Many questions about SSTO's, Shuttles and spaceplanes in general.

[Tassyr]

Actually there's one big question. "HOW."

I've been trying for about the last week using 0.90. I've tried using mostly stock, I've tried copying designs seen in the exchange, I've tried turbojets, rapiers and traditional rocket engines, combinations, Solid-state-booster assisted combinations... and I've come to one inescapable conclusion.

IT IS (CENSORED) (CENSORED) (REALLY CENSORED) IMPOSSIBLE. Shuttle launch style craft freehweel like they're high-divers showing off before a big splash, things launched from the runway barely get off the ground or run clean out of power by the time they hit 25km, or just hit the ground like lawn darts.

Am I insane or is there some magic trick I'm missing here?

[Pecan]

SSTOs - vertical-launch rockets are easiest but least efficient, vertical-launch jets are most efficient if you can land them, spaceplanes are hardest to build and fly.

Shuttles - just don't, as has been said in many, many threads. The US 'space-shuttle' design is a very difficult, inefficient design in KSP that performs worse than almost any other way of doing things. It isn't a SSTO either!

Spaceplanes - are a pain in the arse. Some people even take them to other moons and planets, which just shows how little they care about efficiency. Lots of tutorials around.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Pecan

[Tassyr]

SSTOs - vertical-launch rockets are easiest but leat efficient, vertical-launch jets are most efficient if you can land them, spaceplanes are hardest to build and fly.

Shuttles - just don't, as has been said in many, many threads. The US 'space-shuttle' design is a very difficult, inefficient design in KSP that performs worse than almost any other way of doing things. It isn't a SSTO either!

Spaceplanes - are a pain in the arse. Some people even take them to other moons and planets, which just shows how little they care about efficiency. Lots of tutorials around.

So what, the best I can hope for my station is Soyuz style craft? I've tried vertical launch jets and they just do the 'summersaulting high-diver' after 25km.

[GoSlash27]

Actually there's one big question. "HOW."

I've been trying for about the last week using 0.90. I've tried using mostly stock, I've tried copying designs seen in the exchange, I've tried turbojets, rapiers and traditional rocket engines, combinations, Solid-state-booster assisted combinations... and I've come to one inescapable conclusion.

IT IS (CENSORED) (CENSORED) (REALLY CENSORED) IMPOSSIBLE. Shuttle launch style craft freehweel like they're high-divers showing off before a big splash, things launched from the runway barely get off the ground or run clean out of power by the time they hit 25km, or just hit the ground like lawn darts.

Am I insane or is there some magic trick I'm missing here?

Neither. You're just not building according to the requirements. There are a lot of specialized engineering principles involved in SSTOs (especially spaceplanes) and a lot of specialized piloting principles (especially jet powered VTVL).

They are not difficult to master, but you have to follow them if you want a successful SSTO.

As Pecan said, there are lots of tutorials around.

Best,

-Slashy

[Torquemadus]

This is the smallest version of my Kerbooster stack shuttle. I use it for satellite contracts on my hardcore custom difficulty save.

It's part of my family of fly-back boosters that I use in place of shuttles. It's two stage to orbit, but the only parts that are expended are "trash bins full of boom" SRBs, which are dirt cheap, and are worth next to nothing when empty anyway.

[Pecan]

So what, the best I can hope for my station is Soyuz style craft? I've tried vertical launch jets and they just do the 'summersaulting high-diver' after 25km.

As usual, Slashy and I are on the same page here.

The easiest, but not the best, you can hope for is what SpaceX hasn't quite managed yet - so we start ahead of the curve :-)

That is - launch a rocket; make sure it's got a probe-core, a couple of drogue parachutes and 200 - 500m/s more dV than needed to get to orbit (I aim for 4,900m/s). Decouple your payload in orbit, use ~200m/s to de-orbit, ~300m/s to perform a drogue-assisted powered landing. Practice and you can get back to KSC for 98% recovery almost every time.

If the same thing with jets somersaults at higher altitudes it's likely you've got your intakes creating drag ahead of the CoM. There's nothing particularly difficult about jets without wings, because you don't have to care much about balance - you do need to care a bit about drag though, because you're going to be spending so much time in atmosphere. Pictures of craft you're having trouble with always help.

For spaceplanes much has been written and, sorry, but I can only say that like docking or those other specialised skills it will 'click' if you read and practice enough and you go from not being able to get off the ground to being able to put almost anything into orbit. It's tough, but that's the way it goes :-(

Edited January 11, 2015 by Pecan

[LethalDose]

Actually there's one big question. "HOW."

