Shuttle Classes

[TtTOtW]

Shuttles are classed according to size, cargo bay dimensions and payload to orbit.

A shuttle by definition cannot reach orbit from Earth with a payload without its booster/ET (External Tank). Therefore a Shuttle is definitively not an SSTO. Here is the classification table of Shuttles in SFS:

- An F Class Shuttle can take 30t of 100% full fuel tanks, or less, in a 4 wide fairing, fully enclosed, to orbit.
- An E Class Shuttle can take 31t to 75t of 100% full fuel tanks in a 6 wide fairing, fully enclosed, to orbit.
- A D Class Shuttle can take 76t to to 120t of 100% full fuel tanks in an 8 wide fairing, fully enclosed, to orbit.
- A C Class Shuttle can take 121t to 200t of 100% full fuel tanks in a 10 wide fairing, fully enclosed, to orbit.
- A B Class Shuttle can take 201t to 300t of 100% full fuel tanks in a 12 wide fairing, fully enclosed, to orbit.
- An A Class Shuttle can take 301t, or more, of 100% full fuel tanks in a 14 wide fairing, fully enclosed, to orbit.
*** All above classes require that the orbiter and booster/s/ET all fit in a 1.5 DLC build grid, and are not assembled after launch, nor do tanks overlap other tanks, whether it be the orbiter, ET or payload.
- An X Class Shuttle can take a payload of 100% full fuel tanks that fill its cargo bay, in an at least 14 wide fairing, fully enclosed, to orbit. The orbiter fits in the standard 1.5 DLC build grid, but the booster/s/ET does not fit along with it, and needs to be launched separarely and assembled before launch by a means of your choosing, due to size constraints.
- A Q Class Shuttle can take a payload of 100% full fuel tanks that fill its cargo bay, in an at least 14 wide fairing, fully enclosed, to orbit. The orbiter alone does not fit in the standard 1.5 DLC build grid, irrespective of whether the booster/s/ET by itself does or does not, and needs to be launched separarely and assembled before launch by a means of your choosing.
***As with F to A Classes, fuel tanks may not overlap one another for X and Q Class Shuttles.

If you do not use fairings, there needs to be a defined space of equal capacity in its place, and the qualification payload may not extend outside it for this purpose.

If fairings are used, losing the door does not disqualify the shuttle.

Payload bays must contain at least one usable docking port for load retention.

Modular Shuttles gets an -L added to the Class designation, i.e. DL Class Shuttle. Modular Shuttles will be classed according to the finished size of the launch stack.

If by constraint there is minor overlapping of tanks not exceeding 1% of total fuel tank mass unloaded, and excluding ET, it will be overlooked. This limitation is extended to 2.5% for IOS users as long as the primary reason is the inability to edit.

All shuttles will be disqualified from official classification if it requires any cheats whatsoever after launch.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Bloody hell man, I know shuttles are your thing and you 'invented' them, but I'm reading this as 'it's only a shuttle if I say so.'

Why can't a shuttle be an SSTO? Why must a 250t payload fit in a 12 wide fairing? Why must it have fairings for the payload in the first place? Why can't you overlap things?

By this list, not only does Excaliber not count as a shuttle (because fairings), but neither does Hermes / Dreamchaser (because no payload bay), nor Venturestar (because SSTOs ain't shuttles). And you'll have to tell ESA that, cos according to their website they were rather convinced they were making a mini space shuttle.

Dude. Classifications are fine. But definitions like these, (especially incorrect ones) are just gonna choke off peoples options until everything just looks like an SCS clone.
I mean, it's a bit of a stretch saying that a shuttle must be a spaceplane (by The definition of a shuttle, things go up, things go down. Starship will be a shuttle, and it definitely isn't a spaceplane) or must have a payload bay (why must payload be removable? Isn't transferable crew/handing bags of kit, food, stores and refuse through the crew hatch/fuel transfer a payload?).

