How Popular are Re-Usable Space Shuttles and Space Ships?

[Sanguine]

Basically what the title says. My only claim to fame is a large cargo freighter, Contents Fragile, which carried my Duna Base, Rover and Space Station Core. I'm currently just using it as a fuel tug.

Seeing as I have not seen a thread which indicates any kind of big, reusable space ship that isn't designed for re-entry, and only a few on the space shuttle, I wonder if it's mostly limited to youtubers.

[Seret]

Most of my missions use hardware that I've had in space for quite a while. I have a small class of tugs that do all my orbital ops, a larger one for interplanetary runs, and a crew vessel for transport and quick exploration flybys. Even some of my landers are recycled. I generally only launch specialist payloads and tankers from KSP.

Good name for your ship, btw!

Edited July 12, 2014 by Seret

[montyben101]

Almost all my launches are by the CSS space shuttle, I also use the soyuz from soviet pack to launch smaller stuff into orbit

[Pecan]

"Motherships", "tractors", "tugs" and other indefinite-life ships and stations are popular with those who like to build-up a cost-effective infrastructure over time. Other people either don't want to have all those things floating around all the time or enjoy designing and building single-mission vehicles. Most people (as far as I can tell from comments) find surface-to-orbit spaceplanes/shuttles more trouble than they're worth for anything but very small payloads but, on the other hand, those that like them really love them. Re-creations of the actual shuttle-style of vehicle are particularly difficult in KSP and almost exclusively rely on specialist mods - again, there are a few people who like these sort of rockets.

There's all sorts of people playing KSP for all sorts of reasons and doing things the way they enjoy broadly:

• Want to build an infrastruct for missions to go anywhere? - Use carrier ships/stations never intended to land.
  
• Want to build and fly individual, specific, ship missions? - Single-launch or space-assembly every time.
  
• Love flight simulators? - Spaceplanes can do everything a rocket does; with wings!
  
• Think USA-history is the way everything should be done? - Get a mod to make a shuttle.
  

And, of course, there's nothing stopping anyone who mainly builds infrastructure, say, from using spaceplanes for crew and fuel transfers and designing and building 'specialist' craft for specific missions. It's all about where you want to spend your time and effort. Have fun :-)

[Apollo91]

I think .24 is going to kick that up for all of us. I built a huge ship once, but by the time I built it I was so burnt out I never sent it anywhere (and a new version came out requiring a new save). Now with funds, there's actually a reason to build a freighter and just clip a bunch of landers to it, and run fuel all over the place. It will be a lot cheaper that way, to just have a ship dedicated to making runs between stations in high planetary orbits. That way, each time you get back to Kerbin, you can land a bunch of landers (and get their science\contracts), launch a bunch of landers on cheap rockets\spaceplanes, clip em on the freighter and send it out to whatever planet you just spammed contracts for.

I'm geeked for how much .24 will change gameplay in this regard specifically. EDIT ninja'd

Edited July 12, 2014 by Apollo91
ninja'd

[Richy teh space man]

With the exception of attached SRBs, all of my rocket launchers and space planes are reusable, and can land again at the KSC.

Also all of my space craft are reusable to some extent, though they get put into reserve in a high orbit above Kerbin when they become obsolete.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Richy teh space man
Clarity

[Sky_walker]

I usually build ships on an orbit, around my refueling station, and then send them to the mission.

I'm not really a fan of space planes. In stock they're just a waste of time, and I don't care enough to install a modes dedicated to adding tons of airplane parts - huge mess with little benefit to the actual gameplay and on top of that: causes tons of issues with balance and long-term compatibility.

Reusable rockets? Well, I got some rockets on an orbit that I use when needed, refueling done by a special, dedicated tanker rockets (they fly into the orbit, refuel the station and then fly back to burn in the atmosphere), but I never did anything alike grasshopper - it's tedious, time taking, and doesn't bring any benefit.

Will I try it in 0.24? No, I won't. You still loose over 20% of your resources even if you land it right in a middle of launch pad, so I don't think I'll be bothered.

[timsfitz]

Although I like to play with spaceplanes, I don't use reusable craft very often. Every huge ship I build never has enough fuel to return from Jool. I usually use smaller more efficient ships that are little more than capsules when they return to Kerbin.

[Alshain]

I rather like SSTO concepts, but I'm not in either "camp" as to which kind is better. I believe each one has a unique purpose, and it's the right tool for the right job. As suggested earlier Spaceplanes are a lot of trouble, but it's fun to challenge yourself. They can't lift heavy loads, I use rockets for that, but if your playing a game where you self enforce a rule that Kerbal's can't stay in space indefinitely, they make a great crew transport and they are fun to fly.

So, yeah I think they all have their merits and it's really just about what entertains you. If it doesn't, try something else.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Alshain

[TimePeriod]

I might build ships in space, to keep overall part count lower with a proven and stable rocket rather then building a custom (and unproven) rocket for a given payload.