I've been trying for about the last week using 0.90. I've tried using mostly stock, I've tried copying designs seen in the exchange, I've tried turbojets, rapiers and traditional rocket engines, combinations, Solid-state-booster assisted combinations... and I've come to one inescapable conclusion.

IT IS (CENSORED) (CENSORED) (REALLY CENSORED) IMPOSSIBLE. Shuttle launch style craft freehweel like they're high-divers showing off before a big splash, things launched from the runway barely get off the ground or run clean out of power by the time they hit 25km, or just hit the ground like lawn darts.

Am I insane or is there some magic trick I'm missing here?

Okay, I prefer spaceplane SSTOs for reusable vehicles, so that's what all my advice is going to focus on. I only use horizontal take-off and landing aircraft.

First bit of advice I would give is to get FAR. The stock aerodynamic model is... developmentally challenged. FAR improves the way vessels fly and gives you some nice in-flight tools.

Second piece of advice, read this. Best advice for aircraft design in KSP I've ever seen.

Finally, I would recommend you build regular aircraft before you start working on aircraft that can even sub-orbital trajectories (entering space, but not an orbit). Get used to taking off and landing. Figure out how to build vessels that perform well in the lower atmosphere, then figure out high atmosphere, then figure out how to get to orbit. Each is going to build on the other, and you need to tackle each step in turn. The worst thing I see players do is go straight to large, complex vessels before they get a handle on simpler, necessary fundamentals.

Also, learn all this in a sandbox game before you start doing it in a career game. It'll just be easier to learn with all the parts before you start spending funds on the jets/planes.

SSTOs - vertical-launch rockets are easiest but leat efficient, vertical-launch jets are most efficient if you can land them, spaceplanes are hardest to build and fly.

Shuttles - just don't, as has been said in many, many threads. The US 'space-shuttle' design is a very difficult, inefficient design in KSP that performs worse than almost any other way of doing things. It isn't a SSTO either!

Spaceplanes - are a pain in the arse. Some people even take them to other moons and planets, which just shows how little they care about efficiency. Lots of tutorials around.

Emphasized part is pretty dismissive of very valid design strategy.

Spaceplanes are moderately difficult to learn, but not that bad when you find a design that works for your play style. They're most efficient when used as surface-to-orbit ferries, but given how disgustingly inefficient some players build rockets, it's hard to criticize players for building single-stage vessels that go beyond LKO...

IMO, Shuttles are a total nightmare, though. Much worse to design than spaceplanes due to the offset thrust and asymmetric design.

So what, the best I can hope for my station is Soyuz style craft? I've tried vertical launch jets and they just do the 'summersaulting high-diver' after 25km.

Nope, you can do cool stuff with spaceplanes. It takes work though. I tried and quit a handful of times before getting a handle on it. Try the advice above, figure out where you're having trouble and come on back with more specific questions.

Edited January 11, 2015 by LethalDose

[Van Disaster]

Good plan to be able to build normal aircraft first - but remember spaceplanes don't need to be aerobatic, even just turning is fairly optional if you use a simple up-orbit-reentry profile. Obviously you'll need to be able to change direction slightly to line up, and if you miss the first attempt turning is handy for going around again... good pitch control on the other hand is vital. Spaceplanes also change mass in a way normal aircraft generally don't, given the relatively huge amount of fuel burned.

If it's a craft to launch small probes or bunches of satellites it doesn't even need to be an orbiter, so no need for RCS or fuel for a re-entry burn - just has to be out of atmo long enough to detach payloads & get *those* into basic orbits, then you can just glide back to the runway. I have a 50k-ish craft that'll lift several tons of sats to 90-100km AP, with a shallow ascent that's plenty of time to get them stabilized - and must have done 20+ missions in the same ship by now for just the cost of some fuel. I'll work out exactly what the fuel use is sometime but there's no way it's anything near a full vertical launcher's worth.

[FlyingPete]

One thing I've found with spaceplanes is that you have to watch the balance as fuel is consumed. As you use up fuel from the forward tanks, the COM moves further back and eventually the control surfaces can't compensate for the pitch-up tendency. Gradually move fuel from aft tanks forward as the flight progresses.

