Shuttle Classes

[Soyuzturtle]

Because discovery can't go to space right now even if it had an ET and boosters , would that mean that discovery and all the other museum shuttles are not shuttles by Blazer's definition?

 

[Horus Lupercal]

And what if they make a new shuttle in 50 years that doesn't have boosters, and they call it a shuttle?

Which is going to be the case. It'll be very difficult for someone to stand there and justify re-making the mistakes from the STS program.

A shuttle is a reusable plane shaped thing that can make lift and "shuttle" inbetween two places. On Earth and other high-gravity planets, they often have boosters for better mass fraction.
But sometimes they sacrifice some of that mass fraction, or use advanced tech, to be a SSTO shuttle.

Ha, so a representative spaceplane? That would be faaar to simple a definition.

Because discovery can't go to space right now even if it had an ET and boosters , would that mean that discovery and all the other museum shuttles are not shuttles by Blazer's definition?

No, cos STS has special exemption in that even if it didn't exist, it would still be a shuttle cos it says so on the box.

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

Ah, I see where you guys went wrong here.

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

The Space Shuttle Isn't its own class of vehicle in reality, it's a part of the class Spaceplanes (including Buran, Venturestar, X-37, Dreamchaser). The reason it was named a space shuttle was because its purpose was to ferry to and from space, which can be accomplished by a lot of things (starship is a space shuttle in that sense as well, but not a spaceplane).

That's where you've gone wrong. TtTOtW has gone fanboy in his classification and made it way too restrictive, and yall have just completely derailed fighting over that classification.

If you really want to allow creativity, then a spaceplane ferry is the classification you should really be working with.

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

One major gripe I have: an aerospike engine IS a rocket engine. LITERALLY EVERY mechanic it uses is the same as other rocket engines, it just has a different nozzle shape (although tbf that does give it a lot of engineering challenges, and different beneficial characteristics as well)

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

The restriction that does make sense is that any major part layering really should be restricted, in my opinion at least.
From there you can classify by tonnage to orbit just fine, and then you won't have to deal with any ridiculousness.

Make a spaceplane which can ferry cargo (or crew) to orbit, and you've made a space shuttle. That just leaves you with the aestetical aspect of whether the creation is a spaceplane, which is okay being subjective imo.

 

[TtTOtW]

The restriction that does make sense is that any major part layering really should be restricted, in my opinion at least.
From there you can classify by tonnage to orbit just fine, and then you won't have to deal with any ridiculousness.

My point exactly.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Ah, I see where you guys went wrong here.

Right from the start.

The restriction that does make sense is that any major part layering really should be restricted, in my opinion at least.
From there you can classify by tonnage to orbit just fine, and then you won't have to deal with any ridiculousness

My point with all that is how ridiculous can it get? A 1000ton shuttle, is a 1000t shuttle. I don't see why that has to be a certain size, it'll be just as hard (if not harder) to make a 14m tall shuttle lift 1000tons as it will to make a 140m tall shuttle lift 1000tons.
And who would do that? A 14m tall shuttle is going to have a tiny cargo bay, so even if it can lift 1000t, good luck actually getting a usable 1000t payload into it.
it'll still sit in with the 1000t shuttles, because it's a 1000t shuttle. And I don't see why that's a problem.

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

Right from the start.



My point with all that is how ridiculous can it get? A 1000ton shuttle, is a 1000t shuttle. I don't see why that has to be a certain size, it'll be just as hard (if not harder) to make a 14m tall shuttle lift 1000tons as it will to make a 140m tall shuttle lift 1000tons.
And who would do that? A 14m tall shuttle is going to have a tiny cargo bay, so even if it can lift 1000t, good luck actually getting a usable 1000t payload into it.
it'll still sit in with the 1000t shuttles, because it's a 1000t shuttle. And I don't see why that's a problem.

It isn't a matter of whether it's easier or hard. The issue is the fact that it can be done at all, because YOU KNOW some people WILL do it (without limiting part layering). It just doesn't make sense, that's why I think it should be limited.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

YOU KNOW some people WILL do it

Oh god yeah. It's one of those Roche type builds, all exploits, no skill.
It's just not one of those things I care if they do or not. It's not like ion powered micro rockets with the aero glitch and pretending they've set the 'to destination' SFS world record. The only person they're really playing is themselves as they've made a micro shuttle that wins no competitions and achieves nothing.
Hell, it won't even look impressive, because a tiny shuttles just don't look as good as build screen sized monsters

 

[bobbblair123]

Horus is pulling to his side. It actually is:

A. A shuttle requires assistance to reach orbit on Earth.
—or—
B. A shuttle can be an SSTO.

That’s all.

