Can't decide which asteroid interceptor design should stick with...

[Raptor9]

So I was trying to decide which design to stick with. I like both of them, but I don't like having a ton of similar designs cluttering my VAB list. So I figured I'd let the jury decide. Which design seems more aesthetically pleasing to you? The A-model or the B-model. The concept is a streamlined vehicle for launch (I know the KSP drag model isn't quite accurate yet), and then deploys into mission profile for moving larger D- and E-class asteroids.

The UV-4A uses four fairing doors to shroud the nuclear engine nacelles, which are mounted on extendable pistons from Magic Smoke Industries Infernal Robotics, as are the door hinges.

The UV-4B doesn't use separate fairing doors, but mounts the fairing shroud segments directly to the nacelles themselves. The hull sort of splits apart into four pieces, the large solar arrays also extend outward away from the nacelles to allow full rotation, and the aft nozzle shields swing back to shield the rear fuselage from the nuclear engine exhaust.

Both have similar part counts and masses.

Let me know what you think.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Raptor9

[GusTurbo]

Wow, those are really awesome. I like the second one best.

[mike9606]

The A has less parts, but is heavier. While the B has more parts but has less mass. I would probably use the A.

[Woopert]

Those are really nice! I prefer the B model.

[Overjay]

This is AWESOME!!!

I dont see any serious difference, exept the part count...

[guigui30000]

They are both beautiful, for Delta-V reasons, you should take the second one, but for 1 ton... Seriouly, Why not both !