Spaceplane vs capsule/ballistic pod

[lobe]

Some users here do say that the capsule, especially early game, is the superior option. However in my case, once I achieve level 3 tech level, spacplanes are the primary option. So, I bring this question: Do you continue to use capsules until you develop a horizontal-launch SSTO, or do you keep with the capsule/ballistic doctorine until the end of days?

[RizzoTheRat]

Capsules are simple and quick (real time), and now that crew can take data from science experiments there's no need to land the experiments so I stick with capsules.  I've just built my first SSTO plane since version 0.something and was surprised how much easier they seem to be now, however it still takes a lot longer in real time to launch them, especially as at over 200 parts that particular one was suffering a bit of lag.  Once it starts lagging the capsule makes even more sense as they whole launch is quicker anyway, and you lose parts as you ascend so the lag becomes less of a problem.

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by RizzoTheRat

[Evanitis]

I feel classic rockets are quick and easy, while SSTO planes are tricky but fun. In a hard career, the cost efficiency of planes in undeniable, but doesn't really matter on lower difficulties. But who cares, spaceplanes are a lifestyle. I had a horizontal launch only career once, and I had hell of a time.

These days I'm lazy to be that dedicated, but I still find that using a simple plane on top of a rocket as reentry-module is much fun, and probably not much less efficient than the standard heatshield + parachutes setup.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Evanitis

[Streetwind]

44 minutes ago, lobe said:

Some users here do say that the capsule, especially early game, is the superior option. However in my case, once I achieve level 3 tech level, spacplanes are the primary option. So, I bring this question: Do you continue to use capsules until you develop a horizontal-launch SSTO, or do you keep with the capsule/ballistic doctorine until the end of days?

I pretty much never fly spaceplanes, for multiple reasons.

First, they feel "wrong" to me. I am not someone who will insist on realism in everything - in fact, I've played RO only once, and found it didn't personally suit me. But even so, spaceplanes in KSP work absolutely nothing like realworld spaceplanes would. KSP's rockets are a fairly good approximation of RL launch vehicles - with some obvious (and justified) gamification, but the physics is there, and they feel believable and consistent with expectations. Spaceplanes on the other hand break that consistency, because they rely 100% on the way KSP's planets are scaled down while the jet engines are not scaled down at all. KSP's spaceplanes rely on engines that, if scaled back towards a real sized Earth, would have to be able to propel planes to Mach 16 in airbreathing flight. This is a gross breach of physics and internal consistency, and it makes me avoid planes.

The second reason is a much more immediately practical one... I am a fundamentally lazy person, and now that I have a fulltime job, my free time is precious. And god, spaceplanes just take forever. The building alone already takes longer for an identical payload, as does the ascent. But the real offender is returning the plane to KSC. Good grief, ain't nobody got time fo' dat! I can fly an entire Mun landing and return in the time that silly SSTO shuttle needs to tiptoe its way through the atmosphere while trying not to burn up, followed by the overland flight required after the deorbit burn was half a m/s off and made you miss KSC again. No sir, I'm not flying a plane when so much faster and more comfortable options exist.

As a result, I stick with capsules throughout all periods of gameplay.

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Streetwind

[Plusck]

Most definitely ballistic here.

Spaceplanes seem so pointless to me for what I want to do that I have hardly touched them. A true SSTO has so little dv left on reaching orbit that it can hardly go anywhere. If you start adding boosters and drop-tanks, you have an unwieldy mess that is hard to design, balance and fly, and which you might as well launch ballistically anyway.

Finally, once you're going interplanetary, there are very few places that can use wings so most of the time the spaceplane design just adds weight pointlessly. To make the spaceplane worthwhile, you need support structures in place that necessarily require a ballistic launch anyway.

[RizzoTheRat]

49 minutes ago, Evanitis said:

These days I'm lazy to be that dedicated, but I still find that using a simple plane on top of a rocket as reentry-module is much fun, and probably not much less efficient than the standard heatshield + parachutes setup.

Having just seen Fellow314's thread on his VTOHL designs I'm starting think that might be a nice way to go. 

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/130553-to-orbit/

 

[Evanitis]

16 minutes ago, Plusck said:

A true SSTO has so little dv left on reaching orbit that it can hardly go anywhere. (...) once you're going interplanetary, there are very few places that can use wings

Well, a 'true' SSTO can jettison anything once on orbit. Though indeed we spaceplane people don't really like to do that. I blame the K-prize challenge that disallows it. Though after some practice, having a full interplanetary rocket as payload isn't 'much' harder either than going to orbit. Not to mention the option of assembling one on orbit carried up there by our favorite lifting method in multiple passes.

