SpaceTrashCan Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 hello I bought my self the game about two weeks ago and successfully landet on Mun and Minmus. Now I'm working on a Space Station which suprisingly has been successful to. Now I'm planning to build a Shuttle to fly to my Space Station. My question is: Should i build the Shuttle like a Space Shutte with a main fuel tank and two boosters or like a Buran with no boosters nor tank, but the Shuttle mounted on a huge rocket? Since I'm new to the game and pertty noobish, i thought it might be easier for me to build my shuttle buran style, so i have to worry less about the center of mass and thrust. But i'm really not sure... It would be cool if some better players could share their ideas about this. thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Yeah, building a shuttle in the same way as the Space Shuttle is going to be pretty hard. I'd recommend building it Buran-style. You can look here if you still want to build it Space Shuttle-style, though: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocketeer Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 Kudos on planning to attempt this, shuttles are wonderful fun. You're dead right to think the Buran approach will be easier - it will. Space Shuttle (or STS) vehicles are hard to build in KSP, and can be equally hard to fly. I agree with @Aperture Science that the Buran is probably the one to go for, especially if you want a quick result. On the other hand, if engineering things in KSP is your cup of tea, going for the STS approach is very rewarding to get right - I've made a handful of STS shuttles in various versions of KSP, and every successful ascent makes me feel, well, like an astronaut ! But yeh, Buran... really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 STS-style with two Vectors and two of the big boosters works good. A hybrid approach, using a Buran-style lifting tank with STS-style crossfeed to a mounted engine, with orbital engines, is the approach I successfully took in RO; much more controllable overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrLicor Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Hmm spaceshuttles aren't that hard to build and fly.. You just need to know the tricks and a little bit of flying. I'll post screenshots if you like to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
problemecium Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 YES Definitely Space Shuttle or Buran. Much better than neither. So you should definitely build a space shuttle with boosters or a Buran without boosters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sereneti Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 What do you want to do with that? Space-shuttles are realy hard. its a lot more easy to build a spaceplane... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrLicor Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Haha disagree, space shuttles a much more fun, especially in RSS/RO. most easy way is just to make a rocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luizopiloto Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Shuttle.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Personally, I believe the shuttle design is much simpler. Look at my Taurus shuttle. It is about as simple as it can be. Buran though is slightly more OP. In real life, the Buran ran right over the space shuttle. It was a heck of a lot safer and had more fuel too. I believe you should try making both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Kerman Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 You should try to make the Buran, I have yet to see an unmodded one! Plus you would be the first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 1:46 PM, Dolphin Kerman said: You should try to make the Buran, I have yet to see an unmodded one! Plus you would be the first! Expand Check out @Speeding Mullet's Buran. It is really awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kertech Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 So I normally come to this, Buena is easier to develop, fly in general, however if you're playing a money stressed career mode, getting those main engines back save more than just a plane (the shuttles logic in the first place) issue is if you're going pure financial, space plane ssto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikki Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Do it! Its mere fun and can get quite tricky... I have allready tuned down the vectors for 1.2 to 75% thrust, its enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speeding Mullet Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 1:46 PM, Dolphin Kerman said: You should try to make the Buran, I have yet to see an unmodded one! Plus you would be the first! Expand Far from the first There's been plenty of Stock Burans kicking about including my own. @SpaceTrashCan welcome to the forums!! I haven't updated my Buran for 1.2 yet but it's still going strong and will go through a major design iteration as soon as 1.2 is released. There's a couple of really good sources of inspiration for you including the Shuttle Challenge thread (feel free to join in when you've built your shuttle) and also development threads like my own Buran thread. I'd highly recommend going for the Buran style shuttle, or even a hybrid STS Buran, especially when new to the game. It's much easier with the jet engines on the shuttle to make those landings you otherwise wouldn't have done with a pure STS glider. Buran is actually more difficult balance wise as the shuttle engines do not fire until orbit (rather relying on the ET and quad boosters), where as the STS used the shuttle engines all the way to space. There'll be so many people willing to give advice on building your shuttle, so please if you get stuck do ask, and help will come easily enough Good luck! SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxgurugamer Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 1:43 PM, Firemetal said: Personally, I believe the shuttle design is much simpler. Look at my Taurus shuttle. It is about as simple as it can be. Buran though is slightly more OP. In real life, the Buran ran right over the space shuttle. It was a heck of a lot safer and had more fuel too. I believe you should try making both. Expand Burn flew one time. You can't compare the safety Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 