spaceplane (shuttle) vs return capsule

[lammatt]

both are unpowered landing, (RCS doesnt count)

but

1. one is ~3min of intensive gameplay while the other is open-the-chute-and-come-back-a-couple-mins-later;

2. you can basically land on the KSC runway with a shuttle easily (if you dont mess up your initial deorbit burn too much and your plane glides well enough) with the plane while you have not much say on the exact landing spot for you capsule (of cos you can practice-makes-perfect and land reasonably precisely)

which do you prefer as your vehicle for manned missions if it's not going too far away which you can afford the relatively massive hull of a plane?

(i like shuttles... because it's easier to fail with it; you know, failing is fun in this game.)

Edited April 14, 2014 by lammatt

[Ruinsage]

I play with ferram and deadly reentry, so using the capsules is somewhat nerve wrecking, as there's a chance that I come in too steep or too fast, which would burn apart my rockets, or my chutes, destroying my aircraft either in the air or on landing. When I get far enough in career (just started from scratch with quite a few mods), I think i'll make a hybrid of the two, so I can control my descend more

[lammatt]

I play with ferram and deadly reentry, so using the capsules is somewhat nerve wrecking, as there's a chance that I come in too steep or too fast, which would burn apart my rockets, or my chutes, destroying my aircraft either in the air or on landing. When I get far enough in career (just started from scratch with quite a few mods), I think i'll make a hybrid of the two, so I can control my descend more

you gonna burn yourself up regardless it's a plane or a capsule if your descend is too steep anyways. and you dont open your chute anywhere higher than ~10km anyways (in which altitude your speed wont be any higher than mach 2, chutes dont get torn at that speed)

(please... dont say deadly reentry and FAR make the game harder, i have no clue why people keep saying that, it's just... NOT TRUE. all it does is making the game different. and being different is not the same as being harder)

Edited April 14, 2014 by lammatt

[Madrias]

With me, it's a no-brainer. I'm complete crap with rockets, so I build planes. With planes, it's roughly 15-60 minutes of intense piloting upward, watching your Apoapsis slowly crawling toward your desired orbit, then the general relaxation of orbiting, traveling where you want to go, the nerve-wracking intensity of landing a forward flying rocket on the engines that fly it around without wrecking the airframe, then heading home. As you come in for re-entry, you've got a gentle glide, shutting the engines down and coasting in, aerobraking before dropping peacefully through the heavy pea soup, opening your jet intakes, and cruising to your chosen landing site.

With rockets, if it doesn't explode on the launch pad and it doesn't explode in the air, and it doesn't explode in orbit, chances are you're coming back home.

[manuelasa1999]

I think rockets are easier to design and bulild than spaceplanes, also with rockets you can get in orbit in less time and easier than with a spaceplane (maybe I'm a bad spaceplane designeer)

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm a rocket guy, return capsules all the way. If I want a precision landing I use a rocket VTOL.

[Captain Sierra]

planes are fun, but I have yet to build one with any meaningful cargo capacity. Until that time, I'm mainly rocket. That said, I do have a few semi-effective crew shuttles that I use to send kerbals up.

[Madrias]

I think rockets are easier to design and bulild than spaceplanes, also with rockets you can get in orbit in less time and easier than with a spaceplane (maybe I'm a bad spaceplane designeer)

I've got an advantage from building remote control planes, which gifted me an intimate knowledge of basic aerodynamics and how planes work.

A recent technique I've been doing is aircraft with such an aggressive thrust-to-weight ratio that they can pull near vertical, like a rocket, fly hard for 10km, then start a rocket-like gravity turn. I've also included ejection systems which make landing such a plane just as easy as a rocket, where all the important stuff (kerbal, science gear, batteries, lights, basic landing gear assembly, communications antenna, power generation unit) is decoupled, shot away by sepratrons, and then carried to safety aloft a set of parachutes. This was as a result of one of my personal challenge saves, where the death of a Kerbal means I have to exit the game and delete all my craft files in that save. Needless to say, I got tired of rebuilding my science planes and started trying to, at the minimum, save the Kerbal. Then I got annoyed with always losing my science points I'd spent the past two hours getting, so I found ways to carry the science down to Kerbin, too.