But I'm just nitpicking, I generally agree with everything you wrote. For me using spaceplanes is just a way to increase difficulty and the enjoyment, mostly the same way as people who refuse to revert or quickload. It's definitely not a time-efficient method.

.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Evanitis

[Plusck]

18 minutes ago, Evanitis said:

Well, a 'true' SSTO can jettison anything once on orbit. [...]

Such wilful disregard for the Clean Space Act! Pray tell me, is this also the point where you chuck the empty bottles and tip the ashtrays out of the hatch?

1 hour ago, Evanitis said:

These days I'm lazy to be that dedicated, but I still find that using a simple plane on top of a rocket as reentry-module is much fun, and probably not much less efficient than the standard heatshield + parachutes setup.

I'm sure I'll work my way around to that sort of thing eventually, because there are lots of things that can be done more elegantly with a light plane (imho) once you have the infrastructure for it. Time forbids that at the moment. Maybe I'll get there by the time 1.1 comes along...

Edited February 2, 2016 by Plusck

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

1 hour ago, lobe said:

Some users here do say that the capsule, especially early game, is the superior option. However in my case, once I achieve level 3 tech level, spacplanes are the primary option. So, I bring this question: Do you continue to use capsules until you develop a horizontal-launch SSTO, or do you keep with the capsule/ballistic doctorine until the end of days?

Did you say a Tech Tier 3 spaceplane? (isn't that the simple jet?)

I'm at Tech Tier 5  "super sonic" (they've invented delta wings and afterburners),Jet intakes conk out above Mach 2, but with t he help SRBs, I just baaarrrleey make orbit.

I'd love to see what a tech Tier 3 spaceplane looks like.

 

[Corw]

Personally I prefer spaceplane on top of a booster. For me it is a best mix, easy build compared to shuttle, controlled reentry and landing at KSC with fast time to orbit.

[Streetwind]

35 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

I'd love to see what a tech Tier 3 spaceplane looks like.

It'll essentially be a rocket with wings and wheels. The quasi-"air launch" helps increase the payload above that of a traditional SSTO rocket (which are very possible in KSP), but my gut feeling says that the added wings, wheels and jet engines gobble it all up again. Likely it in fact makes the payload capability worse. But you have the potential for returning the full craft from orbit, so if that's what you're after...

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by Streetwind

[Val]

5 hours ago, Plusck said:

A true SSTO has so little dv left on reaching orbit that it can hardly go anywhere.

A true SSTO is only meant to go to orbit, drop its payload, and go back to the surface. A true SSTO is nothing but a reusable booster, be it spaceplane or not. And I'm pretty sure that's what @Evanitis meant with "jettison anything once on orbit". It's the payloads job to go somewhere, not the SSTO's.

Otherwise we're talking more than an SSTO, Single Stage Beyond Orbit, which is indeed much less useful/efficient and harder to pull off.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

Personally, after you've built a few hundred rockets you kinda learn they're all the same. What works, works. What doesn't goes boom pretty quick.

Spaceplanes are more difficult to build and fly. Especially if you want them to do anything once they reach orbit. But they're also more challenging and offer a wide range of aesthetic and practical design options. And even once you get a design that works, getting it to orbit takes some skill (a lot of skill depending on the craft). Whereas a well designed rocket will practically fly itself.

 

 

Really I think it comes down to if you have "the bug" or not. If you don't you'll never understand why people waste so much time on these things. But if you do have the spaceplane bug, rockets will never satisfy.

Edited February 2, 2016 by WhiteKnuckle

[Evanitis]

24 minutes ago, Val said:

And I'm pretty sure that's what @Evanitis meant with "jettison anything once on orbit". It's the payloads job to go somewhere, not the SSTO's.

I merely wanted to point to the semantic differences of various players when they write or read 'SSTO'. One always has to read along the lines if they meant a spaceplane or a rocket, as these four letter only indicate a craft that doesn't do staging before it's PE < 70km. But you are right, there are more distinctions besides if the vessel has wings or not.

I always tried to pay attention on clarifying which of the two big options I meant when posting. It haven't occurred to me that the different interpretations doesn't stop there. It indeed matters if I just used the craft in question to lift a payload, or if I refueled it to deal with the extra weight and use it for prolonged missions, or if I jettison all the useless parts do do the same, not to mention the technological and astronavigational marvels that go to like Laythe and back without ever staging or refueling anything.

I feel we'd need a lot more abbreviations to label all the options that can happen after reaching orbit. It's better to just call everything an SSTO and figure out the rest from the context.