[Seret]

Every huge ship I build never has enough fuel to return from Jool.

A fuel depot in the Jool system is a beautiful thing.

Huge ships aren't necessary for reusability though. Even if I'm just returning a capsule to Kerbin there's no reason to let the propulsion section burn up. I did a programme recently where I scraped the Mun dry of science burning up minimal hardware. Once I had the lander and a fuel depot in Munar orbit I just used a shuttle to take pods back and forth to Kerbin. The only part that was disposable was the LV for the pods, which was understandably pretty small. I've moved all the hardware out to Minmus and will do the same there when I get around to it.

[Alshain]

^ A little off topic but I find it hilarious when people say the "Jool System", which a lot of people do. Jool is a planet, not a planetary system.

[Godot]

Space Shuttles I have used never so far ...

but I used a reusable Mun Lander in connection with an orbital station around Mun, which refueled it and reset its experiments

(together with tankers that brought huge fuel tanks to the station)

Also I always take care that launcher stages that fall back to Kerbin are equipped with enough chutes, that they make it to ground in one piece

[StrandedonEarth]

^ A little off topic but I find it hilarious when people say the "Jool System", which a lot of people do. Jool is a planet, not a planetary system.

But Jool has a system of moons, so the phrase "Jool system" is appropriate. When one goes to Jool it's usually to visit the moons anyways.

I had quite a collection of almost empty returned tugs, labs, and heavy landers built up at my Kerbin orbit-to-surface taxi depot, waiting to be refueled and sent off again (I had simultaneous Jool, Eeloo, and Dres missions going) . But then a new update came out and... they're still there

[magnemoe]

Tugs like this I reuse a lot,

here its pushing an huge ore miner into correct orbit so I can refuel it it has a claw who can be docked on the forward docking port for asteroid redirection who is one of their uses, other is to take stuff to Mun or Minmus or push interplantary ships the first 1000 m/s

Not reused many SSTO but at least the crew version will benefit of being refueled in 0.24,

[problemecium]

I reuse ALL the things!

For the first half of my current Career, I put parachutes on pretty near everything that went into space. The only reason I stopped is because I developed a ship capable of klawing an orange tank and soft-landing it with the help of its built-in wad of backup chutes, so now everything I have in space can at least in theory be brought safely back to KSC. Why I would need to bring my stations and bases all the way back is still a mystery.

...well actually there was this one time I had to emergency de-colonize the Mun after the Kraken decided to move in next door to my Mun base. That was a day I was thankful for my space safety infrastructure.

[thylordroot]

I've avoided them up until recently on the basis of practicality. Designing a shuttle-like vehicle that does not crash immediately (let alone get out of the atmosphere) is difficult since your center of lift or center of thrust are never where they need to be for stable flight. Nonetheless, I did so recently, and I think it is worth a shot if you'd like a good challenge. There are also a few hacks that make cargo bays in stock easier to build (c.f.

), and spaceplanes have become much easier to build in the last few released.

I'm not a plane person (I prefer rockets instead), but I've been looking into them since near the end of 0.23, and have been building them exclusively while I'm waiting for 0.24 to be released. If you're comfortable with KSP's aerodynamics, I think it's worth a shot to try a building a shuttle vehicle for grins. I'm not sure that I will make it part of my Career Mode game once 0.24 hits, but I imagine they will become a little bit more popular because of budget recovery. It'd be interesting to see whether or not that ends up being the case.

[Caelib]

I build everything unique for each mission -- that is what makes the game fun for me.

[LethalDose]

I didn't prefer spaceplanes/SSTOs, but I saw it as an interesting challenge to build one I wanted to fly. I tried to build one a ton of times and gave up a ton of times minus one. Now about of third of my launches are off the runway, so I consider myself something of a convert.

I used SSTOs mostly to deliver fuel, life support, and kerbals to my stations, and bring kerbals and science back. Using fully reusable spaceplanes to get resources and Kerbals to and from the surface means spacecraft can be dedicated spacecraft, no need for them to carry heat shields, parachutes, decouplers, etc, for re-entry and the vessel can be used again. The spaceplanes can also be used again, without any need for recovery at the end of a mission.

Anyway, to the OP's question "how popular are spaceplanes?"... well, how popular are they compared to what? Lots of people use them, lots don't. I suspect that most players that use SSTOs regularly also use mods, so theres some correlation there, too.

Anyway, I think that we're going to see more SSTOs after 0.24 drops. I think we're already seeing fewer obscenely large and lazy asparagus boosters, because very efficency is going to matter very Soon^tm

Oh, and it's going to cause players to be screaming for stock cargo bays to make it easier to get structural payloads into space using spaceplanes. Whether SQUAD is happy about it or not.