The trick with spaceplanes is to fly a profile that allows you to build up speed in the atmosphere. Ideally you can get a suborbital trajectory before the jets run out of air, coast to apoapsis, and circularise the orbit with a small amount of rocket fuel. If you reduce the throttle at high altitudes you should be able to keep the jets running just enough at 40km or more. As Van Disaster mentioned, if you're using it to launch a satellite or probe you don't even need the rockets- just get it nearly to orbit with the jets, separate the payload at apoapsis and use its engines to complete the orbit.

Vertical SSTOs are less efficient, but simpler. Essentially you're building a rocket with jet engines on the side and lots of intakes. With these you want to skim along sideways to build up as much speed as possible before the jets die. Switch over to rockets and carry on to orbit.

[eddiew]

Spaceplanes ARE hard - reality still doesn't have a HOTOL orbiter NASA style shuttles are nearly impossible in KSP due to the asymmetry of them. You'd need angled engines to push through the centre of mass of the shuttle and (orange) fuel tank, and they'd need to adjust as the fuel emptied. With the tank detached, you'd need to swivel them back into alignment with the orbiter. Infernal Robotics might be able to help, but it would be hard.

If you aren't using FAR, that will help a lot, since plane shaped stuff will actually start to fly like a plane, rather than a brick. Check out Wanderfound's thread for a lot of great design ideas that work with this!

Oh, and getting rapier engines just simplifies everything. You can make something with over 1.2 TWR on air at sea level, and it'll just fly like a rocket with wings, right up to orbit. Not efficient or long range, but a good LKO delivery system. Prior to rapiers, it's really hard to make a decent HOTOL SSTO that can haul cargo.

[Pecan]

...Emphasized part [spaceplanes - are a pain in the arse] is pretty dismissive of very valid design strategy.

You are right. My intention was not to dismiss but indicate that they require a whole new(ish) set of skills to design, build and fly.

The rest of your comments are spot on and your final line:

"...you can do cool stuff with spaceplanes. It takes work though. I tried and quit a handful of times before getting a handle on it." is what I meant.

[Different subject] It is amusing though that people who think 'spaceplane' is the way to do things are amongst the most strident about stock aerodynamic woes. "Realism counts" ... except there's never been a real spaceplane, as eddiew points out. What I find most interesting here is that the Kerbal Space Program is, perhaps, most attractive to flight-sim fans and the strength of opinions offered about the atmospheric flight-model often outweighs that for, well, space. There's no right or wrong way to have fun, of course, but it's no wonder Squad didn't expect the 'flight' part to be quite so important. I think it's a noteworthy point about end-objectives not necessarily being what you expected them to be when you started (RAD FTW!).

Edited January 12, 2015 by Pecan

[WyDavies]

If you are trying for a spaceplane, first try to make a plane that can fly up to 30,000 metres. Then swap the jet fuel tanks for rocket fuel tanks and swap the jets for RAPIERs. An alternative is to add just a little bit of rocket fuel and add an atomic rocket engine. This is much trickier as you need to get up to at least 40,000 metres and 2000 m/s before switching to the rocket (atomic rockets have very poor thrust and work poorly in the atmosphere).

Tip: start small. The bigger a SSTO is the bigger a pain in the butt it is.

Stephen Hirst impressed me mightily with a small buggy that was also a VTOL jet and could also go into orbit.

In the following video he demonstrates the exact technique for getting into orbit - http://youtu.be/cu2pVvMehi4

I've got a youtube video of flying a vehicle inspired by his that is a little bit bigger and has an atomic rocket - http://youtu.be/h0cOAJof1jo

Two jet engines are a pain as the thrust gets uneven as the air runs out.

As to the question - why did I make a buggy that could fly into space? Because everything is better with wheels!

[Pecan]

...Tip: start small. The bigger a SSTO is the bigger a pain in the butt it is...

Stephen Hirst impressed me mightily with a small buggy that was also a VTOL jet and could also go into orbit...

As to the question - why did I make a buggy that could fly into space? Because everything is better with wheels!

Absolutely, about all of it but ... oooh! ... Slashy's going to give us his VTOL SSTO rover to (all sorts of places I can't rememer) again; it's just too good a cue to miss, I'm sure ...

(LOL)

[Alshain]

With regards to the spaceplanes are a pain in the arse comment, it's absolutely true. People that build spaceplanes do so for the challenge, not necessarily the practicality or ease. So really you have to ask yourself if you are interested in such a thing first. It's certainly not for everyone.