[Val]

28 minutes ago, WhiteKnuckle said:

Personally, after you've built a few hundred rockets spaceplanes you kinda learn they're all the same. What works, works. What doesn't goes boom pretty quick.

Spaceplanes Rockets are more difficult to build and fly. Especially if you want them to do anything once they reach orbit. And even once you get a design that works, getting it to orbit takes some skill (a lot of skill depending on the craft). Whereas a well designed rocket spaceplane will practically fly itself.

Fixed it, so it fits me.

 

31 minutes ago, WhiteKnuckle said:

Really I think it comes down to if you have "the bug" or not. If you don't you'll never understand why people waste so much time on these things. But if you do have the spaceplane bug, rockets will never satisfy.

I agree. Though, there also people who like both.

[WhiteKnuckle]

8 minutes ago, Val said:

I agree. Though, there also people who like both.

Don't get me wrong, I still use rockets all the time. I have great respect for their abilities, I just don't love them.

[Guest]

I gave up on planes a long time ago when I came to the realisation I fly an aircraft about as well as an octopus can rollerskate. I'm perfectly happy building rockets.

[Edax]

Capsules...aren't heroic.  Coming back from the another planet in a tiny pod that landed in a puddle or wasteland underscores the awesomeness of the achievement.  Coming back, in your fully intact spaceplane, on the runway, doing your Right Stuff slow mo walk is just so much more epic.  Sure maybe you had to send up a fuel tank in a rocket to refuel it on it's journey, but unmanned fuel tanks are hardly worth mentioning in the grand scheme of space exploration.

[lobe]

I should have worded my question better. Spaceplanes, the way I meant it, is literally just that: a plane that goes into space. Think of Dream Chaser or Klipper rather than Skylon. I find capsules/near-ballistic re-entrys, especially in 1.0.5 and the re-worked parachutes, to be very rushed. A drogue chute is necessary to have a calm landing, or even a safe one if you end up near high terrain. Even then, it still takes about 200 meters to get to a safe speed. Spaceplanes provide control all the way down and, just like in real life, have a calmer re-entry profile. Landings can be a little hairy but in general I find it is a lot better than relying on hitting the chutes at the right time.

[lobe]

9 hours ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

I'd love to see what a tech Tier 3 spaceplane looks like.

 

I lied a little, I has some Tier-4 parts on it.

 

 

[Temstar]

11 hours ago, Plusck said:

A true SSTO has so little dv left on reaching orbit that it can hardly go anywhere.

What, that's not true. Here for example is my true SSTO tanker that I use to refuel LKO:

If I burnt that fuel instead that would be a lot of delta-V.

Here's a cargo carrying variant, releasing two full ore tanks:

I'm more of a rocket person but for these sort of mundane surface to orbit jobs I use my SSTOs to save cost. But then again I play on hard mode so maybe I'm just a masochists.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Temstar

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, lobe said:

I lied a little, I has some Tier-4 parts on it.

Ah, so it's suborbital. Pretty good idea actually.

But how does it take off? The Terrier's thrust is absolutely anemic at sea level. Do you stick on on top of a BACC?

[Laie]

Streetwind pretty much covered all points already, but anyway:

Reusable infrastructure is nice and fine, but once in place, I find that I'm seldom in the mood to, you know, reuse it. Capsules are just so convenient. Just set a sufficiently low PE, wait five minutes, and your crew is home. More often than not this even works when coming back from interplanetary.

[JamesL86]

I have tried my fair share of spaceplane stuff but I really do prefer the simplicity of capsules.  I have recently been brainstorming a series of standardized capsule-based designs to be used for various purposes. These range from LKO crew lift/return for station transfer to orbital ships, to Mun/Minmus direct missions and beyond.  The capsule costs mere pennies to build and launch and while it may be slightly more costly in the long term, if I do lose a ship then at least the equipment is way less expensive.  There is also the added benefit of capsules being (in my opinion) easier to create emergency escape systems for.  I have been playing around with vertical launch/horizontal landing systems as well, but the cost has been 2-3 times higher for a vehicle of this type with the same mission parameters as the capsule designs. 

[Temstar]

13 hours ago, Plusck said:

If you start adding boosters and drop-tanks, you have an unwieldy mess that is hard to design, balance and fly, and which you might as well launch ballistically anyway.

I want to say something about this. There's nothing stopping you building a craft that launches vertically like a rocket, then recover horizontally like a spaceplane. Launching vertically has the advantage that you no longer have to worry about things like tail strike and rotation speed and runway not long enough and so on.