Rocket vs Spaceplane poll

[Temstar]

If you haven't noticed, we get far more questions on the forum from people asking about spaceplane aerodynamic problems than people asking about rocket aerodynamic problems. Now of course, part of that is to do with the fact that spaceplanes on the whole is much more complex than rocket, but given that for a long time now Squad has been focusing on spaceplane parts lead me to think perhaps spaceplane is actually in fact more popular among the target audience, and that's what this poll is intended to find out.

Keep your whining about "Squad is not paying enough attention to rockets!" to a minimum in this thread - Squad only has so much manpower, and they've already promised that rocketry is going to get a look at after 1.1.

[Snowstorm]

Looks like 100% of the voters voted for rocket.  Disregard the fact that I am the only one who has voted thus far.

[nosirrbro]

Rockets are easier but spaceplanes are more fun!

[Captain Sierra]

8 minutes ago, nosirrbro said:

Rockets are easier but spaceplanes are more fun!

^^^ This.

Rockets represent the primary lift capacity of my space program, but SSTO spaceplanes are far more fun vehicles to fly. I use them mainly just for crew transfer to LKO.

[swjr-swis]

Rockets to go to space, planes to stay atmospheric (*), rovers for surface, boats/subs for sea... there's a pattern in there somewhere.

Crew transfers between surface and local orbits are pretty much the only exception. Other than that, my payloads into space are often heavy and bulky and unfit for cargo bays, which quickly rules out spaceplanes as a viable launch method.

The other reason: why send it up in multiple cargo-bay-sized pieces and repeatedly do the rendevouz-and-assemble dance in space, if I can send it up in a fraction of the time in one huge fiery blaze of liquid testosterone, and be starting the transfer burn before the spaceplane would've even made it back to KSC to refuel and pick up the second piece?

(*: 'plane' in my case has a very loose definition. Sometimes they may actually look more like a rocket. Or something out of a movie. Or ... an open-wing Model F308 concert grand piano. I mean, just saying, my atmospheric crafts don't necessarily have traditional looks. )

[Xavven]

What? I thought KSP stood for Kerbal Srocket Program!

[steve_v]

Spaceplanes for crew rotation, small satellites and those low-margin contracts where 100% recovery on the runway makes them worthwhile.

Rockets are reserved for bulky / heavy things that don't fit in my spaceplanes.

I've been playing this long enough that rockets are somewhat... easy now. Spaceplanes are more of a challenge == more fun.

[razark]

If the difference is between rockets and spaceplanes, I have to ask how the planes get to space in the first place. 

 

Well, I suppose they could just go ballistic on some really meaty jets, but then there's the problem of getting them stay in space.

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

59 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

if I can send it up in a fraction of the time in one huge fiery blaze of liquid testosterone,

This may be the best thing I've heard all day 

I prefer rockets since I'm terrible with planes and don't really want to learn because I'm the worst. But rockets... I understand those.

Okay, that's not true. I don't understand rockets either. I'm just really lucky.

[Temstar]

1 hour ago, razark said:

If the difference is between rockets and spaceplanes, I have to ask how the planes get to space in the first place. 

Nothing says spaceplane can't have rocket engines, or jet engine, or both, or combined cycle etc etc, hence why I said spaceplane and not say, jet plane.

Similarly rockets can have both rocket engines and jet engines. I'll argue the main thing that separates spaceplanes from rockets is not the engine but weather or not they make use of aerodynamic lift. The space shuttle stack at lift off for example I would define as a rocket, where as when the orbiter returns to Earth that would be a splaceplane.

I know there's a grey area in the middle, that's why I made the "hybrid" choice for those who's not sure if their preferred launch vehicle can neatly fit into either group. If you preferred launch vehicle is something like the space shuttle I would say you should choose hybrid.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Temstar

[HebaruSan]

Spaceplanes for sci-fi, when I want to envision a future where you can get to and from space on a whim, without months of planning and tens of millions of dollars appropriated by Congress.

Rockets for sci-fact, when I want to do something that might have been done for real in the 60s or today.

