Why are shuttles hard for people?

[Deadpangod3]

I mean I built a fully working shuttle in like two days!! And it was easy!!

1rst. Build replica, use thrust limiter on the booster engine to make it have balanced thrust

2 slowly add necessary parts like RCS docking port, etc.

Test it and land it at the runway each time, congrats, you have a working shuttle.

And landing at the runway was easy even the first time for me, even though I was nervous.

I had the same thing with docking after the first two times, now I can dock easily too!

[qromodynmc]

I dont know,I tried to make shuttle,Couldnt be able to balance. It just not going straight,I limited shuttle's engine's thrust to 55,it falls on West,limited to 56,falls on east. Something like that,I just cant balance it..

[maccollo]

Everyone aren't good at this game, and everyone that are good at the game aren't good at every aspect of it.

Shuttles are an inherently tricky thing to do, because people typically want to do the STS design with asymmetrical thrust and CoM, cuz that's cool

[Deadpangod3]

I can offer a tip:

Start small.

Don't start with a giant plane, start with like a small plane, maybe like a small in atmo like plane with a rocket engine instead of air breathing.

[TheFactory]

I mean I built a fully working shuttle in like two days!! And it was easy!!

1rst. Build replica, use thrust limiter on the booster engine to make it have balanced thrust

2 slowly add necessary parts like RCS docking port, etc.

Test it and land it at the runway each time, congrats, you have a working shuttle.

And landing at the runway was easy even the first time for me, even though I was nervous.

I had the same thing with docking after the first two times, now I can dock easily too!

Wow your amazing, please bear my children?

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I mean I built a fully working shuttle in like two days!! And it was easy!!

1rst. Build replica, use thrust limiter on the booster engine to make it have balanced thrust

2 slowly add necessary parts like RCS docking port, etc.

Test it and land it at the runway each time, congrats, you have a working shuttle.

And landing at the runway was easy even the first time for me, even though I was nervous.

I had the same thing with docking after the first two times, now I can dock easily too!

seems like a humblebrag. good for you buddy.

[theend3r]

I don't know if they are hard but they sure are useless. Want to take a huge cargo up? Rocket is your only rational (*cough*Whackjob*cough*) option. Want to be cost effective? Build a SSTO. Mine can land on Mun and back at KSP without refuelling. With refuelling it can get to Laythe and back.

[ComradeGoat]

I don't know if they are hard but they sure are useless. Want to take a huge cargo up? Rocket is your only rational (*cough*Whackjob*cough*) option. Want to be cost effective? Build a SSTO. Mine can land on Mun and back at KSP without refuelling. With refuelling it can get to Laythe and back.

This. Seems to be little point in building shuttles, given we have viable spaceplanes. The advantage of a shuttle is that it can glide to a landing on a runway and be reusable. If you want to get crew up and down easily and quickly, it's much easier in KSP to use a capsule with a parachute. If you want reusability, why bother with the "jack of all trades, master of none" shuttle approach when you can do a spaceplane?

So little practical use, but they look kinda cool.

[m4rt14n]

Problem with shuttle is that you get turbojets and aerospike early enough that you can just glide through the atmosphere before punching out. There is never a need for a vertical spaceplane launch.

[maccollo]

This. Seems to be little point in building shuttles, given we have viable spaceplanes. The advantage of a shuttle is that it can glide to a landing on a runway and be reusable. If you want to get crew up and down easily and quickly, it's much easier in KSP to use a capsule with a parachute. If you want reusability, why bother with the "jack of all trades, master of none" shuttle approach when you can do a spaceplane?

So little practical use, but they look kinda cool.

Well, space planes also sort of don't have any purpose. You can lift much heavier payloads with far less parts and less effort. Spaceplanes have no benefit at all because there is no cost to building and launching anything.

However, you want to build an SSTO then space planes suddenly become very useful.

Similarly, space shuttles become a useful concept when you decide you want to build a space shuttle =P

[ComradeGoat]

Well, space planes also sort of don't have any purpose.