I've never done a Buran style shuttle - just STS style. In either case, you have to deal with a craft that isn't radially symmetrical, and will have a CoM that shifts towards the orbiter as fuel burns. This requires engines with a fair amount of gimbal, and often a little use of the rotate gizmo when placing them. However... as you are a "noob" to the game, I'll point out that in stock its often not worth building a STS/Buran style shuttle: SSTO craft like super-Skylons are very possible, and perhaps actually quite a bit easier than building shuttle type designs. Some inspiration for ya: A pre-vector engine shuttle (the vector came out in the next version) Reveal hidden contents "Airbreathing" SSTOs using the Rapier engine which is inspired by the SABRE engine for the "planned" skylon Reveal hidden contents This was before the changed the graphics on the whiplash: This is for payloads too big for a cargobay, that require a large sized fairing: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 10:29 PM, linuxgurugamer said: Burn flew one time. You can't compare the safety Expand I agree. The one time it flew, it was unmanned. Oh wait. It had autopilot? It also didn't have the O-rings that caused the challenger accident and the foam that caused the Columbia accident. However it may have had other problems that the shuttle didn't have but it is already much safer than the STS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxgurugamer Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 10:42 PM, Firemetal said: I agree. The one time it flew, it was unmanned. Oh wait. It had autopilot? It also didn't have the O-rings that caused the challenger accident and the foam that caused the Columbia accident. However it may have had other problems that the shuttle didn't have but it is already much safer than the STS. Expand No. Until it has a significant number of flight, you can't say that. The shuttle had 133 flights, the Buran one, and that was unmanned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 10:50 PM, linuxgurugamer said: No. Until it has a significant number of flight, you can't say that. The shuttle had 133 flights, the Buran one, and that was unmanned. Expand I can say that it didn't have the O-rings or the foam tiles though. Those accidents killed 14 people. (At least I think both flights carried 7 crew members) The Buran was unmanned which means it doesn't need a really skilled pilot to fly it or anybody at all. This makes it safer than the shuttle. I'm not saying it is the safest spacecraft on the planet, I'm just saying that it was a direct upgrade from the shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 10:53 PM, Firemetal said: I can say that it didn't have the O-rings or the foam tiles though. Those accidents killed 14 people. (At least I think both flights carried 7 crew members) The Buran was unmanned which means it doesn't need a really skilled pilot to fly it or anybody at all. This makes it safer than the shuttle. I'm not saying it is the safest spacecraft on the planet, I'm just saying that it was a direct upgrade from the shuttle. Expand *sigh* The Buran did not fly often enough to uncover any inherent flaws in it's design. You cannot say it was safer than the Shuttle. Period. (After STS-1 the Shuttle had a perfect safety record too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaarst Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 11:30 PM, DerekL1963 said: (After STS-1 the Shuttle had a perfect safety record too.) Expand lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 11:30 PM, DerekL1963 said: *sigh* The Buran did not fly often enough to uncover any inherent flaws in it's design. You cannot say it was safer than the Shuttle. Period. (After STS-1 the Shuttle had a perfect safety record too.) Expand Did you read what I said? The shuttle blew up twice killing 14 people in total. The SRB O-rings caused the challenger accident and the foam tiles on the bottom of the shuttle caused the Columbia accident. The Buran/Energia had neither foam tiles nor O-rings or even SRBs for that matter. Therefore if the Buran flew both of those failed missions instead of the shuttle, neither would have failed. Don't get me wrong. I love the shuttle. I am just saying that the Buran was an upgraded shuttle. I am also not saying the Buran is completely flawless. It just improved on the issues where the shuttle struggled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 11:46 PM, Firemetal said: Did you read what I said? The shuttle blew up twice killing 14 people in total. The SRB O-rings caused the challenger accident and the foam tiles on the bottom of the shuttle caused the Columbia accident. The Buran/Energia had neither foam tiles nor O-rings or even SRBs for that matter. Therefore if the Buran flew both of those failed missions instead of the shuttle, neither would have failed. Don't get me wrong. I love the shuttle. I am just saying that the Buran was an upgraded shuttle. I am also not saying the Buran is completely flawless. It just improved on the issues where the shuttle struggled. Expand Not agreeing with you is not the same as not having read what you said. No, you aren't trying to say the Buran is flawless - but you are trying to justify the notion that it was 'safer', 'an upgrade', and 'improved'. None of those three claims can be justified on the basis of a single flight. You have no way of knowing whether or not there was an inherent design flaw that would render all three claims false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 On 9/20/2016 at 11:53 PM, DerekL1963 said: Not agreeing with you is not the same as not having read what you said. No, you aren't trying to say the Buran is flawless - but you are trying to justify the notion that it was 'safer', 'an upgrade', and 'improved'. None of those three claims can be justified on the basis of a single flight. You have no way of knowing whether or not there was an inherent design flaw that would render all three claims false. Expand Alright I agree. The Buran isn't safer since it was flown once and never again and could have problems nobody knew of. I am saying it didn't have the O-rings or foam tiles, the major faults with the shuttle design. And if the Buran didn't have any more problems and if it was "completely flawless" it would be a better, safer design than the shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts