How do I make a space shuttle?

[Alpha 360]

I am stumped at making a space-shuttle, all I know is vectors, orange fuel tank, kickbacks, and Mk3 parts, but it tried continually and failed continually. Any help?

Edited February 8, 2017 by Alpha 360
"Kouston, we have several problems, but that doesn't matter so we want to continue on with the mission."

[Delay]

Space shuttles are very diffucult to build, not because of the game, but because it is complicated.  The center of mass always moves, making it difficult to align the engines.

For SSMEs, take the KS-25 "Vector". These have very good thrust vectoring. I would angle the engines according to the average between the craft with SRBs and without.

Kickbacks as SRBs should be good.

[Alpha 360]

OH YES! SPACE SHUTTLE COMPLETE! oh yeah. Party time, crash *ahem* landed in the water, lost the wings, but made it to orbit and back.

[netbumbler]

43 minutes ago, Alpha 360 said:

I am stumped at making a space-shuttle, all I know is vectors, orange fuel tank, kickbacks, and Mk3 parts, but it tried continually and failed continually. Any help?

This tutorial helped me out a lot:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7YmPGBIpvw

[Alpha 360]

Sorry, this thread was unnecessary, I remember watching a tutorial a while back, which I my version based off of. All I needed was some hard work, thanks for trying to help out.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Alpha 360
"Kouston, we have several problems, but that doesn't matter so we want to continue on with the mission."

[Gaarst]

44 minutes ago, Delay said:

Space shuttles are very diffucult to build, not because of the game, but because it is complicated.

Space shuttles are diffucult because of the game. Mass ratios are too high, Vectors are too powerful, Kickbacks are awfully weak, SAS is incredibly stupid, SRBs are not gimballed...

Fix these, and I guarantee space shuttles will be a lot easier to make (not saying more efficient or less nonsensical, just easier).

Edited February 8, 2017 by Gaarst

[Delay]

6 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

Space shuttles are diffucult because of the game. Mass ratios are too high, Vectors are too powerful, Kickbacks are awfully weak, SAS is incredibly stupid, SRBs are not gimballed...

Fix these, and I guarantee space shuttles will be a lot easier to make (not saying more efficient or less nonsensical, just easier).

My bad. Still, the shuttle was unnecessarily complicated. It ended up missing all of its purposes, it was neither cheap, nor a regular connection to space.

[Gaarst]

5 minutes ago, Delay said:

My bad. Still, the shuttle was unnecessarily complicated. It ended up missing all of its purposes, it was neither cheap, nor a regular connection to space.

Yeah, I pretty much agree on that.

[Foxster]

 

How do I make a space shuttle?

 

Shove it from side to side.

[netbumbler]

I'll just say that building and testing a realistic looking and performing full-sized shuttle is pretty satisfying.  While I've been slowly but surely designing and launching into LKO myriad components for a significant Jool expedition, I've taken time off to study shuttles.  While they are fun as heck, they're just super-inefficient for getting stuff into orbit.  Just like the real shuttle.  I did find a reason for them, however: that payload bay is great for bringing stuff back down, if you are so inclined (role-playing aspect).  I am bringing back a 12.5 ton space telescope from 600km and the lifting body design and airplane landing seem pretty good for that.  I mean I guess you could put a payload bay on a rocket and go with tons of parachutes, but landing that thing at KSC is super-fun when it works out.  The Trajectories mod is your friend.  Not to mention that (role-playing aspect again) I'm guessing that landing like a plane is way softer than splashing down so it would be easier (g-force and stress-wise) on the components of whatever it is you wish to bring back from space. 

So how would you bring something large back down without a shuttle?  Of course most companies and gov agencies would just de-orbit broken kit (or ignore it) and replace it.  But just for fun, how would you bring large objects back from space without a space plane of some sort?  And when I say 'bring back from space' I mean intact...lol  De-orbiting and burning it up doesn't count. 

