Discussion on shuttle booster types (vertical stack, underneath, side mount).

[tjsnh]

So, I'm just curious what people think of the three main methods of launching a shuttle.

Booster/tank underneath, like the US Shuttle and Soviet Buran with angled engines on the orbiter.

Booster stacked vertically, like the abandoned klipper design.

Boosters mounted to the side, above the wings attached to the fuselage, to maintain COT with COM more easily and with non-angled engines on the orbiter.

Currently I've only had very sporadic luck with the under-tank/booster method, and find that every launch is a totally different challenge with loads of rcs/vernierfuel used just to keep the thing from tipping over.

I've had pretty good luck with the side-tank/booster method, and have made 3 working shuttle designs that fly pretty much the same every time using this profile.

I have yet to try the vertically stacked booster method. Seems like it would be just like launching anything else?

Thoughts?

[Torquemadus]

I used to rely on a stacked configuration. However, I've since found that my bigger shuttles are much more stable if I mount the boosters at the sides instead.

[Pecan]

1. US 'space shuttle' designs are very hard to balance in KSP - as you've found.

2. Carrying all that mass of wings, etc. up into space just so it can land on the runway isn't worth the ~2% recovery gain.

3. A SSTO rocket is simplest to build, for ~98% recovery.

4. A jet-launched SSTO, with small rocket(s) just for circularisation is most efficient.

5. If you want a plane, build one; a spaceplane is easier to build but much efficient than a 'shuttle'.