 

[TtTOtW]

I'm not saying they're not shuttles. But, they blur the lines. Also, don't think this is exhaustive, it will obviously be adjusted as genuine faults are found. But as for size and weight, this is a good start. Besides, Excaliber isn't a shuttle.

I've not endeavoured to define a shuttle here, but to class them. Still, you can't measure a rocket or drone by a shuttle classification standard. So, you do need some sort of definition. Also, "If you wish to definitively define something, you need a definition".
So basically what I'm saying is: I'm kidding about Excaliber. So your suggestions will be considered. Thank you for pointing out shortcomings in my work, I'll smooth out the kinks.

Oh, and about over-simplified, overly inclusive definitions: "My BMX can do that"...

 

[Soyuzturtle]

If you wish to definitively define something, you need a definition".

Your kidding

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Besides, Excaliber isn't a shuttle.

Nope, it's an OP as fuck sword denoting executive power after being thrown by a watery tart.

But, they blur the lines

I wouldn't say that. The differences between the actual Space Shuttle and Hermes or Venturestar or Starship is the how not the what. They all do the same things, payload up, payload down. How they achieve that differs, but the basic mission task is identical.

Still, you can't measure a rocket or drone by a shuttle classification standard.

But as for size and weight, this is a good start.

And I'd never say you have. I've seen this list before and they should have their own classes and the classification itself by weight is a good idea. The problem isn't the classes, it's the aside from weight criterion requirements.

I've not endeavoured to define a shuttle here, but to class them

But you did dude. Second paragraph.

A shuttle by definition cannot reach orbit from Earth with a payload without its booster/ET (External Tank). Therefore a Shuttle is definitively not an SSTO.

So, you do need some sort of definition. Also, "If you wish to definitively define something, you need a definition".

Of course. But a definition that defines it correctly. It doesn't have to be over-simplified or overly inclusive. A shuttle definition for the purposes of this classification could be 'a representative spaceplane, either side view or top down. Must be capable of achieving space and re-entry.'
This closes both of our problems. Your one of someone using an SSTO or re-useable rocket as a 'shuttle' (like Starship, which is a 'shuttle', but isn't a spaceplane) and my one in which actual real world shuttle spaceplanes are excluded from this.

Oh, and about over-simplified, overly inclusive definitions: "My BMX can do that"...

Technically, Blazer wasn't far off though. Since 1973, Spielberg has been closer to the moon with a BMX than NASA has with a rocket...

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Your kidding

No, Horus himself said that.

But seriously TtTOtW you are being very restrictive here. Horus is right, you are saying that is not a shuttle if you do not think is a shuttle, and trying to make your conception of a shuttle a standard on the forum. This is not correct!

I’ll be more specific and list here the things I don’t agree with:

• “Shuttles are classed according to cargo bay dimensions.” —> NOPE. Why would you do that? People can use the payload Bay they want, I do not think that changes the class of a shuttle.
• “Payload bays must contain at least one usable docking port for load retention.” --> NOPE. Why? You can use separators to detach the payload.
• “If by constraint there is minor overlapping of tanks not exceeding 1% of total fuel tank mass unloaded, and excluding ET, it will be overlooked”. —> NOPE. I see no problem with part overlapping, is a very good way to add fuel, and as far as I know, part overlapping has NEVER been forbidden, so why would be for shuttles
• “If fairings are used, losing the door does not disqualifies the shuttle” —> why not? If the guy uses FAIRINGS, and it loses one during reentry then is a hard NO to me. Hell, Columbia was destroyed by a single hole on the wing! This does not apply for people who uses other kinds of payload doors.

My other point is that is okay to define the classes of shuttles basing on their cargo capacity. But that’s literally it, you can’t put restrictions on people’s design, it is not okay!

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

The classification per mass to orbit is okay, and no, a shuttle cannot be an SSTO, perfect. But is all other the restrictions what I disagree with.

