Rockets or Space Planes?

[Sharpy]

2 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Yes. I realize spaceplanes as we have them in KSP are incredibly unrealistic, and I respect the POV of people like regex that want a more realistic space simulator.

 

Nitpicking: Spaceplanes in KSP aren't unrealistic. Kerbin is unrealistic, Spaceplanes are behaving as they would on a planet like that.

 

[regex]

47 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

What is this Spaceplane/SSTO distinction I see some guys making?

SSTO means "Single Stage To Orbit". Spaceplane means "plane that goes to space". The two are often the same but the terms are not interchangeable.

[regex]

35 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

I still have fun with building them, the same way I have fun making stuff in the flash game "fantastic contraptions" - just for the fun of building/being creative within a defined set of rules and mechanics.

I don't think anyone's really coming down on people for playing the way they want to, we're just seeing the natural flow of conversation in a discussion about rockets and spaceplanes.

That is the best part about this game, the fact that you can explore space pretty much any way you want in a fairly realistic manner, and if you can't do it the way you want someone has probably written a mod to handle it.

[Diche Bach]

@regex So either a "rocket" or a "spaceplane" can be an SSTO but a spaceplane can never be a "rocket" (in the sense of being launched from a launchpad with rockets), and a rocket can never be a spaceplane. Like this?

Edited September 7, 2016 by Diche Bach

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

2 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

So either a "rocket" or a "spaceplane" can be an SSTO but a spaceplane can never be a "rocket" (in the sense of being launched from a launchpad with rockets), and a rocket can never be a spaceplane. Like this?

No.

The Space Shuttle is a mutlistage orbital spaceplane that launches vertically with (like a) rocket. (but lands with wings)

There are all kinds of combinations.

[regex]

1 minute ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

No.

@Diche Bach basically this.

[John FX]

yeah, was going to mention the shuttle which had (IIRC) 3 stages if you count the droptank. There was the solids, then the main engines with droptank then just the shuttle (spaceplane).

I sometimes wonder how easy it would have been to take the big orange tank into orbit then repurpose it as something else.

Myself I use rockets mainly, for just getting large amounts of mass into orbit quickly in real world time (including design) they are hard to beat.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

7 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

a rocket can never be a spaceplane.

That is true. the difference is wings.

[John FX]

3 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

That is true. the difference is wings.

There`s always the x-37b and x-37c which I would call a spaceplane on top of a rocket. Not sure what I would call it if I had to choose.

[KerikBalm]

Well, adding wings to a rocket doesn't stop it from being a rocket.

IMO, the best way to divide them is if it can/does fly with a TWR < 1

-then it qualifies as a plane.

All spaceplanes used rockets in KSP (at least post 1.0, pre 1.0 you could get to orbit with just jets). So in a way... every spaceplane is a rocket, but not all rockets are spaceplanes.

We could also divide them into horizontal vs vertical launch... but there are many cases where it gets blurry...

The point is that SSTO does not mean it has wings or airbreathing engines

[Norcalplanner]

Rockets these days, although I used to play around a bit with space planes when I still played stock scale. Nearly all my career play for the past year has been 3.2x, 6.4x, or RSS, where space planes are at a distinct disadvantage. To keep costs down, I'll use stage recovery and design the rocket so that only a little bit of the rocket is thrown away. For example, my standard "Bluebird" LKO 4-kerbal crew taxi only throws away a Poodle, Rockomax 32, and a decoupler. Everything else is recovered with SR or stays attached and intact to the reentry vehicle.

[John FX]

1 minute ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, adding wings to a rocket doesn't stop it from being a rocket.

IMO, the best way to divide them is if it can/does fly with a TWR < 1

-then it qualifies as a plane.

All spaceplanes used rockets in KSP (at least post 1.0, pre 1.0 you could get to orbit with just jets). So in a way... every spaceplane is a rocket, but not all rockets are spaceplanes.

We could also divide them into horizontal vs vertical launch... but there are many cases where it gets blurry...

The point is that SSTO does not mean it has wings or airbreathing engines

Agreed, SSTO has a meaning of its own independent of wings or air breathing engines. What would you call the X-37B then? It launches as a rocket but lands as a spaceplane.

I`m of the opinion that there is no sharp defining line between spaceplanes and rockets and some craft have features of both. In a way that`s the great thing about KSP, you can build whatever you like and see if it flies and you are not restricted to building the craft the designers wanted you to build.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

From wiki:

A spaceplane is an aerospace vehicle that operates as an aircraft in Earth's atmosphere, as well as a spacecraft when it is in space.^[1] It combines features of an aircraft and a spacecraft, which can be thought of as an aircraft that can endure and maneuver in the vacuum of space or likewise a spacecraft that can fly like an airplane. Typically, it takes the form of a spacecraft equipped with wings, although lifting bodies have been designed and tested as well. The propulsion to reach space may be purely rocket based or may use the assistance of airbreathing jet engines. The spaceflight is then followed by an unpowered glide return to landing. Five spaceplanes have successfully flown to date, having reentered Earth's atmosphere, returned to Earth, and safely landed — the North American X-15,Space Shuttle, Buran, SpaceShipOne, and Boeing X-37. All five are considered rocket gliders

 

So in KSP: anything with wings

 

2 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, adding wings to a rocket doesn't stop it from being a rocket.

Technically you're right (the best kind of right). Anything that carries its own propellent (as opposed to a jet) is a rocket. I was using the colloquial definition meaning vertical launch and no wings. 

[klesh]

Mk II is too small for decent payloads and MK 3 is too big for me most of the time.   I stick mainly to rockets and the occasional shuttle orbiter replica.  

[Red Iron Crown]

3 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

Anything that carries its own propellent (as opposed to a jet) is a rocket.