I enjoy the art of building planes more than even going to other planets in this game, just my preference, but it takes a lot of practice to build and especially land (unless you cheat and add parachutes to land vertically... ok not really cheating, it is a sandbox game I guess)

Edited January 12, 2015 by Alshain

[LethalDose]

[Different subject] It is amusing though that people who think 'spaceplane' is the way to do things are amongst the most strident about stock aerodynamic woes. "Realism counts" ... except there's never been a real spaceplane, as eddiew points out. What I find most interesting here is that the Kerbal Space Program is, perhaps, most attractive to flight-sim fans and the strength of opinions offered about the atmospheric flight-model often outweighs that for, well, space. There's no right or wrong way to have fun, of course, but it's no wonder Squad didn't expect the 'flight' part to be quite so important. I think it's a noteworthy point about end-objectives not necessarily being what you expected them to be when you started (RAD FTW!).

Well, I guess I'm glad we amuse you...

I don't see how the lack of IRL spaceplanes somehow makes the stock aero/drag model (based on mass, instead of cross-section, shape, or skin area) not stupid... The only thing 'realism' has to do with anything is the frame of reference of the player: If planes actually fly like planes and rockets actually fly like rockets, it's a lot easier to play the game. FAR fixes that. Trust me, if the rocket equation didn't work for rockets in space, I'd complain about that too. There are very few problems with how vessels behave in space, and serious issues with how they behave in the atmosphere.

On that matter, I'd prefer stock KSP to hold I_sp constant and varied thrust based on atmospheric density, like it does in real-life. I guess I need to complain about that more...

Further, you're quoting me, but I never said "spaceplane is the way to do things". It's one way to do things. It's one way I do things that I'm familiar enough to provide advise to other players.

[GoSlash27]

Absolutely, about all of it but ... oooh! ... Slashy's going to give us his VTOL SSTO rover to (all sorts of places I can't rememer) again; it's just too good a cue to miss, I'm sure ...

(LOL)

No, Sir

While the Tylo Rover *is* IMHO an awesome tool, it's not really relevant to this discussion. At least not in *that* way.

Laziness is the mother of invention, and I am a very lazy man. I'm all about using whatever designs will make the job easiest, and each of these designs makes specific jobs ridiculously easy.

SSTO spaceplanes are great for getting supplies and kerbals into LKO. Vertical SSTOs are awesome for heavy loads and bulky structures. And yes, Tylo rovers are awesome for constructing bases on other bodies.

About all you'll get out of me

-Slashy

- - - Updated - - -

With regards to the spaceplanes are a pain in the arse comment, it's absolutely true. People that build spaceplanes do so for the challenge, not necessarily the practicality or ease. So really you have to ask yourself if you are interested in such a thing first. It's certainly not for everyone.

I enjoy the art of building planes more than even going to other planets in this game, just my preference, but it takes a lot of practice to build and especially land (unless you cheat and add parachutes to land vertically... ok not really cheating, it is a sandbox game I guess)

Speak for yourself

I use spaceplanes because of their practicality and ease. They are really the best thing going... *for the job that they are best at*.

The engineering and piloting ramps up a bit for them, but it's really not beyond the abilities of most KSP players to attain.

Best,

-Slashy

[Van Disaster]

Once you've built a bunch spaceplanes are by far the easiest way to throw regular stuff in orbit - real life might not yet have any but then real life atmosphere doesn't end at ~70km with a 2400ish m/s orbital velocity either. If we ever do get a genuine spaceplane operational IRL then I suspect there would be appropriate savings there too. One of mine can lift over it's fuelled mass ( ~270t ) of up to 3m width cargo to 250-300km orbit, and it's not terribly concerned about balancing or any of the other issues that'd turn up with a custom rocket lifter, just drop the payload in the cargo bay, tweak the fuel load and off it flies. Of course it's 375k or so to buy ( a fuelled ) one but it pays fairly quickly - not sure what a 280t payload disposable rocket launcher would cost but I would imagine you can't buy too many for 375k.