 

[Mars Pathfinder]

A shuttle by definition cannot reach orbit from Earth with a payload without its booster/ET (External Tank). Therefore a Shuttle is definitively not an SSTO.

no one:

me: my shuttles can reach orbit without a booster but with a twist, no payload

*starts to panic*

 

[Horus Lupercal]

a shuttle cannot be an SSTO.

Why not...? Just because the STS wasn't an SSTO, doesn't mean no shuttle craft can be an SSTO.
Or as I said, would you exclude the STS's projected successor (Venturestar) from being called a shuttle on the sole basis of that it could lift itself into orbit (considering everything else about its mission and capabilities were the same)?

 

[Mars Pathfinder]

*eats more pop corn while reading*

 

[TtTOtW]

Why payload dimensions? No overlapping? Because then the build grid could contain a 100000kt to orbit shuttle and payload. And it would be not half as big as Archie. It also makes the application of engineering solutions arbitrary. So why bother? Size becomes irrelevant, then the whole classification becomes utterly pointless.

Why no SSTO? It goes against the spirit of a shuttle. It also makes the skill in designing a shuttle not a factor.

Also, Venturestar. Space PLANE. Not Space SHUTTLE. And a pathetic fraction of the capacity.
GIVE IT A BOOSTER.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

And it would be not half as big as Archie

As the only person that's got anywhere near 100,000t to orbit, it's a lot harder than just overlapping fuel tanks and throwing engines at it. If you were to overlap archie over the top of archie 100,000 times, it wouldn't be any easier or harder than expanding Discovery or Excaliber out 10,000x. You'd still have just as much lag, drag, mass, thrust, fuel and parts.

Size becomes irrelevant, then the whole classification becomes utterly pointless

You've missed the whole point of your own system. Size is irrelevant, that'sthe point. The classification system works on effective mass delivery to orbit, same with rockets. Saturn V isn't a super-heavy lift vehicle because the fairings are huge.
If a ridiculously overlapped archie delivers 400 tons to orbit, who cares? It'll still sit in the super heavy category, the same as an un-overlapped shuttle that lifts 400t to orbit.
Hell, removing the dimensional criteria completely from the classification system (especially deleting X and Q in their entirety) means a 700t to orbit Archie will never be able to sneak into an F classification and regardless of how it is assembled means it'll always been in A class with its peers.
The sole reason X and Q exist is to give a separate classification for the largest of your fleet to differentiate themselves from A class vehicles.
Why not expand the mass classes instead? Rather than them stopping at 300t, expand the existing ones out so they have a larger range each and have the classes going up to 2kt (as an example) and then a final, special one, for 2.0001kt and above.
Then it doesn't matter how they are made, only performance to orbit counts. Which is how it should work.

Why no SSTO? It goes against the spirit of a shuttle

The spirit of a shuttle? The spirit of a shuttle is a spaceplane that moves things into and out of orbit. Again, Venturestar would have done the exact same job as the STS (including the payload weight) in exactly the same way (only a shitload cheaper). So how is one a shuttle, and the other not a shuttle? What spirit does Atlantis have that Venturestar doesn’t?
Is STS only a shuttle cos it cost a fuckload to orbit? Or because it was assisted to orbit? If Endeavor was capable of self launch to LEO (let's put 3 F-1 engines on it, for example), would it suddenly stop becoming a shuttle?
What you mean to say is it goes against the spirit of the shuttle, the Space Transport System. Contrary to opinion (and despite the russians copying it as well), STS isn't the only shuttle out there.
Banning other designs that have identical skillsets and mission parameters because they miss out 'iconic' design features is like banning the A380 because jumbo airliners must all look like a 747 and A380 just doesn't have the hump.

It also makes the skill in designing a shuttle not a factor

So is that the only reason? A shuttle must be hard to make? Does that make Excaliber more of a shuttle than Discovery or Grand Amber because you use Buran (Blazer) or over-and-under boosters to balance it out, and I sling everything on one side the harder way? Of course not. That's a ridiculous metric to define a thing by. A thing isn't a thing because it is hard to make.