After all, a space plane doesn't have to land like a plane every time. In that save, if it's the difference between ditching the plane or losing all of my craft again... I'm bailing out, carrying the important stuff down on a soft, puffy parachute.

[Bishop149]

Rockets are no doubt easier, but I do like my ships to be efficient.

SSTO's are just vastly superior in this regard, not only can they lift more weight to orbit as a proportion of launch weight , but you also get the whole craft back again rather than ditching most of the mass on the way and cluttering up orbit with debris.

As soon as any kind of cost to launch is implemented SSTO's will see a surge in popularity I predict!

I tend to use both at the mo. SSTO's for light payloads, Rockets for heavy. Mostly because designing BIG SSTO's is a right pain. . . . there just aren't any stock wings that are big enough and you end up constructing so ugly thing out of LOADS of smaller wing parts.

[Red Iron Crown]

Rockets are no doubt easier, but I do like my ships to be efficient.

SSTO's are just vastly superior in this regard, not only can they lift more weight to orbit as a proportion of launch weight , but you also get the whole craft back again rather than ditching most of the mass on the way and cluttering up orbit with debris.

Jet-boosted rocket SSTOs have the same advantages.

As soon as any kind of cost to launch is implemented SSTO's will see a surge in popularity I predict!

I tend to use both at the mo. SSTO's for light payloads, Rockets for heavy. Mostly because designing BIG SSTO's is a right pain. . . . there just aren't any stock wings that are big enough and you end up constructing so ugly thing out of LOADS of smaller wing parts.

I'm really curious to see how recoverability fits into the economic model. I'd be disappointed if either conventional rockets or spaceplanes become uneconomical to operate.

[Umlüx]

i am not patient enough to use planes/shuttles and land them without spontaneous disintegrating at touchdown

so, my choice is capsules!

[r4pt0r]

my bop return mission slammed straight down into kerbin at 6000m/s

I have no regrets, as jeb enjoyed it and jumped up and down in celebration afterwards

[iDan122]

I am 100% stock and i use both, but planes, shuttles, and SSTO's are much more fun. I have a lot of fun with my Raven which is incredible to fly, and it looks good. Making capsules look cool is hard on the other hand.

[Klingon Admiral]

Neither nor, I prefer to use true spaceplanes with enough fuel to make a powered return to KSC.

[Kerbonautical]

I always have escape shuttles on everything I design for some reason, anybody would think that if my Kerbals die I need to reinstall.

My latest design is an extremely large kethane miner/rover/skycrane. there's no skycrane to drop it, it's actually also a skycrane itself and can safely land and reach orbit again from the Mun. It's a two man vessel that can fly or drive itself to a safe location to dock for refuelling with an option of two Sr. docking ports at the top and bottom plus a standard at the back for docking on land, generally it doesn't need a back up plan. However for some inexplicable reason it's carrying four of the one man pods each with enough thrust to get us home from Duna and enough RCS to control an aerobrake into orbit and aim our RCS powered landing back at KSC for our 2 pilots. I'm still not even sure what the other 2 are supposed to be for other than symmetry...

[R0cketC0der]

I like spaceplanes, because they can loose much more speed before the heating phase in a controlled descent and keep the g-forces during reentry low, which I like, because I try to minimize any risks for my kerbals, even if it isn't necessary.

[Frank_G]

I like spaceplanes, because they can loose much more speed before the heating phase in a controlled descent and keep the g-forces during reentry low, which I like, because I try to minimize any risks for my kerbals, even if it isn't necessary.

So true. My current SSTO model deccelerates so extremely, that it gets through the atmosphere without any re-entry effects. At first i thought that it was a bug in the game effects before checking the values...

However i dont prefer anything special. It totally depends on what is needed for the mission.

[Zourin]

Both? My spaceplane designs always come equipped for an emergency decoupling so that manned portions of the craft can be separated and landed in atmosphere in the event something goes horribly wrong.

[Madrias]

Both? My spaceplane designs always come equipped for an emergency decoupling so that manned portions of the craft can be separated and landed in atmosphere in the event something goes horribly wrong.

Much the same here. I see no reason why ejection systems can't be installed on spaceplanes to save the Kerbals in the event of total catastrophic failure. Or convenience.