 

[septemberWaves]

Start with the spaceplane part. Make sure the orbiter works perfectly and can glide back to the KSP without payload or fuel. Once that's done, you can work on the launch vehicle.

Generally you'll want engines with a lot of gimbal range, which means Vector engines unless you're using mods (a good modded alternative is the Moa engine from SpaceY). You might want to put the engines on the shuttle part and launch it NASA-style, but I find that a good method for smaller shuttles is to have the launch engines attached to the external tank, and angled in such a way that they point through the overall center of mass. Finding the right angle is challenging and generally takes several test launches. It also gets quite complicated when you start needing boosters. Good gimbal range is the priority with engines though. You should also play around with thrust percentages if you're using solid boosters; aim for a long burn time rather than high thrust.

[CassiniPanini]

 

I re-made rhis again today after the console kraken ate my save file again  stupid kraken .

[Spacetraindriver]

Venors. Lots and lots of Venors. I think thats what they are called...

[Tweeker]

7 hours ago, Gaarst said:

Space shuttles are diffucult because of the game. Mass ratios are too high, Vectors are too powerful, Kickbacks are awfully weak, SAS is incredibly stupid, SRBs are not gimballed...

Fix these, and I guarantee space shuttles will be a lot easier to make (not saying more efficient or less nonsensical, just easier).

Completely correct.

The kickback should be ~2500 thrust with 6+ degrees of gimbal and 15,000 solid fuel

The vector should be ~400 thrust

With these changes it is so much easier to build a shuttle.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Tweeker

[GoSlash27]

There isn't a trick to making a successful shuttle. There are a lot of tricks. Shuttles are complicated, and require an understanding of how to tame all the problems you encounter with all of the individual parts of the stack.

Hopefully, this slideshow will give you some insight into the problems and solutions.

http://s52.photobucket.com/user/GoSlash27/slideshow/KSP/Shuttle Kourageous

You have to understand how to make a fundamentally poor orbiter design behave during reentry and landing. You have to know how to predict and control the movement of the CoM during launch. You have to design a launch stack with asymmetrical thrust so that the center of thrust is properly aligned. You have to learn how to separate boosters without wrecking your stack. And you have to learn how to fly a crooked rocket.

There's a lot that goes into the successful design and operation of a shuttle. Getting any of it wrong will result in lots of explosions and debris, but getting it all *right* is very educational and rewarding.

HTHs,
-Slashy

[septemberWaves]

59 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

There isn't a trick to making a successful shuttle. There are a lot of tricks.

I think the main trick is just practice, as well as a lot of trial and error. I have only once had a shuttle design work well on the first flight (and that technically wasn't supposed to be a shuttle, it was just launched like one because of reasons); it almost always takes a lot of test flights to perfect.

Edited February 9, 2017 by eloquentJane

[KerikBalm]

15 hours ago, Gaarst said:

Space shuttles are diffucult because of the game. Mass ratios are too high, Vectors are too powerful, Kickbacks are awfully weak, SAS is incredibly stupid, SRBs are not gimballed...

Fix these, and I guarantee space shuttles will be a lot easier to make (not saying more efficient or less nonsensical, just easier).

Well,

* the mass ratios aren't so much an issue because dV requirements are about 1/3 of real life.

* SRBs aren't gimballed, but you could use LFBs instead, which do gimbal.

* Kickbacks may be weak, but you can just use multiple SRBs

* You don't need to use a 3 vectors, or even any vectors

This was my first shuttle I made, it was made before the vector was even released, it worked the first time (although, as you can judge by the mk4 naming, I kept tweaking it to improve its performance, myfirst test was a small payload, but I eventually got it able to deliver a full orange tank)

\

Its basically a challenge of building an asymmetrical launcher, and having a latterally shifting CoM.

Its true, the SAS isn't the best for this task, and some amount of piloting skill is needed. For many of my shuttle designs, I have to manually hold "s" (pitch up) right from the start because otherwise the SAS reacts too slow/wont "lock" right after launch.