An SSTO spaceplane wouldn't be easy to make by any means. They're ridiculously inefficient mass to payload, even more so than any other version of a shuttle would be, for a start. A 2 kiloton to orbit, single stage rocket is hard enough. Moving that payload and a spaceplane to contain it? Yeah sure, that's 'easy'.

And I don't get why shuttles have to be an exclusive club. Are you worried that by allowing 'easy' shuttles into the club or 'simpler' designs to lift more mass, and potentially catch up to your larger craft, it'll somehow diminish all shuttles and by extension make your fleet less special?
That's not how it works man. Same with rockets, good shuttles will always be good shuttles, regardless of the amount of or type of other good or not good shuttles around them.

 

[Marmilo]

Maybe just add over-categories? Like Classic shuttle, SSTO Shuttle, Hermes style Shuttle, Clipped variants of all the previous ones, and then classes. Without the payload bay size description, because that just doesn't make sense.

 

[Pink]

Most all 1.5 shuttles have part clipping, and you can't say "but aesthetic part clipping is fine, just not fuel tanks!" because that's getting ridiculously specific.

Like Horus says, everything seems to sort itself out via classing shuttles solely by the max mass they can carry and whether they can make multiple trips (aka SHUTTLE) between two places. That's the essence of a space shuttle in real life.

I'd like to see someone try to make a 2000t payload to orbit SSTO.

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Why not...? Just because the STS wasn't an SSTO, doesn't mean no shuttle craft can be an SSTO.
Or as I said, would you exclude the STS's projected successor (Venturestar) from being called a shuttle on the sole basis of that it could lift itself into orbit (considering everything else about its mission and capabilities were the same)?

Because there must be a difference between spaceplanes and rocket-style SSTOs. You are thinking the Venturestar, I am thinking the DC-X and I am thinking the DC-X is definitely not a space shuttle.

Why payload dimensions?

Yes, why payload dimensions? You can have something enourmous that is made of fairings, totally empty, and you can have something tiny but massively heavy because is very clipped. The fact that it carries something huge doesn’t makes it an A-Class, and the fact that it carries something tiny doesn’t makes it an F-Class. Think about it.

Also,

No overlapping? Because then the build grid could contain a 100000kt to orbit shuttle and payload. And it would be not half as big as Archie.

And what’s the problem with something small taking heavy things to orbit? Where’s the spirit of “the little guy that could”? You are basically saying that big things are better, and we all know how wrong is that.

I mean, by YOUR logic, the Avro Lancaster is better than the DeHavilland Mosquito because it has a larger payload bay, and therefore it can take more and heavier bombs... I think we all know which one is the best plane in the entire WW2.

It also makes the application of engineering solutions arbitrary. So why bother?

NOPE. “Why bother...?” You are the last person in this forum who I was expecting to hear that from.

You know better than anyone than building a space shuttle takes a lot of engineering, effort and creativity. Is not as simple as stacking the hell of a lot of fuel tanks into something that roughly looks like a very bad plane, no no no...

So, do I think clipping fuel tanks makes the challenge easier? Definitely not. Also, think about what Mooncrasher said: most space shuttles in the community are clipped/bp edited, and I don’t think you want to explain half of the community why their already validated Team Hawk shuttles are not space shuttles anymore, according to your arbitrarily selected logic.

Size becomes irrelevant, then the whole classification becomes utterly pointless.

That’s the point: Size has ALWAYS been irrelevant.

You a have a shuttle I made and you have a shuttle you made. Both shuttles can take 500 tons to orbit, making the exact same effort and with the same deltaV requirements... however according to your logic yours is A-Class and mine is F-Class because is smaller...

That doesn’t makes any sense! If it makes the same effort why it is inferior? Come on, TT... the small people on this world would like to have some words with you...

