Why are rockets so easy and planes so hard?!

[Maltman]

In KSP rockets are easy. Trash can full of boom, fins on the back, a lil sas, it'll get to space in no time. 

But planes are a struggle just to get off the runway. Then there is all those flaps and spoilers and fins then with FAR it just gets even crazier. Don't even get me started about landing 

Why in real life it's the opposite and rockets are so much harder than planes. But in KSP planes are harder than rockets? 

I've been going through the GAP contracts and it's the most brutal gameplay experience of My life. 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Maltman

[hms_warrior]

Well...actualy rockets are, even in RL, far more easy than planes. A rocket is a brute force solution. It is not the concept "rocket" that is hard, humanity builds them since the invention of black powder. It is the fact that what we want to achieve with the rocket (Orbit at 7.8 km/s) that makes all that engineering and expensive stuff necessary. A Plane on the other hand is a finely tuned instrument that basicly has to little thrust to go upward and instead used 1000 little tricks working in concert to turn "falling forward" into "falling forward with a little upward falling".

In KSP, everything that turns rocketry into mad science/engineering in RL is either not implemented (keep your engine from melting for example) or made a lot easier (orbital speed down from 7.8km/h to 2.4km/h).

But you still need all the tricks to turn your plane from falling forward and down to falling forward and up.

(To prove this: build a plane with TWr >1 and you will see it get's very easy to fly)

Edited September 4, 2016 by hms_warrior

[Magzimum]

Planes have more variables that you need to take care of, so to a new player, they seem a lot harder. Once you know a few basic tricks (turn on the COM, COL, and know what those should look like) you can put together a working airplane in no-time.

Other than that, planes are more difficult because anything with wheels can still be a bit wonky in this game... that says nothing about the physics or complexity, and a lot about the wheels in this game.

[Edit] I think that landing a rocket is way harder than landing a plane, unless you discard all your tanks and engines and just strap a parachute onto it... 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Magzimum

[Maltman]

Parachutes solve everything. I often strap them to my planes. (Why don't they do this IRL. Do Boeing employees not play KSP?)

I think a lot of it too is that I don't have a joystick and planes are harder to control with wasd than rockets, which basically just go left. 

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Maltman

[GoSlash27]

The reason planes are more difficult in KSP has already been explained. The reason it's the opposite from real life is the DV to orbit. It's only 3.2 km/sec in KSP, but over 9km/sec in real life.

Best,
-Slashy

[Stargate525]

IRL planes are much harder than rockets too.

The reason you're probably perceiving them to be the opposite is that a) we've had over 150 years of trial and error in manned aircraft development, and b) rockets are much, much bigger than your average aircraft, and so there's much more incentive to get it right, and get it done as cheaply as possible.

[Blaarkies]

IRL planes don't go to space, thats all there is to it. You are comparing real life orbital vehicles against atmosphere-bound vehicles, ofcourse IRL the rockets have a harder time than planes...A fair comparison would be Falcon 9 vs SKYLON...well, SKYLON doesn't exist yet, that says something about the complexity of getting a plane to orbit.

Compare the complexity of a rocket and a normal plane...a V2 against a plane with a similar range. The V2 suddenly doesn't look so complex anymore

[TheDestroyer111]

1 hour ago, Maltman said:

Parachutes solve everything. I often strap them to my planes. (Why don't they do this IRL. Do Boeing employees not play KSP?)

I think a lot of it too is that I don't have a joystick and planes are harder to control with wasd than rockets, which basically just go left. 

 

Regardless if Boeing employees play KSP or not, parachutes in KSP will never slow you down below 2 m/s (In reality this is also true, save for the cases when you jump out of the plane and use a personal parachute) and if parachutes aren't a big part of the mass of the plane (severely reducing its range and increasing cost), they won't slow you down below 5 m/s while falling. And 5 m/s is basically falling from 1,25 meters. This kind of "landing" is definitely not going to be comfortable, and some soft cargo might get rekt this way (that's why the Soyuz uses retro rockets, and American capsules landed on water). Also, parachutes in KSP are seriously overpowered. In reality, you CANNOT clip opened parachutes into one another like you usually do in KSP. And the parachute has to be much bigger than the vehicle itself, assuming typical vehicle density. And one final thing: Parachutes are too unpredictable and uncontrollable to use for landing in a precise area. Real pilots (not only passenger planes, this also includes military fighter aircraft) are trained to land with a vertical speed lower than 1 m/s. This is entirely doable in KSP even with standard WASD controls and SAS (no trim), just takes a bit of practice. (obviously easier with a joystick tho) Another important thing is that in KSP, wheels are actually much more resistant than in reality (save for some of the moments when they really break for no actual reason during a deep space kraken attack). Although this is much better for certain planes, typical big passenger liner wheels won't survive more than 5m/s vertical speed on touchdown.

//EDIT, to the guy below me: This is a test flight, and this is a small tourist plane with only one well-trained pilot and no soft cargo.

Edited August 24, 2016 by TheDestroyer111

[Lukaszenko]

[Sereneti]

(space)planes are a little harder to build, but i think they are more easy to flight...

a plane with the center of lift behind the center of mass, fly poorli. A plane with the center of mass behind the center of lift fly once....

if you need more dv, add droptanks. - why to waste a good desing, if you only have to attach one droptank on the center of mass?

 

[Van Disaster]

I have an easier time building aircraft than successful rockets...