I would also consider this to be a sort of "shuttle"

It was quite a bit more difficult to make, and required adjusting the thrust slider on the mammoth booster as the fuel in the booster was burned off.

Also... the whole thing performed just about equally well as a SSTO, but this was an experiment with making fly back boosters in KSP- which is very limited by KSP's 22km physics bubble in the atmosphere, limitations on craft switching while still in the atmosphere, and deletion of craft outside the physics bubble and in the atmosphere below a certain altitude.

Still, it could work:

Spoiler

Booster separation: 

Booster retroburn:

Orbiter insertion burn:

Boilerplate payload:

Booster flyback:

brief use of airbreathers and remaining LF to level off and slow descent:

rolling to runway:

100% recovery of booster:

 

[ZooNamedGames]

Hey @Alpha 360, if you want, I can teach you how to fly your craft  ! 

I have my own space shuttle and have done countless missions with it so I'm used to running frequent missions to and from LKO.  

[Delay]

By the way: How was the shuttle provided with electricity? I don't see any solar panels, nor anything else that could work as a generator when looking at pictures of one.

[Gaarst]

8 minutes ago, Delay said:

By the way: How was the shuttle provided with electricity? I don't see any solar panels, nor anything else that could work as a generator when looking at pictures of one.

Fuel cells.

[Vanamonde]

This will end up being a craft sharing thread, and so it has been moved to Exchange. 

[septemberWaves]

5 hours ago, Delay said:

By the way: How was the shuttle provided with electricity? I don't see any solar panels, nor anything else that could work as a generator when looking at pictures of one.

NASA's space shuttles were powered by fuel cells if I'm not mistaken. They are actually a good way of powering shuttles in KSP too, provided you don't leave them turned on for too long.

[Tex_NL]

Instead of side mounting your fuel tank there is an other alternative. Place it on the nose keeping the CoG in line with the thrust.

The post below might be three years old but can still give you some nice ideas.

 

[ihtoit]

OK, apart from the winglets and the multiple SRBs (not having the extra large ones in my module stock), this is essentially identical to the American space shuttle assembly.

 

Flight Profile

Start on the runway, at 0 roll. Throttles to max. Shut off fuel flow in the orbiter tank and the nose monopropellant tank.

Immediately upon liftoff, set pitch at 60 and roll at 180. Toggle Q and Vt off!

The vehicle will try and pitch vertical: this is the reason for rolling 180 - it offers better aerodynamic control, putting the centre of mass above the centre of lift and keeping it there.

SRB shutoff at T+64. Set ME throttle to 10%, SRB sep at T+65, throttle to 100% at T+68 and set pitch to 0. With the new thrust vector, the craft will pitch 0.

When the oxidiser in the ET runs out, the engines will shut down. Pump remaining LF into the orbiter and roll to 0, then jettison the tank. Deactivate the three main engines: orbital insertion will be performed using the small LFO OMS engines which vector through the orbiter CoM.

Once in orbit (I simply circularised at apoapse), deploy mission parameters. In this case, it's a low orbit communications satellite. Note the spacelab module in the orbiter offering more accomodation, a docking port and sensor package.

I haven't stuck landing yet, after 37 tries!

 

(EDIT: Try #38, I got a safe water landing, only the ventral OMS engine broke off!)

Edited February 10, 2017 by ihtoit

[SpaceOdissey]

Basically a Space shuttle is a plane which is attached to a rocket. But in complex words the "Plane" needs engines inclined to had a stable flight. So the thrust needs to be at the center and with this you can had a space shuttle, also the fuel tank that has the shuttle needs a fuel tank line for transfer the fuel of the fuel tank to the shuttle and then continue flying to orbit. To reach orbit you need slower engines like the MK-55 'Thud' engines. Or if you had monopropellant 'Puff' engines.