[lammatt]

although space shuttle and spaceplanes look cool, there is a reason why space agencies abandoned them.

when they are perfecting the technique for returning a capsule precisely to a landing site, the idea of gliding a plane back to a runway is getting redundant. (and shuttles are expensive to maintain)

however... in KSP, it's pretty much a different story, when

1. looking cool are very important

2. dropping a capsule exacatly near the space center is actually harder than gliding a plane to the runway

3. building and flying a plane is more fun than rockets.

i am expecting planes and shuttle being a lot more popular than rockets if the mission is happens within kerbin's SOI.

[merendel]

Planes not so much for me. I've played with them and even used FAR but they are generaly more trouble than its worth. That said I tend to make most of my ships modular and designed for reuse. Once I have docking avalible I tend to send a couple general perpous vessles up that remain in space asside from the command module. Transfer stages and landers are left in orbit and refuled and sent out agian as needed. Comand pods deorbit on RCS and new ones are sent up for the next mission. I will sometimes retire obsolesent hardware, usualy my first few dont have all the tech nodes needed to build them properly and get desposed of once replacements are avalible.

Generaly once I get going its only new command pods and fuel missions that go up with the ocasional expansion to the fleet or a specialty mission (eve lander says hello). Science gets cleaned out in orbit, either kerbin's or on site if theres enough targets to warent sending a lab (jool, mun/minmus). Everything that can viably be reused is designed to be reused.

[Torquemadus]

I've been experimenting with re-useable fly-back boosters. They are inspired by the original concept for the Space Shuttle, which consisted of two manned re-useable rocket planes. The booster was to act as the first stage, while the orbiter was to be the upper stage. The booster was eventually dropped from the design and replaced with solid rockets to save development costs.

My version acknowledges that any stages that are released before I make orbit are going to be lost when they fall back into Kerbin's atmosphere. Therefore, I use solid rockets as my first stage. The logic behind this is that I'm expecting solid fuel to cost less than liquid fuel in the new patch and I expect empty solid rocket "trash bins full of boom" to have limited recovery value anyway.

The design shown in the album below consists of a solid-fuelled first stage and three liquid-fuelled fly-back stages. In this case, they are being used to send the upper stage to perform a Mun landing. Each stage has enough fuel remaining after separation to get itself back to Kerbin and land on the runway.

This is obviously a time consuming approach. I have to design and test fly each space plane stage separately. I'm also making extra work for myself during the mission by adding the requirement to pilot each stage back to the runway. Re-entry was actually the most difficult part to learn, since I'm aiming to re-enter within gliding distance of the KSC runway.

Note that these plane are stock, with no mods used (except Kerbin Cup for the flags).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

See the link in my sig for more pics.

[Highlad]

I've been experimenting with re-useable fly-back boosters. They are inspired by the original concept for the Space Shuttle, which consisted of two manned re-useable rocket planes. The booster was to act as the first stage, while the orbiter was to be the upper stage. The booster was eventually dropped from the design and replaced with solid rockets to save development costs.

My version acknowledges that any stages that are released before I make orbit are going to be lost when they fall back into Kerbin's atmosphere. Therefore, I use solid rockets as my first stage. The logic behind this is that I'm expecting solid fuel to cost less than liquid fuel in the new patch and I expect empty solid rocket "trash bins full of boom" to have limited recovery value anyway.

The design shown in the album below consists of a solid-fuelled first stage and three liquid-fuelled fly-back stages. In this case, they are being used to send the upper stage to perform a Mun landing. Each stage has enough fuel remaining after separation to get itself back to Kerbin and land on the runway.

This is obviously a time consuming approach. I have to design and test fly each space plane stage separately. I'm also making extra work for myself during the mission by adding the requirement to pilot each stage back to the runway. Re-entry was actually the most difficult part to learn, since I'm aiming to re-enter within gliding distance of the KSC runway.

Note that these plane are stock, with no mods used (except Kerbin Cup for the flags).

*Imigur snip*

See the link in my sig for more pics.

I have a feeling you like things with wings on them too much...

[Pecan]

I have a feeling you like things with wings on them too much...

LOL. I'd agree; I'm getting good results with powered-landing rockets which are an awful lot less hassle to fly. Cost-effective too since they're much simpler builds than spaceplanes. Still, those that want them can play KSP flight-simulator; there's no wrong way to have fun :-)

ETA: Just uploaded this pic of what I'm playing with for another thread. Powered-landing after delivering 40t to 100km orbit:

@ below - I don't see how any patch has made things more ridiculous for planes. In the real world adding nosecones does cost money and add weight :-) Since 0.23 at least they change the drag characteristics somewhat so they aren't completely useless. Yes, I agree your main point but do we really want KSP to become an atmospheric flight-simulator instead of a space-based one? Granted, I think a lot of people do but I also think an awful lot of people want an awful lot of other things more.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Pecan

[qromodynmc]

If you ask me,Space planes are become more ridiculous with every new patch,Think about 0.24; there is no proper aerodynamics,when you use nosecones on planes or rockets,it will cost money,also it will add more weight. And there is nothing good about them. I believe we will need better aerodynamics soon.