You've missed the whole point of your own system. Size is irrelevant, that's the point.

Then it doesn't matter how they are made, only performance to orbit counts. Which is how it should work.

^This. Upvote.

Horus is a person that talks a lot, and still, sometimes his 12 000 words can be simplified into two lines...

However, 2 maybe 3 paragraphs later he ruins everything...

because you use Buran (Blazer)

Screw you, Horus!
That’s an X-37!

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

In short terms, shuttles should be classified according to their MASS TO ORBIT ONLY.

Why? Because shuttles are vehicles designed to take payload to orbit with the help of a booster, not to be big! So, what makes ‘shuttle-A’ better than ‘shuttle-B’ is that ‘shuttle-A’ can take MORE payload to orbit, and therefore, it works more and better than ‘shuttle-B’, no matter which one of them is bigger, or has a bigger payload bay. Maybe ‘shuttle-B’ is massive and has a huge payload bay, but is very inneficient and is poorly built. That means is worse than ‘shuttle-A’!

In even shorter terms, SSTOs are still not shuttles, lol.

 

[Marmilo]

However, 2 maybe 3 paragraphs later he ruins everything...

Screw you, Horus!
That’s an X-37!

Hermes style for me

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Because there must be a difference between spaceplanes and rocket-style SSTOs. You are thinking the Venturestar, I am thinking the DC-X and I am thinking the DC-X is definitely not a space shuttle.

And neither am I. Which is why not only did I not include it, but also explicitly made a definition excluding its type of SSTO rocket.
See

a representative spaceplane, either side view or top down. Must be capable of achieving space and re-entry.'

The spirit of a shuttle is a spaceplane that moves things into and out of orbit.

A space shuttle has to be a spaceplane capable of orbital flight. But how it achieves orbit does not matter. Again, no one has given me any good reason why Venturestar or Hermes aren't shuttles except 'cos SRBs/ET/payload doors'.

However, 2 maybe 3 paragraphs later he ruins everything...
Screw you, Horus!
That’s an X-37!

Also a shuttle. Change my mind.

think we all know which one is the best plane in the entire WW2.

The one made of wood that could out-run nearly every german fighter of WWII.

 

[Pink]

The one made of wood that could out-run nearly every german fighter of WWII.

Basically a twin engine Spitfire racer made of composites and with a bomb bay

 

[Roger Jolly]

111T, is this a shuttle?
It has a booster mounted crew escape

Dammit, payload door won’t open

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Basically a twin engine Spitfire racer made of composites and with a bomb bay

Balsa, bombs and big 'ol cannons. Double the wing area, double the power = 20mph faster than the equivalent Spitfire in level flight. If it had a head start and you weren't in a jet, then don't bother.

111T, is this a shuttle?
It has a booster mounted crew escape
View attachment 54985 View attachment 54984 Dammit, payload door won’t open

As spaceplanes go, that couldn't look less like a spaceplane if it carried a sign on the side saying 'wings are for jessies'.

 

[Roger Jolly]

Balsa, bombs and big 'ol cannons. Double the wing area, double the power = 20mph faster than the equivalent Spitfire in level flight. If it had a head start and you weren't in a jet, then don't bother.




As spaceplanes go, that couldn't look less like a spaceplane if it carried a sign on the side saying 'wings are for jessies'.

It’s got little wings on the other side

 

[Horus Lupercal]

It’s got little wings on the other side

that couldn't look less like a spaceplane

 

[TtTOtW]

I give it a month. Everybody go and make clipped mega mass mini shuttles. I challenge you. ALL OF YOU. You'll see how you miss the system I am proposing.

 

[Blazer Ayanami]

Once again, I do not see how would we miss the system you are proposing by clipping some fuel tanks. The system is supposed to be for mass to orbit, not size. Also, you still haven’t explained me why do you think the Lancaster is better than the Mosquito.