Checked my sub-orbital launcher - I run FAR so it does need multi-mode engines, just no RCS or other orbital maneuvering systems - fuel cost is about 600 kerbucks to fill it, so the payload strutting is a significant chunk of the launch cost . I have a roughly equivalent ( SSTO and technically reusable, or at least landable for near complete recovery ) rocket which uses more like 9k in fuel. Admittedly probably not the most efficient either given it's not a bespoke multistage launcher and it's got things you don't find on disposable rockets like airbrakes/parachutes/airbags and even sizeable wings, but the fuel cost of 5 launches of that would pay for the equivalent spaceplane outright. When you start discarding hardware then it skews the situation even more towards spaceplanes. If it's conveniently tankable, or conveniently shaped then I'll launch in a spaceplane. If it's huge or awkward then I'll build it in space and fly components or EPL rocketparts up to orbit. I tend to build rocket launchers ( as opposed to tugs ) as something different to do every now and then.

Lethaldose - Ferram's KIDS mod can be run in just an ISP scaling mode, does exactly what you're asking for. Confuses all the dV/TWR calcs somewhat so you have to get a bit used to that, but works fine.

[Pecan]

Well, I guess I'm glad we amuse you...

Further, you're quoting me...

I'm glad you're glad.

All I said was Squad probably never expected their space-sim to be such an attractive flight-sim, things often evolve in surprising ways (which is why waterfall software development never works).

While the first part quoted you so people could see what my first comment referred to the "[Different Subject]" was meant to be a hint that I was talking about something else thereafter and, no, I wasn't attributing any views to you in that second part.

So Alshain say, he is an example of someone who prefers atmosphere work in exactly this way. Consensus, which I think you would also agree with, is that spaceplanes take more (or perhaps just different) work than rockets/tail-sitter jets, they all have their uses if you want to do them but regardless of how anyone does anything building a 'US space-shuttle' style vehicle is a nightmare in KSP.

@All: Incidentally, is it 'more' or 'different' work? Anyone come straight into KSP to build 'planes and then found rockets hard?

[LethalDose]

I'm glad you're glad.

yeah... don't be...

So Alshain say, he is an example of someone who prefers atmosphere work in exactly this way. Consensus, which I think you would also agree with, is that spaceplanes take more (or perhaps just different) work than rockets/tail-sitter jets, they all have their uses if you want to do them but regardless of how anyone does anything building a 'US space-shuttle' style vehicle is a nightmare in KSP.

@All: Incidentally, is it 'more' or 'different' work? Anyone come straight into KSP to build 'planes and then found rockets hard?

When you say "rockets/tail-sitter jets", you could mean a ton of of things. I'm going to answer to the best of my understand of what you're asking, but, based on how you've used terminology before, I could be way off.

IMO, SSTO VTOL rockets and jets for LKO operations that aren't re-usable are absurd and inefficient (I feel Tsiolkovsky adequately explains this viewpoint for me), and re-usable SSTO VTOL rockets and jets for LKO operations require nearly, if not fully, as much work to develop properly as spaceplanes.

The key word/phrase there is "develop properly", because if I'm going to spend the time, effort and funds to build an SSTO, you can be frakking sure I'm going to want it to be reusable. In my experience, designing reusable SSTO VTOL rockets-style vessels to get into orbit and flying them is slightly easier than spaceplanes, but getting them back from orbit and landing at the KSC is a vastly greater engineering and piloting task for me. Scott Manley has done this in his interstellar videos, but I'm not Manley and I don't use the interstellar mod, which seems to have a ton of propulsion systems better suited for both HTOL and VTOL SSTOs.

The planes are just easier and safer for me to land than tail-sitters. Admittedly, I haven't wasted spent tons of time on them, but I think the quantity and quality of work required to make tail-sitters work is comparable to spaceplanes.

Spaceplanes are great for ferrying small structural (e.g. probes) and moderately-sized non-structural (resources, kerbals, science, etc.) to and from LKO. For larger payloads, expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) are my chosen solution. Haven't done anything with the new Mk3 parts yet... frankly not sure what use I'll have for them.

But, Pecan, you've made it clear you don't think reusability or pin-point landing are important qualities for SSTOs to have, so I guess my view-points are simply invalid to your discussion, if what I said had anything to do with it to begin with.

Lethaldose - Ferram's KIDS mod can be run in just an ISP scaling mode, does exactly what you're asking for. Confuses all the dV/TWR calcs somewhat so you have to get a bit used to that, but works fine.

I will have to look into that, though I brought that up primarily to make the point that there are things about how rockets fly in space that bug me. It's not just the aero model. Though once again, it seems Ferram comes through like a champ.

Edited January 12, 2015 by LethalDose

[Vanamonde]

Rather than get into an argument about how the game should work and what other players should want to do, please give OP advice about what he/she wants to do in the current version of the way the game works.