Both are fun in their own way, depending on mood.

[Raptor9]

In my KSP install, it depends heavily on the mission or task.  I have anywhere from light- to heavy-lifting rockets, small to large spaceplanes, some spaceplanes that take off from a runway, some spaceplanes that launch vertically like the Shuttle or Dyno-Soar.  Each one has their strengths and weaknesses, and certain missions that they're optimized for.  I don't have any craft that's a jack-of-all-trades.

[BloodDusk]

Well, most of my cargo planes can reach a 80 Km apoapsis without much struggle and with payload, so I'm starting to consider Pegasus profile missions.

But yes. KSP. Kerbal Spaceplane Program.

Edited February 4, 2016 by BloodDusk

[lobe]

I would have to say hybrid, mostly for ease. If I want bulk trasport of crew, I use spaceplanes (by this I mean a plane that has gone to space, whether as payload on a booster or SSTO). If Squad ever makes a 6-person command pod, or an extension to fit on the rear-end of the Mk 1-2 capsule, I might stick with capsules longer. No way am I going to trust a chain of Hitchhiker containers to re-enter with 8 tourists, it feels wrong. I also feel that the parachutes take way to long to slow down for my taste, and like the control on descent/ascent. For payloads under 20 tons I would use a launcher before using an SSTO if I have do not have the Rapiers unlocked. Anything over I use launchers because I have already spent the better part of 12 hours designing the payload, I just want to get to space with ease, and 20 tons seems to be the SSTO/spaceplane limit for myself.

[regex]

Rockets, all the way.  Spaceplanes are a pipe dream and shuttle-style orbiters are dead weight.

[Delfinus]

I voted Hybrid, because SPACE SHUTTLE!

[kotomikun]

I've so far only used spaceplanes for low-Kerbin-orbit chores; more than that gets hard to engineer (especially with the nerfed nuclear engine in my game), tedious, and (ironically) feels like physics abuse, since SSTOs are currently impossible in reality.

Rockets are just so much faster, and can carry so much more weight, and Kerbal Engineer doesn't glitch the hell out with rockets the way it keeps doing with my spaceplanes. (NaN d/v...)

[Evanitis]

Rockets are quick and easy to design and fly. Using them is practical, realistic and time efficient. They might have higher cost, but it only matters in just one game-mode's harder settings (where it takes -much- grind before one can make a proper cargo SSTO plane), otherwise the profit overshadows that costs most of the time.

Spaceplanes are hard to build, and much harder to perfect. It takes practice to reach orbit, and much practice to take a noteworthy amount of cargo. It's silly to use them farther than LKO because of the dead-weight. Using them to assemble rockets on orbit is tedious, and has no other benefit than some cost efficiency - not to mention that you end up with a rocket at this point anyways. Ahh, almost forgot - SSTO-planes are unrealistic, and can only exist in Kerbin with our sci-fi jet engines.

So it's not even a real question. Spaceplanes all the way.

(we got 6 votes already? Thought there's only 5 of us..)

Edited February 4, 2016 by Evanitis

[Bloody_looser]

Everything that can be done by a spaceplane, can be done by a rocket. Anything else that can't be done by a spaceplane, can also be done by a rocket.

So, it's disposable rockets all the way, screw reusable. Pollution is evolution.

 

P.S. Spaceplanes are only for show-off like 'look Ma, no hands spaceplane'

[nobodyhasthis2]

Rockets win hands down in science point economics. Unless you modify the tech tree and throw in say GAP contracts. Spaceplanes are not worth the science point investment. A science point in rockets is always better.

That of course does not make spaceplanes any less fun. They are just one of first things to go in a budget cut.

Edited February 4, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[steve_v]

9 minutes ago, Bloody_looser said:

P.S. Spaceplanes are only for show-off like 'look Ma, no hands spaceplane'

Troll-bait much? I fly spaceplanes whenever it's feasible to do so - for fun. I've never "shown off" a single design.

Sure, everything you can do with a spaceplane you can do with a conventional rocket... but flying rockets is boring.