Landing on Laythe, landing on Laythe and landing on Laythe.

Especially if you want to a) land on solid ground, and get back to orbit again.

[maccollo]

Landing on Laythe, landing on Laythe and landing on Laythe.

Especially if you want to a) land on solid ground, and get back to orbit again.

If you want to utilize the oxygen atmospere and fly around until you find land you can do that just as easily by simply sticking a jet engine and some intakes on the lander stage.

The effort required to go to Laythe is far less in a rocket, because you can just add so much fuel you don't have to worry about anything.

But doing it in a space plane is more desirable, because Laythe really represents the limit of what you can do with an SSTO, and that makes it fun to build and design.

Going with a rocket just makes it another rock.

The same thing goes for a space shuttles.

[Thomas988]

Three main problems for me:

1. I can't get the engines angled right to counteract the asymmetrical center of mass.

2. If these shuttles you speak of include operating cargo bays, then I'll have to add that I can't get those to work either.

3. Normal rockets are a lot easier to fly and build.

[ComradeGoat]

If you want to utilize the oxygen atmospere and fly around until you find land you can do that just as easily by simply sticking a jet engine and some intakes on the lander stage.

The effort required to go to Laythe is far less in a rocket, because you can just add so much fuel you don't have to worry about anything.

I take them there on tugs, apart from the NERVA powered ones.

My experiments with air breathing rocket landers on Laythe ... killes a lot of kerbals. Found planes considerably easier to use, and more flexible. YMMV.

[SkyHook]

Well in general we lack the tools. There is no way in the stock game to balance thrust in real time, nor is there and efficient way to gimbal to compensate for asymmetrical thrust/balance. Plugins and mod parts are the only ways to easily create a working shuttle that has payload capacity. I mean there aren't even cargo bays or payload shrouds in the stock game. Seems like a pretty easy thing to implement (however useless they may be in the stock game). Other problems include people trying to be NASA. The real space shuttle's designers had the freedom to choose exactly what fit the mission parameters, and were not limited by a predetermined selection of parts. Many people follow the actual space shuttle design TOO closely. For example, 3 SSMEs are NOT needed for most form factors, and people generally use way too much fuel to get way too little cargo into space. Looking at the problem in different ways will solve all of that.

[Tank Buddy]

Why do you have to complain and be condescending about how good other people are compared to you?

You could have been much more constructive by saying "What is the hardest part about building a shuttle?", instead of "Why are people so bad at this game?"

Shuttle's aren't that practical either, considering there aren't any stock storage bays or crazy gimballing engines. Not to mention that adjusting for the constantly shifting mass isn't as easy as you make it out to be.

[maccollo]

I take them there on tugs, apart from the NERVA powered ones.

My experiments with air breathing rocket landers on Laythe ... killes a lot of kerbals. Found planes considerably easier to use, and more flexible. YMMV.

I'll concede that point then. If you find that space planes have clear and tangible advantages that matter my argument is moot. But I will rephrase it:

SSTOs have currently no advantage over multi staged vehicles, and they serve the same purpose as shuttles in that they give you a challenge

Edited February 10, 2014 by maccollo

[Fiddlestyx]

Pics or it didn't happen.

[SkyHook]

Why do you have to complain and be condescending about how good other people are compared to you?

You could have been much more constructive by saying "What is the hardest part about building a shuttle?", instead of "Why are people so bad at this game?"

Shuttle's aren't that practical either, considering there aren't any stock storage bays or crazy gimballing engines. Not to mention that adjusting for the constantly shifting mass isn't as easy as you make it out to be.

OP, take note of this. You might consider retooling your argument to be less condescending. This KSP community tries very hard to uplift, not insult.

[theend3r]

I'll concede that point then. If you find that space planes have clear and tangible advantages that matter my argument is moot. But I will rephrase it:

SSTOs have currently no advantage over multi staged vehicles, and they serve the same purpose as shuttles in that they give you a challenge

Not entirely true as I can land with my SSTO on Kerbin and get into orbit again which is something multistages can't do. You're right though that there are usually more practical ways of doing things but that may change with the introduction of money.