[plausse]

To me spaceplanes are to capsules what Gemini was to Apollo. More sporty.. If you realise half way through reentry that in fact you fancy landing on the island instead on the main runway.. If you fancy the beach rather than debrief.. If you want to buzz the tower instead of fill in forms.. See your misstress rather than.. Inappropriate.

The point is, they are more complicated and offer more "piloting fun"... Can I see any other advantage? Doesn't matter.. 2min 30sec..

[ScallopPotato]

I really don't recommend spaceplanes to players that aren't able to land their planes in one piece. How is a spaceplane "reusable" if it ends up in a hundred pieces on the runway each time it lands? I do believe some players have been able to use drogues + parachutes to arrest the plane's movement and bring it floating down. If it works, it provides the easiness of a capsule with the gentler descent and landing site selection of a spaceplane.

[thescientist]

I think that there isn't a a better option. You should choose every time what you need and what you want...so build your super spaceship* and go toward stars:)!

Notes:

*If everything explode 1.435 seconds** after lauch, it's in my fault

Notes of notes:

**Average flight time over 924,456,823.34 flights

Edited April 14, 2014 by thescientist

[cantab]

I've never had much luck with aircraft, and am a bit unsure about seriously trying in the stock aerodynamics. (Meanwhile I don't want to find FAR breaks my rockets).

That said, I did have some reasonable success with my Chamberlain "space bus". Launches on top of a rocket, crew compartments (but not the engine and fuel tank) come down with wings to allow a controlled glide before a final chute landing. Glides quite nicely in the lower atmosphere, though I still missed KSC by miles on my first go.

[lammatt]

I've never had much luck with aircraft, and am a bit unsure about seriously trying in the stock aerodynamics. (Meanwhile I don't want to find FAR breaks my rockets).

That said, I did have some reasonable success with my Chamberlain "space bus". Launches on top of a rocket, crew compartments (but not the engine and fuel tank) come down with wings to allow a controlled glide before a final chute landing. Glides quite nicely in the lower atmosphere, though I still missed KSC by miles on my first go.

FAR wont break your rockets. (and stock aerodynamic is kind of lame when it comes to plane, you can basically do maneuvers as if you are playing HAWX or HAWX2...

you'll just have to put a tail fin or two to make sure your rocket wont flip during the ascend.

and i think your way of crew compartment with wings is actually pretty much like what space shuttles do...

they dont fire their RS-25 during the descend anyways, they glide themselves back the kennedy space center runway.

Edited April 14, 2014 by lammatt

[Madrias]

I really don't recommend spaceplanes to players that aren't able to land their planes in one piece. How is a spaceplane "reusable" if it ends up in a hundred pieces on the runway each time it lands? I do believe some players have been able to use drogues + parachutes to arrest the plane's movement and bring it floating down. If it works, it provides the easiness of a capsule with the gentler descent and landing site selection of a spaceplane.

I use some mods, but one of the useful things I've found is air brakes. Air brakes, drogue chutes, retro-engines, all part of my grand experiments for safe and soft landing.

The emergency ejection safety cockpit is merely there for that one time in a hundred where an unknown, unseen failure renders landing unsafe. You know, the "out of gas and I've shot past the island runway with such force and so little altitude that I can't turn around in time" moments, or the times where your drop tank broke off one of your landing gear. So as you're coming in to land, you pop the ejection system.

If KSP physics didn't destroy non-probed vehicles in suborbital flights after 2.5 km, the majority would be reusable. Only total loss are the air intakes that are ejected as a first step to emergency separation, in order to guarantee the engine shuts down. Parachutes deploy on flight half, decoupler is fired to jettison the wings, tail, engine, and rear main gear along with any residual fuel. Pilot half is now free floating, still in danger. Sepratrons are ignited to push the cockpit and remaining attachments away from flight half. Upon burnout, parachutes are deployed, SAS is disengaged. Kerbal and science modules touch down with full parachute deployment at 1500m above ground level.

Needless to say, I took into account all total variables on how to separate the cockpit from the plane and not kill the kerbal flying within. Including on one design, jettisoning the wings before commencing full engine/cockpit separation to avoid the flight module being stuck on the back of the pilot module.

I've also done my share of total-recovery-vehicles where parachutes are deployed to bring the entirety of the aircraft to the ground on soft silk.