A typical rocket+pod crew transfer goes like: launch, turn a bit, stage a few times, wait. Retroburn, decouple pod, wait, parachutes, wait.

IMO this just can't compare to the satisfaction of hand-flying a spaceplane to orbit, pulling hairy manoeuvres in upper atmo to avoid exploding on re-entry, then nailing a perfect landing back on the runway.
No hardware sacrificed, no space-junk created, much feeling of accomplishment.

This game gives you an alternate solar-system where SSTO spaceplanes are actually possible, why not enjoy it?
I haven't even unlocked rapiers in my current career save, and my space program is already ~70% spaceplane powered.

[Hannu2]

55 minutes ago, steve_v said:

IMO this just can't compare to the satisfaction of hand-flying a spaceplane to orbit, pulling hairy manoeuvres in upper atmo to avoid exploding on re-entry, then nailing a perfect landing back on the runway.

No hardware sacrificed, no space-junk created, much feeling of accomplishment.

This game gives you an alternate solar-system where SSTO spaceplanes are actually possible, why not enjoy it?

I do not say against your style of play. I only explain other point of view. For me the fun thing why I play is engineering. There is planning, building and micromanaging dozens of technical details. I do not want to be a pilot or actually execute everyday functions of kerbals. I get my satisfaction when crew returns from well planned long mission to planet with loads of science points and all objectives executed. My planning and managing have succeeded. Piloting is MechJeb's work and I have also mods to transfer science without annoying EVAs. My modset gives technical information, math and micromanagement tasks.

[Bloody_looser]

1 hour ago, steve_v said:

IMO this just can't compare to the satisfaction of hand-flying a spaceplane to orbit, pulling hairy manoeuvres in upper atmo to avoid exploding on re-entry, then nailing a perfect landing back on the runway.
No hardware sacrificed, no space-junk created, much feeling of accomplishment.

This game gives you an alternate solar-system where SSTO spaceplanes are actually possible, why not enjoy it?
I haven't even unlocked rapiers in my current career save, and my space program is already ~70% spaceplane powered.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, since you're already showing-off.

 

Yep, spaceplanes are totally possible in KSP. But disposable rockets beat them in any way. Going anywhere besides LKO in a spaceplane means hauling a lot of dead-weight instead of a payload. Even to Kerbin moons.

P.S. Yes, I can into spaceplanes. Yes, I've built interplanetary ones. I even have a Harddriller Mk.I SSTO spaceplane capable to go anywhere besides Tylo and Eve. So, is it doable? - Yep. Worth the hassle? - Don't think so.

P.P.S. Darn, I showed-off too.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Bloody_looser

[The Destroyer]

6 hours ago, Captain Sierra said:

^^^ This.

Rockets represent the primary lift capacity of my space program, but SSTO spaceplanes are far more fun vehicles to fly. I use them mainly just for crew transfer to LKO.

Yep. Spaceplanes are also more challeging- since I've basically landed and returned from every body in the solar system with a rocket, now I must do it with a plane

[steve_v]

20 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

I do not say against your style of play. I only explain other point of view. For me the fun thing why I play is engineering...

Fair enough, If you don't enjoy piloting you probably won't enjoy spaceplanes - I'm not aware of a mod that'll fly them for you. (MJ can land them, but that removes half the challenge IMO - my landings are a bit hit-and-miss)
There's certainly engineering involved though, I can slap a working rocket together in ten minutes or so, but designing an SSTO spaceplane takes rather longer. I enjoy the design challenge almost as much as the flight.

 

18 minutes ago, Bloody_looser said:

Going anywhere besides LKO in a spaceplane means hauling a lot of dead-weight instead of a payload. Even to Kerbin moons.

Well... yeah. What you get for all the hassle is dirt-cheap flights to LKO. Anything that goes further is usually carried as payload, with the lifter left in LKO... much like a rocket.

That said, I'm trying to figure out a way to get both... A spaceplane with a re-dockable cockpit/long range module is my current concept, but it's proving an interesting engineering challenge.

Edited February 4, 2016 by steve_v