To shuttle is to transport. Via any method or vehicle. You can put wheels ( or a rocket engine) on a box and call it a shuttle. Last time I checked they weren't putting SRB's on the buses though.

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

Oh god yeah. It's one of those Roche type builds, all exploits, no skill.
It's just not one of those things I care if they do or not. It's not like ion powered micro rockets with the aero glitch and pretending they've set the 'to destination' SFS world record. The only person they're really playing is themselves as they've made a micro shuttle that wins no competitions and achieves nothing.
Hell, it won't even look impressive, because a tiny shuttles just don't look as good as build screen sized monsters

If you don't care about it, that's one thing. A lot of us do though, so it's something worth limiting if we're trying to promote good design.

 

[Marmilo]

Horus has a point though. What we call the Shuttle is the orbiter, not the assisting stuff. And the orbiter staya the same regardless of if there is an et or not.

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

To shuttle is to transport. Via any method or vehicle. You can put wheels ( or a rocket engine) on a box and call it a shuttle. Last time I checked they weren't putting SRB's on the buses though.

Was just talking about this lol. Be careful to not just straight up define like this without tying it into the big picture. Just adds to the confusion.

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

Horus has a point though. What we call the Shuttle is the orbiter, not the assisting stuff. And the orbiter staya the same regardless of if there is an et or not.

Yeah, I'm of a similar opinion. How it's launched isn't of great importance here, as that tends to be determined based on the system you need to launch anyways.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

A lot of us do though, so it's something worth limiting if we're trying to promote good design

Yeah, but my thoughts are simple. Why? It's not like we force that upon rocket makers

 

[bobbblair123]

Was just talking about this lol. Be careful to not just straight up define like this without tying it into the big picture. Just adds to the confusion.

Been reading this thread since yesterday. I understand some people are trying to define what makes a "space" shuttle. That would be anything capable of repeatedly carrying something into space. Wings are immaterial as is the method of propulsion. I'm curious why such hard lines have been drawn.

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

Yeah, but my thoughts are simple. Why? It's not like we force that upon rocket makers

Sorry, I was under the impression that a big reason for this argument was partially for the purpose of the Team Hawk Shuttle building.

 

[bobbblair123]

Been reading this thread since yesterday. I understand some people are trying to define what makes a "space" shuttle. That would be anything capable of repeatedly carrying something into space. Wings are immaterial as is the method of propulsion. I'm curious why such hard lines have been drawn.

I believe you guys are trying to define a space going aerodynamic craft. A space plane maybe? You obviously want something that glides/flies back to earth

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

I believe you guys are trying to define a space going aerodynamic craft. A space plane maybe? You obviously want something that glides/flies back to earth

Did you not read anything I was just saying?

 

[bobbblair123]

Did you not read anything I was just saying?

Yep. Not banging my head against a brick wall. Just call me captain obvious. I'm out. Y'all have fun. Tossed my 2 cents in.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Sorry, I was under the impression that a big reason for this argument was partially for the purpose of the Team Hawk Shuttle building.

Ish. It's more though for shuttles in general, which is what this classification is supposedly for. And it's a 60% good idea, classification purely on mass to orbit capability, same as we do for rockets.
For the hawk challenge, there's no restrictions on how you build the shuttle, size, payload, engines, parts, blueprint editing. As long as it goes up and comes back down again without breaking anything and you're not using exploits, same as with the rest of the challenges. I've part clipped and overlapped a lot of stuff on my entries rocket-wise. Excaliber has a fair amount of it as well and no one has minded.
So yeah, I see even less point in just restricting shuttles, for hawk or in general.

 

[Pink]

Team hawk shuttle is different, the rules are:

Build a shuttle approved by @TtTOtW or @Blazer.

We're arguing about general shuttles not used for team hawk, I think.

 

[James Brown]

Wait what did I missed?

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Wait what did I missed?

Nothing, if you read the thread