[LethalDose]

Rather than get into an argument about how the game should work and what other players should want to do, please give OP advice about what he/she wants to do in the current version of the way the game works.

Not sure which posts these are aimed at, but if it's mine, I'd simply summarize the previous post as:

"Spaceplanes >>> tail-sitters because the are former way easier to land precisely (at KSC or elsewhere)"

[Pecan]

...But, Pecan, you've made it clear you don't think reusability or pin-point landing are important qualities for SSTOs to have, so I guess my view-points are simply invalid to your discussion, if what I said had anything to do with it to begin with...

I've always agreed that a disposable SSTO is pointlessly inefficient versus staging, except where a single tiny engine and fuel tank are all that's required (ie; just putting up a Stayputnik or similar) and there's nothing to sub-divide. You are right, however, that I don't consider pin-point landing important. 'Within a kilometer' is fairly easy by hand, if I need 'within a few metres' I use MJ. Treat yourself to a mainsail, probe-core, battery, solar panel, 2 drogues and 10t payload some time. Enough fuel for 4,900m/s dV or so and you'll be surprised how easy it is to do a drogue-assisted powered landing at KSC :-) A KR-2L can SSTO 25t to the same spec.

The only point here really is that while all types of SSTO have their uses for different people, 'Space-Shuttle' designs aren't SSTOs but are hard to make/fly and inefficient in KSP.

[Wanderfound]

Actually there's one big question. "HOW."

I've been trying for about the last week using 0.90. I've tried using mostly stock, I've tried copying designs seen in the exchange, I've tried turbojets, rapiers and traditional rocket engines, combinations, Solid-state-booster assisted combinations... and I've come to one inescapable conclusion.

IT IS (CENSORED) (CENSORED) (REALLY CENSORED) IMPOSSIBLE. Shuttle launch style craft freehweel like they're high-divers showing off before a big splash, things launched from the runway barely get off the ground or run clean out of power by the time they hit 25km, or just hit the ground like lawn darts.

Am I insane or is there some magic trick I'm missing here?

A simple and easy stock design that works: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnz9s8k9h7gwgb/Kerbodyne%20Benchmark%20StockAir.craft?dl=0

Give that a shot and report back; it will help us figure out if the problem is in design or piloting.

[LordFjord]

Spaceplanes are hard, expensive and arguably inefficient for interplanetary travel. So why do people (and me) build them?

- a challenge, especially when you go beyond LKO

- some might say reusability, see this old awesome challenge. Seriously, I learned so much from that thread.

- I like them because I never hit KSC spot on when returning, so I can fly the remaining way back

- and finally: style, because why goto space in a tincan if you can go there in a Ferrari?

Give Wanderfound's bird a try and let us know how it went.

[Cirocco]

Right so a lot of people have already linked you a lot of stuff. I'll simply say that the link LethalDose provided in post #7 tp the "basic aircraft design" thread is what jumpstarted my aircraft design and what allowed me to go from crash-on-runway to interplanetary SSTO's that never refuel.

a few extra pointers:

- always make sure center of mass and center of thrust are aligned. Ideally, the center of lift orb should never be fully seperate from the center of mass orb. You can check this by emptying the fuel tanks in the spaceplane hangar and seeing how the CoM moves as you do so. I also have begun using the "RCS build aid" mod recently which shows you the "dry" CoM (all fuel tanks drained) as well as the normal "wet" one.

- As many have said beofre, shuttle design the way NASA did it is an incredible pain in the ass in KSP due to its asymmetric design. It's possible and many people have done it before, but it's not easy and usually requires a ton of reaction control engines (vernor engines at the top of the fuel tank to offset the thrust is an often used solution)

- airbreathing SSTO spaceplanes are great as cargo haulers to carry stuff to LKO (Low Kerbin Orbit) and for use on Laythe. I would advise against using them for much else. I have some experience with interplanetary SSTO spaceplanes and I can tell you: they're not worth the trouble. They take a ton of design effort, are stupidly big and heavy, are generally less efficient than purely rocket-powered ships and can't really do anything other than the specific task they were designed to do. They may be somewhat cheaper because you don't discard any hardware, but the small cost saving is not worth it.

TLDR: use the "basic aircraft design" thread Lethaldose linked you in post #7, use SSTO spaceplanes to haul cargo and kerbals to LKO and nothing else (unless you want to do it purely for the challenge)