[Sereneti]

Just now, Van Disaster said:

I have an easier time building aircraft than successful rockets...

a plane dont need the gravitional-turn...
That make the whole thing more simple....

rockets like to flip-over, some spaceplanes on the other hand fly like a brick....

[Sharpy]

First rockets were built in ancient China. First airplanes - end of 19th century. Even gliders are a thing not much earlier - kites were much earlier, but always tethered.

The biggest challenge in rockets is the chemistry and physics of combustion. It's essentially a controlled, continuous explosion. So a combustion chamber is a blast chamber with a continuous supply of explosives. This is the hard part, and KSP gives you ready-made parts. All the gritty details that are needed for smooth rocket operation - mechanics of separators, ullage, restartability, are either ignored or KSP takes care of them for you. You're left with the nice part - easy aerodynamics, mass ratios, TWR, specific impulse.

OTOH KSP doesn't do "easy mode" on airplane aerodynamics. Airplane aerodynamics are hard, and you must do this by hand.

11 minutes ago, Sereneti said:

rockets like to flip-over, some spaceplanes on the other hand fly like a brick....

Rocket flipping over means not enough fins. That's all there is to it. Too much fins and you can't do the gravity turn, but you can still burn above the atmosphere and flip there. Other than that, stay mostly prograde and the rocket won't flip ver.

Bigger problem is sturdiness of the construction (Kickbacks as structural reinforcement? ) and not having the launch stages slam into the main stage.

[LN400]

30 minutes ago, TheDestroyer111 said:

//EDIT, to the guy below me: This is a test flight, and this is a small tourist plane with only one well-trained pilot and no soft cargo.

The Cirrus SR22 has a parachute system (CAPS) as standard.

[Scientia1423]

12 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

Rocket flipping over means not enough fins. That's all there is to it.

Adding fins doesn't change anything really. In fact it makes my rocket flip even more than often.

[Sharpy]

2 minutes ago, Scientia1423 said:

Adding fins doesn't change anything really. In fact it makes my rocket flip even more than often.

You need to add them on the bottom of the rocket

(seriously though, I haven't found a rocket that wouldn't remain stable with four big Delta Wings strapped on (providing it's sturdy enough not to bend 30 degrees towards the ground).

And for those with bad center of mass, there's the Pinecone Nosecone.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Sharpy

[septemberWaves]

Rocket science is simpler than the physics required to keep a plane flying. That is why rockets are simpler. They cost significantly more in reality because the fuel costs more, the necessary materials cost more, and the engines cost more. As well, the technology all costs a lot more to develop because a lot more things can go wrong in space. But ignoring costs and material science, it's far more complicated to make a functioning plane than a rocket.

You can see this even just in the fact that just about all modern commercial aeroplanes look practically identical, whereas there is a reasonable amount of variation in rocket launch systems and practically infinite variety in what their payloads are because there are fewer restrictions on the shapes of things once you get to space (all that you need to do is ensure that center of thrust goes through center of mass, and that all the important equipment has adequate radiation shielding).

[-DDD-]

Rocket-science easy? Try RO for have a taste, real rocket science is one of the most difficult disciplne of engineering, problem that you don't consider in KSP are very relevant in real life, like aerodynamic stress, or optimizazion... do your rockets arrive in orbit with less than 5% of fuel with a continuous burn? I'm not saying that your desing skills are bad, but in RL rocket science isn't so easy.

 

 

[Laie]

It's been said several times already, but to put it most simple: think of the difference between throwing a rock and making a paper plane that flies well.

 

[-DDD-]

If you can launch rock that reach 7800 m/s above 200 km, congraturations

[Red Iron Crown]

In real life we've used rockets for longer than planes, they are much simpler devices if less suitable for terrestrial travel. Not surprising that rockets are easier in KSP (especially since the game was initially designed around them).

[Van Disaster]

2 hours ago, Sereneti said:

a plane dont need the gravitional-turn...
That make the whole thing more simple....

rockets like to flip-over, some spaceplanes on the other hand fly like a brick....

Rocket:

Spoiler

Spaceplane:

Spoiler

Rocket AND Spaceplane:

Spoiler

The latter is very far from simple, but I still get more success out of things with wings than straight-up tubes.

[Sharpy]

20 minutes ago, Van Disaster said:

Rocket:

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Excuse me. Rocket:

Please show me a spaceplane of three parts total, max tech level 6.

[-DDD-]

24 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

In real life we've used rockets for longer than planes, they are much simpler devices if less suitable for terrestrial travel. Not surprising that rockets are easier in KSP (especially since the game was initially designed around them).

I don't think so. You can't say that if a discipline is older so is easyer; philosopy was born with the civilized man, but isn't easier than play football, that was born in the middle age. And easy in KSP don't necessarly mean easy in RL, actualy a rocket is easier than a car in KSP, in RL no.

[Red Iron Crown]

5 minutes ago, -DDD- said:

I don't think so. You can't say that if a discipline is older so is easyer; philosopy was born with the civilized man, but isn't easier than play football, that was born in the middle age. And easy in KSP don't necessarly mean easy in RL, actualy a rocket is easier than a car in KSP, in RL no.

I don't say it is easier because it is older, I say it is both easier and older. Atmospheric rockets are really, really simple, they've been in use since ~1200. I have built my own rockets IRL, but building a car from scratch would be beyond my skills.