[RSwordsman]

This KSP community tries very hard to uplift, not insult.

Heh, we do enough "going down" as it is I suppose.

Anyway, yeah. Stock KSP is not kind to shuttles. The asymmetrical layout is not accounted for in any feature, and flying one becomes an exercise in one's ability to angle the orbiter's engines or pixel-hunt for that perfect thrust limiter value, and then adjust it in flight once the fuel burns down a bit. Either that or slapping on like twelve reaction wheels, but that's not cool.

[Kosmo-not]

I mean I built a fully working shuttle in like two days!! And it was easy!!

1rst. Build replica, use thrust limiter on the booster engine to make it have balanced thrust

2 slowly add necessary parts like RCS docking port, etc.

Test it and land it at the runway each time, congrats, you have a working shuttle.

And landing at the runway was easy even the first time for me, even though I was nervous.

I had the same thing with docking after the first two times, now I can dock easily too!

It would be nice if you could post some pics.

[katateochi]

I'd say shuttles are hard for people because perhaps they are the most tricky launch vehicle to build in the game! Maybe OP you just found shuttle design easy, but I think most of us find it one of the most challenging designs. I certainly did! It would be nice to see your designs.

To make a shuttle look-a-like is one thing, if its really small and without payload then its is prob not too hard (still tricky thou), but to get one able to carry payloads is really tough. I found it much much harder than building a payload carrying SSTO and my SSTO is still able to take a greater payload than my shuttle (and for a lot less fuel!). It took me several attempts, often ending up with giving up and doing something else for a while before I got it (using the infernal robotics mod to allow the engines to adjust their angle -> ultra gimble!)

The thing I found most difficult was dealing with the separation of the boosters. If the main engines balance the boosters then once the boosters run out there is a sudden shift in center of thrust. If I tried to compensate by throttling back the main engines as the boosters separated then I didn't have enough thrust to maintain ascent. If I turned the thrust of the boosters down so the difference between booster and engine was less then I could balance it, but the rate of climb was too low. In the end my solution was to have the engines pivot on hinges (which didn't work when I first tried it with damned robotics, but the infernal robotics hinges are better).

During launch they face almost directly down, but as the boosters become lighter I gradually angle them in towards the boosters, then at the moment of booster separation they swing out into a more classic shuttle style position; facing away from the external tank. Then they pretty much stay like that till the external tank is nearly empty and then they return to a more central position. I know this is not "right" in terms of mimicking the real shuttle, but it works!

(sorry if incoherent, I'm half asleep!)

[Cakeofruit]

Katateoshi try to lower your booster it Will reduce the pitch madness ! U Can also reduce the trust on the booster I like to see the "easy " shuttle cuz mine Ask a LOT of tweak and work ( I'm looking for a good company to release them)

[peadar1987]

I mean I built a fully working shuttle in like two days!! And it was easy!!

1rst. Build replica, use thrust limiter on the booster engine to make it have balanced thrust

2 slowly add necessary parts like RCS docking port, etc.

Test it and land it at the runway each time, congrats, you have a working shuttle.

And landing at the runway was easy even the first time for me, even though I was nervous.

I had the same thing with docking after the first two times, now I can dock easily too!

It's a balancing issue. Building a symmetrical shuttle is easy, just build a rocket-powered spaceplane, slap some drop tanks and detachable SRBs on the end of the wings, strut and fuel line it up enough, and launch vertically.

Building a space shuttle lookalike is hard. The only reason the actual one was balanced (thanks to the forums for helping me figure this out by the way), is because the main engines of the orbiter were angled so they passed through the centre of mass of both the orbiter and the main fuel tank. Setting this up in KSP is incredibly fiddly, and although some people might enjoy it, I know for me it wasn't worth the time and effort for the amount of fun and satisfaction it would provide.