Let's get really pedantic: All rockets are jets, but not all jets are rockets.  

[Diche Bach]

Ah, I was under the misapprehension that in order to be a "spaceplane" it had to take off from a runway and get to orbit, and I thought we had not built such a thing (in real life), so surprised to see all these "launchpad" launched vehicles (as well as some runway-launched ones?) all clumped as spaceplane.

Seems there are no rigid boundaries to the concepts then.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

Just now, Red Iron Crown said:

Let's get really pedantic: All rockets are jets, but not all jets are rockets.  

fine, fine. "airbreathing jet!" jeez 

[panzer1b]

Honestly do whatever you enjoy, its what i myself love about KSP, its so open and you can build almost anything (within the simplified physics engine that is).

I have to say im about 25% spaceplanes and 75% rockets in time spent flying and building.  I really like making insane sci-fi stuff liek capital ships, starfighters, carriers and all of that requires a rocket to launch so i tend to spend the most time with them.  That said, most of my time is engineering teh payoad since i really dont care about the launch stage and mostly use nasa parts and overkill launchers since i play sandbox exclusively and dont care about funds, so the fastest/easiest thing thatll get what i want up there up there works for me. 

As for spaceplanes, aside from crazy stuff like my relatively recent fully SSTO SR-1 Normandy replica, i generally make very long range SSTO style fighters (as in over 7000dV after reaching LKO without refueling at all).  I used to be a tad obsessive with the SSTA concept (single stage to anywhere) but with the changes to aero making airhogging and the for all intents and purposes infinte range jets nolonger the case, its alot harder and just not worth the effort to design something that can launch from kerbin, land on eeloo, and then come back to kerbin without using IRSU and without staging whatsoever...  That and because every single craft i ever make has to carry weapons, its even harder to design something with the ranges i need (the lightest weapons payload is ~1t, so its vitually impossible to make a SSTA while carrying 1t of dead weight the entire trip (and keeping it under 50t which is my absolute limit in mass for fighter style craft)...

TLDR, just build what you find fun, some people really like engineering, some prefer flying around the system, some like combat, some like exploring, some like vehicles, some planes, ect.  Just do whatever you enjoy out of the game and dont do something you dislike (and if the stock game isnt your thing consider mods because almost anything from 100% realism to sci-fi parts are available if you want them).

[Red Iron Crown]

1 minute ago, Diche Bach said:

Ah, I was under the misapprehension that in order to be a "spaceplane" it had to take off from a runway and get to orbit, and I thought we had not built such a thing (in real life), so surprised to see all these "launchpad" launched vehicles (as well as some runway-launched ones?) all clumped as spaceplane.

Seems there are no rigid boundaries to the concepts then.

Honestly I wouldn't get too hung up on the labels. Make what you think is cool or functional, have fun doing it. If someone wants to call it an SSTO, or spaceplane, or rocket it doesn't really matter.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

1 minute ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Seems there are no rigid boundaries to the concepts then.

that

[Jarin]

6 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Let's get really pedantic

That seems to be the order of the day.

I like the TWR comment though, with one exception. *CAN* fly with TWR < 1, rather than simply has that. Every SSTO spaceplane I fly has TWR > 1 once the engines hit their optimal range, even if they didn't start that way. 

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

4 minutes ago, Jarin said:

I like the TWR comment though, with one exception. *CAN* fly with TWR < 1, rather than simply has that. Every SSTO spaceplane I fly has TWR > 1 once the engines hit their optimal range, even if they didn't start that way. 

The Space Shuttle fails that definition.  (Or are you considering dead-stick gliding as flying)

[Diche Bach]

So one more tangential question  . . . I reckon we all put "fins" on our "rockets." So why are those not "wings?" I guess they do not provide the lift that allows the craft to maneuver below TWR < 1 so they don't count as "wings?"

But then . . . the "wings" on the Buran, Space Shuttle etc. definitely do not provide enough lift for those vehicles to behave like say . . . an airliner (even on their return trip when they have used most of their fuel, let alone when they launch). Once they are on descent, they're options in terms of changing their trajectory and descent profile are fairly narrow in range no?

Not trying to be a pest, but . . . if I'm on the right track here, it sounds like the Buran and Space Shuttle at least (and maybe the other ones wiki refers to as "spaceplanes") are NOT really spacePLANES so much as "spacecraft-that-can-glide-home?"

Wrapping this up: I am under the impression that humanity (in real life) has yet to build a vessel that can take off from a runway, function within the operational zone of say a B-52 or big airliner (major trajectory and pitch changes, moderate manuverability, can reland at any time it likes if necessary and under it's own propulsive power) AND can at an early stage in its mission, ascend to orbit, then descend back to landing (under it's own propulsive power and not simply gliding).

I defer to you guys, but it seems to me, THAT should be the definition of  "spaceplane" = a perfectly functional "airplane" that can also attain orbit and come home safe and sound by runway landing. I realize this is not how the term seems to be used, but it would seem that is how at least some folks on these forums reserve the term, and it does seem to capture a variant that is distinct from the others.

[Jarin]

7 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

The Space Shuttle fails that definition.  (Or are you considering dead-stick gliding as flying)

The Space Shuttle was an ungainly and inefficient mess.

I guess it has to boil down to "horizontal landing" as the dividing line, then?

2 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

it sounds like the Buran and Space Shuttle at least (and maybe the other ones wiki refers to as "spaceplanes") are NOT really spacePLANES so much as "spacecraft-that-can-glide-home?"

This is kind of my feeling on the matter, but I suspect I'd have an uphill climb to make that argument stick.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

2 minutes ago, Jarin said:

I guess it has to boil down to "horizontal landing" as the dividing line, then?

My planes have parachutes and often splashdown. (i'm too lazy to land them )