. Oh how we laughed at the people in the SPH as they laboured over the holiday weekend to design some crate for just one payload, then had to start all over again for the next, and the next. We just launched. Edited November 23, 2015 by Pecan

[Temstar]

If cost is an issue, there are also rocket SSTOs (even air-breathing hybrid rocket SSTOs) that can take off, put payload into orbit then deorbit themselves for a precision landing back at KSC. Their payload fraction are around 10% so not nearly as good as spaceplane SSTO, but they are much easier to fly and design for than planes.

[Legendary Emu]

Basically the only advantage to an SSTO is because you don't drop anything. Personally I prefer multi-stage rockets because it looks cool when you launch/stage and SpaceplaneAddict doesn't like them.

[GoSlash27]

[quote name='jarmund']Alright, so I'm considering starting my 1.0.5 save soon, and I'm currently revising the details of the save (Career? Science? Difficulty? Mods? Etc?). On thing is that I'm leaning towards science, as careers have a tendency of either having too much funds or resulting in a mission grind. The problem with this is that I really want spaceplanes to serve a purpose other than being cool. I've made many SSTOs, but I end up just sticking a huge launcher under the payload, as they're a lot less hassle getting into orbit.

So, my question is therefore twofold:
1. Do spaceplanes/SSTOs/Shuttles give any benefits other than reduced cost and increased cool?
2. Any mods that'd make spaceplanes useful in a science save?[/QUOTE]

jarmund,
No, nothing is superior to anything else outside of career mode. If you have the tech and cost is no object, the only thing that matters is whether the payload makes it to orbit.
The only advantage I can think of for SSTO spaceplanes in that situation is that they have more abort options than vertical or multistage platforms. If something goes wrong during launch, you probably won't end up with a kerbal massacre.

Best,
-Slashy

[numerobis]

One key physics-based benefit of a spaceplane is that it's also a non-space plane, so you can more easily explore an atmospheric world. And you can fix a botched re-entry to land in the right place (the number of times I've screwed up and come in for a landing literally antipodal from where I intended...)

Planes don't need to be single-stage of course.

[jarmund]

[quote name='numerobis']One key physics-based benefit of a spaceplane is that it's also a non-space plane, so you can more easily explore an atmospheric world. And you can fix a botched re-entry to land in the right place (the number of times I've screwed up and come in for a landing literally antipodal from where I intended...)

Planes don't need to be single-stage of course.[/QUOTE]

I consider this to be an important aspect as well. The ability to ditch an MK2-based structure that somehow failed to get to orbit is priceless.
But as I suspected, in science mode I basically have no reason to use them for payload delivery to orbit other than the HSE aspect and cool factor.

Thanks for your inputs.